Easter Irony

I just came across this cartoon on the Internet:

Let me explain why I think this cartoon is ironic. Most of the fundogelicals I know are conservative in both religion and politics. When they wear their political hats, they invariably tell me that, unlike “nanny state” liberals, conservatives believe in “personal responsibility.” They oppose the Affordable Care Act because they believe it undermines personal responsibility to adequately care for oneself and one’s family. They oppose gun safety laws because, in addition to allegedly infringing on their right to own firearms, such laws – they say – are symptomatic of big, intrusive “nanny state” government. People who own firearms can take care of themselves, their weapons, and their homes and families just fine without any stinking government telling them how to do so, thank you very much. Mind you, many of these people who don’t want government to regulate what types of weapons and accessories can be owned and used by citizens, and don’t want government regulating their health care options any more than it does now, have no difficulty expecting the government to regulate citizens’ most intimate reproductive and marital options. Government that does those things is not too big at all.

What I find immensely ironic is that these people (the ones I know, anyway) who allegedly embrace “personal responsibility” in all things political, have absolutely no difficulty fleeing personal responsibility when it comes to their religious lives. They’ve sinned and deserve to burn in hell? Fine – surely they’ll own and admit their guilt and accept their just desserts, right?

Uhh, not quite. Their religion not only encourages these “personal responsibility” proponents not to accept their punishments like adults, it actually requires them to push their guilt onto someone else – ideally someone who was perfect and therefore didn’t have to atone for his own sins – and let him serve a sentence in their place. They have absolutely no difficulty accepting the idea that their “salvation” comes at the expense of an innocent man, an idea that I find abhorrent. The irony astonishes me. Godless liberal that I am, if it happens that I am wrong about the existence of any gods, I will accept responsibility for my error and endure whatever consequences that may entail. As far as I’m concerned, that is the only morally acceptable option available.

– the chaplain

 

South Carolina Pastor Plays Dirty

I wish I could say this surprises me, but I don’t want to lie. So, no this doesn’t surprise me at all. It sickens me, but it doesn’t surprise me. I wish I could say the church sign below is as funny as most church signs are, but I can’t say that. The sign is more disgusting than the typical groan-inducing, pun-laden church sign and not the least bit humorous. Take a look and decide for yourself.

It was my understanding that people seeking family planning services – which sometimes include getting information about abortion, and, yes, having abortions – went to clinics of their own volition. The people who provide family planning services don’t knock on people’s doors and proselytize. They set up offices and hang their shingles. They also locate their clinics in areas that are accessible to the people who are most likely to need their services. That’s just good business. If there’s any connection between the ethnic/racial composition of the neighborhoods and the locations of these clinics, it’s due to correlations between race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors, not because the people operating the clinics want to kill little dark-skinned babies.

The simple-minded pastor who posted this sign isn’t interested in facts. He’s only interested in stirring up emotions, and he doesn’t give a damn whether those emotions will be appropriate responses. That’s not surprising, of course, because that’s how religion works. Religious leaders must appeal to emotions when selling their snake oil since the facts don’t support their claims. So, naturally, when religious leaders venture into the world of politics, they apply the same modus operandi. Sad to say, most politicians operate the same way. Perhaps that’s why religion and politics are such compatible (and contemptible) bedfellows. And their bedsheets are filthy.

– the chaplain

 

…In Which I Defend Muslims

Yes, you read that title correctly. Today, I participated in a brief but bizarre conversation in which I defended Muslims. Here’s the story.

A co-worker (a conservative, evangelical Christian) was praising the mechanic who recently serviced his car. After reciting a fairly lengthy list of  services rendered and the incredibly low prices he was charged for those services, he paused for a second or two, looked astonished, and said in a voice full of wonder, “And he was a Muslim!”

I immediately said, “What does that have to do with anything?”

He responded, “Of all people, you think they’d be the least likely to be like that.”

I said, with astonishment, “There are something like a billion Muslims in the world and most of them are not terrorists. The vast majority of them are good, honest people.”

When he looked at me like I’d grown a second nose, I said, “Imagine a group of Muslims sitting together at lunch – like we are – talking about a business transaction similar to yours. Now imagine the speaker ending his story by saying, “And he was a Christian!”

The guy sitting next to the conservative Christian chuckled and said, “Touche.”

The conservative Christian grinned sheepishly and said, “Yeah, I see your point.”

Will the conservative Christian change his mind about Muslims? Probably not very much. He’ll continue believing they’re all going to hell because they don’t worship the right deity. But maybe the next time he does business with a Muslim he won’t be so astonished when his religious, cultural and ethnic prejudices are disconfirmed.

– the chaplain

 

Rick Perry Loves the Sinner…You Know the Rest

Rick Perry made his pro-marriage anti-gay position clear, again, in a recent conversation with an Iowa voter.

Perry’s anti-gay marriage position is not new. Nor is the the fact that he goes beyond opposing gay marriage, specifically, and believes that homosexuality, generally, is a “sin” and that homosexuals are “sinners.” But the beneficent Governor Perry loves them anyway.

As long as they’ll shut up, stay in their closets, and continue being treated as second-class citizens.

Perry’s statement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman contradicts his stated position that gay marriage is a decision that should be left up to states. That’s no surprise; coherence is not Perry’s strong suit.

Also unsurprising is the old canard that the USA was founded on “Judeo-Christian” values. As a good religious-right-winger pandering to other good religious-right-wingers, Perry can’t possibly acknowledge that the founding fathers stressed Enlightenment principles at least as much as (and probably more than) Judeo-Christian ones. Oh, no. Such honesty doesn’t fit into wingnut Christian Nation ideology. Furthermore, does anyone other than me find it infuriating to hear wingnuts cite “Judeo-Christian” values when what they really want to say is “Christian” – or better yet, “conservative Christian” or “fundogelical Christian” – values? The only times fundogelicals give lip service to solidarity with Judaism are

a) when they’re spouting their Christian Nation nonsense, and

b) when they’re working to realize their sick eschatological visions.

If I were Jewish, I’d want to hit someone – preferably a fundy – every time I heard anyone utter the phrase “Judeo-Christian.”

Honestly, when I look at the field of Republican presidential candidates in this race, I want to scream, cry, or vomit. Or maybe do all three in no particular order, or even simultaneously. I sincerely hope that Iowa caucus voters will reject Perry soundly on January 3 and send him back to Texas with his good old right-wing Judeo-Christian tail tucked securely between his legs.

– the chaplain

 

Charity Must Begin At Home

Charity must begin at home, because one cannot count on it beginning at church. Perhaps I should say, one cannot count on charity beginning at the Roman Catholic Church. Not if one is gay. You may recall that, in November 2009, the city of Washington D.C. passed a law recognizing gay marriages, a law that the city’s Catholic Archdiocese opposed immediately. An objection they raised was this:

Under the bill…religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

It didn’t take long for Catholic Charities to devise a solution to this dilemma (and keep government funds flowing their way): as of March 2, 2010, employees of Catholic Charities are not allowed to add spouses to their health insurance plans. This applies to the spouses of straight and gay employees alike. Since the organization can’t blatantly provide benefits to one group (straights) and deny said benefits to the other (gays), it will simply deny benefits to all of them. Equal opportunity exclusion. Because that’s what Jesus would do.

The policy applies to new employees enrolling for benefits after March 2; spouses covered before that date will retain their benefits. The group explained its decision in a memo:

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

The tenets of their religious faith. Those tenets include sheltering priests who rape children and shuffling those predators from one traumatized diocese to another unsuspecting diocese to another, and another, and another ad infinitum. They include purchasing abuse victims’ silence, or, when that fails, paying them large sums of money in legal settlements. They include lying to millions of African AIDS victims about the efficacy of condoms in reducing the spread of that dreadful disease. They include opposing the rights of men and women to control their reproduction via contraception and abortion. And they include withholding basic employment benefits from people who marry spouses with matching rather than complementary genitalia. Do you look at those tenets and see anything worth preserving? I sure as hell don’t. If you agree with me and you want to donate some time or money to a charity, you may want to consider giving to a secular charitable group. Contrary to the myth that many fundogelicals are peddling, churches are not the only charitable organizations in town, and Christians are not the only people who give time and money to their communities.

For this atheist, charity must begin at home because religious charity often comes with strings attached. And if those strings can’t be attached, then some groups cut off both the strings and the gifts. Their thinking seems to be, ’tis far better that no one get anything at all than that the wrong people get something. That may be the Catholic Charities’ way; it certainly is not mine.

– the chaplain