Thursday, February 2, 2012

New Rules, Old Enemies

Heresy: from Greek αἵρεσις, which originally meant "choice."


Sometimes I think that without their preoccupation with the "sinfulness" of human sexuality, all Western religions and some others as well, would be unrecognizable. For a Secular Humanist like me, it's difficult to understand this because the allegedly universal and inescapable condition of being a 'sinner' from birth is entirely separate from the commission of acts that harm others or their property. Indeed, harming others and their property is often fulsomely praised as something done in service of some rather helpless or lazy deity who would, were he able to act on his own, punish people for their very thoughts and the unhistorical actions of mythological ancestors. To many and perhaps most, even thinking about sex can be a 'sin' almost on a par with having sex without clerical approval. To some, sex and sin are nearly synonymous. God help the government that lets us make our own choices.

Perhaps the action of a number of Roman Catholic bishops last weekend won't be much heeded by the congregations to whom it was directed, but the letter, read aloud from thousands of pulpits last Sunday told the faithful that President Obama has
“cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.”
Now how has he done that? Well, by asserting that freedom of religion does not include the freedom of religious organizations to illegally deprive others of their freedom: the freedom to plan whether or not and when to procreate, the freedom to choose.

Of course the sentiment isn't exclusively Roman; evangelicals and many others seem to make a lot of noise about the first amendment being a violation of the first amendment and of course again, such cognitive contradiction, to put it politely, is the rock upon which the edifice is built. But obviously the decision of the Administration to stand by the Affordable Care Act which requires virtually all private insurance policies to cover family planning -- including female contraceptives, essentially guaranteeing near universal access to birth control, is being sold as the precise opposite of what it is. To some Bishops at least the first amendment guarantees an infringement of civil rights by religious authority. The anti-establishment clause means the opposite of what it says and it's our God given right to have our lives limited by clergymen.
“People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights"
wrote Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted in one of the numerous letters, reeking of dishonesty, illogic and lust for power -- as if freedom of religion meant ecclesiastical tyranny embedded within civil government.

What's at issue is a provision that says that unless a religious organization hires its own members exclusively, those employees: janitors, gardeners, secretaries, are entitled as first class citizens to access to birth control through their health insurers. All other organizations, including non-profits run by religious groups that hire based upon non-discrimination policies, must enact the new rule by August 1, 2013.

Now, I'm sure to be accused of being all sorts of things, including a bigot and an arrogant Humanist, but since virtually all the Roman Catholics I know seem to have a healthy degree of skepticism about the virtuousness and infallibility of Church men, perhaps I shouldn't make too much of this desperate appeal to medieval mores, but there are plenty of people of faith who don't and religious, economic and social fundamentalism -- and the stupidity on which it thrives -- are no less dangerous than when Jefferson and Madison wrote about it.

14 comments:

  1. One of the things I like about being simple it that, well, things remain simple.

    1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof;..

    While I personally do not approve of ACA I see nothing that forces those who CHOSE not to use contraceptives, or have a abortion to do so.

    So, simply put what simply is the problem. The first amendment has not been violated.

    One thing though, because it is universal in theory the ones opposing the use of contraceptive measures and abortion beloved they should not be forced to pay for it.

    Just sayin...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was goping to do a post on this here or at MadMike's America but I haven't had time. Glad to see you did captain.

    First, it is cool that I can finally say I "know" a real live enemy of Jimmy Swaggert "secular humanist" in you Captain. It's an honor.

    Second, as a Roman Catholic, you are correct that most of us,probably 98% of us under 60, have a healthy scepticism about dogma and infallibility of the Church.

    The premise of the post I'd had in mind was going to be how the Church hierarchy has whored itself to the republican party with this bullshit letter.

    Of all the families in my local diocese I can think of not more than five with more than three kids. Tell me the rest of them aren't using birth control of some type.

    Mitt Romney is a typical republican in that he clumsily said he didn't worry about the poor because of the social safety net. A big part of that net is charities run by religious organizations. Vote republican and put a bigger burden on our church's charities but let's make all the families that use birth control responsibly feel guilty.

    Separate church from state. A health insurance plan should be regulated by the state. The church has no right to pick and choose what is covered as it would then deny covergae for anything it deemed caused by sin. God forbid a woman get ovarian cancer. She must have done something that angered God. or a guy get prostate cancer. Where's he been?


    My church is a whore for the republican party. The party which is categorically against all the social teaching of the church other than abortion which in reality is nothing but a smokescreen to keep the religious zealots in their fold. legalizing abortion and the Civil Rights Act were the two best things that ever happened to the republican party.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Truth, why does the word whore keep popping up wherever I run across you? .;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was at Mass last Sunday and our priest never said a word about any of this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "the ones opposing the use of contraceptive measures and abortion beloved they should not be forced to pay for it."

    And you know, I never wanted to pay for the Vietnam war or the war on Drugs or a whole bunch of things. . . Belief doesn't grant one special rights.

    Just sayin' :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "... they should not be forced to pay for it.""

    Then why can't the Quakers get back their share of tax money spent by the Pentagon? And when am I getting back my share of taxes spent on the Iraq way and the torture of detainees? Where is my tax rebate squandered on the salaries of Bush and Cheney (who should be indicted as war criminals)?

    The First Amendment may be very clear about there being NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION; yet some denominations are more privileged than others, and persons of conscience get no special dispensation.

    Explain this to me, please.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is what happens when religious organizations insist on mixing the religious and the secular. The government has not violated the 1st amendment; it has neither established a religion nor prohibited the free exercise of religion. The Church may simply choose not to hire anyone who is not Catholic; if it hires its own members exclusively then it does not have to cover the reproductive health services.

    As is far too often the case, an issue has been created where there is none. The Church is not being hampered in the free exercise of its beliefs. It's just not allowed to impose those beliefs on those who do not share in them.

    Religious liberty has not been interpreted in any court of law to mean that any religion has the authority to impose its beliefs on non-members of that religious community. As long as the government is not forcing religious groups to employ non-members, then there has been no attempt by the government to impede the religion's freedom to exercise its beliefs nor to establish a religion.

    I don't view the Church as whoring itself to the GOP nor as engaging in intentional insincerity. I think that one error that secularists make in dealing with the religious is to dismiss their beliefs as being less than sincere. The bishops express a belief that makes sense in their logic. They see this as being an infringement on religious freedom. If you believed that your system of faith had the potential for saving souls from eternal damnation then you would probably take the job of protecting those souls pretty seriously. That said, it doesn't mean that I think that any religion should be allowed to impose its beliefs on others. I just think that it may be useful to fully understand the thought processes of those who perceive the government as infringing on their religious freedom. Then again, that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Religious liberty has not been interpreted in any court of law to mean that any religion has the authority to impose its beliefs on non-members of that religious community."

    Sister,
    But they do. One denomination disapproves of abortion and birth-control; thus it has been decreed: The denomination shall lobby Congress to change the law such that no citizen shall have access to abortion or birth control, irrespective of whether or not other citizens are part of the flock. Furthermore, any attempt to muffle said denomination in the pursuit of said legislation shall be deemed a violation of First Amendment rights. Nice racket.

    What I see is a church that still insists on asserting its authority over affairs of state and non-parishioners as if nothing has changed since the Middle Ages. When the logic of the Bishops threatens my rights and freedom, I feel no obligation to understand them when the more reasonable response is to fear them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Always remember that I literally mean exactly what I say. I didn't say that various religious groups have not attempted to get legal rulings in their favor and they certainly lobby on the state and the national level, but so far, the court system has not found these challenges to have merit.

    We cannot deny religious groups the right to lobby. Who would be next next? Do we prohibit the NAACP from lobbying because it advocates positions with which significant numbers of Americans disagree? I like the NAACP and I like the ACLU. I want those organizations and others like them to be voices of advocacy for causes in which I believe. We take the bitter with the sweet. Freedom of speech, access to government, expressing points of view are rights that adhere to us all.

    Lobbying is a part of 1st amendment freedom. They may ask, doesn't mean that they will receive. And no matter how much religious groups lobby, so far no court has determined that the anti-establishment clause provides them with the right to force everyone to adhere to the beliefs of a particular religion. They can talk about it, air their views as the Catholic Bishops are now doing. However, keep in mind that the reason they are complaining is because they attempted to secure an exemption via the courts and the courts said no way.

    What scares me is any talk of amending the Constitution to favor more "freedom of religion." That would open up a hornet's nest. However, amending the U.S. Constitution is a difficult process and there is enough in fighting among religious groups that I have faith that they won't be coming together any time soon to collectively lobby Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to modify the 1st amendment.

    They talk and others talk back. It's called freedom of expression. Besides, this is nothing new. Various religions have attempted to impose their will on the government and secular concerns and they haven't exactly had a sequence of successes. Dissent is the price of a free society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sheria,

    "That said, it doesn't mean that I think that any religion should be allowed to impose its beliefs on others."

    Of course you don't, and neither do I, but they already have done so and in our country that goes back to pre-revolution days -- and they still do. One still can't buy pills that prevent the implantation of a foetus even though they are less toxic than Tylenol and that's because of the neurotic attitudes our religions have given us about sex and "God's will."

    As an aside, I'm amused by the rhetoric that accuses Muslims of being encouraged to lie in defense of the faith coming from Christian Americans who lie in defense of the faith and its lust for secular power.

    I won't go into the book banning and blue laws and the persecution of the innocent and the legislation they tried to force on us that made it illegal to say "breast" on the internet or ask for advice from our doctors. All of this comes from religion and religion has an unfair advantage in being able to lobby, having a great deal of tax-exempt money and an unwarranted authority not available to anyone else.

    I'm quite happy with dissent and lobbying and able to tolerate lying from the pulpit, since I avoid such situations whenever possible, but it's the sheer mendacity of claiming that preventing some offense against freedom is, in itself, an offense against freedom that makes scrambled eggs out of my brain.

    No, they're not going to get away with re-inventing the first amendment -- at least not to the extent that the amendment will be amended, but this constant attempt to drive wedges between denominations, religions and between the religious and the non-religious has harmed our country badly -- and I think it's deliberate.

    Yes, certainly some of these people believe that saving "souls" justifies killing and torturing; sowing misery and enslaving millions and that's a bit scary. It's impossible for me to forget how many millions have died so that the Church can save souls. This kind of belief hates democracy and defines freedom as heresy and it's hard to understand where it fits into a modern world unless one sees the future of a silk brocade slipper on the human face as a good thing.

    Heresy is the price - and the parent - of a free society and I'm simply pointing our who is in favor of freedom and who isn't: who is willing to lie, distort, twist delude and commit crimes in support of government by the Bible and self appointed spokesmen for God. Has there ever been a Church led State that promoted free thought? Has there ever been anyone more dangerous than someone on a divine mission to rule? The demand for religious freedom is a shabby and fraudulent tactic, sincere though faith may be, and history shows that once power is gained, religious freedom becomes a crime. Using birth control becomes a crime. Defining your family the way you want becomes a crime, consensual sex becomes a crime -- and the list is long.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Capt.,

    As a corollary of the rule you state -- i.e. demanding the "freedom" to strip others of theirs, and whining like a hurt schoolchild when someone gets in the way of that holy enterprise -- how about the time-honored practice of insisting that our liberties are sacred but that when others ask for the same consideration, they're demanding special treatment and need to be made to appreciate their low lot in life? Another fine tendency of our populous lunatic right fringe is "shouting from the rooftops that any criticism of one's views, no matter how mild and considerate, amounts to trampling on one's first amendment rights"?

    ReplyDelete
  12. the lunatic right in general is not exactly congruent with the religious leaders who take advantage of their faithful in this shameful way. Of course all of them pretend to support Democracy, but dogma, both religious and secular is a pretender to the throne and a danger to Democracy. Ask Torquemada, saver of souls, about religious freedom - or Luther or Cromwell inter alia, not to let the Protestants off the hook. They all had the best of motivations.

    In one of the most religious countries on earth - perhaps the most religious of any modern, developed Democracy - they've convinced millions that their beliefs and the right to have those beliefs are under attack from the government, from secular people and by extension, from secular democracy. If there are victims here, those victims are being exploited by some of their leaders. The gods, as ever, are totally silent about our problems - perhaps out of amusement, perhaps from disgust.

    Sure, people take right wing leaders and their electronic mouthpiece as gospel, but to many churchgoing people, what the priest or pastor or Rabbi or Imam says is gospel or the will of God, at any rate.

    Since appeals to the conscience or better nature of those leaders have been legendary in their failure, I think we have to be ever vigilant about returning to the "nation under God" we were intended not to be.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.