Catching up: Pope says Jews are saved

I almost missed this. Jews are not damned to hell for not accepting Jesus, according to the Vatican. Not only are Jews not damned (despite that crucifixion two thousand years ago), are they saved and are to be considered 'elder brothers.'

But let me clarify. At first I thought the pope himself had declared this. No, afraid not. It was a Vatican committee. And the committee can't quite explain why Jews are saved, instead falling back on the well-used excuse of divine 'mystery.'

Does this sound like they've discovered something new (and convenient)? Maybe, but they claim it's based on St. Paul's epistle to the Romans. It was in there all the time, but was ignored for, um, a few centuries or more. Too bad for all those Jewish criminals killers sinners victims during all those years.

Image: examiner.com

Extras. Sorry, but the Vatican is wrong about this. There's not an exception for Jews (and it's proved by different bible verses). The only reasons I saw this--because of click-bait about Kim Davis and her fabulous victories this year.

The many enemies of Christianity

Somehow I managed to resist writing about how the death battle between same sex marriage and conservative Christians for twelve days, but that reprieve is over. I'm back to the topic again because of the hyperbole of Rod Dreher (the main conservative-religious writer whom I read).

Dreher has blamed the Reformation for this evil before. He's blamed the Founding Fathers and their political philosophy that guarantees the state wouldn't impose religion on the people. He's blamed Martin Luther. Now he's blaming nominalism, a philosophical theory that perfect, ideal things don't actually exist.

I think Dreher should just go all the way and proclaim that the problem is that too many people think, and their thoughts are too often sacrilegious because they end up questioning the dogmas of the church. Somehow, though, Dreher exempts himself. When he questions the church, as he did when he left Catholicism to become Eastern Orthodox, it wasn't a hateful, uppity, and sinful of him to do that.

However, when Martin Luther questioned the Catholic church, he unleashed an incredible amount of evil. All sorts of people started questioning church dogmas and finding alternative ideas. For example what is more likely to be correct: your priest or your conscience? Is the Church correct that the sun and planets revolve around the Earth? Somehow this questioning is the direct cause of Western civilization becoming decadent and materialistic, and forsaking the guiding principles of a religious life.

Does Dreher actually wish that he could shut down all of that thought, remove the free will of people, and force people to put unquestioning faith in whatever their church says? From what I've read, that is what Dreher would prefer, based on the number of column inches he's devoted to defending dogma ("what Christianity actually is") and decrying the wrongness of guys marrying guys.

Oh, the hubris of using your brain! (... if you might come to a different conclusion from that of the Church).

A moderate problem in Dreher's argument is that Jesus himself is an example of questioning orthodoxy. But Jesus is the Son of God, and inerrant, which no other human is. So it's not illogical if Jesus can question but the rest of us can't. An even bigger problem is that humans are questioning authorities all the time, especially when they aren't thrashed within an inch of their lives for doing so. Maybe European stock is somewhat worse in this behavior than others (how frequently did Indians question their caste system?), but it has been a persistent trait for as long as we have records.

People are going to use their minds, and what they think may change as a consequence. God can't stop it, and neither can Dreher. If it is to be labeled a sin, that tells us that Dreher or the Church or God can't deal with a major aspect of human nature. It also raises the question of whether Dreher believes that people deserve freedom, or whether instead they need the cossetting of an authoritarian system to avoid this worst of sins--thinking the wrong thoughts.

Of course, what is most likely is that Christianity wasn't threatened by Martin Luther, the Reformation, liberty-based government, or a metaphysical theory I hadn't even heard of (and me a philosophy major!). Only Dreher's mistaken and narrow definition of Christianity is threatened and only in his mind.

Image: wikipedia.org

Extras. Well, the threat's not quite "only in his mind." Traditionalists in some professions have been sued or fined for not working on same-sex weddings. There are also allegations of jobs lost or discriminatory work environments made by traditionalists.

Religious observance and religious identification are also becoming less common. Is that due to people choosing for themselves too? Most likely.

Silly Power Games

Yesterday 43 Catholic organizations filed suit against regulations from the Obama administration mandating contraceptive coverage in healthcare plans that cover other prescription drugs. Commenting on the news story, I wrote:

"This is happening because there’s a silly contest over who has power on this issue: the government or religion. It’s definitely not the people or the employees whose voices are being listened to."

John Powers rightly questioned me:

"Tell me again why your defending First Amendment rights is a 'silly contest'? Keeping the Government out of Churches has always sounded like a good reason to have a Bill of Rights. Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right in the United States, regardless of the voices of the 'people or the employees.' "

So this is my fuller explanation:

@John Powers, when churches stick to being churches, the government leaves them alone. When they become big employers, government is right to get involved in ways they are involved with other businesses/employers. But the churches-cum-employers then try to hide behind first amendment/freedom of religion, when, really, they just aren’t being allowed to conduct their employee relations the way they want. Maybe the churches want to avoid minimum wage or overtime laws too.

Are you really sure that freedom of religion is a free pass for corporate religions to do whatever they want? Maybe freedom of religion is an individual freedom, not carte blanche for organizations to ignore all government rules. I see more than one principle involved here, so it’s a balance of competing rights and principles, not just freedom of religion, as you say.

The reason this is a silly contest is that the Catholic Church in this country has lost the argument about contraception with its own adherents, yet the Church continues to pretend that contraception is so wrong that it can’t countenance including it in comprehensive medical plans. On the government side, it’s silly to mandate insurance coverage for pills that cost $9 a month at Walmart (not a myth–I looked it up). Yes, it is silly to anyone not wrapped up in the power play.

 Who is sillier?

Photo: fanpop.com

Short: Catholics in Washington rebel

The Seattle Times reports that many Catholic churches are opting NOT to gather signatures for an anti-marriage-equality referendum in Washington state. Read the link to find out the reasons, and don't skip the comments on the article--usually the best part.

Losing out on a lot of signatures

Photo credit: secred-destinations.com

The Catholic Mistake

Although I'm an agnostic, I'm fairly supportive of religion. I appreciate the sense of a higher mission and the way it inspires so many people. So when I speak against a religious precept, it's with a heavy heart.

I love people, but I love all living things more. Life is the most precious gift in the world, but I don't limit my love to human life. My soul soars at the sight of a majestic tree and I chuckle at the odd shapes of lichens.

Out of respect for all living things, I'm firmly against the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, and especially on birth control:

Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. . . God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

For most of our lives, the procreative aspects of sex are superfluous or unwanted. I disagree with Catholic Church philosophy on this point. I place more emphasis on the scientific viewpoint than on odd conceptions of "Natural Law," which we break all the time with lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, and the many benefits of modern medicine.

Another scientific point is that the world is already supporting a vast number of humans, and there definite benefits to limiting the surging growth. Countries with unrestrained growth due to religious and cultural teachings against birth control include Egypt, Haiti, and the Philippines. These can be horrendous places to live, especially if you're poor. I think the religious teaching against contraception are largely to blame.

Other lesser arguments are:

•  Contraception allows people to be unfaithful.  (So I can't use it because cheaters might? Thanks a bunch.)
• Loose sexual behavior will pervade society as a result. (True, but that is an individual choice.)
• Men will view women as sex objects if there's birth control. (I believe this can happen with or without contraception, so it's a wash.)

Another argument that the Catholic Church makes:

... it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.

Excuse me, but I don't accept that God is the sole entity that should determine whether or not I become pregnant. I'd like to have a huge role in that decision.

One of the most egregious arguments against contraception dates from 307A.D.:

... Some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife."

Spare me the pontificating about the sovereignty of God and how God will provide (if He wants). I want the responsibility for my children, and I want to raise them well. Just don't tell me how many to have. Don't tell me that if I don't want a child at this particular time, I should keep an aspirin between my knees. I'm not a monk or nun, and I want the modern conveniences, including contraception.

So, I believe, by all means, subtract the procreative aspects from the sex act. You're not hurting the world or yourself or God.

Every sperm is sacred: All male panel testifies about contraception.

Thanks to Viable Opposition for the link to Catholic doctrine.

Addendum 6/14/2012. I can't believe I didn't say this before. I have no doubt, that if God were still writing and/or editing the Bible, that the message on procreation wouldn't be "Be fruitful and multiply." Instead, it would be "You've done enough multiplying. Now leave plenty of space for the other creatures of this earth."

Addendum 9/7/2014. I finally wrote a full post on why there are 1) too many workers, and 2) too many people in the world. I declare that I'm for a birthrate below replacement rate. If your religion has a hard time with this, too bad. My view is based on logic that is probably bullet-proof.

Contraception decision: War on religion?

Is the decision of the Obama administration on contraceptive insurance coverage a "war on religion?"

"The Catholic Church objects to being told to pay for something that it morally objects to. Why should the government make Catholic schools, hospitals and charities pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception? ... There is no reason it has to involve the Catholic Church other than pure spite." -- Washington Post commenter

I don't think it's "pure spite" or "war." Lots of people seem to want to ramp up the rhetoric, a problem not confined to one side of the dispute.

There are many non-spiteful reasons for wanting insurance plans to cover contraceptives. Here are a few: People like to control when they have children without foregoing their sex lives. To many, it doesn't make sense to carve out a special exception for birth control when many other medications/procedures are covered. Some women (a few) need hormones to control diseases like ovary cysts. None of these are spiteful or war-like reasons to cover contraceptives.

The decision about covering contraceptives pits two worthwhile goals against each other: 

• The usefulness of contraceptives is similar to the usefulness of hypertension medicines, and perhaps should be treated in the same manner by insurers. 
• Religious employers don't want to be forced to pay for medications that they have a long-standing doctrinal objections to. 

This is a difficult matter of deciding which of the conflicting interests is more important. It is not spite or war.

That the government and employers are involved is an artifact of our ridiculous health care insurance system where the employer pays. If we could transition to private/individual-funded choices, then we could pick our own insurance based on our own consciences. That would be much better. Amen.

 Praying . . . that the contraceptives keep working. 

Update 3/14/12. The Obama administration isn't trying to end religion or shut down the Catholic Church. But it sure feels like some alliances of conservatives are trying to completely shut down Planned Parenthood. If the Catholic Church was trying to do this directly, people would be up in arms.