Catholics and Health Care

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56421

There are nearly 19,000 Catholic churches and approximately 69 million Catholics in the United States, including 162 Catholics in Congress, and all have been told to ban abortion funding in the newly proposed health care policy.

The directive imposing such an order contains a bulletin, a colored flyer, and a statement that every priest is to read at Mass this weekend to encourage people to support their plan. It plainly states that the Catholic Church supports healthcare reform for all Americans who "protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until death." This action is especially key due to the large stake the Catholic Church has in reform and health care (11 of 40 major health care providers). Some argue that the Catholic Church is fighting for control, since it does have a major claim in schools, hospitals, AND churches, and believe that this pro-abortion plan via healthcare violates the separation of church and state. Priests claim that if the government can take over schools and hospitals, it won't be long before they are able to tax churches as well.

I am of the mindset that abortion should be the woman's right to choose, especially considering extreme circumstances, and the Catholic Church is only denying human beings their right to choose. Many women can't afford abortion, and for that to be included in health care reform is an amazingly open-minded step in our society. Equality is the goal, and the Catholic Church is standing in the way due to a massive power trip spanning thousands of years.

On Liberty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/30/john-stuart-mill-on-liberty

I knew that this year was "Darwin's year," but I had no idea that the work On Liberty even existed.

Written by John Stuart Mills, On Liberty describes Mills' belief in free speech and discussion in all matters, including those that are religious and political. If groups in society matter, it is because the liberty of the individuals who formed them matters, and they should never impose their beliefs on another group. Today's society clearly needs to be reminded of this book.

Mills' work places him firmly in the humanist tradition, as he reminds us to value the human experience, as well as the discussion and examination of that experience so that we may develop fully as members in our society. Religious and secular alike, we are encouraged to grow as completely as possible.

On Liberty gained countless criticisms from religious sources, but the political positions he evolved are ones that can be shared by people of any religion as much as humanists. We can all be brought together by the commonality of humanity, rather than the factions of conservative or liberal.

Religulously Ignorant

http://www.examiner.com/x-22579-LA-Womens--Goddess-Spirituality-Examiner~y2009m10d18-Dont-drink-the-KoolAid-whether-its-organized-religion-or-politics

Karen Tate of examiner.com gives an interesting review of a recent performance by Bill Maher, with particular focus on his recent movie, "Religulous."

During the performance, Maher criticized both Republicans and Democrats; Republicans for not actually supporting those in Congress who are on their side, and Democrats for not having the gaul to actually FIX things with the power they were given. An interesting question was raised of his documentary on religion: why would you do such a thing when religion has never hurt anyone?

I agree with Tate on this matter: the ignorance of this protest is appalling. Religion has been responsible for so many wars and deaths in the past thousands of years, and some politicians have used it as an excuse to gain more control or influence. (Eisenhower, Colin Powell)

Health Reform and the Prayer Placebo Effect

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2009/10/rev-robert-v-thompson-pay-to-pray-not-yet.html

" 'Physical well-being is an aspect of spiritual growth and salvation,' " says the Reverend Robert V. Thompson (shown above) of the mind-body connection, with special regards to the recent healthcare debate. Many Christians nowadays are turning away from traditional healthcare, and more are embracing less mainstream ways to nurture their bodies, with techniques ranging from yoga to transcendental meditation, and of course, the power of prayer. The latest research techniques are also exploring this intriguing phenomenon of "secular spirituality."

I do agree with Christian Science in its embrace of the "placebo effect" of "a calm mind makes a healthy body," but don't really agree that prayer can directly heal you. In the idea of "mind over matter," it really depends on the power of positive thinking. These beliefs directly affect the implications of a national healthcare system: does everybody have to pay for abortion and general public healthcare, even if they plan to depend on their early-morning yoga?

There's no way to truly measure spirituality in "the power of prayer", so I say yes to public healthcare. There should be options as to whether or not you would pay for some aspects of the plan, but it's rather preposterous to let people depend on pure mind control to heal their physical bodies. Preposterous... and dangerous, especially where children are concerned. I do agree with the last part of this article that quotes Dr. Larry Dossey, who speaks of the importance of uniting spirituality with medicine itself, and how we may infuse techniques with a "compassionate quality that answers to our inner needs as well as the needs of our physical bodies." The key is to unite the two sides, but not merely depend on one or the other. To do so would be a disaster on both sides.

Mormonism and Gay Marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4keOyPzr2bE

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints speaks candidly about his thoughts on Proposition 8. He argues that the passage of Proposition 8 (legalizing gay marriage) would have interfered with religious freedoms currently allowed to those of faith in the United States. I found this video extremely enlightening, and even agreed with a few of the points mentioned by the Mormon leader, which deeply surprised me.

I find it interesting that he compares this argument to the civil rights movement. Those who are exercising a civil right (the right to freedom of speech - religion) are being "punished" by having their places of worship destroyed or by being fired from their jobs. However, by asserting their civil right to religion, they are getting in the way of another freedom of speech issue: the right of homosexuals to declare their sexual identities. Elder Oaks seems to be blind to this fact, that two sides of civil rights are at odds, not just one.

The civil rights movement is similar to the Proposition 8 argument in that those who were persecuted for their skin color had no control over that factor, but those who are homosexual also have no control over whether they are or not, and neither group should be persecuted for something over which they couldn't determine. It is their right to assert their freedom.

Another point explored by Elder Oaks is the conflict between religious and secular pursuits. I do agree with him on one these points, as he states that "they are different approaches to the meaning of life, and the way one should live it." I do not think that they need to be adversaries, and should instead establish a peaceful relationship instead of each side attacking the other based on beliefs, and, as Elder Oaks states, "agree to disagree." The way its conducted should be civilized, with a reasonable separation of church and state.

A final disagreement I would have with Dallin Oaks is his thought that those who believe one way on a certain policy are actually "violating the separation of church and state." It is my belief that no matter who you are, you will have a bias towards one side or the other, depending on your race, where you were raised, whether or not that upbringing incorporated faith or not, and how you tend to see the world. It is impossible to be unbiased; it defines who you are. If we never took sides on anything, the world would be extremely boring and we wouldn't have politics, let alone the problem of church vs. state.

From Politics to the Pulpit

Yahoo News Article

Steve Scott, a pastor in Fall Creek, Wisconsin, relies on current events and political happenings to launch his sermons to the usual Sunday crowd. He uses modern day occurrences to influence bible study, which some may believe is a dangerous habit.

Having started as a religion reporter whose coverage was cut, Scott went back to school to attain his master's in religious studies, and now serves as the pastor for North Presbyterian church in Eau Claire.

In my opinion, this is a fairly accurate way to preach to your congregation. Many religious practices these days can be fairly outdated. Although I don't attend church, I feel that merely reading scripture from the Bible can get rather old and close the mind into a bubble. Current events open the possibility for religion to be applied to the world today, as opposed to just events of several thousand years ago. (i.e. Crusades, Jesus, etc) If we must have religion, it is important to consider it with open-minded-ness.

The Religious Right: Down But Not Out

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/16/united-states-christian-right-business-oxford-analytica-politics-religion.html

Oxford Analytica details the Religious Right's role in recent and more distant political events. The Right has always sought to establish a large constituency, mostly conservative Protestants, and through that constituency influence the political sphere. This is difficult, however, as most fundamentalists believe that the world will simply worsen despite our actions, and so therefore scorn any political and secular involvement. Unfortunately for the Right, most of its leaders have passed away or diminished so that the organization no longer has any power.

It was assumed in the 2008 election that the Right would ultimately influence the Republican nomination. However, many distrusted John McCain, and so to counter this disslike, McCain chose Sarah Palin, a favorite of the Right. The Republicans lost the election and Obama carried many of the southern conservative states, which shows that the Religious Right, as well as Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition may not be as influential in our political events as they were once thought to be.

Politics at the Pulpit

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten27-2008sep27,1,4591150.column

This article is actually a year old, but I found it fascinating, so here it goes.

Pastors at the time planned to make a stand against the government's ban on tax-exempt organizations endorsing certain political arguments, as they believed that it was a violation of their right to free speech. Endorsing John McCain, the pastors were to attempt a speech for their own political beliefs.

In my opinion, this is HIGHLY biased. This would present the opportunity for some religious factions to gain funding from certain wealthy political benefactors, which would of course, grow wildly out of control. What the pastors failed to realize is that the founding fathers worked deliberately and diligently to prevent the state from being dictated by religious persuasions, which is why the government imposed the ban on non-profit organizations in the first place. The current tax situation makes funds available for the common good, and is not based on any political point of view. It should remain this way.

Mark Noll at University of Florida

http://www.am850.com/news/archives/2009/10/speaker_mark_noll_at_uf.asp

Mark Noll, Professor of history at Notre Dame University, gave a speech at the University of Florida today describing the power of scripture, and how the Bible has been used to support public power. Although Noll is considered "evangelical," he personally despises the term and would love to see religion and politics co-exist peacefully, as they have sometimes done in our history.

As for people who reject religion because of the violence they think religious difference can cause, Noll says religion has brought about more peace than violence. He thinks the fact that religious violence is reported constantly in the media causes people to associate religion with violence. In his books, Noll writes about an "anti-intellectual streak" in America. He thinks many people are not as well informed as they should be when it pertains to issues surrounding religion. Noll hopes that the people who attended the lecture can see the many different ways that scripture has been put to use in American history, and that they can think more about how scripture can be put to use in the future.

In my opinion, I would agree with Noll. I too, would love to see the world co-exist despite any political, racial, or economic differences. However, as long as human beings are capable of opinions, I feel that may not happen. As it stands, politics and religion are very rarely willing to give in to the other side, and until both sides learn to compromise, peace may not be found.

There will also always be some fraction of the population that does not possess any strong sense of faith, and that side will never see the practicality of using religion to run a country instead of reason or politics.

Follow Up

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez19-2009oct19,0,6047841.column

This follow-up opinion article by Gregory Rodriguez about the cross in the Mojave Desert discussed last week describes the difference in opinion between Justice Scalia and Eliasberg. Scalia is of the mindset that crosses are a common symbol for the resting place of the dead, while Eliasberg claims to have never seen a cross on a Jewish grave. In Rodriguez's opinion, Scalia points out the entanglement of religion and culture, as the cross is defined as a common memorial.

Another example used by Scalia to support his argument is the Star of David, a Jewish star that is also politically, culturally, and nationally significant. I am inclined to agree with Scalia's argument, and also point out that this is true of many symbols in the world's cultures.

Although I am personally not religious, and am inclined to agree that the presence of a cross does signify Christianity, I would also agree that symbols often possess more power than their religious significance. Even as our country moves away from religion and closer to secularism, the power of those symbols in all of their forms will remain an integral part of our culture.

Conflicts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6309792/God-creation-science-religion-the-conflicts.html

I find it absolutely hilarious that only LAST YEAR did the Church of England apologize to Darwin for it's unbelievable "anti-evolutionary fervor." I also find it amazing that to this day, the battle between creationism and evolutionism still rages. After thousands of years, and hundreds of years of modern science, some people STILL haven't accepted the facts right in front of them. How does it make sense to believe in an almighty being that "placed" us here on Earth, instead of believing that, like all things, we evolved from something less complex. It baffles me, but then again, I wasn't brought up to be religious. I was brought up to be open-minded and sensible.

It's also interesting how "fossils were believed to be impossible." I believe this ties in with the disbelief in evolution, as fossils are the hard evidence of our evolution from something less complex than ourselves. Even the Catholic church itself admits that "we should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision." What I'd like to know then, is why so many people are still Catholic, with an admittance of that magnitude.

Conservatism as Religious Belief

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story?track=rss

This opinion article by Neal Gabler details the ideals of religious vehemence against political opinions. He points out the irony of religion versus politics; democracy in our country has been based on the fact that the minority has always had the opportunity to become the majority, while religion is only ruled by cold hierarchy. Conservatives are known for believing that their way is the only right way, or the way of God is the only true way to run the US.

In general, the conservative right "wins" so many battles because they strongly believe in their orthodoxy, while liberals tend to base their arguments off of what works in politics. According to Gabler, every battle for conservatives is like a "crusade," and these stronger emotional feelings based in God tend to be more convincing than facts based on political history.

Morals

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704429304574467320574576460.html

One point in particular that I found interesting about this article was the argument made that when we talk about the clash between God and science, it often comes down to the difference between man and morals. Many Americans apparently face difficulties when raising their children, as they are less religiously strong than their parents. I believe this is true, and that we are steadily becoming a far more agnostic nation than that of say, 100 years ago. However, only strong moral values may encourage correct upbringing. It should be about becoming a good person; you don't always have to bring God into it.

Writer William McGurn also makes the point that it is possible to imagine a society without a strong belief in that which they cannot see or in which "one's dignity does not come from being fashioned in God's image." I do believe this is true, but if we were to have a complete absence of religion in our world, we would of course have very little to discuss.

The Power of Prayer

http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1043304.ece

Letitia Stein covers the interesting topic of prayer as a physical health device, detailing the practice of Christian Scientists to promote prayer over conventional medical treatment.

The church does not require its members to forgo medical treatment entirely, but does encourage the idea of prayer as a healing device, much as Jesus Christ was presumed to do.

This has become an issue to many health care providers and doctors, as they worry that many parents will encourage their children to opt out of health care instead of gaining access to the proper facilities. In some cases, the children may become very ill and die, and it is not up to the federal government to PREVENT treatment of children merely due to a religious belief.

Another conflict in this debate deals with the idea of spiritual healing, or "faith healers." This falls along the same lines of prayer, and in my opinion, is no safe alternative to actual medical facilities and treatment.

Notre Dame Dispute

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/apr/03/news/chi-oped0403cardinalapr03

William M. Daley, co-chairman of Obama's presidential campaign, takes a stand against Cardinal Francis George of Notre Dame University. The Cardinal disagreed with an invitation to the president to be the commencement speaker, just because Obama's views on abortion and stem-cell research differ from many Catholics. I'm inclined to agree with Daley's thought that all students should be exposed to people of different viewpoints and ideas, as opposed to just one singular point of view. It is only through this exposure that anyone may grow and learn as a human being.

Daley also believes that the United States is a nation where people of many religious persuasions and cultural backgrounds live together, and it seems as though the Catholic faith disagrees. This is a fact many would find disturbing, myself included, but Daley presses for the convergence of religions, and the discovery of common ground in all peoples.

"I am confident that the values of compassion, tolerance and forgiveness, which we acquire from our church and great universities like Notre Dame, can help us strengthen our religious faith and love of country. But we must recognize that those who differ with our beliefs can still be good and moral people. That’s the essence of our democracy, and there’s no embarrassment in that."

It is only by accepting each other that we may make any progress, in religion AND politics, and it seems as though the Catholic Church is standing in the way of that progress.

Catholicism and Illegal Immigration

Recently on "Lou Dobbs Tonight," the leading anchor interviewed bishops of the Catholic church regarding what they believed on illegal immigration.

Both bishops agreed that that state of the U.S. borders is atrocious, and the entrance of so many illegal immigrants is only detrimental to our society.

The men also stated that we need a system with a more "generous" visa policy, which allows people to more easily enter the country. They believe this will

prevent many people from feeling as though the only way the may enter the U.S. is illegally. The Catholic bishops support a process which encourages

legalization of people who are already in the United States, contributing in the United States.

Interestingly enough, both ignored the statement by Dobbs that last year, over 3 million immigrants enter the U.S. each year, LEGALLY.

Last year, we made over a million people U.S. citizens, half of which were Hispanic.

In my opinion, we do need more strict control of our borders, but I do not agree with the fact that our system "doesn't work."

It is perfectly possible for people to gain a visa and enter our country, but they choose not to because they are afraid they will be denied.

Another reality I do not agree with is the removal of illegal immigrants from children that were born in the United States. The familes should at least be allowed to stay together,

and the parents to have access to a visa, and possibly U.S. residency, if not citizenship.

God Bless the USA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3658172.stm

Commentary to come.

2-4-6-8, Who Do We Appreciate? God!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/10/cheerleaders-barred-from-holding-up-bible-verses-as-football-games.html?csp=34

You know, cheerleaders never really struck me as the overly religious type, at least not the ones from my high school. But in this case, they're holding up signs that encourage you to "take hold of eternal life," instead of sticking to the traditional "GO BEARS!"

I can see both sides of this.

On one side, I really admire the cheerleaders for bringing something they so deeply and spiritually believe in to an event that does claim a good deal of publicity and attention, especially from their peers. That is quite a feat, and rather ballsy to display Bible quotes so far out of their usual element. Whether anyone else actually appreciates the signs remains to be seen.

On the other hand, I do agree with Catoosa (GA) school superintendent Denia Reese for invoking the ban. The signs could easily spark a lawsuit from any resident who feels that his or her rights are threatened by the public display of Bible verses at a football game. It is certainly a question of free speech, and of course the cheerleaders have the right to advertise their strong devotion to God. However, I do not believe it's correct to show that belief when it may make others extremely uncomfortable, especially when they were just under the impression that they were attending a football game to cheer on their son, the linebacker.

Personally, if this had happened at one of my high school football games, I would have felt violated and definitely would have complained.

Catholics, Obama, and Health Care

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/06/are-the-bishops-moving-the-goalposts/

Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan recently wrote an article about what bishops are saying against the new "ObamaCare." The US Conference of United Bishops apparently wrote an article to U.S. senators about the current health care reform, complaining about the affordability, coverage for immigrants, and financing for abortion. The last issue is a bigger one for those of the Catholic persuasion, and although Obama did already vow to support language which deliberately prevents federal funds to go to abortion, the bishops take it further. They claim that even benefits packages where abortion is INCLUDED should not be an option, which I believe to be somewhat absurd.

I personally believe in a woman's right to choose, and that there are going to be situations where keeping the baby or putting the child up for adoption is just not an option. Limiting an entire American public from even remotely having the chance for health care which includes abortion is unfair. However, on the other side of things, the U.S. Senate also recently voted AGAINST an amendment that would have included language that would place a permanent ban on federal funding for abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Under current law, the bans need to be renewed every year or federal funding for abortion is allowed for cases no longer banned.

This activity regarding abortion financing within a new health care plan makes it appear as though Obama actually IS keeping his promise about presenting and possibly passing a "Freedom of Choice Act." http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php

Good call, Mr. President.

1st Amendment Privelages

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/opinion/07wed1.html

I think you might have to be a member to be able to see that, but hey, why not just sign up?

Anyways, the article above discusses whether or not it's considered a violation of the 1st Amendment to place a large cross on federal land. Need I remind you, the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech and the right to protest the government.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross in 1934 in the Mojave National Preserve (San Bernidino, CA) to honor fallen soliders, and since then the cross has been replaced a number of times. The park has also denied any request by other religious organizations to erect symbols of their faith (i.e. Buddhism), therefore challenging the first amendment.

The above map shows the location of the Mojave desert, and the cross.

In my opinion, if the park allows one strong expression of religious faith, it should allow ALL forms of religious faith. By allowing one such form of Christianity and denying other religious that right, the government is favoring one religion over another and also sending the message that state and church are intertwined. Church and state should ALWAYS be separate, so there should be no religious expression of any kind on government owned lands.

Finally!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs7-2009oct07,0,7536817.story

Imagine same sex marriage in Washington, DC, of all places. The religious right is going to have a field day with anti-gay-marriage propaganda with this one.

Cheap laughs?

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=19045

There are soooo many movies out there based on religion and Christianity, and nobody bats a hair. Maybe because there are so many?

The minute somebody comes out with an "atheism-based film", Christians get all hot and bothered!

Thoughts on the Religious Right

So last class session we were discussing The Religious Right, and here's what I think. (and yes, of course, you're entitled to your opinion, whatever it may be)

The so-called "Religious Right" is a load of crap.

Here are some of its big issues:

- the opposition to the teaching of evolution

- the promotion of the teaching of creationism/intelligent design (basically, we have a Creator)

- the opposition to sex education

- support for the war in Iraq

- support for Israel

Believe it or not, 15% of the American electorate says that they're aligned with this Christian Right, a religious group that grew out of the belief that Americans "don't take the time to explore faith."

Quick blurbs about each point:

1. Evolution is based on factual evidence as well as millions of years on this planet. Darwin is actually NOT an idiot. I guess I have grown up with the idea, and wasn't raised with religion, but I think NOT believing in evolution is just foolish when the facts are staring at you in the face, no matter how much you follow your faith. It's just plain science.

2. Intelligent design. This follows what I said about evolution. Science, people, science. How is it even remotely possible to prove that we have a single creator (God Almighty? pffffft, sure.) when everybody has to watch that horrible "The Miracle of Life" video in high school biology? We know exactly where and how babies come to be, and no, the stork doesn't drop them from the sky.

3. Sex education is probably one of the more important things being currently done in middle and high schools, especially considering the high rate of teen pregnancy. Preaching abstinence at horny, hormone-crazed teenagers isn't going to prevent them from experimenting. Granted, I didn't do much experimenting in high school, but many others do, and just saying "that's bad, don't do it" without any rhyme or reason is not going to prevent it. Awareness and handing out condoms just might.

4. Isn't the war in Iraq one of the primary reasons why we've got such a massive budget deficit and the economy totally sucks?

...enough said.

5. Israel gets enough publicity as it is, so in my opinion, the Christian Right is just trying to piggyback onto that attention.

There's a fine line between ridiculous notions to make money and religion.

It's crazy schemes like the Christian Right that make me glad I was raised with an open mind.