(Reposted from November 22, 2010, for the benefit of a misguided commentator at Isthmus)

So many common false urban myths about Catholicism seem to surface in online discussions every time Catholicism is discussed, and this week is no exception:

1. The suggestion that the Catholic Church is synonymous with pedophilia is completely false—in fact, the Catholic Church is the LEAST offender in this area —  .

2. Most people misunderstand the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. They presume wrongly that the Church’s opposition to promiscuity implies the hate of homosexuals. The Catholic Church opposes promiscuity in any situation, heterosexual or homosexual – promiscuity results in STD’s, as well as emotional and psychological damage to individuals, to the family, and to society . Homosexual promiscuity is equally as damaging as is heterosexual promiscuity.

3. Additional Catholic-bashing references to false urban myths include obtuse incorrect references to the Inquisition, claims that the Catholic Church is losing membership, and insulting references to liturgical vestments.

• “ the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.” – Catholic Answers.
• Catholic Church membership is actually INCREASING, at a rate slightly higher than the rate of population increase –Wikipedia.
• References to Catholic vestments can be compared with the British Monarchy — and with our modern customary wedding garb . Is God worthy of fewer honors than human monarchs, or our own wedding ceremonies?

.

. a facebook post, lifted with permission from my son Chris:  

.

Political litmus test

.

by Chris on Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 6:47am

.

.

I got this email forwarded from a friend. It gave me a good chuckle.

A pre-note, though; I RARELY put anything political on facebook, because I don’t want to start fights. Anything mean-spirited (on either side) WILL be deleted. Any complaints about this policy WILL be deleted. I want my facebook to be a friendly, positive, G-rated place, so if you can’t find anything good to say, don’t say anything at all. Discussion or debate on this is fine, but let’s keep it civilized.

.

With that:

.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs; in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’ She replied, ‘ Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA,  and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’ The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!’

.

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican party.’ If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I’m all ears.

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

Conservative versus liberal:

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one; if a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat; if a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life; if a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation; a liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

Discussion:

You and Tom like this.

Allen:

You know I think it is funny we make these generalizations about liberals and conservatives that are not really true. We say things like Republicans hate minorities and poor people and Liberals want to take all our wealth away and turn us i…nto China. This is what were told at least. The truth is that we all want about the same thing, maybe not always, but mostly. This article is based upon a logical fallacy, false analogy. As a moderate liberal I do not believe in most of these things. The exceptions are these, homosexuals demand legislated respect because if they do not they are found dead on the side of the road and while I believe in higher taxes and better government programs, there is a limit to this. There is a fundamental ideological difference here, I don’t see it helping those are lazy and don’t want to work, but those, because of circumstances out of their control, need help. Let’s drop all of the bullshit generalizations and have a real conversation about ideology.

Chris:

As a moderate conservative, I agree with most of what you’re saying 🙂

Trust me, I’m NOT trying to say that we should get rid of all government programs, because, just this week, I almost needed to take advantage of one (unemployment)! Howev…er, I think we’d both agree that there ARE some lazy bums who get free rides from the government, and I’d bet both of us would agree that that should stop. The only question is how to do it in a way that doesn’t hurt those in genuine need.

Re: homosexuals, I’d be a little careful there for several reasons. First, you’re saying that we should legislate respect for a minority who is hated by another minority (I’d submit that 99% of people really don’t care either way what someone’s sexual orientation is, as long as they don’t make a public show of it – public shows of heterosexuality can be just as creepy as public shows of homosexuality!). To put it differently, you’re advocating making hatred illegal or legislating morality. Morality has to come from within, not without, because laws that govern what goes on inside someone’s head can’t be enforced.

Second, if you want to truly respect a minority group, and be able to say that they are truly equal, then, at least in law, they should be treated no differently than the majority. They should have no extra perks; nor any penalties.

Third, ok, let’s for a minute say that we can have equal respect for a given minority, while treating them differently than the majority. I still say we shouldn’t do it and here’s why: if we are going to make special programs for African-Americans and homosexuals, then why can’t we have a program for left-handed South African-Lithuanian-Americans (I’m pretty sure I’m the only one out there)? If we start giving extra perks to one group, if we want to be fair, we should give perks to ALL groups, and that would be a herculean task.

I think the only way to ensure respect for all groups is to teach our children, when they meet someone, to make the flash-judgment, “This is a member of Homo sapiens, a human person, just like me. If I cut them, they will bleed like me. If I love them, they will be happy like me. They want the same thing I do; the details may be different, but we both want to be loved and accepted, and we both want the opportunity to succeed.” Until we can get people to view each other like that, there’s no point in trying to legislate respect.

I now yield the soap box 😉

.

Syte:

I like your soap box.
Let me know if I can post it on my blog.
🙂

Chris: sure

.

Wisconsin State Journal:

.

10,000 protesting budget cuts today (Madison)

.

.

March for Money

10,000 marchers

front page

.

.

.

400,000 protesting abortion a few weeks ago (Washington, D.C.)

.

.

.

March for Life

400,000 marchers

no mention

.

.

.

.

.

US Military, Joint Colors

.

The Huffington Post recently published an article on “religious boundary violation” in the U.S. Military – criticizing the obligatory “spiritual fitness test” given by the U.S. Military, on which

Pansy, symbol of freethought

“freethinkers” got points docked for their lack of religion.  Those who were religiously unaffiliated were then offered optional information on the benefits of developing their spirituality.

.But here are some more facts:

Death of Socrates

• • Religion and spirituality are associated with decreased rates of mental illness and have a protective effect against suicide.  Religious practice has also been shown to promote greater levels of cohesion in groups (presumably relevant to performance in the military).

Balance

• Those practicing atheism and pagan religions have higher rates of mental illness and higher suicide rates.  Self-esteem, self-control, and coping skills are also reduced in religiously unaffiliated people.

.

.

Commendations

.

Why wouldn’t the military be commended for surveying these topics among military personnel and offering religiously unaffiliated soldiers opportunities to learn about spirituality and its benefits for the individual and for the army?

.

Nobody’s telling the soldiers which religion to choose, nobody’s even forcing them to choose a religion at all.  The alternative, however (eradicating all mention of religion from the military), would constitute religious coercion– forcing all soldiers into the practice of atheism.

.

Religion; a parachute

.

If the U.S. military has determined that particular lifestyle changes make for better soldiers – changes in diet, weight, length of hair, or supplemental education (including spirituality education) – the military would be negligent in withholding this information from soldiers, whose lives are so dependent on each other and are so often on the line.

.

.

Incidentally, religious practice has been shown to benefit ALL aspects of life substantially:

• Strength of marriages and family relationships
• Reduction of violence, infidelity and out-of-wedlock births
• Increased educational achievement
• Improved overall health, including mental health
• Lower levels of infectious disease, depression and suicide
• Greater levels of cohesion in groups, higher levels of charitable giving, and less violent crime

.

Recent online discussion at the Wisconsin State Journal produced some comments defending FFRF’s (Freedom From Religion Foundation’s) legal challenges of religion as being “within their rights.”  I find it surprising that FFRF persists in their vendetta to eradicate public mention of religion, considering that atheists are often listed as tax-exempt religious organizations themselves, and even the textbook definition of religion includes the beliefs that they espouse.  So, ultimately atheists are just pushing their OWN religious beliefs in preference to those of others.

Supporters of FFRF have also argued that   Judeo-Christian values “have shaped Western Civilization by means of state-sanctioned swordpoint.” Perhaps FFRF and its supporters are confusing militant Islamic radicals with peace loving Christians in 2011?  It is hard to find evidence of “enforcement of religion by sword point” in the US, where 80% of us are Christian, and in Madison, where 53% are Catholic, 22% Evangelical Lutheran, and only 10% of the population is outside of Christian denominations (ref).   Not too many swords being wielded by Mayor Cieslewicz or by President Obama recently as far as I can tell.

. Is not FFRF jousting at windmills?  Like Don Quixote, FFRF has imagined an enemy where no enemy exists in 2011 America.

.

If FFRF were so “within their rights,” they would have more supporters than 0.003 of 1% of America, their frivolous lawsuits would be on a larger and more meaningful scale than at present, and they would enjoy better success in court.

To date, most of their demands and lawsuits have been directed at small communities, which cannot afford litigation costs.  For example, recently FFRF has challenged Marshfield, WI’s City Council’s practice of  prayer . The population of Marshfield is about 18,000; Marshfield is about 7% the size of Madison.

A number of FFRF’s and similar legal challenges have already been denied by the courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court (1983, Nebraska Legislature prayer), as well as a 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, have upheld legislative prayer .  Is FFRF also planning to initiate a lawsuit against President Obama, who ended his State of the Union address with the words “God bless America?”

FFRF’s recent, larger-scale attempt to declare the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional did succeed for one week in April of 2010 with a liberal Wisconsin judge (Barbara B. Crabb,District Judge) ruling in their favor, but the ruling was promptly challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice .  The Obama administration is planning to fight to preserve the law establishing the National Day of Prayer.  The idea of a national Day of Prayer has existed since 1775, and was supported by the constitutional congress, and by numerous Presidents, including President Lincoln.

The rationale for preserving the National Day of Prayer can be found at the American Center for Law and Justice .

There can be no denying that FFRF efforts towards the enforcement of public ATHEISM should be resisted by all reasonable Americans, just as those trying to force ANY particular religion should be resisted.   FFRF’s efforts at intimidation of small communities by litigation are misguided and are to be condemned.  FFRF should practice the same tolerance towards religious Americans that religious Americans practice towards FFRF.

Why are our many different religious roots so revered in the United States?  The United States was first settled by people fleeing governments which forbade free exercise of religion. In more recent times, my own relatives came here fleeing the occupation of Lithuania by an atheist regime which denied religious freedom.  Those unable to escape, spent decades in Siberian exile and in concentration camps.  I wonder if FFRF atheists realize where radical vendettas by intolerant people wishing to control the beliefs of others (either atheist zealots OR religious zealots) can lead?  How many RELIGIOUS groups have intimidated FFRF with numerous and frivolous lawsuits?