Catholics Choosy on Pro-Life Stance

It appears that the only 'life' for which the Catholic hierarchy is 'pro' is that life which has yet to be born. Those already alive have to fend for ourselves.

The other day I drove past a Catholic church that had white crosses all over their front lawn, to commemorate abortions that happen every day. Where are the crosses for those executed under the death penalty? For those who die for lack of access to proper health care?

This morning I read an article in the Chicago Tribune about how the powers that be are chastising a Dominican nun, Sister Donna Quinn, for speaking out on behalf of women's rights. In the same article, it notes that "US Roman Catholic bishops refuse to support universal health care if it covers abortion". Wouldn't someone who believes in the sanctity of human life be supportive of providing health care to those who cannot afford it?

Throwing living, sick poor people under the bus in the name of 'life' reveals the insidious misogyny of the Roman hierarchy's position. Apparently, women's moral agency so threatens Rome that they ignore their stated positions on protecting all human life, and deliberately suppress legislation that will do exactly that. In addition, they silence the voice of women in their own tradition if they dare speak truth to sexist power.

If Rome were actually pro-life, shouldn't they be whole-heartedly behind efforts to increase access to health care? Shouldn't they be pounding the halls of Washington fighting for the poor who cannot afford medical care in our oppressively expensive system? How many women would choose to keep their children if they weren't impoverished by the medical expenses alone?

I think the Bishops can do much more to protect life if they get a little more consistent in their positions.

Time to Speak

The lectionary text for yesterday (for those traditions that follow it) included a passage from James about the dangers and possibilities of speech. Basically, he says the tongue is small, but mighty. It can do great things and also some very destructive things.

Senator Tom Harkin noted recently that there is a "silent majority" of Americans that support Health Care legislation. If this is indeed the case, why are we not using our small, yet powerful tongues to steer the ship of state toward a better health care policy?

Personally, I have encountered some who compare the President to Hitler. I have witnessed something that almost never happens--a Member of Congress calling the President a liar on the floor of the House of Representatives. In both of these instances, the LaRouche PAC and Mr. Wilson's accusation, their charges toward the President are not only factually wrong, they are patently absurd. In the case of LaRouche's comparisons with Hitler, they are despicably hateful.

This kind of juvenile, schoolyard bully behavior has no place in the public discourse, least of all on the floor of Congress. It is time for cooler heads to prevail, for us to start using our tongues not to start fires, but to guide the public debate toward a more civil and respectful place. Only when we can have intelligent conversations with each other, can something actually be done to help real people in this country and in our world.

Modern Manicheans

I just watched a woman in tears because the President is going to tell her child to work hard and stay in school. Mom's afraid the message might be 'political'.

Really? How did she feel when George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did the same thing?

It is no surprise to readers of this blog that I was strongly opposed to nearly every one of George W. Bush's policies. The only time I thought he shouldn't talk to schoolchildren though was on 9/11/01 when the towers in New York were under attack.

Where did this fear come from? When did it become threatening for a public servant to talk to children, who, I might add, can't even vote yet? There have been times when I was challenged to listen to the opinions of others, particularly when I have difficulty understanding their position. But to break into tears over a message with which no one has any legitimate argument is beyond wrongheaded--I think it's spiritually damaging.

To demonize your political opponents closes you off to the truth they do have. No one is inherently, completely evil, or good for that matter. I'm glad Bush told kids to work hard. Each of us has legitimate human experience from which we speak. To disagree is one thing, but to freak out over such a minor issue seems a little ridiculous.

Farewell Senator Kennedy

When I was 16 years old, I worked in the office of Speaker of the House Tom Foley as one of his pages, obnoxiously giddy with the excitement of a teenage political geek. I was walking down the hall of Speaker Foley's office one day, when the elevator dinged, the doors opened, and out walked Ted Kennedy.

It was at that moment that the Kennedy's became less a myth to me, and more a human reality. In spite of their aura, the Kennedy's are nevertheless a human family, no better, no worse than the rest of us.

It seems to me, that even though I never got closer to him than that day as he got off the elevator, Ted Kennedy's story is one of privilege and generosity, tenacity and compromise, sin and redemption. I am grateful, as an American, that he gave so much of his live to serving his fellow citizens in the US Senate. I know that we're all better off today for his unrelenting support for the poor, the differently-abled, children and families.

Thanks Senator Kennedy. Thanks for living a real human life, imperfect, yet you never gave up. You showed us what one person can do to change the world.

Rationality on Health Care

I understand that there might be some legitimate reasons to be opposed to Health Care reform. What I don't understand is why so much of the argument against it seems to be bull pucky.

These past few days, we have seen people talk about 'death panels' that are supposed to withdraw care from people over a certain age. We have seen people talk about government takeover of medical care. We have seen people enraged at members of congress during town hall meetings, and we have seen cable news commentators try desperately (albeit hypocritically in some cases) to scare the daylights out of the American public. Many outspoken opponents have been shown to be blatantly lying.

What bothers me about all of this is not that people are opposed to health reform. I'm not so naive as to think that there is an easy solution to this problem with which all 300 million or so of us Americans will completely agree. I know there will be opposition. What bothers me is the immature and terrorist behavior of some opponents. It is apparently so frightening, it is beginning to weaken the resolve of a Democratic President and a super majority in Congress.

Reforming the health care system in this country is the right thing to do. Having a public option for people who cannot be insured any other way is the right thing to do. It's right because when people are sick, they need help.

If you are in favor of health care reform and a public insurance option, call your members of congress and tell them not to loose their courage because this is the right thing to do. If you are opposed, feel free to share your opinions, but do us all a favor and make sure you're not confusing some pundit's paranoia for actual fact about the legislation.

Spaghetti at the American Academy on Religion

If you are not an academic, you may have never heard of the American Academy on Religion. You may never want to. They are however an academic organization of religious scholars and for those of us theology geeks out there, they provide a great deal of interesting fodder for discussion.

At this year's meeting in San Diego, CA, they are going to be discussing the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's right, you heard me, FSM is finally getting it's day in the AAR sun! If you've never heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), it comes from a satirical contribution to the creation/evolution debate a few years ago. If you read the article linked above, you'll get a good overview of the 'religion' and its adherents. Essentially, it's a phenomenon used by non believers to point out the intellectual problems with believing in a God who created the universe.

Frankly, I think it's rather hilarious, and it represents important critiques to those of us claiming to believe in God. Far from being threatened by FSM, I think it's essential that believers are able to hear criticism without threat, and more importantly, that we keep our sense of humor.

I have no idea how the conversations will go at AAR, but if you're reading this and you're going, I'd love to hear about it!

It Depends

I took one of those ubiquitous facebook quizzes yesterday. It wasn't 'which 80's pop star are you' or 'which Friends character are you', but it was about political ideology. The results plotted you on an axis between left and right, authoritarian and libertarian. The statements, to which I was to agree or disagree, were on issues from abortion to homosexuality to economic policy and government.

I'm not the best person to take these quizzes because my response is often, 'it depends'. For instance, they asked about government enforcing morality, and my response would depend a great deal on who is in government! If a government were enforcing an anti-choice, heterosexist or racist morality, I would be strongly opposed to government enforcing that kind of morality. However, can government really avoid morality?

For example, the government provides public education for all our citizens through the age of 18. I think this is a morally good thing to do. The government also provides law enforcement, fire protection, roads, bridges, etc., and I think it is a moral obligation for them to provide these services in a just and equitable way. If the government is responsible for justice, how can morality not be a part of it?

But it is interesting nevertheless, before we politically categorize ourselves, to ask how our comfort level with government enforced morality might change from one Presidential administration to the next. I know mine does. That being the case, perhaps we should be more cautious about labeling our political philosophies.