Some Hallowe’en headlines:
- U.S. Justice Department seeks injunction against S.C. immigration law (thestate.com) — I’ve got to say that I’m not particularly rooting for my home state on this one. Talk state’s rights all you want, this is clearly a federal function that our state is horning in on.
- UNESCO votes to admit Palestine as newest member; U.S. cuts off funding (WashPost) — And on Hallowe’en, no less. No, wait — that’s UNICEF. I like that this administration is willing to play some hardball over the UN’s anti-Israeli tendencies. I mean, it’s bad enough to try to torpedo any future negotiations; this move even stabs the U.N. itself in the back. I think. It’s complicated…
- Greece throws bailout into crisis (The Guardian) — Europe is not enamored of this referendum idea that the Greek PM has suddenly come up with.
- Cain, Denying Harassment Charges, Sees a ‘Witch Hunt’ (NYT) — Which apparently is the updated term for “high-tech lynching.”
- Catholics at odds with Obama administration (WashPost) — Hey, how come I didn’t get the memo? Seriously, “Tensions between the church and the White House are being fueled by the end of funding to help victims of human trafficking and the health-care law’s requirement that insurers provide contraceptives.” Maybe this will come up at the Dionne lecture tomorrow night…
- Facing Stiffened Opposition, Obama Goes It Alone (NPR) — A discussion of the potential costs of flexing executive muscle to get around a feckless Congress.
And really, y’all, go check out the scary interactive video…
Related Posts
Very good front page Brad. Lots of stuff to digest. I’ll comment further when I get time.
Here’s an important excerpt from Brad’s number 5 story:
“Dozens of Catholic groups also have objected in recent weeks to a proposed HHS mandate — issued under the health-care law — that would require private insurers to provide women with contraceptives without charge.”
Set aside the issues related to abortion and same-sex marriage for the moment and just focus on the contraceptive issue. How can this be defended on any moral or ethical grounds? Probably 90% of Catholics either use contraceptives or don’t care if others do, so why is this an issue with the church any longer? If such a high percentage of Catholics oppose this particular tenant why doesn’t it just get changed? Not following.
You mean “tenet.” We have no objection to people who pay rent…
Brad, does this mean you oppose the use of oral contraceptives and other forms of birth control? Also, does that mean you support government action making it more difficult, if not illegal, to obtain birth control? My question is why this is part of church doctrine? Is there a biblical passage that says birth control was wrong? Seems like a perfectly good reason to leave the church if you want to use birth control and have no moral qualms to using them.
Re #2: whatever happened in the General Assembly vis-a-vis the Palestinian statehood application? I somehow lost track of that news, was it defeated or just put on hold?
As for UNESCO, those interested in hearing the other side, about the cost to good causes, of the US “playing hardball,” can check out this letter to the WaPo by Irina Bokova, the Director-General of UNESCO.
Still don’t fully understand how recognizing a Palestinian state as a UN member is inherently anti-Israel. Such a resolution doesn’t punish Israel for anything; it doesn’t automatically demand any concessions, neither of land nor of on the issue of building settlements. In fact, this is basically the same path to statehood that Israel followed in 1948. What is the rationale for opposition? Here’s more from Haaretz asking essentially the same questions.
The Catholic is instructed to answer the question, which I will rephrase as,”Since surveys and birth rates among US Catholics indicate that 90% of them use contraception and do not consider it a sin, why doesn’t the Church reconsider its stance?”
@phillip
Maybe you didn’t get the memo that the United Nations changed its name to United Nations Recognized By The United States.
I’m highly skeptical of the value the U.N. adds. We had to send Colin Powell there to basically lie through his teeth as a formality to invade Iraq. That dog-and-pony show in hindsight was a low point in American history.
She’s been quiet lately, but it couldn’t last. Even when doing something completely safe, she takes a nasty political swipe that makes her look silly.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/nov/01/haley-battles-bullies/
Y’all seem to be missing something. UNESCO is not waiting around for the UN. It just did this on its own.
It not only didn’t work with the U.S., it circumvented the U.N.’s decision-making process. It’s like Sarah Palin: It’s going rogue.
Oh, and responding to Kathryn’s ‘The Catholic is instructed to answer the question, which I will rephrase as,”Since surveys and birth rates among US Catholics indicate that 90% of them use contraception and do not consider it a sin, why doesn’t the Church reconsider its stance?”’
… I can answer several ways.
1. I am not being interrogated, nor will I, except by due process.
2. You can’t tell it by me.
3. Uh… it’s not a democracy?
4. Getting real… The question is nonsensical. I can’t imagine what you think “Since surveys and birth rates among US Catholics indicate that 90% of them use contraception and do not consider it a sin” has to do with the Church reconsidering anything. Does a popularity contest change right and wrong as discerned by the Church? Really? How do you figure? Obviously, you are confusing the church with the debating societies that split off from it…
I mean, try… and this might be a stretch for some… try imagining that you believe a thing is wrong. Not just that if feels bad for you, or some other bit of me-first moral relativism, but that it is, objectively, wrong.
What on Earth does some bit of demographic research have to do with whether it is wrong or not?
What if you believe something is wrong, and everybody else on the planet disagrees with you? You continue to think about it, as you’ve done for, say, 2,000 years, but when you’re done thinking about it, do you not end up where you end up? Do you actually change it because other people don’t want to hear it? If so, maybe somebody should have sat Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah and some of those dudes down and said, “Guys — can’t you read a poll? You’re way off base here! Get with the program!”
My point is that blowing bud off for using the wrong term is cheap and beneath you. What you subsequently wrote, I agree with, fwiw.
“[UNESCO] not only didn’t work with the U.S., it circumvented the U.N.’s decision-making process.”-Brad
They took a vote. 107 countries voted to admit, 14 including the US voted not to admit. 52, including the UK, abstained. The US is as far distant from that spot on the globe (Israel/Palestine) as most any other country in the world, so why should UNESCO feel obligated to “work with” the US more than it needs to “work with” any other country that is not immediately affected by this decision (which really is no one except the Palestinians themselves)?
UNESCO operates under rules set up by the nations that founded it. What kind of precedent does that set if a powerful nation simply decides to take its toys and go home if it happens not to get its way on a particular issue? Moreover, it’s not unprecedented for a nation to belong to UNESCO and not to the UN, and vice versa.
If the US action was meant to be a signal to Israel to reassure them of our stalwartness as an ally, they sure picked a nice way to thank us. Or perhaps it’s to blunt the GOP assertions that Obama is somehow unsupportive of Israel. That field (Ron Paul of course excepted) has been competing vigorously to see who can carve out a position of utter obsequiousness to the Israeli right wing, to the point of total illogic. As an example, the supposed moderate in the race, Huntsman, recently said “what we can do during this time of uncertainty is to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the United States. This we have not done in a very long time [is Huntsman nuts with that comment or what?] and, so long as there is not any blue sky between United States and Israel, it doesn’t matter what plays out in the region.”
Got that? It doesn’t matter what plays out in the region. We’re not allowed to disagree with Israel on anything, no space between our positions, no matter WHAT the circumstances or the direction events take. For all the Republicans and neocons who bemoan the US even consulting allies (“leading from behind” they called it vis-a-vis Libya), it sure seems odd that they are generally so eager to cede say-so over all our Middle East diplomatic and defense policies to another country in this case, Israel. If a Republican takes office in 2012, we may yet see Lieberman as Secretary of Defense. Not Joe. Avigdor.
Does a popularity contest change right and wrong as discerned by the Church?
–
Brad
That’s exactly the pat answer I was expecting. But it misses the point. If such a huge percentage of Catholic Church members reject the birth control tenet how does it remain part of church doctrine? By definition “The Church” is nothing more than a collection of people who come together to worship in an environment where common interest and moral beliefs connect them to each other. It seems totally illogical for such a huge number to reject official Church Doctrine yet that doctrine remains the official church position.
Let’s take a secular example. Let’s say 90% of all USC Football fans find it offensive to use the fighting gamecock as their official mascot. Don’t you think that in short order either (1) the mascot will be changed or (2) the fan base will rapidly erode. But somehow the Catholic Church seems immune to logical thought. I’m just trying to understand why.
No, bud, it is you who are not looking at this logically. You’re thinking of the Church as some sort of creature of the market, like football — something that is totally based in being popular and continuing to appeal to the “fans.”
I don’t know of any system that reaches for ultimate truths that would hold that the goal in framing your beliefs is to have them be popular.
I don’t know where you get that 90 percent figure, but it’s not important. It could be 10 percent, or 99.999999 percent. Doesn’t matter. I’ve got a more shocking stat for you: Everyone in the Church — everyone in EVERY faith tradition — is a sinner. Everyone falls short of his or her own codes or standards. What people believe and what they do are often at odds. Sometimes they are mindful of their failings. Sometimes they convince themselves that they are not failings at all. Man is the animal who rationalizes.
I was reminded of this listening to NPR this morning. Something about Julian Assange’s legal entanglements. The announcer said that Assange says he has done nothing wrong (or maybe it was, is “not guilty of any wrongdoing). And immediately I thought, well, that’s not helpful. Because it doesn’t clarify whether he’s saying, “I didn’t do what they say I did,” or “I did it, but it wasn’t wrong.” I SUSPECT he meant the latter, but I wasn’t given sufficient information to draw a conclusion about that…
And Kathryn, and Bud, I most certainly didn’t mean to “blow bud off for using the wrong term.”
I just enjoy plays on words, and typos offer fun opportunities. It’s sort of a whistling-past-the-graveyard thing. When you make your living with words over a long, long period, you become well-acquainted with the embarrassment of typos. We do our best to avoid them, but they happen anyway.
As an editor, I tried to keep it light with people when correcting their mistakes, and I preferred they do the same with my copy. Better than yelling at them…
In any event, I hope you and Bud will forgive me for indulging my punsmanship.
By the way, I’m in the beginning stages of starting to talk about a blog redesign, and one of the things on the list is a self-edit function.
Preliminary talks indicate what I had thought before — it would involve a registration process, whereby you would be given limited editing power (that is to say, power over what YOU write, but not over what others write, which would lead to huge problems). You might have to log in or something; I don’t fully understand it all yet.
I worry about that becoming a barrier to participation, but I’m willing to give something like that a try if y’all are.
“I worry about that becoming a barrier to participation, but I’m willing to give something like that a try if y’all are.”
The day you allow me to edit my typos is the day I donate $100 to the Harvest Hope Food Bank.
As someone who has been un-anonymous on your blog for years, I can boldly state I have had ZERO negative impact from putting my name on my opinions.
THANK you, Doug… I want you more bashful folk to pay attention.
Doug, I don’t know if I can get a redesign done that quickly, but I’ll see if I can get it done in time for you to give that Benjamin in this tax year…
Continuing to defend myself… I am not the only one who attempts to relay linguistic comments via humor…
@ Brad –You could have made the linguistic snipe, but then given his question a substantive reply.
@bud– I think you may be confusing some of the Protestant traditions, where each member’s conscience counts for something, and the “church” is indeed the collection of people, with The Church that is the Roman Catholic Church–a very top-down hierarchy–the Pope is the supreme human arbiter, for ex., while even the most hierarchical Protestant denomination–the Anglican Communion (the Episcopal Church, here), does not have a supreme arbiter–the Archbishop of Canterbury does not have the deciding vote on doctrinal matters, as I understand it.
I understand the whole “everyone sins” aspect of religion. But I don’t think those who use contraceptives regard THAT as a sin. To the contrary I would suggest that most folks who use oral contraceptives believe quite earnestly that they are performing a valuable service to mankind by preventing unwanted pregnancies and that God would endorse the practice. Hence my puzzlement. If a large percentage of an organization sincerely believes something to be moral, and more importantly acceptable to God, then why does that continue to exist as a tenet within that organization? Or why doesn’t a large portion of that organization leave and form a new organization minus the obsolete tenet?
Brad, as something of a cunning linguist myself, I also appreciate your punmanship. As any former teacher knows, ridicule provides a great corrective tool.
OK, I see what you mean — you thought I was evading a question. You’re not understanding the way I am with a bright new toy: “Oh, look, a pun!” And I run off to play with it, not realizing there was something else lying next to it…
And no, I don’t think the Archbishop has that SAME teaching authority, but it’s still a Catholic Church (just not Roman). Ultimate authority, technically (I think), resides with Her Majesty. The monarchy having, as you’ll recall, usurped the Pope’s authority.
Basically, I think the whole magisterium thing, with regard to Anglicans, is vague. Which is fitting, because… well, never mind. Don’t want to say back things about the Episcopalians. But I THINK — and someone jump in an correct me here, please, because I’m on uncertain ground — that the idea of the teaching authority of the church at least survives in theory in that branch of the Church (which to us is STILL the same Church — I refer you to LARCUM).
Vague or not, I would never accuse my Anglican friends of (shudder) pure democracy.
Oh, to muddy the waters further — one reason I believe the Archbishop has some degree of such authority is that from time immemorial, bishops have been authorities unto themselves. That’s why you’ll see liturgical differences from diocese to diocese. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, and as the descendant of Peter has preeminence. But for the most part, your ultimate authority you are likely to deal with is a bishop.
I’ve seen a departure from that with Ratzinger — I mean, the current Holy Father. For the first time in my now 30 years as a Catholic, I’ve seen edicts coming out of Rome on everyday things, such as our handling of the vessels involved in the Eucharist (I’m a Eucharistic Minister, or as Rome would again have it, “Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist,” as though there weren’t a lot more of us than there are priests and deacons).
That was weird for me. I had not seen that before. The Pope’s fastidiousness on that point reminded me of what I wrote about in this column about Obama, when I said, “There are times when, confronted with some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of Catholicism — say, devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus — I think on some level, I suppose these Catholics do these things. And since I have decided to be Catholic, I accept it.”
I think on some level, I suppose these Catholics do these things. And since I have decided to be Catholic, I accept it.”
-Brad
That’s a worldview that totally mystifies me. Bizarre this blind acceptance of stuff that clearly makes no sense. Yet millions do. Oh well. As long as no one tries to ram this stuff down my throat. Wait, that’s exactly what the evangelicals in the GOP try to do.
Bud, that’s exactly the way I feel about the political parties.
I was a seeker, and had total freedom of which religious tradition to join. And unlike a party, I HAD to join one, because I don’t believe salvation is something we achieve alone. We have to work with others on that. If we go off on our own, we’re not doing God’s will.
So I chose the original church (original in the West, anyway — I don’t want to get my Orthodox friends on my case). It came closest to expressing to me what it was all about. There was NO church, or synagogue, or anything else out there that was going to adapt itself to my opinions and taste and preferences, and if such a thing did exist, it would be an expression of my ego, and not a true church at all.
The Roman Catholic Church, the church of Peter, is where I belong, and mainly because it puts me in communion with all other Catholics who have lived for the past 2,000 years, and all who will live in the future — as well as with the people of Jesus, going back to Abraham, at least. For me to step out of that, to alienate myself from that continuum, would be deeply wrong.
And what matters to me is not the Church’s position on rubbers, or anything else of the kind that the sex-obsessed secular world frets over. What matters to me is the position I take, and the Church takes, on issues such as this one.
One last point then I’ll shut up. It seems as though most religious people become very uncomfortable and defensive when confronted with inconsistencies in their particular church doctrine. That’s why it is considered impolite to discuss such things in groups with vastly different religious beliefs. And that’s a shame. Seems like religion shouldn’t be exempt from open-minded reflection the way politics or other human endevors are. Yet that’s pretty much the way it is. That’s why I tend to favor something like the Unitarian Church that can accept a wide variety of spiritual beliefs. It’s sort of the Unparty of religions.
Don’t shut up, Bud. I agree with you completely on what you said, except for the Unitarian part. I believe in believing in something. For me — although apparently not for very good friends of mine who affiliate themselves with that association — that would be a cop-out. I couldn’t go that way.
@bud–“Or why doesn’t a large portion of that organization leave and form a new organization minus the obsolete tenet?”
There are lapsed Catholics are a dime a dozen. Many stop going to any church; many become Episcopalian or Lutheran, or some other type of Protestant.
Brad–Karen knows more than I on this, but I believe each Episcopalian answers to his own conscience, and the laity have a lot of say in policy, unlike the Roman Catholic Church. The Reverend Canon Susan Heath, a very knowledgeable and thoughtful priest, responded to my query about what Episcopalians believe about transubstantiation with “Just ask a few.” She meant that the church accommodates a wide variety of belief on matters of dogma.
In terms of salvation, I’m a Lutheran. We are saved by faith through grace, and not by works. It doesn’t take a village for that.
I don’t believe in joining religions just as I don’t believe in joining political parties. However, my wife is a Unitarian Universalist (Unitarians and Universalists were joined in 1961) and have many friends in that church. Brad may argue that beliefs are different than principals, but I hope he will not argue they are similar.
There are seven principles that Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Quite inclusive, accepting of all people and all faiths. However, I often comment to my UU friends, including the local minister (Dr. Rev. Neal Jones, very active politically in the area),that the local congregation are essentially white and liberal, most with college and advanced degrees.
I believe consistency with beliefs and actions is a challenge for all religions, which is one of the reasons I don’t consider myself religious. I can practice what I beleive without any organizational intereference, both religious and political.
Kathryn, we’ll have to have a long talk about that sometime. I am (like most people) a naturally selfish, and even reclusive, person. When I was young, I used to think I’d be perfectly happy on a desert island with a very few people of my choosing, and plenty of books.
But my own spiritual journey has led to the inescapable conclusion that the ultimate measure of our worth as moral creatures is how we relate to other people. This is related to the communitarian notion that we live and have our (meaningful) beings through institutions full of other people — people who are NOT necessarily of our choosing. Hence what I said.
And Bob — thanks for sharing. I’ve always had to smile a bit (“Father, forgive me, for I have had smug thoughts.”) at some of the more, to use an inadequate secular word, “liberal” churches and how whitebread they look to me.
I go to St. Peter’s (as opposed to certain other, less-diverse parishes) in part because the congregation is such an expression, in a demographic sense, of the Church’s universality. Black, white, brown, Asian. Lots of languages (of which we’ll speak four in a given Mass), accents, backgrounds. All economic groups; all levels of education. All ages. Contrary to the stereotype, the majority of people playing important roles in the Mass — reading from the pulpit, administering the Eucharist — are women (occasionally, when I’m sitting up there with the others with parts in the Mass, I’ll look around and realize I’m the only white, non-Hispanic male). And without getting into anybody’s personal business, all sexual orientations. To be corny about it, We Are The World. And for me, this speaks to why I am Catholic — because it places me in communion with everyone who has ever been Catholic or ever will be.
This is not to say all Catholic congregations look like this. Not even all the masses at my church look like that (different masses are like different sub-communities). I was really shocked several years ago when I attended a mass in Greenville, and was surrounded by young, white couples with young children, and they all looked like Mercury astronauts and their wives, the way they were dressed. I thought I’d gone to sleep and awakened in 1961.
But it’s true of the Church as a whole, and it applies to my parish.
Salvation is not the same thing as moral development. Lutherans believe that “ye shall know them by their fruits” or that good works flow from the grace of salvation.
I’m totally a communitarian, but as a good in and of itself, not because I’m going to be “saved.”
and you say you chose the Catholic Church freely as an adult,as if your fiancee/wife’s religion had nothing to do with it. Did you really consider other faiths–Lutheranism, Buddhism, Islam?
The Roman Catholic Church, the church of Peter, is where I belong, and mainly because it puts me in communion with all other Catholics who have lived for the past 2,000 years, and all who will live in the future — as well as with the people of Jesus, going back to Abraham, at least. For me to step out of that, to alienate myself from that continuum, would be deeply wrong.
-Brad
Wow. How can two people with so much in common otherwise be so completely different on this particular issue. None of those reasons holds the slightest sliver of a reason for me to even consider the church that Brad describes. There is soooo much else that seems so out-of-touch (clergy celebacy), incoherent (birth control) or just plain wrong (the pedaphilia scandal) that this reasoning just seems trivial. But since we live in a nation that has religious freedom we can both pursue our brand of spiritualism as we see fit. What a great nation.
@ bud….I’m finding the research that has isolated the “God” gene–a gene religious people have and nonbelievers don’t, more and more illuminating.
Also, Brad, bless his heart, is a first class privilege denier. Folks like you and me, bud, can appreciate what it might be like to be a woman called to the priesthood, or a gay person who loves someone and wants to get married same as a straight person does. We realize that we have certain advantages because we were born white, middle class and American, and, I assume in both our cases, straight and not called to the priesthood, and can empathize with those who are not in these situations.
While I have encountered many wonderful people of faith in my long career singing in church choirs, I have found more horrible people in churches than outside of them–Martin Luther called it correctly when he said the devil is never far from the church door.
You know, Kathryn, you say some really astoundingly dismissive things about me on a regular basis. I don’t know how you can stand to associate with anyone who is a much of a limited jerk as some of your comments describe me as.
I look at my life, and what I know and what I’ve experienced, and I look at how even friends such as yourself perceive me after all these millions of words I’ve written, and I find it hard to see in myself the stereotypical caricature of a figure that you describe when speaking of me.
It astounds me. Do I ever caricature you in such a condescending manner?