Yeah, saw that one as well.  I dunno, I guess I just am having trouble seeing the bishop's position on this one.  To me the issue is fairly simple--you get to make decisions about your own behaviors based on your conscious.  Letting other people make their own decisions isn't violating your religion.  The fact that the bishops seem to have so much clout, despite espousing (and fighting for) a belief that 99% of the country seems to consider absurd, is odd to me.  These guys can't even convince most catholics that birth control is wrong, why do we feel the need to protect their "right" to prevent non-catholics from using it?

I'm also unconvinced about the sincerity of the "freedom of religion" position the right seems to want to make this into.  Many of the people claiming to be so concerned about freedom of religion for Catholics were not too many months ago arguing that it was legal for a town to ban mosques.  If fundamentalist mormons were to start a big push saying that laws against polygamy were a violation of their religious freedom, I just don't see all these people giving them the support the bishops are currently receiving (unless Obama said he opposed polygamy, perhaps).

But we'll see what it leads to.  I still think it was mostly a political storm, and if the republicans want to be the anti-birth control party, I think they're making a huge mistake.  While the extremes may shout the loudest, they don't have as many votes as the middle, so I just don't see "free birth control" being a position that's going to ruin Obama and co.

Bear in mind, in their view, abortion/contraception is a modern genocide. If Obama said "we're setting up a new version of social security. Everyone pays in $200 a month and can expect $250 a month out when they retire. Also, we're going to kill babies," you'd probably want to decline to participate in that program, and you'd probably complain that being forced to participate is forcing you to violate your conscience. Even if we say 'hey, you don't HAVE to accept the retirement money paid for by killing babies. Just people who are cool with killing babies can use it if they want,' you'd still probably have some reservations about paying in.



I guess I don't watch the same TV channels as you, but who are you referring to? I don't think the RCC has ever had a position that people shouldn't build mosques.



I'd agree with you. But that's also a difference between 'my problem' and 'your problem'.



I would agree with you, but I don't think that's the point. Just like in the homosexual marriage thread. A president who leaves homosexual marriage unrecognized will do better in the next election. But that doesn't make that position morally right.

I think you can look at both sides and say 'okay, you both have a point, and an ideal world, you should both get what you're looking for. But in reality, we need to decide where on this spectrum we ultimately put it, and someone needs to lose at least a little.' I think, in practice, the current compromise is probably the most reasonable, but that doesn't mean the Council of Bishops is wrong. Their argument is just less pressing.

But when people have absurd ideas, it's hard to be fair to them and other people at the same time.  I don't really like the idea that whoever has the craziest beliefs gets to determine what everyone else is allowed to do.  A group that believes that thinks speaking out loud is equivalent to genocide is free to believe as they like, in my view, but I don't think anyone else should be required not to speak in order to keep them happy.  And I don't really like the idea of letting people ignore laws just because they out-there views.  I mean, I can live with it, and exceptions to the rule that don't inconvenience everyone else too much are fine, but I do find it slightly frustrating.



That's just it, really.  While the Bishops have spoken up against this rule, catholics in general don't really seem to be making nearly as big a fuss over it as evangelicals, at least at the guy-on-the-street level.  While a number of catholic organizations have said "okay, we're satisfied with the compromise" the people who seem most set on not accepting it seem to be the far-right evangelical set.


Again, I can see that when Catholics kick up a fuss over this, but other than the bishops, the one shouting loudest don't actually seem to be catholics.  It's more the people who are convinced that "Obama is waging war on religion."


Yeah, it seems like most people (thankfully) see it that way.

Firstly, I think it's hard to say what is an 'absurd' view. Most people would say relativity (when explained to them) is pretty absurd. So there needs to be some recognition that there can never be objectivity on this topic.

Secondly, I think this comes down to how much it costs to satisfy someone. If someone is upset because his house number is 10, and that's not a real number, let him go through a process and change the number.

Ultimately, most 'absurd' beliefs no one has an issue with. You're fine with Christians believing our consciousness is an invisible thing that flies out of our bodies when we die made by an invisible guy and thusly murder is wrong. I doubt you get bent out of shape that no, murder is wrong because it terminates that consciousness and isn't just vandalism of God's property. The fact that their belief has no impact on you means you're fine with their 'absurd' belief. In fact, I think most of us have some absurd beliefs, and we agree that the right to hold an absurd belief is quite a cherished one. No one wants police to shout at mothers for telling their kids about Santa Claus.

This particular issue is an issue because it has an actual cost. So ignoring what the particular belief is, the conflict is 'how much are we willing to pay to let people hold their own beliefs?' Is it worth an inconvenience? A life? How much is your belief in love worth? Or your belief in freedom? Is it based on the number of people who hold it?



I wasn't aware of that (although not especially surprised). I'm sure part of this is because Obama is Obama, although certainly the fact that evangelicals face a lot more religion vs. government conflicts than Catholics probably enters into it too.

You know, in all this discussion on birth control and religious freedom, it's funny, but the House couldn't manage to find a single woman who had anything to say about the topic.  And you know that the Republicans chairing the Committee tried really hard to find one.  I guess women really don't have any opinions on how their reproductive rights are oppressing religious people?  I guess that's why Darrell Issa's opening statement referred to a "man's" conscience guiding American laws?

I would definitely agree that, on any topic, finding a diverse set of experts, especially experts to represent the two sides directly impacted, is really pretty necessary.

I wonder, what do people think of Paul Ryan's attack on Catholicism?

Wow, good catch.

In summary, Paul Ryan is a congressman who put forward a budget that included major cuts to social services, and some tax cuts (especially for the wealthy). Several Catholic authorities said that this budget is not very Christian, and Ryan responded about how irresponsible it is to carry national debt, and about the role of government in providing social welfare (i.e., none). Is that correct?

In reply to katisara (msg #270):

Yeah, it's not exactly an "attack on Catholicism", I was kind of being facetious.  Although it is Ryan (a Catholic) telling a series of bishops he understands Catholic teaching better than they do.  Quote:



That does seem like a sort of attack on Catholicism, since the priesthood are traditionally trusted to interpret the word of God.  But I'm not a Catholic, so my understanding could be very wrong.  I'm also not a Christian, but the core message of Christianity seems to me to be help the least among us.  Although obviously the government isn't responsible for that, an economic policy that actively promotes deep inequalities in health, welfare, retirement and living conditions seems counter to "helping the least among us."

Also, not exactly a 'catch' on my part.  It was on the Colbert Report a few nights back.  Colbert, who is an active Catholic and teaches Sunday School, presented it as an "attack on Catholicism."

Meh, I'm no huge fan of the Ryan budget, but him getting in a disagreement with some bishops/priests doesn't really seem like much news to me.  Now, if the church leaders actually did anything about it (like refuse him communion or, tell people they can't take communion if they vote for him, etc.) it might be more of a controversy.  But I expect they'll keep telling folks (in various degrees of directness) to vote for the people who support his budget.  I mean, it's nice to see catholic leaders standing up for the social safety net, but I don't get the impression it's as important to them as keeping employees from using birth control yet.  I did find it a bit hard to swallow when Ryan claimed that his catholic beliefs inspired his budget, but politicians are like that, so I wasn't too surprised.  I don't expect too much will come of the whole thing, really.  Republican catholics will probably agree with Ryan, and democrat catholics will disagree with him.  A few people will get worked up about it, but not many people's views will change because of it.  That said, I am feeling a bit more jaded today than normal, so maybe in a while I think it's a bigger deal than that! ;)

In reply to Tycho (msg #273):

If Ted Kennedy or some other Catholic Democrat had told a gathering of Bishops that they did not speak for the Catholic faith on birth control, I have no doubt that would have been seen as an attack on Catholicism and Bill Donahue would have spoken out about it.  Again, not Catholic, so I'm not going to judge how the two issues are measured, but the Catholic League website appears to have no mention of Paul Ryan, other to claim that Georgetown University Catholics are fake Catholics and thus cannot judge Paul Ryan.

I'm not suggesting that Ryan, or any other Catholic, has no right to their own opinion.  On the contrary, I think dissent is healthy, and I believe should stand up for what's right, whether it's a women's choice to carry a pregnancy to term or economic policy.  Nonetheless, the members of Catholics for Choice stands up for they believe in, and are not accepted into the church as a whole.  Referencing Bill Donahue once again, they are labeled "anti-Catholic" by the Catholic League.

Bill Donahue's hypocrisy aside, the point isn't that Ryan holds those views, it's that Ryan is promoting an economic order that opposes even the Pope's views and saying his own Church incorrectly interprets it's own views.  It doesn't get more "anti-Catholic" than that, does it?

Overall, ignoring the specific details of the budget and whether it passed or not, I'd say the situation is a good one.

A politician made a stand.
Notable Catholics said his stand is inappropriate, and said why.
The politician refuted that position.

Is there a problem with the Catholic response to disenfranchisement of the poor vs.  pro-life positions? I don't know. AFAIK, the RCC did not excommunicate any politician over their voting for or against abortion issues. I'll also say, abortion is a little more cut-and-dry than social programs. Abortion is a binary thing. Social programs are a scale.

In reply to katisara (msg #275):

Well, birth control and rape/incest abortions or abortions to save mothers life could be considered points on an abortion scale.

In reply to katisara (msg #275):

Not excommunicated entirely, but there have certainly been politicians who have been refused communion at particular catholic churches over their abortion votes, and I have a somewhat vague memory of a church somewhere issuing a "if you vote for politician X, you shouldn't take communion here" statement.  I can look for specific examples if you like, but I think you're probably right that no one's ever been formally excommunicated from the RCC over it.

In reply to Tycho (msg #277):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...n_or_excommunication

I don't think the RCC has ever made a *serious* fuss (as in, comparable scale to what we've seen with other pro-life things) over a bill which only legalizes abortion in the case of rape or clear medical necessity. However, those bills are also pretty rare, and oftentimes poorly defined, so ...

Nor do we see the same pro-life force against condoms. I've never seen anyone parade around the capitol complaining that Trojan is a modern-day genocide, or even suggesting that government should push bills banning contraception. A good example of this is the 'day-after pill', which could cause the rejection of a fertilized egg. I think we can all agree that destruction of a fertilized egg is technically 'abortion', and rejection of an unfertilized one is not. So a lot of Catholics went bananas over the day-after pill, but really haven't said anything about normal birth-control pills. Nor have there been threats against doctors who do vasectomies. So you're right, there is a shade of grey with abortion, and we see that in the response as well.

Yes, there are priests and even bishops who have said they would not serve communion to particular politicians or individuals. I'm sure there are some priests who have even acted upon that. But that just comes down to individuals being, well, individual :) I've also talked with priests who said 'you use contraception? Are you in a loving and dedicated relationship? Are you caring for the children you already have? Okay, keep on rolling.'


I do think if someone got excommunicated for their political position, that would be a very interesting church/state conflict. On the one hand, I wouldn't dream of forcing any private community, especially a church, into accepting a member who is acting against their tenants.

On the other, imagine if in 2012 the LDS Church said 'Romney does not uphold our values, and we no longer consider him a participating member of our Christian Church', how big of a voting bloc would he lose? How hard would he bend over backwards to get that back? And is that okay? The same can be said of any organization. If the NAACP told people not to vote for Obama, that would hurt him, but would we complain that that is somehow unethical?

I saw this the other day and at first assumed it must be an april fool's day gag, but apparently it's real.  Republicans in North Carolina have written a state bill to allow the state to form a state religion.  Basically they say the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states, and that the constitution doesn't give federal courts the power to decide what is or isn't constitutional, so previous supreme court rulings saying that the establishment clause does indeed apply to states don't have any validity.  This bill is a basically claiming two important things:
1.  States can ignore any federal laws they like, including parts of the constitution they don't agree with.
2.  North Carolina is allowed to set up an official state religion!

The people drafting this bill seem to know that it would be struck down by federal courts if it were challenged, but since they're claiming federal courts have not power to rule over state laws, they'll presumably just say "we don't care what you say."  I'm guessing they're actually hoping for such a result, in order to demonstrate their position.  Hopefully the other members of the state legislature will vote this bill down, but it sounds like the state government is currently in republican hands, so we'll have to see how they approach this.

But really, they're trying to pass a bill saying the state can set up a state religion!  After republicans spending so much time trying to scare people about muslims trying to set up some "caliphate" in the US (which has essentially zero chance of happening), some of them are now claiming the states have the right to set up state religions!  And can ignore whatever parts of the bill of rights they want to ignore!  I know there are a lot of different political views here, but do we all at least agree that state religions should be avoided?

The bill of rights did not originally apply to the states (which meant states could originally establish state religions). Later, parts of the bill of rights were "incorporated" in USSC rulings, meaning they now applied to state governments in addition to applying to the federal government.

I've never liked this halfway approach to the constitution, where some parts are incorporated and some aren't. The USSC should have incorporated the whole thing at once rather than giving some protections special treatment.

I don't want there to be any state religions, because it will cause religious minorities to be discriminated against.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:53, Sun 07 Apr 2013.

Just read that the NC republican have drop their bill to allow NC to establish a state religion.  Score one for sanity.

Saw this article today, and wondered what people make of it here.  The basic story is that a Christian man in Oklahoma is suing the state over the state license plate, which has a sculpture by a native american artist on it.  The man says this might cause people to think that he has native american religious beliefs, and is suing on separation of church and state grounds.  It's an interesting turn around, since usually it's non-christians suing over christian imagery produced by the government.

I'm of sort of mixed thoughts on it so far.  On the one hand, I don't really think a statue depicting a native american implies belief in animism or polytheism or anything like that as the guy claims.  So part of me thinks he should lose the case just on the fact that it really doesn't have much basis in reality.  On the other hand, if he did win, it would set a precedent that would hopefully end the "there's no such thing as freedom from religion" argument that some religious people like to make when the case is going the other way.  So part of me thinks the guy winning would actually be for the best in the long run, since it would seriously undermine the idea that the government can display religious imagery without violating the 1st amendment.

What do you guys think?  Does the case have any merit?  What would the implications be of him winning or losing when it goes to trial?
This message had punctuation tweaked by the GM at 10:14, Sun 16 June 2013.

I think you summed it up.

If you're going to complain about a piece of religious-themed, but historically-charged art on your license plate, you can't also say it's okay to have the ten commandments in front of your courthouse.

I may be a little prejudiced in what I'm assuming this guy is like (he is a preacher in Oklahoma), but IMO, complaining about religious intolerance on this one where 9 out of 10 of the similar cases are Christian symbols attached with public offices would seem to imply this guy isn't too bright.

Another article involving freedom of/from religion issue.  In this case a 64 year old woman is applying for US citizenship.  On the form is a question about whether you're willing to take up arms for the US if the government tells you to do so.  She was honest enough to say, no, I'm not willing to kill anyone for any government (being a 64 year old woman, she could easily have just said 'sure' and not be called on it, since it's extremely unlikely the US will be drafting 64-year old women).  But the government told her that she can only be a conscientious objector if her non-violent beliefs come from her religion.  But in this case, she's an atheist.  So there's a good chance she'll be denied citizenship because she her morality isn't backed up by some organized religion.

I saw this as well.  Totally messed up in my opinion. She should have just put Pastafarian as her religion and be done with it.

Interesting. She definitely brought up a strong point there, and it's good to know we're attracting such morally upstanding immigrants.

I think the issue comes down to one of burden of proof. Going to war is not a fun thing. The draft isn't cool, but if we're using it, it's because we REALLY need to use it. Historically, getting out of the draft as a conscientious objector isn't as easy as saying "I'm a Quaker!" They actually sit you down and seriously comb through your background. But religion is a critical piece of evidence that you subscribe to an established moral code, and you're not just making it up to get out of it. Atheist communities and moral codes just tend not to be organized and concrete enough to provide that sort of support.

I totally get where she's coming from, and I'm not saying the current method is right. But I also understand we need to be able to sort the legitimate conscientious objectors from Lazy Joe who just doesn't want to ship out.

(Then again, we could argue that the draft isn't really likely to happen any more, and if we want people to make a blood oath to the flag, we can choose whatever we want that's sufficiently serious without violating morals.)