Category Archives: Insatiable Demands of Religion

Am I Anti-Catholic? Damn Right! I am!

Standard

Just in case you may have wondered about my attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church, I want to make it clear that I am deeply anti-Catholic. While I think Islam is perhaps the greater danger to the world, the Roman Catholic Church in my opinion runs a very close second. Both religions are reactionary religious sects, no matter how large they are. Their aim is to put a lid on the liberalisation of our laws and practices, to keep women in a secondary role in society, and to impose a frightened masculine heterosexuality on everyone without exception. Both religions are focused on achieving and holding onto power, and do not shrink from attempting to subvert democratic processes wherever such opportunities present themselves. In the United States, as I have pointed out recently, the Roman Catholic Church has challenged governments and is deliberately buying up or suborning medical real estate in order to make sure that their death-cult writ reaches more and more people, whether they are Roman Catholics or not.

This is why Simon Jenkins’ op-ed in the Guardian yesterday is perhaps the only comment so far on the election of Pope Bergoglio which has hit the nail directly on the head. The opening paragraph, in a sense, says all that needs to be said:

Papal elections are God’s Olympics. The splendour, the global publicity, the weeping crowds, the human drama, the race to the finish, all dazzle the senses and beg interpretive meaning. There is none. The conclave is showmanship. Those who believe the pope to be God’s minister on Earth must regard his choice as no more than an act of God. Those who believe otherwise see him as leader of a large but declining conservative sect, a genial figurehead but with a mostly baleful influence on the societies over which he claims authority. It is in the latter respect that his election matters.

Remember what I quoted from something that Jason Rosenhouse said yesterday about Bergoglio’s much touted humility:

Let us recall that with his new position comes the ability to speak infallibly, at least some of the time.  It is part of the job description that he is closer to God than the rest of us, and has unique authority to hold forth on the will of God.  It is the teaching of his Church that they, and they alone, are qualified to interpret scripture.  You place your eternal soul in jeopardy by rejecting their moral teachings.  I could go on.

Humble people do not accept such positions.  Quite the contrary, in fact.  It is only the most arrogant of men who speak with the Church’s level of certainty.  The new Pope may be many things, but humble definitely is not one of them.

This is something, apparently, that needs to be repeated constantly. This is not a humble man! No matter how ordinary a man he is, he is a man of power. Not only because of the claims that the church makes about the exalted position of the pope, or about the arrogance of those who speak with the church’s level of certainty. No, this is something that those who knew him in Argentina knew, quite independently of his position in the church. According to Eduardo de la Serna, a coordinator of an left-wing Argentinian group of priests who focus on the plight of the poor,

Bergoglio is a man of power and he knows how to position himself among powerful people. I still have many doubts about his role regarding the Jesuits who went missing under the dictatorship.

This is in an article by Uki Goni and Jonathan Watts in the Guardian: “Pope Francis: questions remain over his role during Argentina’s dictatorship.” A man of power such as this would know exactly how he would have to position himself to come out of the regime of the generals in a strong position and with plausible deniability.

Continue reading →

About these ads

Religions will never be satisfied — they will always up the ante until they are in charge

Standard

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Religions do not, indeed, the cannot, respect boundaries. They always overstep the limits of reasonable, civilised discourse and behaviour. As an example, take the Obama Administration’s recent attempt to compromise with the Roman Catholic bishops. “No way!” say the bishops — and here, if you please, is their complaint (The full bishops’ statement can be accessed here):

the church leaders said the policy offers “second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education and Catholic charities.”

What’s the compromise? Well, it’s as simple as 1-2-3. They don’t have to fund contraception, but women are entitled to contraception at no cost. Couldn’t be simpler? You have to factor in the religious and their demands first, and then, suddenly, the whole thing is a mess of religious demands for their rights and your subordination.

The problem, it seems, is this. First of all, the compromise:

The proposed guidelines would allow religious-affiliated organizations opposing contraception to opt out of a federal mandate requiring that they provide their employees with insurance coverage for birth control.

The policy would give women at non-profit, religious-based organizations, like certain hospitals and universities, the ability to receive contraception through separate health policies at no charge.

But according to the bishops, the women would not be permitted to opt out of the program. According to Cardinal Dolan of New York:

It appears that the government would require all employees in our ‘accommodated’ ministries to have the illicit coverage—they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children—under a separate policy.

First of all, notice the word ‘illicit’. How did that sneak in there? But, additionally, this is not only strange, it’s simply unwarranted. No one can force women to take contraceptives. Indeed, some of the women in question, presumably, would not want to be on contraceptives, because intending to have children. So Dolan’s point is far-fetched. What he’s saying is that women who want contraceptives would receive them, no matter what the bishops try to do! So, it is not mandatory, but those who want them won’t have to pay! So, what’s the problem? Well, the bishops don’t like the idea of women in their employ receiving contraceptives, unless they have to pay! Bastards!

The truth of the matter seems to be this, and this is the very point at issue:

Cardinal Dolan also said the proposal refuses to acknowledge conscience rights of business owners who operate their businesses according to their faith and moral values.

This is where the violation of boundary conditions arises. For, why should businesses have the right “to operate their businesses according to their faith and moral values”? After all, consider the degree of freedom that this would afford business owners. They could restrict their businesses to men or women only, depending upon their faith values; they could require women to be bagged in burqas; they could demand that no employee be permitted to receive blood transfusions or vaccinations; or that they should not receive other than homeopathic remedies, or faith healing. The Roman Catholic Church may think that their moral foundations are sound — though I beg to differ; nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only possible faith position out there, and some of them are possibly even more offensive than the Roman Catholic position. To make it a general principle that businesses should be permitted to govern themselves according to their faith and values is precisely the kind of thing that the separation of church and state is supposed to protect: the right of individuals to conduct their lives without the interference of religion. It is intolerable that these high-handed moralists, who believe that their truths are handed down to the ragglety-tagglety occupant of the supposed throne of St. Peter, should get to base the benefits of lack thereof that they supply to their employees should be based on their faith and moral values alone. What a bunch of assholes! (And that’s bloody strong language from me!)