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.