Merry Christmas

Catholic Bishop defends his flock from Democrats!

We are in the end game of the election. And one Catholic bishop "bravely" speaks out, hoping to save his flock from mortal sin if they vote Democrat.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/catholic-bishop-voting-obama-jeopardizes-ete

Down Pat

Review: The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran

Shadow work: attacking Muslims by trashing their holy book

CIGK is a deliberately misleading work of fear mongering and a frontal attack on the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. The book's method is to equate the true beliefs of Muslims with the words of the Koran. If the Koran says something, then Muslims necessarily must believe it, no matter how much they might protest. CIGK provides a simplistic view of Islam that is at odds with the observable behavior of nearly all Muslims.

Truth be told, the Koran does not lack for verses that attack Jews and Christians, and insist on their conversion. What's astounding is the inability of the author to see that Jewish (think Joshua) and Christian (think Revelation) texts also spill over with blood-drenched attacks on unbelievers. Yet the author blithely claims that the Bible preaches love and tolerance while the Koran teaches hatred. The amount of blindness or outright cynicism involved in these smears is breathtaking. The demonstration of projecting one's own evil on the Other is mindboggling -- and dangerous at a time of worry about Islamic terrorism.

Spencer finds the idea that one could find wisdom in the Koran to be ridiculous. True to his conservative program, he styles anyone's positive words about the Koran to be a "genuflexion." He goes so far as to equate the Koran with "Mein Kampf." The fact that millions of people find hope and guidance from their holy book strikes him as perverse.

Spencer's rewriting of history and reality is spectacular. He claims flatly (as if he is in a position to know) that US guards at Guantanamo Bay die *not* flush Korans down the toilet, when the truth is far murkier. He writes that Geert Wilders, the anti-Islamist demagogue and firebrand, "has become one of the most popular political leaders in the Netherlands," whitewashing his dangerous, alarmist and violence-prone rhetoric. That Wilders is denounced as a hate-monger by much of the European political establishment does not make an impact on Spencer's assessment.

There is no question that some Muslims find in the Koran a divine mandate to attack the West. The 9/11 attacks are only the most obvious example of the literal way that some Muslims - or even many, especially in underdeveloped countries - understand their holy book. Of course, many Christians also take a simplistic or literal view of their sacred writings. Some are even moved to influence political events to obey biblical commands or to "fulfill" biblical passages. Consider religious gay-haters and Christian Dominionists. But don't ask Spencer to acknowledge the possibility that Christians are capable of violence based on their reading of the Bible.

Spencer takes the broad-brush to the tarring of Muslims. "The idea that the Koran commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from the very top of the international jihadist movement (Osama bin Laden) down to the rank and file." Thus, all Muslims are ready and eager to kill idolaters, read "God-fearing Americans." And those who deny this are obviously hiding their true motives. Spencer makes a habit of using making the worst interpretation of every aspect of the Koran. He quotes the Koranic verse, "Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Tagut" - that is, anything worshipped other than Allah, for example, Satan. From that point on, Spencer uses "Satan" as the equivalent of "Tagut," substituting the Christian bogeyman for a idolatry of all kinds. And thus does he transform anti-idolatry into Satan-worship.

"The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" is a foul and devious attack on a religious group, that paints it as bloodthirsty and worthy of reproach, or worse. At a time in history when it is critical that Americans learn more about the faith that animates hundreds of millions of their neighbors, Spencer chooses to stir up their fears with an ignorant, slanted and hypocritical attack on their holy book. You don't have to like what is in the Koran, but you should want to know what Muslims see in it, how it affects their understanding of the world, and how it does (or does not) pose a threat to you.

Beautiful Souls, by Eyal Press

Few and far between

What does it take for a human being to stand up to evil, to say no to cooperation with corruption, to step in to stop violence? Despite the fact that many people admire those who stand up to dictators, bullies and thieves,  the answer, according to this book, is "just the right circumstances.” Author Eyal Press travels around the world to interview a few “beautiful souls” who did resist evil: a man who served as a Swiss border guard in 1938, letting Jews escape Nazi Germany; a Serb who saved Croat prisoners just after the shelling of Srebrenica; an Israeli soldier who refused to take part in harassing Palestinians; and a woman who lost her job at the Stanford Financial Group at the time the financial giant was running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors. The stories are vivid and harrowing, but not the straightforward  tales of idealism and superior empathy that you might expect.

What Press found was that his heroes did not usually act solely from a sense of morality or fellow feeling. These are not the saints or the super-athletes of empathy one might expect. Instead, they acted from a mixture of idealism about their government and from (frankly) personal peculiarities. The Serbian man, who saved a hundred Croats by claiming they were Serbs, was the kind of guy who doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks of him. Dig into his character, and he's almost boorish about lacking interest in the agendas of others. This is interesting, but Press digs deeper, into the web of his Croatian acquaintances and his girlfriend. Each layer reveals a seemingly different person -- one who cares deeply about those he loves, but not about ethnicity. Put this person in the right place, and he becomes an unlikely hero.

The same goes for Press's other subjects. Each is utterly ordinary, neither an activist nor political nor religious. But happenstance moved them and their oddities into the crosshairs of destiny. Take the Swiss border guard. Unlike other Swiss officials faced with an influx of Jewish refugees before the war, he found himself face to face with human suffering. And he could not bear to turn people back to their doom. It was his sense of fulfilling his country's ideal of hospitality to strangers that moved him, not abstract notions of the refugees' humanity. He thought (wrongly as it turned out) that anyone would do what he did. Yet his actions saved hundreds.

Press's most thought-provoking chapter concerns Israeli soldiers refusing to move Palestinians out of their homes in the West Bank. The Israeli army actually has a "black flag" policy that can protect such soldiers from dismissal or abuse. This seems exemplary. But Press tells of soldiers from the other side of the political divide who, egged on by conservative rabbis, refuse to move Israeli settlers out of their homes. The question: how does an army, which relies on discipline to allow the will of its government to be done, deal with soldiers who pick and choose which orders to obey? The question is particularly sensitive in Israel, which suffered under a Nazism whose soldiers claimed they were just following orders in executing the Holocaust.

"Beautiful Souls" is not a feel-good volume intended to salve the feelings of the reader. This is not a book in “Chicken Soup” mode. It is a serious, sometimes moving and often disquieting study of the seemingly very few souls who bother to lift a finger for others in times of peril. It also details the peril of standing up for righteousness. Most of Press’s interviewees were treated shabbily during and after their truth-telling. The public, which supposedly celebrates acts of goodness, is often hostile to those who blow the whistle on evil. After reading the book, those of us whose goodness is untested might not presume so easily that we would rise to the occasion when the time came.

Guns and Crazy People

I'm all for gun ownership. But like ownership of cars, medical degrees and cases of beer -- all items that can cause grievous injury in the wrong hands -- ISTM that common sense regulation of guns should be a no-brainer.

And to gun-advocacy groups like the NRA, gun ownership IS a no-brainer. Their arguments bypass the brain completely and lodge firmly in the gut, the place where fear overpowers reason. Fear of tyranny keeps gun owners terrified that President Obama will take their guns away. Fear of break-ins and home invasions keep homeowners terrified in their own homes. Fear of random violence prompts citizens to demand further and further expansion of the presence of guns -- witness "stand your ground" and concealed carry laws.

Gun groups like the NRA stoke that fear, while gun sellers use it to increase sales and politicians pander to it to get votes.

Meanwhile, the body count mounts, while the Founders' ideal of a gun-carrying "well-regulated militia" recedes further and further.

The image, clockwise from upper left: Arthur Bremer (shot George Wallace); James Holmes (Aurora shooter);  Lee Harvy Oswald (shot JFK); Dylan and Kelbold (Columbine shooters); John Hinckley (shot Ronald Reagan); Mark Chapman (shot John Lennon); middle: Charles Guiteau shoots James Garfield.

I could have added more: Sirhan Sirhan and John Wilkes Booth, for starters.

The ultimate make-work job!

You have to wonder how our Congress think it's making good use of their time be repeatedly voting against Obamacare, knowing that the Democratically-controlled Senate will just shoot it down. If you came to work and re-did what you did the day before, how long would it be until you were asked to move onto to your next opportunity? The US Congress: the ultimate make-work job!

ARGUMENT #5 FOR SUPPORTING THE ACA

ARGUMENT #5 FOR SUPPORTING THE ACA

IT'S NOT SOCIALISM AND IT'S NOT A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!!!

Everybody worries that with ObamaCare, we have steped onto the slippery slope that will lead us straight to socialized medicine. But how close are we to a governemnt takeover?
...
A sample of what the spectrum of healthcare options looks like:

1) Laissez faire (very evil version): the system bases care on ideological grounds: you support the government (or ruling junta) and you get healthcare. We are not here yet. Although, by constantly trying stripping health care from the poor, we are on conversational terms.
2) Laissez faire (slightly less evil version): the system bases care on your ablity to pay and ability to pressure Congress to vote your way. Those with big bucks or political clout get care. The rest have to rely on Bill Gates, nuns and good samaritans. No death panels, but you wish there were -- to increase your odds of surviving.
3) ProfitCare: Insurers, Big Pharma, legislators and health care providers conspire to keep rates high, divert funds to high-profit procedures and medications and bump sick people from the rolls. No new vaccinews, but plenty of drugs for erectile dysfunction and the blues. Sound familiar?
4) ProfitCare with a (kind of) heart: This is ObamaCare. Insurers, Big Pharma and health-care providers stay in business, with some regulation of their activies. Profitability is protected by insuring more people, or getting them to kick in their share. The industry still makes hefty profits, but at least most sick folks get some level of care.
5) Light control: Insurance rates are more highly-regulated, administration is centralized to save money and paperwork, government taxes or subsidizes Big Pharma to get them to provide public service meds like cheap insulin, insurers and hospitals still compete for business and get to and make profits if they are efficient, lucrative fields like cosmetic surgery are open, small-town docs get small stipends to offer care to the inner city, elective procedures available for the wealthy. This is close to what is offered in Europe.
6) Heavier control: like its soft version, but with increasing regs and taxes for elective or medically-unwarranted procedures
7) Goverment takeover: government controls everything: how you pay, how much doctors get, which procedures are covered or legal, how many hospitals exists and where, etc.

We are so far removed from the government takeover of the medical system that the hysteria around ObamaCare is laughable, when it is not a cynical manipulation that seeks to maintain high profits. There are, of course, garduations and variations on all these options. What's amazing to me is that by taking a half-step away from a laissez faire medical model, critics claim that we are "becoming like Europe." As though that is a bad thing, with Europeans dying in the streets by the truckload. As though American health care couldn't possibly get any better.

Please ignore. This is a test from the Cranky Catholic BLOG.

My heresy from Me

I felt tired yesterday. Maybe from a thought of one of the guys in my prayer group. He had lost a child last year, and said he was tired of trying to figure out what or who God was.

I think I understand.

I spend quite of a bit of my time wrestling with God, who God is and what God does. I don't care for the messages coming from the fundamentalists about a judgmental God who "loves" by condemning, and who never has to answer to questions posed by scientists and nosy scholars. And I am unconvinced by my own Church, which has the answers to everything. "Q: Why did God God created us? A: To love him, serve him and to live with him forever in heaven."

I don't know about that.

But I am tired of trying to figure out God. Today, it seems like such a fruitless pursuit.

Which led me to what is, for me, a "heretical" thought: Perhaps the dumbest things that we Catholics did in the 1950s and 1960s is to try to figure out God. We tried to change our Church from the nice, dumb collections of strange rituals, colorful medieval costumes and ancient chants into an exercise that was within the grasp of our intellect. We tried to know what Jesus "really" looked like, to get an accurate picture of his death on the cross, to dig into the gospels to find his real words.

And I'm not sure we have gotten any closer to the mystery that is God. In fact, we have deconstructed two millenia of myth and supposition, to the degree that nothing seems to remain. Our scientists have given us the tools to understand the physical and chemical workings of the Universe, once ascribed to God. Our scholars have shown us that our sacred writings have flaws and inconsistencies incompatible with the idea that they are God-given. Like Job, we sit on the dunghill, upon the wreckage of our past expectations. We have taken apoart the grand machinery of our beliefs, but are not sure how to put it back together. And whether we can.

So, I sometimes long for the days when we did not dream of getting into the soul of the machine. When we just left it alone to churn along, its noisy gears and spinning axles whirring pointlessly. But happily.

Of course, I will come back to my senses. I know that religion's unseeing God machine was at least as destructive to human lives as it was inspiring. But I wonder if something useful can be constructed from the piles of disconnected parts that remain.

For now, I see myself graced by the presence of God as it emerges from the ordinariness of my life. I do not need a priest or a prayer to be blessed. I am blessed by my existence. Even if its source is veiled to me. Yet I see signs of God's love everywhere. In the devotion of a doctor to heal a poor child. In the chance to sympathize with a coworker with eye problems. In a chance encounter with a stranger who read a book review. In delighting at the familiar coarseness of my wife's hair. In an anniversary wish from an African I met ten years ago.

I don't need to beg for a miracle or a sign. I live, I love, and I am loved by a God as distant as the distant quasar but as close as the pesky dragonfly flitting about my deck.

Drainage Water of Life?

There's evidently a crucifix in Mumbai that is dripping water. The faithful says it's a miracle. A skeptic says it's drainage water seeping from a nearby restroom. A local Catholic group demands he apologize. Ai yi yi!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/07/a_statue_of_jesus_oozing_holy_water_an_indian_skeptic_debunks_miracle.html

Argument #4 for supporting the ACA

WHAT, ME SUFFER?

Imagine a world in which one out of 6 homes did not have fire insurance. And in which people who lived in fire-prone areas, who were regularly burnt out of their homes, refused government aid to buy affordable fire insurance. "We'd rather live on the street than protect our homes from catastrophic fires!" they'd scream. "Better dead than fire-engine Red!"

Alas, when it comes to health care, that's the world in which we live.

But why should it be?

Why should I be the only kid on the block who maxes out his health insurance when he turns 6, because of some dumb ol' childhood leukemia? Later, when I need my tonsils out at age 8 and my wisdom teeth out at age 12 and a broken arm set at age 15, my folks will have to pay full boat. Then I get to miss college and skip birth control (can't afford it) and end up stressed with a houseful of kids, but can't get therapy because that's out of reach too.

Why should my folks lose their home because Mom's hysterectomy and chemo, needed to kill her ovarian cancer, wiped out her savings and lost her a job? Should the children of such as mother have to live in poverty and go to substandard schools because of an accident of biology?

Why should my hard-working friends, who had the bad luck to have their car rammed by a drunk driver, and have to spend months in hospitals and rehabs, see their retirement fund wiped out. Not only have their plans for travel after retirement gone out their window, but also their hopes to retire in modest comfort. They hope they can scrape by on Social Security and the charity of their kids. Speaking of which, the kids never intended to have Mom and Dad on their hands.

From a completely selfish point of view, the potential for all of this suffering should make people cry out for a system that can ease the burden of those burdened by bad luck. And don't let anyone fool ya: bad luck (and bad genes and bad timing) get everyone to some degree at one point or another.

200 years ago, wise old Ben Franklin organized a system of fire insurance in Philadelphia. Everyone paid a little to compensate the few whose houses burned. Today, there might not be a large chance that fire will burn down your house, but if it does, the effects without insurance are catastrophic and far-reaching. Yet the chance of getting seriously ill are far higher than having your home go up in smoke. Between cancers (pick your favorite) and diabetes and emphysema and heart problems, our chances of getting pretty sick are almost 100%. Why should we be the ones whose families gets wiped out because we refused to participate in a plan that would protect us from the worst ravages of illness?

And why would I wish that on anyone else?

Argument #3 for supporting the ACA

IT'S PATRIOTIC! (or, THE COMMON GOOD)

What's more patriotic than the image of our doughty Pilgrim forebears, huddled below the decks of the Mayflower in the bay at Cape Cod, preparing themselves to step onto American soil land to start a new life! But what did they do just before hitting the beach? They made themselves an agreement about how they were to act. An excerpt:

[We], in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

Talk about governmental overreach! Not a single word about me, me, me! The "general good of the colony"? Not the gross enrichment of each individual and the accumulation of tchotkes thereof? Why, it seems positively communistic, all this talk about the common good. They should have call it the Pilgrim Soviet of Plymouth!

And yet...

Patriotism and the common good have barely been spoken of during the debate, The focus has been on the mandate, and why the government has any business meddling with our precious individual liberty to act like idiots. But unlike many private vices, health is a public concern. You catch a cold, and I'm going to catch it from you. You refuse a vaccine, and a classroom full of kids gets killer diseases. You don't get preventive care, and you show up three-quarters dead on the hospital steps -- on my dime!!!!

The mad rush to maximize personal liberty AT ALL COSTS is the peculiar sickness of the "bodie politick" in our own day. Let's get patriotic and remember our founders, who went so far as to put the public good above the wishes and desires of individuals.

And while we're at it, how about some socialist Commie twaddle from another bunch of radicals?

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

5 arguments for suporting the healthcare bill

I am working on a piece that describes 5 reasons for supporting President Obama's health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. God know the bill has more than its share of detractors -- the folks who need it the loudest among them. It may be an impossible task, but I want to see if I can persuade them -- maybe even with new arguments that haven't been floated yet.

Reason to support the ACA #1 -- LIBERTY!!!!

Why hasn't the liberty argument been advanced to support the ACA? I mean, think about the many ways that the current health care system ties us down. I am afraid to leave my job because I'm not sure I can get health care, especially as I get older, from a new employer. There might be a job in a start-up company that would be a great fit for me. But without a guarantee that I can leave my old employer and maybe move to another state, I am stuck at the same old grind.

The ACA breaks the chains that bind me to my old employer and to my old locale. With the ACA, I am FREE to move anywhere I want, knowing that I and my family will be covered in case of a medical crisis.

Reason to support the ACA #2 -- PRO-ENTERPRENEURS!!!!!

I hinted at this above. But one reason people (especially old farts like me) might not want to risk starting a new company -- or joining a fledgling start-up -- is that the new job might not come with health insurance. I know that people take this risk anyway, but I'll bet there are plenty of folks who would just as soon play it safe with a dull job that has health care, than with an exciting opportunity that doesn't.  But with everyone being required to get health care (and having an affordable way to get it) the next middle-aged Bill Gates or Steve Jobs might take a chance and spread their wings -- to the benefit of themselves and the country.

Reason to support the ACA #3 -- TBD!!!!

Working on it! Watch this space or another installment!

And also with you and your spirit

My wife and I just couldn't get out of bed on Sunday, and missed Mass at our usual community. So, we ended up in a small seaside town up the coast -- at the "mission" church of a larger beach community.

It was a bit of a blast from the past. The ushers were all senior men -- dressed almost identically in shirts and ties and blue blazers. The Eucharistic ministers were mostly women. It was a separation of duties that my parents would have recognized.

But most striking -- at least from the standpoint of our little progressive group -- were the responses. This church tried valiantly to use the new liturgical responses -- "And with your spirit," "It is right and just" and the rest. The new Gloria, with its verbal trip lines and pitfalls, was read from laminated cards placed in the pews.

It was all depressing to me. But not because the new language lacked poetry or because of the sheeplike way the worshipers accepted the changes.

Our own community has struggled with whether to adopt the new language. We have also bought "the cards" and have scheduled debates on the board and with the whole community after Mass. Bottom line: we can't make up our minds about what to do. More accurately, we can't come to a consensus about which way to move forward. Even more to the point, a significant minority doesn't want the changes. And that's enough to keep the group as a whole from moving in any direction. Any direction that to stay right where we are. Where it's safe.

That's partly what affected my mood -- the inability of a couple of hundred good-faith Catholics to get out of their own way. When democracy fails so badly, no wonder some yearn for autocrats.

But I was also saddened by the fight. This language change has been a huge distraction, and raised all sorts of ugly emotions from Catholics. Some are proud to do whatever Rome wants, simply because Rome wants it. Some are blissfully indifferent. Some are irritated that the Vatican's biggest priority -- in an age of shrinking numbers, scandalous behavior and conflicts over basic teaching -- is to tinker with the words of the liturgy. The Mass, once a refuge and a unifying experience, has itself become a battleground. Every time the priest intones "The Lord be with you," worshipers engage in a non-prayerful mental effort to either make sure they recall the new words, "And with your spirit," or to resist them. In which case, they can choose between saying the new words anyway, remaining silent, or defiantly saying "And also with you."

I am tired of the fighting. And of the misplaced priorities, and of the "faith police," tempted to monitor the fidelity of their neighbors. This side of heaven, there may be no getting away from it. But I wish we would stop finding new ways to divide an already divided people.

I just love "Just Love"!

I have not read the book, but intend to. I am impressed by any theologian who tries to honestly set forth a theology of sexuality. It's strange to have a nun writing a book on sexuality, but Sister Margaret Farley should be appluaded, not censured. "Just Love" sounds like a search for the truth, in a Church in which repeating old nonsense is considered worthy of praise and admiration.

Here's a snippet of some of Farley's "radical" nonsense:

Farley applies criteria for justice to sexual relationships and activities, offering readers a seven-point framework for evaluating whether a sexual relationship is true, loving and just.

The first two norms consider whether the relationship is harmful and whether both partners have freely consented to the relationship. The framework then asks whether the relationship is marked by mutual desire, trust and self-disclosure. Building on that is the norm of equality, which requires that both partners share an equality of power that in no way entails an unequal vulnerability, dependence or limitation of options.

The final three norms consider whether there is a true commitment, which Farley defines as a union marked "by knowing and being known, and loving and being loved." If there is commitment, the question must be asked whether the relationship fulfills the sixth norm of fruitfulness. That is, does the commitment bring about new life by nourishing other relationships and by providing goodness and beauty to the wider community?

Finally, Farley asks whether a relationship is marked by social justice. By social justice, she not only means justice between sexual partners, but respect for all persons in a community. For an individual relationship to be just, it must respect every person's needs for acceptance, well-being and spiritual safety.

Source: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/no-justice-margaret-farley-and-just-love

I don't know about you, but this sounds like good stuff.

Left to their own devices...

It's an abomination! And a sure sign of Satan's hold on you, miserable sinner!

The NYT sez it's time to abandon ship

I have this sinking feeling that Bil Keller of the New York TImes is right: the barque of Peter is listing hard to starboard. Probably unrecoverable! I'm not sure I have the courage to jump, but I do have my life jacket on and one foot in the liferaft.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/opinion/keller-the-rottweilers-rottweiler.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

All Hail the anti-BC Queen

I hadn't heard about Helen Alvaré before, but she is among the small number of Catholic commentators who have swallowed the Church's anti-BC line, and are gathering awards for doing so.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/03/birth_controls_worst_enemy/

Killing the innocent, Texas-style

I've been reading of Leonard Mlodonov's book, "Subliminal," regarding how terrible our memories are about eyewitness events. No surprise that an innocent man was put to death in Texas. Quoting from the article, "the worst cases are those that... likely happen every day in which no one cares that much about the defendant or the victim." No one cares -- especially politically-minded prosecutors, and death-crazed Supreme Court justices -- who have no incentive to doubt themeselves to look for the real bad guys.

 

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/05/15/carlos_deluna_columbia_law_professor_james_liebman_details_wrongful_execution_.html

Arizona’s Extreme New Abortion Law

 

 

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill making abortions illegal after 20 weeks of gestation. The bill did an end-run around the opposition (and temporal reality) by making the beginning of pregnancy the day of the woman's last p...eriod. This makes pregancy occur BEFORE conception, which puts us squarely in Alice In Wonderland territory. Abortion in Arizona, for those of us using a rational system of math, thereby becomes illegal after 18 weeks of normal, post-conception gestation. I'm surprised that Brewer was so restrained in her approach. Why not define pregnancy to begin 20 weeks before conception, thereby making ALL abortions illegal? Watch one of our esteemed legistlators pick up on that bright idea!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/12/governor-jan-brewer-signs-arizona-s-extreme-new-abortion-law.html

Wells Fargo's Prison Cash Cow

What on earth are we doing by making prisons into for-profit ventures? Does this not encourage legislators to make laws that fill them and require more to be built? Already, 1 in 100 Americans are in prison -- and 1 out of 9 blacks! Overjailing means big bucks to the prison owners, as well as the feeder companies that provide food and servcies to inmates. Corrupt much?

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/wells_fargos_prison_cash_cow/singleton/

Tutu wonderful not to share

 A more human-loving, God-centered man I do not know...

Rep. Alan West: Democrats are Commies!

If you love Jesus...

Fight the New Drug

 

I've been bugged for a long time about the fact that pornography stares you in the face in many stores. Buy porn if you must, but do I have to wallow in it constantly? Then there's the hypocrisy of the "pro-family" communications giants (AT...T, Comcast) and hotel chains (Marriott, Hilton) quietly making huge profits from porn. Now, it seems that a group of young people are concerned enough about the damage that porn can do to their friends to do something about it. I just hope this is sincere and not some front org for a church or something. What do you think?

 

http://www.fightthenewdrug.org/?video_id=1329

Reformation of an evangelical

Great piece about an evangelical college kid who learned to engage his professors and fellow students with (get this) respect!

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/reformation_of_an_evangelical/

Joan of Arc's Secet Backer?

Did Joan of Arc have a secret backer -- Yolande of Aragon, the ambitious mother-in-law of the feckless Dauphin? My favorite Yolande quote: "There is no more effective camouflage in history than to have been born a woman.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/the_queen_and_the_maid_joan_of_arcs_secret_backer/singleton/

Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?

Bart Ehrman (my favorite bible scholar) has a new book out: "Did Jesus Exist?" I hear that the book answers its title question with "yes," but knowing Bart, this will provide little comfort to the faithful. Happy Holy Week!

Protesting Holy Week

What are you doing for Holy Week? Dusting for Easter company? Packing plastics eggs with chocolates? Feeling sad about Jesus dying? Frankly, I'm doing all of the above. But (thanks, Ken Monty!) there's an alternative -- a Holy Week that Jesus might have spent -- critiquing the religious and secular power structures that dominate and oppress, serving the dirty and unworthy, and suffering alongside the powerless. How far will you go on the road to Calvary?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2012/03/protesting-holy-week/

Salvation studies -- free from condemnation

In the Eucharistic prayers offered today, I noticed a phrase that I had missed before. I can't find the text, but it suggested that the passion of Christ was made to remove our guilt.

This sounds like old fashioned unworthiness talk, but I was interested in the way that the death of Jesus can be seen as a way that removed the guilt of the accused and the condemned. In ages past, I suppose, those accused of crime and punished, could be considered as everlastingly tainted. Their sin, no matter how distant in the past and atoned for, persisted into the present and extended into the future -- an unwashable stain and an unremovable burden that must be borne forever.

Like felons today -- unable to vote even after their debt to society has been paid in full.

But in the death of Jesus, we see an innocent man condemned and crucified unjustly. Could it be that by this action, Jesus plays out the condemnation of unjustly accused, and the eternally (also unjustly) punished, and gives it a new perspective. Those killed by unjust and corrupt regimes of power may cast themselves with Jesus, who accepted his own death and by doing so, undid the stigmatizing power that his death was intended to impose. By enduring the ultimate in criminal deaths, he made a path for criminals to be brought into new, liberated life, unyoked from the shame that societies wish to place upon them forever.

The Salvation obtained by Jesus is thus a liberating one -- freeing the accused to reimagine for themselves a life of freedom that surpasses the ability of human societies to bestow. It glorifies the humiliation of the innocent accused by being an example of Innocence Crucified, and ultimately, Resurrected. We now longer need fear the harshness and accusations of others. Our past no longer hinders us, in the yes of God, who judges justly and not for the sake of pushing the face of the sinner into the dust.

The Place of the Scalia

 

In a little-commented-upon exchange on Day Two of the healthcare debate before the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia made a startling suggestion: Why bother paying for emergency room care for folks without insurance?

GENERAL VERRILLI: ...No. It's because you're going -- in the health care market, you're going into the market without the ability to pay for what you get, getting the health care service anyway as a result of the social norms that allow -- that -- to which we've obligated ourselves so that people get health care.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, don't obligate yourself to that. Why -- you know?

I don't know whether Scalia was just playing devil's advocate here, or was making a serious suggestion. But it sent chills down my spine. We certainly COULD stop treating the poor and the non-insured. That WOULD help bring costs down somewhat. But would the republic stand for it? Are we prepared for the mountains of dead who would result from this experiment in social responsibility?

I am an optimist. I think that when justices like Scalia look down the barrel of such draconian healthcare options, they might blink.

The future of the Pastor

Iran is the kind of state that some in America want -- one that conflates religion with government.

From CNN: "Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, an Iranian Christian charged with leaving Islam, has received a local trial courts final verdict, acc...ording to sources close to his legal team, and may now be executed for leaving Islam."

There was an image that seemed to show Nadarkhani on the gallows, but as of this past Monday (3/26) Snopes claims he was still alive.

I can only assume that the Iranians are using Nadarkhani to intimidate other would-be "apostates." Nevertheless, Nadarkhani is worthy of our prayers for his safety and deliverance from evil. By which I mean the fanatical, fundamentalist mullahs. And while we are at it, pray for our own deliverance from a regime that would poison the well of liberty with the bitter waters of intolerance.

This shrouded season

Easter must be upon us. Why? The media is dragging out new Shroud of Turin stories!

A couple of beauts:

The Huffington Post brings us the review of a new book by historian Thomas de Wesselow -- "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection." -- that claims that the Shroud is real, and that the picture on it (but not an encounter with the Risen Christ) was what convinced the disciples that Jesus had returned from death.

Now I don't consider the Twelve bright or sophisticated, but I doubt that a picture on a dirty, bloody piece of cloth would convince me to risk my life proclaiming the Messiah.

On the other side of the mountain of faith, there's that bunch of perennial optimists -- Italian Scientists! -- who (again) claim the Shroud is real:

The scientists set out to "identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a colour similar to that of the image on the Shroud." They concluded that the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers – technology that was clearly not available in medieval times. 

Ooh! Ultraviolet lasers! Jesus! What is your frequency? (Dan Rather fans will get the reference)

I am touched that so many are intersted in the Shroud of Turin. I have been fascinated by it since around 1980, and have read books on both sides of the controversy. While I am still puzzled by some of the Shroud's features -- which seem incongruent with what I know of medieval art -- the radiocarbon dating does seem to place its creation roundabouts 1320, plus or minus 70 years. Until I hear a persuasive theory about why the Carbon 14 dating is off, I'll lean in the direction of skepticism.

Personally,  I doubt that Jesus left incontrovertible evidence of his body. How he looked is irrelevant to what he taught and who he is. To me, his words, his example and his eternal presence are more than enough.

Lord knows what their blog is about, but I love their cover art!

http://thewordfromthehood.blogspot.com

Pray for us, Oscar Romero

Celebrating the anniversary of the death of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, who fought against the systems that oppressed the poor. He was shot while saying Mass on March 24, 1980. In his sermon that day, these words: "We know that every effort to better society, especially when injustice and sin are so ingrained, is an effort that God blesses, that God wants, that God demands of us." Pray for us, Oscar Romero.

The Evolution of Global Warming Debate

I can see it coming -- the day when shorelines are eroding, insurance premiums skyrocketing, property values falling, and the naysayers beg for big, bad government to save them from their own stupidity.

Trayvon's new hoodie

This might be glurgy, but after reading the rancid posts of racists and haters, I loved the image of Trayvon being accepted for who he is.

Call and Response

I received the sweetest letter from H, a young South African man struggling with his faith. Thought I'd share, changing names for privacy.

_________

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:16 PM
Subject: Help.... Struggling to keep my faith.

Hi J.

I just read your review on The God who wasn't there.

My name is H. I am 23 years old and live in P, South Africa. I am currently in full-time ministry, working at an inter denominational missions leadership training school. I work in IT part-time.

I have been a believer for as long as I can remember... but the last few years I have been struggling... there have been ups and downs, but lately the downs are becoming more. It is as if there is a raging war going on inside of me.. One part of me believes completely... the other not. The last few weeks the unbeliever in me started to become stronger... The site, rejectionofpascalswager.net created some serious doubts in me.

In your review I read that you actually enjoy reading Dawkins... How do you keep your faith when there is all this overwhelming evidence against Christianity? Any help would be appreciated. I am quite desperate!

H

_________

My response:

Dear H,

Thank you for writing!

Like you, I have my ups and downs. But I sense that we are in the "privileged" position of living during a time of in-betweens -- of becoming. We struggle to make sense of the truth that religion teaches, while having to deal with the truth that our senses, and our sciences, teach us. The two systems are in many ways irreconcilable -- Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old as science teaches, or 6000 years old, as some believe the Bible teaches? The examples are endless.

We are like chicks struggling to emerge from the safety and comfort of the egg. Nature has equipped chicks with a small hard spot on their beaks, and it is with this near-useless tool that they must strike again and again at the egg, with only the tiniest amount of leverage, to even crack the shell. Then, it is a titanic struggle, over many minutes and hours, while vulnerable to enemies, that is required to break free from the egg, exhausted, into a new and alien world.

We in the 20th and 21st (and maybe 22nd and 23rd!) centuries are breaking through the hard shell of orthodoxy and ignorance. We need to escape the confines of our old lives and become new creations.

One of the ways that I approach the problem is through experience, and the experiences of others. While religions have relied on creeds, beliefs and formulations to control their believers, the new religious person will also check belief against interior experience. In this, most of us are babies. We yearn for the answers provided from above, for judgements provided by ancients authorities or for a leader to declare us justified. But these seem to divide us, when our instincts want to unite us.

In some ways, I am not interested in whether these instincts toward goodness, truthfulness and integrity are God-given or simply the best that a rather kludgy brain can imagine and yearn for. But some of us are built, seemingly, with the urge to treat others with justice, tolerance and love. We call forth (from ancient evolved brains, the depths of our souls, or both) nobility, fairness and gentleness. As a believer in evolution, I am bowled over that such gentility can exist in our primate brains! And while I doubt that this constitutes a proof of the existence of God, I am overwhelmed by its existence, and shamed when I do not measure up to the highest level of honor that I can imagine.

As a Christian, I am heartened that the highest behaviors propounded by my faith ring true to the highest actions that my mind can imagine. To honor the least; to bless the mourning; to shelter the homeless; to lay down one's life; to carry one's cross; to love my enemy; to forgive; to lose life rather than save it -- these are noble aspirations whether or not one believes that Jesus was Son of God born of the Virgin Mary. In my heretic's mind, to live nobly is worthwhile, whether one believes one does it for Christ, to get into heaven or to live in harmony with one's own conscience.

To be true to oneself is paramount. In non-religious terms, accept yourself for who you are -- a person who seeks truth and is dissatisfied with half-answers. In religious terms, accept that God is with you as you stuggle and doubt and strive for a better undertanding of your place in Creation.

I am a believer, though probably unorthodox by most standards. I believe that God speaks to most of us in hints and whispers. He speaks occassionally in big ways -- as in the life and death and return of Jesus -- a mystery that has boundless meanings and reverberations in the life of many. Death from life -- the theme of this season (at least in the northern hemisphere!) is observable -- attend a feast after a funeral and see for yourself -- laughter comes from tears, connections out of separation, integration from isolation.

Don't believe in resurrection? Fine, come and eat anyway, and laugh with me!

And you wonder why Jesus liked to eat with sinners? He taught the heavenly feast by living it on earth!

Anyway, I am touched that you wrote. Take this for what it is worth, but 10 years ago, I was preparing for a trip to South Africa. My wife and my boys and I spent 10 days in Cape Town and Kruger State Park, and fell in love with the country. I have been trying to think of an apt way to celebrate our trip. Then, here is your letter!

Coincidence? A touch of divinity? Does it matter? I am glad you wrote.

Be well. Be at peace. Keep wrestling. You're hardly alone!

Best,

J

Preach Politics?

Thanks to Brother Calvin for this sweet gem:

So, why don't churches pay taxes?

I guess the argument was based on the Establishment Clause, and one strict view of the separation of Church and State. If we citizens give churches a free pass on taxes, then no one can say we are restricting them with burdensome regulations. Besides, there might be some social good in giving the churches an exemption -- they lift some of the load of education and social welfare from the shoulders of the citizenry. Let the church clean the bums off the streets, and set up some schools and hospitals, and the taxes are on us.

But does the old arrangement still have purpose?

In an age when the churches preached civility and social responsibility, the arrangement made sense. The people, given a weekly dose of the Christ's dictum "render unto Ceasar," might be more likely to be well-behaved and inclined toward the public good. The dark side, of course, was the church's tacit assent to government policies. When I grew up, the church that never preached against the Vietnam War implicitly suported that war.

But today's churches seem less eager to instill citizen docility toward government. Seems like they have become positively antagonistic to good order, peace and stability:

In Iowa, Walker Nickless, the Bishop of the Diocese of Sioux City, is so outraged by the Obama administration's policy on contraception access, he's arguing that his allies "have to stand up and violently oppose this," in order to prevent being overtaken by "darkness."

Franklin Graham, the controversial son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, who recently appeared on MSNBC and questioned the sincerity of President Obama's Christianity. In fact, when asked if he would declare that the president is not a Muslim, Graham replied, "I can't say categorically, because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama."

 “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) told a South Carolina audience yesterday. “And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom.”

Hmm -- use violence to oppose our political foes?  Disrespect the president of the United States? Whitewash repeated European wars, looting, invasions and massacres?

Today's most vocal churches, and their advocates, are attempting to redefine history by placing America in a position to impose a particular set of religious values on its citizens and on the world. This is not an imposition of Judeo-Christian values -- love of neighbor, forgiveness and care of the poor -- but of a particularly muscular and narrow view of Christianity that conflates the Cross of Christ with the throne of Caesar. It is arrogant, blinkered, self-assured and dangerous.

And worth paying for?

It's worth considering whether tax exemptions on church property have served their useful purpose. Churches, like any organization, have a free speech right to say whatever they want. But they should not get special privileges to foment discord and violence. The Establishment Clause is not violated when it treats the property of religious institutions  likethat of other institutions No more than religious freedom is violated by requiring churches to install sprinklers, inspect their boilers or CORI their workers.

It's time to put all institutions -- especially those who eek to limit freedom -- on a level footing. It;'s time to tax the churches.

You've come a long way, Mary M

"O Mary, can you say what you saw at break of day?"

Mary Magdelene, libelled as a reformed prostitute, the first to experience the Risen Jesus, has some new little sisters, The Reformed Whores. Here's a bit about them, taken from their website:

The musical comedy duo Reformed Whores, fronted by Marie Cecile Anderson and Katy Frame, have been lassoing hearts throughout the New York City comedy scene. These southern belles sing about everything from venereal diseases to drunk dialing with sweet harmonies and old-timey flair.

The girls have a hilarious new tune, parodying Rush Limbaugh's recent jeremiad against that sex-crazed, entitlement slut, Sandra Fluke:

There was a word when we were kids that wasn't very nice
It was reserved for certain girls who'd been 'round the block once or twice
But listen, y’all, we’ve got news that will blow your mind,
Thanks to Mister Limbaugh, that word’s been redefined…

I'm a slut! I'm a slut! I'm a slut, slut, slut!
I'm an S-L-U-T, S-L-U-T, slut!
I went to school, I speak my mind
I'm responsible for my behind
I'm a slut! I'm a slut! I'm a slut!

Bravo, ladies! The song, which celebrates good-sense family planning, can be see in it's entirety here:

The Meaning of (real) Life

For years, we snarky ones have had a field day with the song, "Every Sperm is Sacred," from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life." Last week, it seemed that life has imitated art once again. This from Wilmington, Delaware, via a recent Huffington Post:

The Wilmington City Council has a message for men -- sperm are people, too. 

The council for Delaware's largest city passed a resolution by an 8-4 vote Thursday calling on the Delaware legislature, other state legislatures and the U.S. Congress to pass laws granting "personhood" rights to eggs and sperm. The resolution was authored by councilwoman Loretta Walsh as a protest in the current battle over women's health care access. 

"[E]ach 'egg person' and each 'sperm person' should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government and be subject to the same laws and regulations as any other dependent minor and be protected against abuse, neglect or abandonment by the parent or guardian," says the resolution. "[L]aws should be enacted by all legislative bodies in the United States to promote equal representation, and should potentially include laws in defense of 'personhood,' forbidding every man from destroying his semen."

I wasn't convinced, that this was a real story It's something that might be concocted by The Onion or the Borowitz Report. But I googled the original resolution. What is really going on is a bit more interesting:

Far from being a serious attempt to criminalize the destruction of sperm, the resolution is a tongue-in-cheek attempt to make the point that if women's freedoms must be curtailed in order to save their eggs, then equality requires that sperm be protected from the depredations and inattention of men.

When it comes to reproductive rights, it appears that the silly season is upon us. Lucky for us, some of our legislators are fighting back with humor!

Rush to Judgment

I have to admit that I was fooled by the recent brouhaha over the testimony of Sandra Fluke, the former law student at Georgetown University for argues for funding of contraceptives. From a quick reading, it seemed that she was complaining that it cost -- like, $3000! -- to keep her sex life complication-free. The media had a field day, focusing on the angle of a sexy coed not only ravenous for non-stop, consequence-free sex, but expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill.

And then came Rush Limbaugh, suggesting that Fluke was a slut and a whore, and asking her (in fairness to the taxpayers' largess) to post videos of her encounters.

But Fluke's actual testimony paints a far different picture.

Fluke's complaints were about fellow GU students with actual, serious medical conditions, who controlled their  symptoms with birth control pills. Problem is, Georgetown is a Catholic University, and they don't cover the Pill, lest it clash with their consciences. But GU would allow their charges to get the Pill if it was for a valid medical condition. So, Fluke's friends had to endure a gauntlet of personal doctors, college administrators, pharmacists and insurance officials -- just to be allowed to obtain medicine.

AND THEY COULD NOT GET IT!

In the case of one woman, the Pill controlled the growth of ovarian cysts. She was turned down for coverage, and went without medication because she could not afford it. Consequently, she developed a large, tennis-ball-sized cyst, endured horrific pain, and ended up having her ovary removed. As a result, she is now at risk, at age 32, for starting menopause and losing her chance to have children.

The other woman took the Pill to control painful endometriosis. But though doctors believed she had the condition, her condition was unprovable without invasive surgery. She had to choose between costly and painful surgery, and doing without her medication.

All so a few Jesuits could sleep better at night, in the realization that their ecclesiastical careers were safe.

Fluke argued courageously against a still-extant patriarchal system that treats women as the wards of males or of male-dominated institutions. Her plea is to put control of a woman's body into her own hands, and out of the hands of those -- politicians, clerics and media stars -- with anti-woman agendas.

Imagine if before they could get insulin, diabetics had to prove -- to the satisfaction of their congressman or priest -- that they had a real disease, and were not just hoping to pig out on Pop Tarts. Imagine if before getting a prescription for Viagra, a 60-year-old man had to show a marriage license and prove that he intended to engage in heterosexual, spouses-only sexual activity that was open to procreation.

The parallel holds for birth control. Decisions about which medications to provide citizens should not be subject to the whims of those who do not have the interests of those citizens at heart.

That goes for priests and politicians. And it goes twice for vicious, ratings-happy, hypocritical radio hosts.

A bumpa crop o' Paine

I saw this wonderful bumper sticker -- a quote from Thomas Paine -- on the way in to work this morning:

Thomas Paine, colonial American pamphleteer, was a Deist -- who believed in "but one Deity, and [whose] religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical."

Sounds like a very bad man, indeed. Dangerous in his own time; just as much in our own.

Religious Liberty -- JFK v Santorum

Senator Rick Santorum sure has made his share of wild statements lately.

First, he claims that Obama wants to impose a "phony theology" on America, whatever that means. Then he subtly signals his agreement with (by failing to correct) a supporter who ridiculously claims that Obama is a secret Muslim.

But I was most intrigued by his references to a famous -- and normally widely-praised -- speech by JFK to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association -- a Baptist group  -- during the 1960 presidential campaign  (emphasis mine):

On ABC, Santorum said the Kennedy speech -- which sought to ease concerns about his faith interfering with his ability to govern -- made him sick. 

"What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?" Santorum said in seeking to link his interpretation of the Kennedy speech with his criticism of the Obama administration for what he calls impeding on religious freedom. 

"That makes me throw up and it should make every American who has seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you," Santorum said, later adding that imposition of government values would be "the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square."

That last part -- that JFK advocated that people of faith stay out of the public square -- is absurd on its face. The man who made the statement was himself running for the ultimate position in the public square.

JFK's speech to the Baptist ministers was partly political. Given the enormous antipathy toward Catholics, even as late as 1960, there was a need to ensure that the conservative Baptists weren't going to organize against him. But Kennedy's speech was also a rallying cry to the basic American perspective that caused the Founders to reject establishing religion in the first place.

Kennedy started by acknowledge the "religious issue" of a Catholic running for President, pointing out that there are far more important national issues to contend with than his religious affiliation (true then, true now):

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only ninety miles off the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor's bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

Kennedy then reprises a bit of our nation's uncomfortable history with religion, to show that today's religious victors become tomorrow's victims:

For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

And he throws in a bit of Texas history for good measure:

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths, that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today -- the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.

Where JFK and Santorum part ways is in the understanding of their office, the national interest and the culture war issues of the day:

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

In case anyone still didn't get it, he winds up by making his position crystal clear, drawing a clear picture of his role as leader of the American people:

I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic.... I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.

These are lofty sentiments spoken by a man whose life of wealth and privilege had been dogged by suspicions of his ancestors' faith. They express the lived experience of transient success won against great odds and bigoted opposition. As a son of Ireland, Kennedy was bedeviled by the same forces that caused the Founders to shy away from religious tests and federal support for churches. He knew first hand, or from family memory, of the prejudice that for years had kept his clan out of the halls of power.

JFK saw how religion can be poisonous in the public space, preventing otherwise capable men and women from contributing to their society, diverting the passions of citizens from productive, cooperative work to pointless infighting and antagonisms. Given the passions that human beings attach to their faiths, there is no way to maintain a society in which one sect flourishes under government support while others stand politely by. That wasn't possible in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified, and it is not possible today.

And this is the point of view makes Rick Santorum sick?

John Kennedy may have realized the political expediency of neutralizing the rabid opposition of Baptists to his candidacy. But he also spoke from hard-won experience -- that those who raise religion as a cudgel to batter their opponents do so in order to distract voters from crucial issues that are common to all. In 1960, Cold War missiles could fall with impunity on Catholic, Protest, Jew, Muslim and atheist alike. In 2012, an unregulated economy is sinking all boats -- the JP2, the Mitzvah, the John Calvin and the SS Madalyn Murray O'Hair; the uninsured come from all sects and races; and greed pulls funds away from roads and bridges that serve conservative and liberal believers alike.

What makes me sick is the constant raising of the specter of sectarian religiosity, which builds no bridges, heals no sick and brings no justice.

Read the speech in its entirety. It's a classic of rhetoric and persuasion.