Conservative Catholics in the US

Interesting history lesson on conservatism and Catholicism in the US in the 60's and 70's and its parallels to today.

Catholic--indeed most Christian--conservatives have always struck me as odd.  Excepting sexual liberalism, it is very clear that liberal policies fit in far better with New Testament teachings than do conservative policies.  In fact most conservative Christians point to the Old Testament to find justifications for their political beliefs, ignoring the many times that the New Testament directly or implicitly contradicts those points.

Rich, athiest conservative (e.g. Ayn Rand) makes logical sense.  General asshole/jerk (e.g. racists, Sheldon Adelson) conservative makes emotional sense.  There is a narrow weaving of non-asshole, non-rich that may make some sort of sense, though a strong sense of individualist (aka selfishness) or kook (e.g. Ron Paul) is still required to fit in that gap.  Christian conservative just doesn't.  At all.

Unlike asshole Bill Maher I think that religion can be a positive force in society.  Most religions preach tolerance, love of neighbor, helpfulness, caring for others, disdain for violence, selflessness... That doesn't mean that there are not [always] going to be people who twist some aspect of some religion to violence and selfishness.  There is also a lot of us and them isolationism in religious communities (Mormons donate a lot...to the LDS church, they give to other charities at much lower rates than the general public).

I've got lots more thoughts on the subject but this is it for now...

Someone Should Remind Bill that Stalin was an Atheist

Considering that Atheists have long gotten shit from religious types about lack of moral compass one would think that a present day atheist would have enough sense to not blame religion (or lack thereof) for the horrible things people do.

Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.  They were horrible people.  Following Bill Maher "logic" atheism makes people horrible (and yes, people have actually made that leap).

Bill Maher is an Asshole

Sometimes he's a good asshole, but lately he's been on his anti-religion zealotry binge and he sounds every bit as bigoted, stupid and vile as the fundamentalists he is ranting against.  There are some atheists who are every bit as fundamentalist and xenophobic as the various fundamentalist religious groups around the world.  They hate religion and religious people like Fred Phelps hates gays: irrationally and with heavy doses of scorn and vitriol.

I saw a bit of the segment with Ben Affleck and I liked that Ben stood his ground against the fundamentalists at the head of the table, but Reza Aslan is right: you can't argue to convince Bill Maher: his viewpoint is not rational.  It is emotional, and he cannot be dissuaded.

Incidentally: the whole of that linked interview is really good.

Bad Decision, Interesting Take

This sounds more hopeful than expectant, but about as good as one can do to try and feel better about the rather horrible Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby.  Essentially: the made up religious liberties of a business/corporation trump the civil liberties of its employees.

There really isn't any logical way to back the majority's decision.  One can hope that future cases will show what a horrid bit of legalese they've released upon the world and it will be overturned, but I have a hard time seeing that happening in my lifetime.  While our country and its people have become much more accepting in the last couple decades, it seems that our institutions are stuck at the turn of the [last] century.  It's no wonder people's confidence in all parts of government (and corporations) is in the toilet.

Um...K

So the contraception "compromise" is in and so what? Doesn't change the outcome (women will still get contraception coverage) so it really isn't any different. The cost shifting is more-or-less meaningless as the church still pays for insurance, and that insurance will still have coverage, the church is, effectively, going to be paying for coverage. The insurance companies may redistribute the cost so that other people will pay more and the church pay less, but really, so what?

Mysteriously, however, the compromise made some people (well, pundits) happy. That really doesn't make sense. I'm happy, because, basically nothing changed, and similarly the bishops [should be] unhappy because...basically nothing changed. Their complaint wasn't that the cost was too much but that they oppose contraception (a patently stupid position, particularly for the anti-abortion crowd...who actually object to unapproved fucking and don't really care about women's or children's health at all). They oppose contraception, and were being forced to buy plans that provide contraception. Nothing changed except they pay a little less.

Meanwhile this bullshit problem would never exist if we had done health care properly (Medicare for everyone!) instead of enacting GOP health care reform.

Why Religion Sucks

This.

Ok, it may be a bit over the top for a headline, and is very Bill Mahr in tone, but one bigoted hateful pastor in Florida burns a Quran, and then a whole slew of violent protests result that basically give credence to what bigoted hateful pastor says about Muslims.

Here's an easy guide to are you, as an individual, an evil representative of religion or a good representative of religion.

Have you ever burned the holy book of another religion? (Yes = evil)

Have you ever attacked/destroyed people/cars/buildings because some jackass burned your holy book? (Yes = evil)

Have you ever held congressional hearings on how members of one particular religious group are out to destroy your country? (Yes = evil)

Note: answering "No" to the above doesn't make one a good representative of anything, just not an evil one.

Mind Your Own Damned Buisness

Mostly this post by John Cole is about abortion, and should be read as such, but it gets at the heart of a whole mess of issues that really get me riled up. There is a noisy bunch of people in this country that wants to tell everyone how to live. Abortion and gay marriage are high on that list, but science issues (evolution, stem cells) and other social welfare issues (welfare, Medicaid, affirmative action) I would also include. These are issues that either cost the taxpayer nothing or that cost less than doing nothing (more crime, decay and health issues w/o welfare, more high cost emergency room treatment w/o public health care). Particularly in the case of science, the opponents are often factually wrong (either deliberately or because they have faith in their own set of "facts")

And yes, this is a generalization...it is also a 1 paragraph blog post. To tease out the subtle distinctions between and withing groups I have grouped together would take pages...for each issue.

Notre Dame

Bad post below. I lack the will and time to polish and properify...

I've never been a Notre Dame fan despite being Catholic. I certainly don't see the point in making noise about Obama's talk there. He didn't say anything surprising or contrary to previous statements. The Pope has expressed optimism about Obama (the friggin Pope!).

To be sure, while recently abortion has been supplanted by gay marriage for the title of "wedge issue d'jour," it is still a major issue within the Catholic Church. It is actually pretty hard to get excommunicated, but abortion is one of the easiest paths to that, e.g.

On the one hand I sympathize with the moral difficulty surrounding the question. On the other, the only time we can legislate against a moral issue is if that issue goes against our rights as well (murder, robbery: illegal, cheating spouse: legal). The anti-abortion crowd rallies around the fetus as a separate human deserving equal protection. The pro-abortion crowd fights back that a pregnant woman is not two people--no matter her declarations--historically, under the law, or in practice. The privacy issue goes something like this: a woman does not need to declare herself pregnant, and so any actions that she takes while pregnant cannot be judged on the basis of that pregnancy. Abortive actions, while bizarre, would not be illegal actions if a woman were to chose to have them done while not pregnant. Elective surgery is not illegal. Since it is not legal to forcer her to declare her pregnancy, nothing she does while pregnant can be illegal if it is not illegal otherwise. ...or something.

My personal view on the legal front is that it cannot (and should not) be outlawed. On the other end any moral decision made in a vacuum (as mine must be made) is precludes a stark response, so I am limited to saying that I feel, in general, it tends toward the darker shades of gray. My biggest issue is that "pro-life" people in large numbers seem to have supported the pro-death Bush administration. I can say that on the moral gray scale, starting a war against a much smaller country that has done nothing to you is pretty damn black...and so is torture.

Of course I bring up the abortion and Notre Dame thing to point out bad and highly publicized statistics (the link goes to the reasons for the bad).

Thinking Catholic to Vatican: WTF?

So here's the story...

A nine year old girl in Brazil is pregnant with twins, and has an abortion. The pregnancy, aside from being the result of rape, threatened the life of this very young girl (rape and life of the woman/girl are the only grounds for legal abortion in Brazil). On top of this the man who got the girl pregnant: her stepfather.

So the Catholic archbishop excommunicated: the girls mother and the doctors who performed the abortion. The girl's rapist stepfather...not so much. And now the Vatican defends this.

It's no wonder that church attendance has been declining in developed nations, or that people are in greater numbers saying that they are not religious (often that would be spiritual, but not religious). This is the Catholic church basically saying that raping a 9 year old girl is not as bad as her having an abortion...an act that in this case will most likely help her mental well being and potentially saved her life, and at the very least minimized the potential for harm to her.

No matter your position on abortion, the Catholic church here is very much in the wrong, and will drift further out of relevance. If they want to make a difference when it comes to things like violence, war, poverty, hunger, abuse and other issues that are universally held as valuable, then they need to stay the fuck away from abortion and birth control and sex. That doesn't mean they should say those things are ok, but excommunication and repeated public statements are hurting, not helping with their overall cause. Especially when most people compare this with the Church's expressed level of anger when priests were raping altar boys.