The religion thing

Well (4.00 / 3)

What I do not understand is why religiously observant people would say to themselves that because they don't believe in something, they should determine what somebody else is entitled to do with their life. The chutzpah of that boggles my mind.

To be honest, you do the same thing, but (obviously) not with your religious views.  You believe something is wrong, and you work to stop it.  I've seen you do it.  The fact that one person's view of what is right or wrong is based on religious viewpoint is simply a foible of personality.

To look at it another way - you think it's wrong for society to keep gay couples from getting married.  Who are you to make such a decision?  Is it chutzpah that leads you to take the stand you take?

I happen to agree with you that society should not stand between loving and consenting couples.  My belief is rooted in my understanding of fundamental Christian principles that I try to put to work in my life.  Is my belief truly that different than yours simply because mine is rooted in my faith and yours is not?

To be blunt, politics is how we tell each other what to do.  Religion - or its secular cousin, philosophy - is how we tell ourselves what is right or wrong.  Generally speaking, everyone's politics is informed by their religion and/or philosophy.

But I don't think that gets any closer to answering why politicians fear the Catholic Church.  To be perfectly honest, I've never met a non-Catholic politician who feared the Catholic Church at all.  When I interned with Sen. Lautenberg, I know for a fact that he got literally thousands of cards (pre-printed and postmarked) from Catholics (apparently the cards were distributed at churches) telling him how horrible abortion is.  We dutifully counted these so we could tell the Senator how many constituents said one thing or another...but I don't think the Senator really cared if the Catholic Church said he was not allowed to take Communion, and so the protestations were simply that - people voicing their beliefs.  

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 16:43:24 PM CST

The difference (4.00 / 1)

is that for some people, or for some churches, religion dictates not only their lives but provides an excuse for their intrusion into the private lives of others.

Because some people pray to a god in some ways should not constrain the whole of the people from the freedom to enjoy life as they see fit.


It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:04:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Still no difference (4.00 / 3)

We all have beliefs that intrude on other people's lives.  This is why we have politics as a means of settling conflicts rather than simply letting whoever has the most brute force win.  Some people's religious beliefs lead them to do things that you and I don't agree with.  But the problem isn't religion - and, in fact, religion isn't even a singular phenomenon in motivating people towards doing such things.

The problem, as you originally put it, was that the Catholic Church is too powerful - in other words, it is able to stand athwart history yelling, "Stop!" and to do so very effectively.  The reason they are able to do is not inherent in their religious nature, but rather with the fact that they have a massive number of people who show up every week to hear a unified message and are then encouraged to act on that message.  

When the Progressive Movement was at its most effective (late 1800s to early 1900s), it was working with churches for exactly this reason.  A church is a pre-fabricated message network.  I think this is a failing of the current incarnation of the Progressive Movement, showing itself in two ways: 1) The closest thing to a nationally recognized Progressive religious voice is Jim Wallis - who is really not that Progressive on a number of important issues (truly Progressive religious voices are shunted to the side); and 2) There is no standing "action network" that is firing off a million activists every week (DFA and OFA simply haven't built the same reach as many churches).

The problem is not "religion."  The problem is the narrow-minded politics of various groups - some religious, some not - are better organized and able to press the political system.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:28:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rosie's Perspective And Yours Are Not.... (4.00 / 1)

(in my humble opinion) not so mutually exclusive.

The fantasy that religion and politics aren't already so intermixed as to be a bloody colloidal suspension is just that, a fantasy.

As I see it, religion is mostly all about that which one does "religiously".   A fixed set of beliefs/doctrines/practices etc.   By that standard some atheists could be classified as "religious".  Webster's third definition is....  

3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : fervent, zealous

Yes, of course many religious would have us believe that it's all about God.....or some transcendent spiritual pursuit....and, I don't doubt that for some individuals...that's actually true.   But I dare say.....that that number is a minority.

For most folks, whether they believe in Ayn Rand or in Jesus Christ....or in Sarah Palin or "Reverend" Moon for that matter...it's all a kind of cult-ure.....a way of "identifying" one's "self".

As I see it, the Taliban and the hard right wing "Christian" fundamentalists and the hard left wing Maoists (for example) aren't all that different at the core.

I'll stop here rather than develop the idea further as that might take more time and space than any of us could stand!  lol

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 23:05:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The difference... (0.00 / 0)

is that people who prescribe policy based on their own religion do so based on something beyond the realm of reason and therefore beyond debate. Those who prescribe a particular public policy based on their understanding of economic data, social indicators, etc. at least do so in a way that permits debate. Religious views, by their very nature, admit of no debate.

---

by: Aegletes @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:20:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree with Aegletes (0.00 / 0)

And also would say that religion also, for all it discusses of light, lets little light into discussions. It's all dogma - do as I say - with little room for evidence.

But, for me, this is really more about the reach of the Catholic Church into our lives. The desire to control the lives of others, as if their own religious surety was all that need be considered. I cannot fathom a legislator who would not put it in its place along with - not below or above - the advocacy heard from other directions.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:40:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And I would say (4.00 / 1)

that you have allowed little room for light in your discussion of religion.  While you condemn religion for being closed-minded with one hand, you commit the same crime with the other.

Rosi, you know me well enough to know that I'm not a closed-minded fool to be led around by the nose by anyone.  You also know that I try to be fairly devout in my faith.  That should give you some space to consider whether the problem is "religion" or whether it is simply biggotry wrapping itself up in whatever wrapper is handy.

Most people rarely consider anything other than their own surety on any matter, Rosi.  This is especially true on topics that people "know."  Most people are only open to reason when it points them in the direction they most want to travel anyway.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 15:44:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As an atheist... (4.00 / 1)

...I completely agree with you. I also thank you for your civil tone.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 17:44:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I try n/t (0.00 / 0)

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 19:15:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Closed-minded, how? (0.00 / 0)

I would submit to you that most people who do not practice religion or have belief in religion show more respect on a daily basis to those who believe strongly than is ever returned; some religious structures treat the opinions of such people as though they need not be considered, so sure are they that God wishes it so.

This isn't necessarily true of observant individuals, many of whom have respect and make room for all kinds of people with all kinds of viewpoints. But come on now, surely you must bristle at least a bit when for example, a legislator cowers at the thought of facing the church across the street from his office and doesn't concern himself at all facing 2,000 people who show up in person with their own futures hanging on his vote, and turning a reasonable request down?

Come on, I know that this is almost an unwinnable argument - even here - our society shows so much respect to religion that to ever question it is impertinent. But why should we not bristle when the reach of the Catholic Church is deeper into the legislature than it is into many communities? It really is too much.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 19:45:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I think both sides have their share of assholes, just as both have their share of good people who give us hope for humankind.  I'll say this - I've never had an atheist ring my bell and insist that I listen to them explain how and why the universe was created.  Based on that, I'd say that atheists generally wear my patience much less than at least some believers.

It is true that some religious folks believe anyone who disagrees should be disregarded.  Try picking up just about anything from Richard Dawkins for an answer.  

The point is that it if it is wrong to disregard someone entirely for what they believe; then it is wrong to do that for both sides.  It isn't chutzpah for someone to stand up for what they believe, even if what they believe seems silly, illogical, or oddball.  It is a bit myopic to ask that sort of a question at a website that has, as a goal, of instigating just that sort of political action, though based on a different set of beliefs (at least in some cases).  

In your example: "...surely you must bristle at least a bit when for example, a legislator cowers at the thought of facing the church across the street from his office and doesn't concern himself at all facing 2,000 people who show up in person with their own futures hanging on his vote, and turning a reasonable request down?"  Well, I did name an award for political cowardice after Paul Sarlo.  But I read the situation differently - you think someone like Sarlo changes their vote to bow to the church across the street - I think he shares their beliefs and is afraid to say so.  So you ask how the politician falls for supporting the church, and I ask how you, as an activist, fall for the politician's sham.

I'm not asking that everyone give religion an extra measure of respect.  I only ask that they give religion the same measure of respect as they give any secular ideology or philosophy (but I also realize that the argument reaches far beyond either one of us).  

I'm also not asking that you not bristle at the reach of the Catholic Church.  I also bristle at the reach of the Heritage Foundation.  For my part, I studied Political Science so I could expose the misinformation and leading bias in the efforts of Heritage and their ilk.  I began writing about my faith years ago because I wanted to help create a very different public voice for liberal Christians.  I use politics to fight misleading politics and faith to fight misleading faith.

My problem with the Catholic Church isn't that they have influence.  My problem is that they use their influence in ways that I find offensive.

Do churches, in general, have too much power?  Well, Mark Lewis is the named litigant in Lewis v. Harris that forced the court to begin nudging towards full equality - and Mark happens to be my pastor.  His partner, Dennis, is also an Episcopal priest.  When I attended my diocesan convention this weekend, the only topic the Bishop spoke on that brought loud and long applause from the crowd was when he declared that he would continue to use his office to advocate for the cause of marriage equality.

I don't disagree with you that there is a problem.  But I see the best counter-argument against the Catholic Church as coming from other Christians who will stand up and speak in a truly prophetic manner.  I do not say you are wrong to see the Catholic Church as being a political opposition organization.  I'm only saying that not all religion works that way and not all religious people and organizations are on the other side of the issue.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 21:44:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Untrue (4.00 / 1)

you comment shows that you know very little of religion.  In fact, it betrays the very point I'm trying to make - that a person can be close-minded without resorting to religion.

The Judaic tradition reaches rulings through rabbinical debate.  A similar method is used in Islam, where any believer can issue a fatwah so long as it is issued by a person with sufficient knowledge and is adequate for the ongoing needs of the world.  Even in Christianity, the tradition I grew up in stressed "the priesthood of the believer" and insisted on Biblical scholarship to be informed by ongoing reason.  As a member of the Episcopal Church, I recognize that our principles are founded on our heritage, scripture, and reason - the three forming a tripod to support the continuing evolution of the Body of Christ.

As for the idea that "Those who prescribe a particular public policy based on their understanding of economic data, social indicators, etc. at least do so in a way that permits debate" flies in the face of the ongoing truculence of American Conservatives.  Tax cuts fix everything, don't you know?

Any ideology/philosophy, when strictly applied, cuts off all disagreement.  Try going to a political theory colloquium sometime.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 15:40:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess I know nothing about religion... (0.00 / 0)

As someone who was once a devout Catholic (Mass every Sunday, confession regularly, etc.), I think I know at least a little about religion. But I'll ignore the imputation you make regarding my knowledge of religion.

I think you miss my point. When someone says they reject gay rights because their god tells them so, I can't really debate that. I can't tell that person that they are not hearing the voice in their head they say they are. They wouldn't believe me if I tried. When someone bases his or her belief about a civil matter like gay rights on a belief system that is indefeasible, it is impossible for me (or anyone) to convince them that their religious beliefs are fundamentally in error. The best I can hope for is that I can convince them that they have no right to impose that belief on others. But for many religious people, in my experience, it is not enough for them to live their lives according to their own beliefs. They must make sure that everyone does. And that's dangerous to the workings of a civil and diverse society.

I'm an economist by training. I've had many a healthy discussion on economic indicators and what they mean for public policy based on the facts. Is there some interpretation and ideology involved? Absolutely. But none that strikes at the core of something so personal as religious beliefs. Perhaps I just know people less obstinate when it comes to things like that than others do.

---

by: Aegletes @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 08:25:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Either (0.00 / 0)

you know nothing of religion or you know nothing of ideology, take your pick.  As with any field, knowledge or personal experience in one aspect of it does not make you an expert in all aspects of it.  

How many supply-siders have you spoken to that would admit any fault in their ideas?  When Milton Friedman, near the end of his life, was confronted with the fact that Social Security provided more secure benefits at a lower cost than anything the market has ever considered, he reply was that Social Security will surely fail.  I believe his direct quote was something like, "We just have to give it sufficient time to fail."  

Or, take Alan Greenspan as an example.  So convinced was he of the utter and complete was his assurance that markets are self-regulating, that he failed time and again to take action.  In fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, he assured everyone that would listen that there was nothing to worry about right up to the day he was shown the door.  We can at least take heart in his subsequent testimony that his fault lie in "failing to account for human greed."  Can you imagine something so crazy?  An economist believing that there was no need to account for human greed in his model of how economic markets work?

Ask the teabaggers how willing they are to consider the benefits of the government regulating health care.  Then listen to them bellow, "Socialism!" and duck as they turn their guns on you.  This, despite the fact that the early Christian church, as described in the Book of Acts, was a socialist enterprise, to the point that people were stricken dead on the spot for withholding private property.

Religious ideologies are no different than secular ideologies.  Once a person sells out wholeheartedly to it, any evidence they see is simply interpreted as evidence that they are right.  

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 18:34:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your Point Seems Quite Valid As It Relates to Academe... (0.00 / 0)

....and the fixated quasi fanatical "intellectual" warfare amongst many of the "pros" in the realm of "publish or perish".

I agree with you that, generally speaking, the religious and the secular can be equally assoholic in their manifestations.

But I do believe you were being a bit harsh in your ultimatum to  Aegletes.   We aren't in a cut throat academic forum here.

My sense is that he and Rosie are speaking from their own direct experiences with particular manifestations of religion.....and that they are overgeneralizing; but that that the essence of their point is valid in the sense that there is something peculiarly unique about the belief that God is, literally, on your side.

Are here fixated and dangerous fundamentalistic fanatics in the secular arena?   Sure!

And I don't think Rosie or  Aegletes woild deny that reality.

I still say that these two perspectives can be reconciled if each party agrees that what both are opposed to is what Eric Hoffer called the  "True Believer".

Hoffer was more about mass movements....but at the rotten core of many of these movements are individuals who are so crystallized in their beliefs/opinions that the become the ideological equivalent of a virus.

This gets complicated because, as you pointed out.....it's common for human beings in general to become full of them"selves" and to adopt rigid attitudes.....and it's more often than not all about egoism jusifying itself and utilizing all manner of intellectual horsepower to "be right".   Ergo the Inquisition AND the Holocaust.

To the person being tortured and killed it matters little whether or not the perpetrator believes in God or not.

Bottom line:  there is no real functional conflict between enlightened materialists/atheists and enlightened believers.

Obviously that begs the question of what is mean by "enlightened"........

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 20:03:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Religious views and debate (4.00 / 1)

Aegletes, I would agree that fundamentalist religious views by their very nature admit no debate. For many religions debate and internal growth adhering to the basics of that religion is a paramount part of such religion.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 18:27:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't want religion (0.00 / 0)

meddling in government affairs anymore than religion wants government meddling in theirs.
Government covers all the people, religion a select few.  

Restore democracy and the Constitution for which it stands.

---

by: The Wizard @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 18:48:52 PM CST

Like the Wizard said. n/t (0.00 / 0)

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:04:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why then do politicians bow so low to Catholic concerns? (4.00 / 2)

A tough question to answer. In general any group which has money, authority figures, can lobby, can contribute to a campaign, can elicit post card and letter writers, can set up phone banks, and can contribute volunteers to a politician's campaign will reach deeper into the legislature than the  general more amorphous community.  The church's use of the pulpit and newsletters further helps to influence and embolden parts of its own community.  The more fervent and emboldened its parishioners become, the less tolerant they may be of other point of view. Historically the Catholic church's ability in NJ to promote social issues has been strong, but one can not help but suspect that its influence is waning, as are its membership and finances.
As a sometime Episcopalian, I too understand and respect a religiously observant person's view.  However, combine lobbying, aroused parishioners, certain conservative religion beliefs, stigma and prejudice, and some legislators are too easily cowered.
When I get depressed, I return to Sen. Kennedy's words: "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." - Sen. Ted Kennedy

---

by: BillOrr @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 21:06:50 PM CST

Cowering legislators (0.00 / 0)

I see your first point - that's how it happens - and I particularly agree with your second point. What I see is a Catholic Church structure (not individual clergy or believers, who run the gamut from "their side" to "our side") desperately hanging on and pulling out the big guns to scare the hell out of legislators they way they used to. It reminds me of a point Michael Moore made in one of his docs, that the Bush administration tried to control us and get the $$$ it needed to do what it wanted, by scaring the pants off the nation.

What I don't get is why legislators would fall for it.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:09:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The best of all possible worlds (4.00 / 2)

Let me hold up Paul Sarlo as an example.  For years, he played the part of a "persuadable" person.  Then, when he had to go on the record, he voted his conscience, which comes from his religious beliefs.

So, when was he lying?  When he said he could be persuaded to go against his conscience; or when he acted on his conscience?  The only other option is that he developed a conscience overnight right before the committee vote.

In other words, they don't fall for it.  They play it.  They use the Catholic Church as a shield to keep good people like you from taking out your anger on them.  

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:33:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What to make of his abstention? (0.00 / 0)

Sarlo is an interesting case. He voted no in committee, alleging his Catholicism. Yet not much long after, he didn't vote at all when the bill came to the floor of the Senate. What happened to his Catholicism in that intervening time, coincidentally the Christmas season? If his no vote in Committee was voting his conscience, does that mean that his conscience took a break not long after celebrating the birth of his savior? It's puzzling.

---

by: Aegletes @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:46:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I make of it (4.00 / 1)

that he's a piece of crap and I will actively support whoever Republicans put up against him.  I'd rather have someone I know I disagree with than someone who will play these games.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:33:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sarlo has it both ways (0.00 / 0)

Another take on Sarlo is that his committee vote represented what his constituent catholic parishioners and church leaders wanted from him, but not necessarily his conscience. On the floor, where he knew the vote was doomed, he thought he could have the best of both worlds: not voting (assuaging his conscience and maybe appeasing liberals) while not doing anything to help pass the bill (so as not to contravene the wishes of the church.)

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." - Sen. Ted Kennedy

---

by: BillOrr @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 15:59:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Except (0.00 / 0)

Sarlo said he didn't vote on the floor because his position was already known.  Doesn't sound to me like he was trying to hide the way he really felt.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 16:54:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did he vote his "conscience"? (0.00 / 0)

or did he vote his community?  I believe he made a comment at one point about having to go to church on Sunday with many who oppose marriage equality.

His posturing could be simply be his attempt to navigate his close community of church and family, his district and the obviously very strong NJ marriage equality movement that will be a player in NJ elections and democratic primaries.  

---

by: JackHarris @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:53:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't have a copy (0.00 / 0)

of his statement.  But even if it is the way you say, then he voted against ME because of his faith.  So he still lied about it at one point or another.  

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:32:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fundamentally he's a game player (0.00 / 0)

He's someone who would have voted against suffrage or the voting rights act citing conscience or the will of the people.

The mark of a true leader is someone who can transcend their community, faith, family, etc. and vote for what is right.

We lack many of those leaders in the NJ Democratic party right now.  

---

by: JackHarris @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:53:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

History, Culture & Ethnicity for starts (0.00 / 0)

The Catholic Church and the catholic religion in general has been a major cultural force in NJ since at least the late 19th century and the majority of NJ's immigrant groups since that time are catholic in religion and culture.

Catholic schools in NJ play a role in education unlike anywhere else in the country, with the few exceptions being NYC, Rhode Island, Boston and the eastern parts of Massachusetts, and maybe Chicago.  

The infamous Reagan Democrats of the 1980s (as well as their children and grandchildren in the 2009 election) are heavily catholic.  So for NJ Democrats -- the specter of ethnic catholics abandoning them over any issue gives them nightmares.

Theology is only a part -- but because of its emphasis on priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope etc. as sole arbiters of god's will on earth and shepherds of the flock, it serves to lend the imprimatur of secular authority to people raised catholic in ways very different from a Rabbi or Methodist Minister's pronouncements .

At the end of the day though, its not so much about religion as it is about community --- and that's where catholic dogma, social views and leadership work their magic in NJ.

---

by: JackHarris @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 08:57:47 AM CST

Thurman is mistaken (0.00 / 0)

The motivations individuals may have for working on one issue or another may vary freely, but we should only put laws into place that are based on secular reasoning about justice. That's why we have judges who rule on law using legal arguments. The underlying principle, of course, is the separation of church and state.

And the NJ Supreme Court has already ruled that the NJ Constitution demands equal treatment for all who want the legal protections of civil marriage. The state legislature attempted a separate but equal gambit, but that's clearly inadequate.

---

by: pyounghouse @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 09:39:21 AM CST

No, I'm not (4.00 / 1)

Jefferson's reference to a separation of church and state was meant to reassure Baptists that: 1) They could still hold office even if they were Baptists; and 2) They would not find their ability to worship impaired.  At no point did anyone who founded this country ever suggest that someone leave whatever they believe to be wrong and right at home when they set out to make laws.  No one is required to keep their faith secret or to hide what they believe in order to join the public square to argue for or against any issue.

It was religious activists that pushed for the original laws against things like child abuse, work safety, employee rights, etc.  The only way someone can possibly say that religious morality plays no part in law is if they are entirely ignorant about our collective past.  Even the legal concept of equality before the law - which is, incidentally, why judges are supposed to rule based on settle law - is a religious idea applied to general society.

You are correct that the Supreme Court has ruled that separate, but equal is a lie.  I have full faith that a few more months will have the Court ruling that the legislature has been negligent in their responsibilities.  

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:42:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

is it possible that issues like marriage equality are beyond the capacity of legislative bodies? (4.00 / 2)

As a hostile agnostic (I allow for the possibility that there is a God, but am very angry at him/her if he/she actually exists), I am inclined to agree with the core of Rosi's arguments more than Thurman's, except I don't, primarily because inherent within them appears to be an expectation of elected officials to do the right thing, when they rarely ever do, especially when religion is a factor.

The problem with government and religion starts the day that an elected official is sworn into office, almost always with their hand on a bible, and also almost always with an oath that ends "so help me God" and only gets worse from there.

While it is probably too much to expect any elected official to check their religious beliefs at the door, it should not be too much to expect that prior to seeking elected office they have acquired a sufficient combination of education and life experience so that their religious beliefs are only one of many factors being considered when faced with tough decisions or even no-brainers like marriage equality.

It is one thing for one's religious beliefs to inform their sense of right and wrong, but if one is incapable of or unwilling to recognize the limitations of their own sense of right and wrong, they are probably not qualified to be an elected official.

But aside from that, the quality that makes so many of our elected officials, especially the Democratic 9, so unfit for their offices is the degree to which they allow fear to govern their thinking.  Whether that fear is of God, their place of worship, their fellow congregants, their constituents, or anybody who is different from them, it has no place in the thought process of an elected official.

Unfortunately, because we do not live in an era where the best and brightest of our society are pursuing political careers, we must make do with what we have.  And because our elected officials are so ruled by their fears, it is their fears that we must engage.

Shortly after the State Supreme Court handed down its ruling and marriage equality went from being the judicial issue that it was and probably should always have been to the legislative issue that it became, I argued that the only way that this battle could be won is if every fence-sitter and opponent on the Democratic side was threatened with a primary challenge if they did not vote for marriage equality.  Instead of doing this, it was decided instead to try to appeal to the hearts and minds of these electeds and the end result was a civil union law and a failed lame duck effort.

Hopefully, this experience has taught progressives that the only way that our issues of concern will ever be listened to, much less heard, by the Democratic establishment is when they fear us as much as the Republicans establishment fears the teabagging wingnuts.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 10:37:10 AM CST

Thankfully people are starting to get the idea (0.00 / 0)

after the Catholic Church's shameful intervention into the same-sex marriage debate. Run of the mill Catholics are starting to realize that their affiliation with an institution that stands for blocking social progress -- from LGBT rights, to health care -- is morally indefensible.

Kudos to you, Rosi, for saying what needs to be said. I expound upon it here:
http://tcnjperspective.wordpre...

---

by: mtracey @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 17:40:09 PM CST

The really interesting thing... (4.00 / 1)

is that so many Catholics, according to consistent polling results, are actually way ahead of the church hierarchy on social issues such as marriage equality and the right to choose.  Keep in mind that it is the hierarchy that does the lobbying, not the folks who attend Mass, confession, etc.  

Perhaps some day the Catholic Church will catch up with its own constituency in these matters.  If the hierarchy continues its rigid approach I think you will see more and more "lapsed Catholics," particularly among the young, turning elsewhere to channel their faith.

Change is possible in official Catholic dogma--remember Galileo, Giordano Bruno, et. al.--but it can take a long, long time, and I'm not sure the younger generations are prepared to wait hundreds of years.  

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 11:08:47 AM CST