A Potpourri of Mini Rants“0 Comments”

Mark Haverty | 12:22 pm | May 26, 2010 | Politics

By Steve Parsons

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior

From the New York Times - “Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead”

It will obviously be the lede that the Obama administration has approved environmental waivers to permit further offshore oil drilling since announcing a moratorium after the gulf “incident.” But this little gem from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar caught this writer’s eye in the Times write-up. ““If we find they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we’ll push them out of the way appropriately.” This was quickly disavowed this morning by the Coast Guard who not so subtly said "To push BP out of the way would raise the question: to replace them with what?"

I don’t know about you, but there’s something very fishy about allowing something as inherently problematic as deep-water drilling without safety measures in place, both by the company AND by the authorities. In most situations of known hazard (airports, highways and so on), we don’t even let the people who did the damage even take part in the clean-up, much less make it a budget bottom-line item for them to provide the necessary equipment (I sense some disincentive to fully fund those measures). Had we required drillers to pay, in advance, into a fund that would support a state of the art emergency response apparatus (people, infrastructure and technology), it strikes me we wouldn’t have to sit back and watch BP prove day-after-day that it has no technology that was even remotely envisaged to work in that environment. Nor would we be hearing that if BP fails, the Coast Guard has nothing.

The New Atheism“0 Comments”

Mark Haverty | 12:25 pm | May 15, 2010 | Politics, Religion

This post is courtesy of CrucialTaunt political contributor Steve Parsons.

It’s sort of de Rigueur these days for the “new atheists” to take the position that religious thought is not worth courtesy. that the level of “magic beans” involved is tantamount to the sun going around the earth, unicorns and the tooth fairy and as such should be given that level of respect.

Whether you believe that or not, there might be other reasons to be more politic about it. The late Stephen Jay Gould wrote copiously on evolutionary biology and was probably the foremost science popularizer of our times and felt obliged to write about religion on occasion. He put forward the idea that religion and science were separate “magisteria” that had little to say to one another. I would imagine that Gould privately would have a bit more to say than using this convenient way out (as it turns out, not so convenient as he drew fire from all sides).

But there is a serious question there as to how seriously one should take a person who believes, for example, that transubstantiation is literally true. To me the idea is risible and even if it were true who the hell (pun intended) would want to sit at the right hand of a God who would do such a thing and make it a test of faith leading to perdition? If someone said to you there were little men inside their cell phone chattering away, you would rightly laugh at them (or quietly back away). If you maintained that if you put your finger down your throat at just the right time you would cough up a juicy, lean piece of your saviour (or that God would change it back) seems to call for more or less the same response.

Gould would back away. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins would, perhaps, not. With books and movies to sell, we should expect them to make their point. But in private life one assumes they value a certain amount of civility. Think locally but act globally?

If you believe that God is merely Santa Claus is an different guise, then when do you make others uncomfortable about it? Probably the same time as you disabuse your child of Santa and that is when to not do so would be to do them and others harm. You don’t tell a kid that Santa is not real because it is childish and we put away childish things particularly, it’s that at some point we need to take up adult things and if little Timmy thinks Santa knows the address to his business or has any resemblance to his boss or asshole landlord than he’s gotta a few things to learn. Or the positive lesson that in fact it was mom or dad or uncle and they gave you the gift just because you are you and they love you (that’s a helluva a lot nicer than a fat red clad housebreaker).

Maher and Dawkins and Harris and Christopher Hitchens view religious views not as some eccentricity that adds a bit of harmless colour to the family parlour but as an active force that, for whatever good it does, necessitates evil, and evil on a large scale. Thus the necessity to say unpleasant truths. If you believe that, then I suppose you have an obligation to say it. And there may be something to it. Not only does technology make it possible for one nut-job (religious or otherwise) to inflict themselves and their views on many people and people at a distance, but the make-up of religion is changing and changing rapidly. While the number of people who self-identify as “spiritual” in some respects has remained about the same, actual church attendance and membership is down and a greater portion of those who do practice religion are more conservative and more evangelical..and more fanatical. And this crosses all religions.

But does such confrontation actually “help?” Perhaps it sets the groundworks for a generation or two down the line when we can rationally admit that, you know, at the time of the Gospels virgin birth cults were a dime a dozen, that the Christian calendar is merely a mock-up of the Jewish calendar with different names and art work, that the gospels weren’t written by anyone with first hand knowledge of the events, that most of the miracles appear to be a grab back of legends and parables taken from other traditions and faiths and so on. The great genius in early Christianity was probably taking the same approach that Henny Youngman took to one-liners. If he heard ‘em they were his.

But in the meantime it seems like it puts influential people on the defensive. We all can generally agree that giving a guy like Osama bin Laden an excuse to portray his warped religious view as embattled. But doesn’t a similar principle happen to other people with poorly thought out theology (if thought out at all)? People who are also opportunistic and who leap at every chance to portray their religion as embattled? A person like Sarah Palin (who just came out as saying we should have a sort of Christian Sharia law in this country). Or a person like George W. Bush who openly pandered to the religious right and whose own religious thinking can only be described charitably as not as well thought out as perhaps one would hope from someone who sought to evangelize and/or make the nation’s decisions based on that same theology? How is this better than Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologer?

But to point this out is merely to reinforce the sense of “attack” that causes people of faith unease, and serves as fodder for those who would use other’s faith as tools for their own ends, legitimate or not.

Where Maher goes wrong, I believe, is by too frequently making religion and religious belief into a personal issue and one of ‘quality.” The issue becomes not whether or not there is a God, but whether you are or are not stupid. And there is no winner in that discussion and I would submit, generally, that the person who raises such issues is saying more about themselves than they are about those they deride.

There is a legitimate reason to stand up and say, look, it’s not that all Catholics (for example) are bad because obviously the vast majority are good people, but the good ones are paying for and indirectly enabling the abuse of children, the covering up of the same, the extension of poverty via stances on birth control and so on. There are vast swaths of the Catholic world where more money and goods flow out of impoverished areas than in (and more Good Words than good deeds).

And it’s not just a matter of organized religion as an institution. It is the kind of tacit acceptance of things that must be taken “on faith” that necessitates the emergence of structures that will use that faith, encourage more faith (which goes under obedience as well), and compete against other faiths both for adherents and to instill greater loyalty and commitment in those they already have. “only through me” may not be the absolute most divisive words ever spoken, but they (and words like them in other faiths that claim exclusive access to heaven as a mebership perk) are pretty much at variance with the idea of, for instance, a Christ-like life. But you can’t have the blind faith and obedience without engendering and enabling the Church in her acts both good and bad.

Extremism“0 Comments”

Mark Haverty | 7:24 pm | April 7, 2010 | Politics

I am a lifelong Democrat. I was born into a family that worshiped Jack Kennedy and voted Democrat in every election. I spent the summer of 1984, when I was in fourth grade, arguing with my mother that Gary Hart, not her choice (Walter Mondale), was the best choice for the party. In 1991, I did my best as a senior at Westwood High School to push for Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, and was even invited to an event for Mr. Clinton in Boston. I have never voted for a Republican in a national election.

I am a lifelong Catholic. There was a period where my church attendance lapsed, but I have been back for a while now and can be found Sunday mornings at 9:30 AM at St. John Vianney, hoping for Father Tim, the priest that views brevity as a virtue, instead of Father Bernie, who does not.

This is not to say that there are not areas where I disagree with the Church. On areas such as priests marrying, female priests, and homosexuality, I am in line with the Episcopalian Church’s beliefs and not the Catholic Church’s. In addition, the Church’s stance on birth control makes little sense, and their views of masturbation are exceeding wrong in many, many ways – if there is one person in the Church that has never masturbated in their life, I would love to meet them. They of course do not exist though.

One area where I do agree with the Church though is on abortion. Abortion is not about a woman’s “right to choose” – they have the right to choose before they get pregnant. What abortion is instead is the killing of an innocent life.

Despite my disagreements with the Church on some major issues, it has always been my spiritual home, and will continue to be. Despite my disagreements with the Democratic Party on abortion, it has always been my political home.

I would like it to continue to do so, but pro-abortion extremists are doing their best to drive me out.

Whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion, a rational look at the health care reform measures just passed shows that absolutely nothing in the area of abortion has changed. I know everyone wants to scream in one direction or another about this, but again, nothing changed. What bothered me most about health care reform was Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) preening for the televisions, campaigning for tougher language in the bill when none was needed, and the executive order signed by President Barack Obama did absolutely nothing to change the law of the land, other than codifying the Hyde Amendment into law. Those on the left screaming about this are delusional fools, lamenting that the Hyde Amendment now has more permanence than it did as a yearly-renewed rider. Did they ever honestly believe that the Hyde Amendment would ever be rejected? Even the most pro-abortion representatives in the House will tell you that this would never have happened.

What’s more disturbing though is the amount of hate and venom spewed at the Catholic Church by these extremists.

When Jack Kennedy ran for the Presidency, he had to prove to conservative voters that his decisions would come from within and not from the Vatican. Now, rather than needing to “prove” that to conservatives, it’s liberals that cannot figure out that people make their decisions based on their own conscious rather than on what those outside tell them to do. Bart Stupak’s stand on the reform and how it related to abortion was because of Bart Stupak, not because of his priest or bishop. We might share a religion, but we are not a collective whole following the same orders.

Again, one would think that liberals would understand that. Clearly, a good chunk of them don’t by the number of pro-abortion extremists screaming about health care reform being “dictated” by the Catholic bishops.

What is even more offensive is the stand some are taking that because there was a child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, no Catholic has the right to speak out on abortion. No, this does not make any sense whatsoever, and the guilt by association is appalling.

For those that think I am making this up, trying to deflect the way the Vatican is, think again. For one, I think the Church hierarchy that is involved in this scandal needs to not only step aside for the betterment of the Church but also face criminal charges, and that includes the pedophile-enabling Nazi Youth Pope that we currently have. For two, that argument is sadly very prevalent, and here’s one such example from Katha Pollitt at The Nation. In this article she has such wonderful lines as, “The moral authority granted the Catholic Church in the secular world is for me the most repellent aspect of the current crisis.” Again, because some horrible crimes have happened amongst a very small minority, the entire Church needs to be ignored by its believers now, and certainly in areas like abortion, according to Ms. Pollitt. She also quotes another writer, saying, “In the succinct words of Jodi Jacobson, editor of RHRealityCheck.org, ‘Why is a pedophilia-ridden, pedophilia-hiding, child-abusing Church allowed to write laws controlling women’s rights?’”

Ms. Jacobson, I would like to thank you for calling all of us Catholic pedophile hiders and taking away our rights at civic engagement.

Her entire article can be found here. The comments below are also a wonderful view into the mindset of these abortion extremists. While some do defend Catholics, far too many jump on the bandwagon. This article was reprinted on multiple liberal sites, with much the same for commentary.

Here’s another article linking the scandal with the view of abortion held by Catholics, this one by Vinnie Rotondaro at the Huffington Post. After declaring that, “The Catholic Church is collapsing into a state of moral bankruptcy,” he later goes on to state, “The hypocrisy here is incredible. On the one hand, U.S. Bishops claim “vigilance” in their misguided stakeout of the possibility of government-funded abortions, while on the other, the Vatican largely ignores the plight of countless children whose lives have been blackened by molesting priests.”

I’m trying hard to get Mr. Rotondaro’s point – because some people in the Catholic Church failed to defend the lives of some, they forfeit the right to defend other lives? Is that it? Otherwise, I’m completely lost, as this is yet another hit piece on the Church, and yet again the comments here continue to show scorn for the Church, including this wonderful comment: “It wouldn’t surprise me, if it came out that the church forced girls to abort when they became impregnated by priests.”

Here’s a reality check for all of you – if you like having Democrats in power, get over your hatred of Catholics and Catholicism fast. The party that wins Catholics wins elections – that’s a proven fact. Yes, some in the Church committed serious, unforgivable sins against innocent children, but to say that our views on abortion are therefore irrelevant is offensive and bigoted.

If the “big tent” of the party no longer includes us because of our stand on abortion, get ready to lose. Big.

Welcome Back“1 Comment”

Mark Haverty | 10:52 am | December 26, 2009 | Welcome

This blog, and the whole site really, has been on hiatus for a good chunk of 2009. Between my schoolwork for the University of Vermont plus the beginning of my writing work for Wizard magazine, something had to go, and this unfortunately was the one. Which is a huge shame, really, as I love politics, having majored in them, and Lord knows I have plenty to say about them.So I will. The blog, the CP site, and CrucialTaunt.com as a whole are back to kick off 2010 and I hope you can be here for part of the ride.

Crucial Politics

Recent Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Meta

A Potpourri of Mini Rants“0 Comments”

By Steve Parsons

The New Atheism“0 Comments”

Extremism“0 Comments”

Welcome Back“1 Comment”