Wednesday, March 26, 2014

COME LET US REASON TOGETHER.

Timothy Carney on ways to, get this, "accomplish peace in the Culture Wars" between liberals and conservatives on the Hobby Lobby case:
I saw a flicker of hope last weekend at a libertarian dinner featuring psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind. Haidt inspired me to try to understand the mindset of religious liberty’s enemies.
That's a promising opening, enemy of women's rights! And what did Carney learn?
The Pill is not just a pill to them. It has become something holy. And they won’t tolerate any burden between them and their Blessed Sacrament.

The culture war isn’t religious versus secular. It’s a clash of two faiths.
Despite the mania of religious liberty's also-religious enemies, Carney is willing to compromise with them:
To get peace in this arena, we have to disentangle employment from health care, which requires repealing parts of Obamacare and scrapping the tax preferences for employer-based insurance.
Look, he's meeting ya halfway, isn't he? Sounds like this dream of comity died, you should pardon the expression, in the womb. Welp, time for another hundred columns about how Thomas Frank is condescending.

UPDATE. First comment, Dr. Bethany Spencer: "Tim Carney wants single payer. Who knew?"

144 comments:

  1. Bethany Spencer9:45 AM

    Tim Carney wants single payer. Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Halloween_Jack9:58 AM

    Feminist writer and former Democratic operative Amanda Marcotte wrote on the Hobby Lobby case: “Religion is just the fig leaf draped over what is really an attempt to open up the war on reproductive rights to attacks on contraception access.”

    Planned Parenthood, commenting on Hobby Lobby and on efforts to force small businesses to participate in gay weddings, accuses businesses of seeking a “license to discriminate under the guise of religious liberty.”

    Do Marcotte and the abortion lobby think Hobby Lobby’s owners or New Mexico wedding photographer Elaine Huguenin are just lying about their religious beliefs? That this is an evil plot to enslave gays and women?

    I think that they certainly have a choice about which religious dogma to follow. For that matter, the dogmatists have decided to double down on their homophobia in many cases; take the Catholic Church, which suddenly became much less tolerant of gays and lesbians in the wake (although I'm not sure that "wake" is the relevant term, since it's ongoing) of their child sex abuse scandals. Ditto for being more insistent on being anti-contraception, one of the menu items that's most often left in the steam tables in cafeteria Catholicism. (Incidentally, Carney screwed up the link in the original; he put the link to Planned Parenthood, aka the "abortion lobby", next to Marcotte. Here's Marcotte's Raw Story post.)

    Plus, of course, Carney's kind of hilarious in insisting that The Pill is just like the Blessed Sacrament to anyone who's pro-contraception; you could riff off of that all day, especially with the rituals notionally involved in other forms of contraception. ("hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur" certainly becomes more than a bit, ah, evocative.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. GeniusLemur10:09 AM

    Clash of two faiths. Yeah, he's right. Everybody remember the flap about that judge who insisted on posting a monument of the ten contraceptives in the courthouse?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Hunky Jimpjorps10:10 AM

    So, going down Carney's rabbit-hole here, assuming that people who want their reproductive care covered by insurance really are zealously worshiping The Pill, the solution is to... continue to refuse to budge, because nyah-nyah my God can beat up your Pill? How does that square with wanting religious liberty?

    ReplyDelete
  5. dmsilev10:12 AM

    "a libertarian dinner"


    I assume all attendees paid market rate, possibly via a bidding process, for each individual dish in their meal, none of the food was inspected by government safety inspectors, and (duh) none of the waitstaff got any tips whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  6. sharculese10:19 AM

    Timbo that elevation of the political to the divine thing only happens because you guys are fucking weirdos. Normal people don't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. mortimer200010:21 AM

    His first line: Sometimes it’s hard to believe the other side is being honest. Three sentences later: Forcing religious business owners to buy birth control is the matter at hand, and then bullshit ensues.

    Like: conservatives see religious liberty arguments as the last redoubt in the culture war: you guys won your gay marriages, permissive abortion laws, taxpayer-subsidized birth control, and divorce-on-demand; let us just live our lives according to our own consciences...

    ...by attempting to ban your gay marriages, shutting down abortion clinics, eliminating your coverage for birth control, and forcing you to live your life according to our "consciences".

    And since when is divorce a "liberal" thing? The divorce rate is highest in the fucking Bible belt, you hack, and without it, your most venerated preachers, politicians and pundits would be polygamists. Or maybe that's just a matter that should be left to their consciences, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  8. DocAmazing10:30 AM

    Well, as long as you're asking a Libertarian what health insurance should cover, insulin is pretty much equivalent to Eucharistic wafers and basic antibiotics are Holy Chrism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. mortimer200010:30 AM

    I believe he's quoting Marcotte from this article. Both are worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Daniel Björkman10:34 AM

    The culture war isn’t religious versus secular. It’s a clash of two faiths.


    In the sense that every strongly held viewpoint functions pretty much like a faith - yes, it is. Sure, ours is founded at least loosely on human well-being, and yours is founded mostly on inertia and a hopeless need for a simplicity that never existed and never will, and I personally feel that that makes ours better than yours, but yeah, you could call them two competing faiths.


    Now, you know how Zeus and Odin and that lot don't have a lot of worshipers anymore? Yeah. You had a lot to do with that, I seem to recall. Now, didn't you say something about "do unto others..."? :P

    ReplyDelete
  11. Modulo_Myself10:34 AM

    The Pill is not just a pill to them. It has become something holy. And
    they won’t tolerate any burden between them and their Blessed Sacrament.


    Bart: So finally, we're all in agreement about what's going on with
    the adults. Milhouse?


    Milhouse: [steps up to blackboard] Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: the
    Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people --


    Bart: Thank you.


    Milhouse: -- under the supervision of the reverse vampires --


    Lisa: [sighs]

    Milhouse: -- are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish
    plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. [sotto voce] We're
    through the looking glass, here, people...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bethany Spencer10:36 AM

    No, Amanda Marcotte doesn't believe RWNJ's want to enslave women and gays. She does, however, believe--because it's true--that they want to control the sex lives of women and gays.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Daniel Björkman10:55 AM

    Good points, though I do personally think that a lot of people are overly fond of declaring religious beliefs to be a mere smoke screen without really thinking about what it's a smoke screen for, then - or more accurately, while assuming that what lies behind it is pure, cartoonish evil and/or spiteful jealousy towards people who are cooler and more sexually active. (I know Marcotte of old, and last I checked she definitely considered that last part the explanation for an awful lot of conservative misdeeds! :P )

    Me, I do think that these people's religion, as they understand and practice it, really does require them to persecute others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they mind. I think they are all too happy to get some semi-vulnerable group of people who they can attack and make miserable and congratulate themselves for being better than. But they attack one group instead of another because they were pointed in its direction, as opposed to starting out hating one group and then shopping around for a reason to persecute them. (though I expect there is some of that too)

    To put it this way, if they lived in a country dominated by a religion that spent a lot of time speaking of the evils of picking your nose, they'd be relentless in their crusade to make nose-pickers as miserable as possible. And they'd honestly believe that they were righteous for doing it, because power makes you feel really righteous and hurting others makes you feel really powerful. But now they don't have that religion. Now they have this religion, so women and gays it is.

    I don't dispute that they lean especially heavily on one issue or another issue when they think that will help them retain power and influence, mind you. Holding a set of beliefs does not mean you can't be strategic in what parts of those beliefs you stress to the public. I'm just saying that the idea that "they don't really believe it" is mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ellis_Weiner11:13 AM

    They only call it "culture wars" when we ignore them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Magatha11:16 AM

    You scared me for a minute, Doc. I'd never heard of Holy Chrism, so I googled it, even though I swore I'd never google anything that might lead me to Urban Dictionary and a sight that cannot be unseen. But holy chrism, it's just anointed oil! I has been learnt something. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bethany Spencer11:29 AM

    BTW...Jonathan Haidt? I have opinions...

    ReplyDelete
  17. LookWhosInTheFreezer11:55 AM

    In fairness to Carney, if you squint real hard, a diaphragm sorta resembles a communion wafer.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Formerly_Nom_De_Plume12:04 PM

    force small businesses to participate in gay weddings


    What the fuck is he babbling about? Nobody's forcing anything. I own a business. If I don't feel like dealing with someone I say "Sorry, I am not accepting new clients" or "My schedule will not permit it". It's even true sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. BG, dismayed leftie12:08 PM

    Dear anti-choice men,

    Just shut the fuck up already. Please.

    Sincerely,
    BG

    ReplyDelete
  20. DN Nation12:09 PM

    "The Pill is not just a pill to them. It has become something holy. And they won’t tolerate any burden between them and their Blessed Sacrament."


    - A man.

    ReplyDelete
  21. glennisw12:15 PM

    The Pill is not just a pill to them. It has become something holy
    Oh ferfucks sake. You know many of these knuckleheads' own families are using the pill for family planning.

    ReplyDelete
  22. glennisw12:16 PM

    Considering the fact that, before the ACA was passed, Hobby Lobby's employee insurance policy ALREADY COVERED CONTRACEPTION, the sincerity of their religious belief is mighty compromised.

    ReplyDelete
  23. XeckyGilchrist12:18 PM

    I hope that that kind of thing is mentioned really loud in the hearings about all this horseshit. Same thing came up with the Catholic-affiliated institutions, which were fine with the requirement in, what, 26 states? Until it got Obama's name attached to it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jay B.12:22 PM

    The Pill is not just a pill to them. It has become something holy. And they won’t tolerate any burden between them and their Blessed Sacrament.


    Oh man does he have me pegged. I take The Pill just so I have a chance to get into secular heaven -- and to show the ladies how enlightened I am. I have a giant rack now, but they totally understand.

    ReplyDelete
  25. XeckyGilchrist12:31 PM

    Of course, but they don't know it. They jam their fingers in their ears and start screaming any time a conversation seems like it might swerve toward the subject of ladyparts.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "You're kicking our ass unmercifully, how about we stop fighting?"

    ReplyDelete
  27. LittlePig12:51 PM

    your most venerated preachers, politicians and pundits would be polygamists


    Damn right. These people want traditional Biblical marriage, i.e. multiple wives and female slaves. They say it straight out. I believe them.


    Then they say traditional Biblical marriage means one-man, one-woman. That's when the bullshit kicks in, because I can read, and the familial situation I described is precisely that of Abraham and Issac, right there in Genesis.


    If these people want to be goatherds, then more power to them. However, since they are participating in society, they don't get to pick and chose their own rules. I've seen film of White Citizens Council members made just over 50 years ago that repeat the old Confederate saw that 'Slavery is in the Bible, Genesis so-and-so talks about how the sons of Ham will be slaves for all time, and black people are the sons of Ham." Next up you'll see sickle-cell insurance cut because of the "religious convictions" of the owner.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's well known that conservatives don't use birth control, never get divorced and never have abortions. And none of them are ever gay. All these things are against their conscience.
    What a crock.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That was in California, right?

    ReplyDelete
  30. tigrismus12:53 PM

    The Pill is not just a pill to them. It has become something holy

    Which is crazy, right? I mean, it's so obviously not something REALLY holy, like a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The "pill as sacrament" meme has got to be the most specious product of the Wurlitzer to come down the pike in ages. Contraception has tangible, life-changing benefits for its users, while any benefits from religious sacraments are inherent in the communicant, not the ritual or its trappings.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is the argument somehow that RWReligious people are sincerely pained by what they think god has called them to do? That against their better judgement, their humanity, their personal feeligns they are denying other people contraception and marriage? Because that is not the impression I get from the way these people pursue these particular religious duties. On the contrary rather than choosing these particular battles "more in sorrow than in anger" they seem to embrace them fully and choose the suffering that they cause quite willingly. Contrast this to how many of them actually follow Jesus's precept to give everything away and live simply and in poverty while pursuing justice? Now--that would really pain them.

    ReplyDelete
  34. KatWillow1:13 PM

    ... and guns are not "just" guns to the gun nuts. They're crucifix's to kill the Big Gov Vampire... even tho BGV has, you know, nukes!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well, the Greens of Hobby Lobby aren't suing to stop themselves from accessing abortion and contraception--they are suing to stop providing health insurance to their workers. Wish the workers had the right to Discovery and could have sued to have the Greens health care records revealed--what do you want to bet that they have used contraception in the past, possibly even prescription contraception?

    ReplyDelete
  36. But it never melts, no matter how long you hold it in your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  37. KatWillow1:17 PM

    I think they'd be delighted to enslave as many persons as possible, whether by controlling their sex lives or by forcing them to live in poverty, or sending them to fight in wars... the conservatives are the party of patriarchs, the rulers.

    ReplyDelete
  38. philadelphialawyer1:19 PM

    Yeah, amazing how some religious folks vacillate between excoriating atheists for "not believing in anything greater than themselves," and claiming that atheism is just another religion.

    ReplyDelete
  39. LittlePig1:19 PM

    It's just the abortifacients that bother the Hobby Lobby folks - they provide coverage for the Pill, as I understand. Only those methods that occur after the main character (in their minds) arrives: that special spermatozoon that has won the race after fighting the good fight. Once the Holy Man Seed has tapped that egg, it's all over baby - that's a MAN'S property now.

    Crackers, hell. Jizz is the sacrament to these folks.

    ReplyDelete
  40. KatWillow1:20 PM

    It is kind of funny to hear religious people (or those who want to discriminate based on their religion) call the people they want to discriminate AGAINST "religious nuts". Phew!

    ReplyDelete
  41. BigHank531:29 PM

    Call this exhibit #11,004 in the never-ending bullshit parade that American fundamentalists are engaged in to argue that "secular humanism" is a religion, and therefore any public school that teaches any kind of moral code that isn't explicitly Bible-based is nevertheless "promoting religion" and therefore the 1st amendment is null and void. (See also their arguments that atheists are in fact "angry children who have turned away from God", which might be the most obtuse rejection of free will I've encountered.

    Anyone who's stayed awake through an entire history class knows how the clash of two faiths usually winds up:

    ROUNDHEAD: I will die before I renounce my faith.

    CAVALIER: Fair enough. (murders ROUNDHEAD, his wife, his sons, rapes daughter, murders daughter, steals livestock and valuables, burns ROUNDHEAD's dwelling)

    ReplyDelete
  42. edroso1:29 PM

    Jesus, the guy sounds like a total asshole. No wonder he and Carney got along!

    ReplyDelete
  43. BigHank531:30 PM

    It probably wouldn't have been a problem if it wasn't for the illustrations.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Spaghetti Lee1:34 PM

    I can see why he'd want to focus on the religious side, because the secular side amounts to Hobby Lobby arguing that their employees are their property, property that has no right to individual opinions and beliefs. If there's ever been a clearer example of 'conservatives only care about the 'freedom' for the strong to crush the weak', I've yet to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. JennOfArk1:51 PM

    It's even more of a hypocrisy than you imagine. Hobby Lobby's case might be a bit more believable on its face had the company not, up until about 3 years ago, provided health insurance to its employees that covered 2 of the 4 contraceptives they now find objectionable because they erroneously claim that they "cause abortions." Funny how they weren't worried about funding "abortions" on their dime until the ACA mandated coverage of contraceptives. This fact alone puts the lie to the "sincerity" of their beliefs.

    Beyond that, as I've noted elsewhere, it's well established that corporations are soulless, so it's a bit of a stretch to portray them as "religious", since it's not like they have any skin in the game.

    ReplyDelete
  46. LittlePig1:55 PM

    Holy Jism. You were right the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  47. LittlePig1:56 PM

    What? They didn't rape the livestock before they stole it?

    ReplyDelete
  48. teresa2:05 PM

    "To get peace in this arena," Conservatives just need to unplant their faces from between the legs of women. Leave women's health to women and their doctors. Not every goddamn conservative that has control and women issues. That would be for conservative men mainly to show some self control over their issues about sex.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous2:37 PM

    Whenever they invoke Jonathan Haidt, the bullshit goes from knee deep to eyeball level.

    ReplyDelete
  50. PersonaAuGratin2:43 PM

    Yeah, I've always been amused by how the ostentatiously "religious" are so quick to demean "ideas" they find disagreeable (global warming, evolution,...) by equating them with religion.

    ReplyDelete
  51. stepped_pyramids2:45 PM

    You're persecuting their right to say "sorry, we don't serve hell-bound sodomites, but here's a Chick tract".

    ReplyDelete
  52. satch3:41 PM

    "Do Marcotte and the abortion lobby think Hobby Lobby’s owners or New Mexico wedding photographer Elaine Huguenin are just lying about their religious beliefs?"

    Well, the Arizona legislature tried to make "sincerity" the test of whether religious beliefs can be used as an excuse to discriminate, so to the extent that we can never be totally sure whether someone is sincere when they're tryung to screw us over, then my default position would be: Yes, they ARE just lying. And Aimai, you're right that they DO embrace these battles willingly and aim to cause the maximum possible suffering just for the fun of doing it... which reminded me of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2QeRgUAm3o

    ReplyDelete
  53. satch3:53 PM

    I know I've pointed this out before, but it bears repeating that a significant number of Talibangical women have bought into this way of thinking, which causes me no end of dismay.

    ReplyDelete
  54. redoubtagain3:53 PM

    That's what the Number Six Dance is for.

    ReplyDelete
  55. If the Hobby Lobby case is any indication you are persecuting them when you refuse their business because they are "hell bound sodomites, offer them a Chick tract" and then they don't pay you and your business suffers.
    Because Hobby Lobby is suing for the right to not provide the statutorily required health insurance package but to get to keep the employer's tax benefit as though it has done so. So its like you turn away the gay couple and then demand that the government compensate you for the lost business.

    ReplyDelete
  56. satch3:55 PM

    Or:

    " How about we take this to the Supreme Court and get ourselves a new set of bought and paid for referees."

    ReplyDelete
  57. Quite the contrary. It is human autonomy and free will that we hold sacred. The pill isn't really standing in for all that, although it could. But its not we who are the idolators in this scenario, fetishizing a symbol instead of knowing what is really important. The very comparison between the pill and the "blessed sacrament" shows how shallow this guy's christianity is. He literally can't figure out what is the difference between a symbol and the thing itself.

    ReplyDelete
  58. redoubtagain4:02 PM

    By getting government out of people's lives
    I'm hearing someone who wants to deprive legal protection to people other than white Catholic males. Presumably to involuntarily fit women with a chastity belt made of rosary beads.

    ReplyDelete
  59. satch4:02 PM

    "Haidt inspired me to try to understand the mindset of religious liberty’s enemies."


    Or put another way: "Haidt inspired me to put together an argument without overly taxing a single brain cell."

    ReplyDelete
  60. XeckyGilchrist4:11 PM

    That occurred to me, too... from where I sit it looks like they're saying "it's just another belief, and therefore bullshit." But then I remembered I'm a commie; what they're really saying is "it's just another belief, and ours is older and has a much higher body count so who's going to stay standing when we get in a fight?"

    ReplyDelete
  61. gop-sfb4:22 PM

    Usually when Carney drives his right leaning vehicle into the ditch, Chris Hayes has him on to expose his bufoonery. Hoping Chris does it again, only this time on a panel with Cecile Richards & Charlie Pierce for his kumbaya moment!

    ReplyDelete
  62. MikeJ4:24 PM

    Right wingers have actually become marginally less repellent when it comes to birth control. there was a time when all we heard about was "those people"and how they would "squeeze out another litter" to get some of that sweet, sweet welfare. During the Clinton administration republicans wanted mandatory birth control. Not mandatory, "your insurance must cover the medical treatment a woman and her doctor find necessary" but mandatory, "you must get Norplant."

    ReplyDelete
  63. BigHank534:47 PM

    It's pretty easy to figure it out once you start chewing.

    ReplyDelete
  64. smut clyde4:53 PM

    All you really need to know about Haidt is that his work is a half-baked way of disguising his superficial opinions and make them look objective, to the extent that David Brooks relies on him as a source. Apparently he Used-to-be-a-liberal until Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  65. smut clyde4:57 PM

    Sometimes those opinions were cross-posted on Whiskey Fire where they elicited entertaining Two-Minute-Haidts from the usual suspects.

    ReplyDelete
  66. MikeJ5:07 PM

    And to reply to myself, I should add that either way, Republican lawmakers don't want women to have any choice about birth control. Either mandatory or none at all, and Ted Cruz gets to decide which it will be this week.

    ReplyDelete
  67. KatWillow5:18 PM

    The mindset of religious liberty's enemies is.... religious!

    ReplyDelete
  68. El Manquécito5:44 PM

    After much merry slaughter I do believe the Roundheads won. For a while. There must have been some point to it all, they did cut off the head of a king.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Christopher Hazell5:46 PM

    If I hear one ,more person talk about Hobby Lobby's "religious liberty" i'm going to scream.


    What they're asking for is the liberty to tell others what to do.


    That's an important distinction, damn it! My right to make my own choices, and my right to make choices for others are fundamentally different, and ought to be talked about in different ways.

    ReplyDelete
  70. You're accurately stating Hobby Lobby's position, but in doing so you're repeating their mistake. Emergency contraception is not an abortifacient, at least not according to medical people for whom that term has a specific meaning. If a fertilized egg never finds a foothold in the uterus, then medically speaking there was no pregnancy to be aborted.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Wm Kiernan6:35 PM

    I don't know about Amanda Marcotte, but do I think Hobby Lobby's owners and Elaine Huguenin are lying about their religious beliefs? Yes indeed, I do! The strongest impression I get whenever I listen to professional religionists is that a,.) they're lying, and b.) they are completely aware that they're lying. It's very repulsive to watch too.

    ReplyDelete
  72. randomworker7:07 PM

    Oh, if my secularism is a faith, then I get some religious liberty too? In my business the only health care we need is running around nekkid in the woods.

    ReplyDelete
  73. J Neo Marvin7:12 PM

    Do Marcotte and the abortion lobby think Hobby Lobby’s
    owners or New Mexico wedding photographer Elaine Huguenin are just lying about their religious beliefs? That this is an evil plot to enslave gays and women?


    They're not necessarily lying about their religious beliefs. She is merely pointing out what their "religious beliefs" are really all about, and therefore said religious beliefs are not exempt from criticism. And discrimination based on religious beliefs is still discrimination and we don't have to respect it as some sort of untouchable holy of holies.

    ReplyDelete
  74. RHWombat7:15 PM

    Ah. Gandhi's first step.

    ReplyDelete
  75. M. Krebs7:17 PM

    Zygotes have feet?

    ReplyDelete
  76. M. Krebs7:28 PM

    ... the most specious product of the Wurlitzer to come down the pike in ages.


    Yeah, if by "specious" you mean "utterly and completely dickish."

    ReplyDelete
  77. M. Krebs7:39 PM

    Tax-exempt status would be nice too. Let's form the Church of What's Happening in Secularism Now.®

    ReplyDelete
  78. RHWombat7:41 PM

    I still haven't heard anything to change my proposition that all religion is politics.

    ReplyDelete
  79. DocAmazing7:52 PM

    Sorta changes the meaning of "take this, all of you, and eat".

    ReplyDelete
  80. sophronia7:55 PM

    Unfortunately these people do believe that the power of religion lies in its rituals and trappings. Sure, they give lip service to beliefs but they don't require themselves to live by them, just to force them on everybody else. After all, they're not perfect, just forgiven. It's all the rest of us who are filthy sinners.

    ReplyDelete
  81. sophronia8:02 PM

    You would think these rampant haters of Big Government would feel a twinge of discomfort about putting said government in charge of assessing the sincerity of religious believers. But hey, there's sluts and gays to be denounced, so no, they're fine with it.

    ReplyDelete
  82. M. Krebs8:24 PM

    Chrism is Christ's jism. Pretty obvious, innit?

    ReplyDelete
  83. XeckyGilchrist8:35 PM

    I think the idea is that all they have to do is say "I'm sincere!" and the Gommint says "oh, OK."

    ReplyDelete
  84. philadelphialawyer9:19 PM

    That's a bit disingenuous. Telling folks that they should lie is not so great, morally. Furthermore, it will not necessarily work. The gay couple comes into the photographer's office and says, "We haven't picked a date, but please tell us when you are free in 2015 and we will schedule our wedding accordingly." If the photographer says either of the two things you recommend, the couple can still go to the Human Rights Commission and complain, because they are not plausible.
    With, say a baker, it is even less plausible...."please make us a cake for our SS wedding anytime in the next month or two...." What bakery is too busy to do that, and what baker "does not accept new clients?"
    Moreover, what we want is an open society where people are free to hire whomever they like, whether they are gay, Jewish, Black, Muslim, Latino, etc. NOT a society where bigots can get away with their bigotry by lying and relying on pretexts. Would you advise the photographer or baker to say those things when Blacks come looking for services? If not, why is it any different with GLBT folks? Would you think it a good idea for employers to refuse job applications from individuals who are members of groups they don't like and rely on similar untruths?

    ReplyDelete
  85. L Bob Rife9:20 PM

    Why steal the cow when you can rape it for free?

    ReplyDelete
  86. philadelphialawyer9:25 PM

    Frankly, I don't care whether they are "sincere" or not. A person can "sincerely" believe a lot of nasty things. A person can "sincerely" believe that God requires those nasty things. So what? Believe whatever you want to believe, but obey the law. When the law starts telling you what to believe, then your religious conscience argument starts to make sense. When JW's were forced to say that they believed what the POA says, that was something like that kind of case. But the law telling you you can't discriminate is no different than the law telling you you can't rape, rob and murder. Whether you believe, no matter how sincerely, that you should do those things, and that God says so, is, or should be, at least, of no moment.

    ReplyDelete
  87. philadelphialawyer9:29 PM

    Exactly right.
    I would like to take this comment to Elaine Photography and force them to take lewd pictures of it.
    I would like to take this comment to a "Christian" bakery and force the owner to make a cake for the express purpose of me and the comment luridly feeding each other with it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. You aren't supposed to chew, though.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Oh yes, I forgot about the norplant craze. And how they were shoving it on adolescent girls--I mean, of course, if they were black.

    ReplyDelete
  90. sophronia9:43 PM

    So if we regard the pill as a sacrament, as they claim, what's to stop us from declaring that it's our sincere religious belief that everyone must be on the pill unless they have specific permission from their employer?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Smarter than Your Average Bear9:56 PM

    What you haven't felt them tickle your tongue? Don't swallow so fast next time :)

    ReplyDelete
  92. smut clyde10:01 PM

    Clams have, why not blastocysts?

    ReplyDelete
  93. tigrismus10:10 PM

    There's a joke to be made here about volume and the second coming, by some horrible person who isn't me.

    ReplyDelete
  94. AGoodQuestion10:13 PM

    Timothy Carney's proposed compromise ranks right up there with "If you let me sodomize you in the prison shower, you can keep the soap."


    On second thought, at least in that one you get a free bar of soap.

    ReplyDelete
  95. AGoodQuestion10:31 PM

    Not sure if that's what 4B meant, but the shoe certainly fits.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well, I don't care about their "sincerity" either... in fact it seemed ludicrous that the state could claim on the one hand that it's interested in protecting the rights of everyone, and then in the next breath say: "Oh, your religious beliefs are SINCERE? Well, OK then... discriminate away." The Arizona law was specifically crafted to allow these wingnut weasels a way to persecute their hated group of choice, and I'm glad it went down in flames.

    ReplyDelete
  97. XeckyGilchrist10:56 PM

    You may not want it, once you find out how they give it to you.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Mooser11:15 PM

    The Gun is not just a gun to them. It has become something holy. And
    they won’t tolerate any burden between them and their Blessed Sacrament.

    ReplyDelete
  99. fraser11:18 PM

    Yes, but the problem is, women can get rid of their husbands too. If divorce on demand were only for men, then Newt can be happy but the uppity bitches can't get away from the regular guys.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mooser11:20 PM

    "What they're asking for is the liberty to tell others what to do."


    Oh, you have that liberty, and nobody can take it away from you, or them. They want the government to sanction their liberty to tell, others what to do.
    What they are really asking for, those phony bastards, is government protection from the consequences of their own liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Mooser11:22 PM

    And right there, the fact that they have gone both ways on this in the last 40 years really shows the depths of their beliefs, and how firmly they are rooted in Christian theology.

    ReplyDelete
  102. fraser11:22 PM

    I remember during the Terri Schiavo case, right-wing pundit John Leo announced that the media showing all the religious people protesting to keep her alive was clear proof the media were anti-religious.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Derelict11:23 PM

    Until it got Obama's name attached to it.
    DING!DING!DING! We have a winner!
    This is precisely the same dynamic of deeply held religious belief that demands John Kerry be barred from receiving communion because he's pro-choice, but celebrates Rudy Giuliani receiving communion despite his being pro-choice. It's the deeply held religious belief that demands Elliot Spitzer be forever shunned for seeing a hooker, but celebrates the forgiveness bestowed on David Vitter, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and countless lesser lights who stepped out on their treasured wives and families. The "R" after the name absolves all sins. (Being white don't hurt either.)

    ReplyDelete
  104. Mooser11:31 PM

    Okay, a cellhold in the uterus.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Mooser11:43 PM

    If they could find just a crack, just the slightest crack they can shove a wedge into, and they will undo the entire Civil Rights principle in America, the idea that all men and women are equal before the law. That is what they want to do, but they might be too late, it just may not be possible, thank God and a lot of good Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Mooser11:48 PM

    "The strongest impression I get whenever I listen to professional
    religionists is that a.) they're lying, and b.) they are completely
    aware that they're lying. It's very repulsive to watch too."



    Look, I know it's completely crazy, but a disturbingly high number of people find that style both attractive and convincing. I can't account for why, but I know that is true.
    Haven't you noticed that an awful lot of politicians, most (but not all unfortunately) Republican ape it, whether unconsciously or not?
    Southern- fried oleaginous is the new American eloquence.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Mooser11:51 PM

    It's very much like what I want out of a photograph; mercy, not justice.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Mooser12:01 AM

    If every goddam one of them followed Jesus every day of their freakin life, and were so good they make Mr. Rogers look like the Marquis de Sade would that give them the right to make laws for the rest of us or, for that matter, even each other?

    Even the idea that a religion, by dint of its righteous and holy behavior, has the right to make laws, or have laws made to comport with its doctrines is frighteningly unAmerican to me.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Mooser12:03 AM

    Hey, as far as they're concerned, having the government sanction their discrimination is a win-win!

    ReplyDelete
  110. Mooser12:07 AM

    Just ignore my comments. I made them before I read all the other comments, and lots of other people said the same things better, sooner. They remain only as proof of my utter political pedestrianism and unoriginality.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Daniel Björkman1:10 AM

    Is the argument somehow that RWReligious people are sincerely pained by what they think god has called them to do?


    No. I thought I made that clear. They believe it, but if believing it caused them any real inconvenience, they'd suddenly "realise" that they were wrong about it.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Daniel Björkman1:17 AM

    I don't know, if a group of people really were uncommonly good and pure and righteous, it seems that putting them in charge might not be the worst of ideas... But I've never seen such a group of people.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Wrangler6:24 AM

    It's because they want a religious war. All of their talk about "Sharia law" isn't a fear: it's a wish.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I agree with Daniel that religion is not just a "fig leaf" for these people.


    Perhaps, it is the particular lever of control their absolutely amoral puppet masters use to steer them around, but I also believe that the masses of wingnuts really do believe whatever fantasy has been spun to justify their fearful, selfish behaviors.


    Generations of Americans have been conditioned to not think for themselves (about anything important to the overlords); they want/need to be led by a sky-daddy, and when offered a choice in any matter, plutocrats will tell them exactly what to do/believe, while progressives will more likely give them long-winded, detailed arguments and facts intended to encourage decision-making, but only leave the wingnuts confused and insecure.


    How is the wingnut supposed to know what to do, if someone doesn't tell them what everybody else (who matters) is doing?


    Religion has been the go-to instrument of control for most of human history, and it works exactly because it is not a fig leaf for the millions it has been turned upon, but has been used to exploit and corrupt the natural human traits of spirituality and imagination.


    There is a significant "arms gap" between progressive leaders and plutocrats--progressives expect individuals to be rational arguments (or at least open to them), seasoned with a healthy dose of empathy. Plutocratic overlords have no such delusion and not only exploit the superstitions, fears, antipathies, and greed of the common wingnut, they have spent the better part of a century cultivating the childlike mentality and emotional stunting of modern American society as if it were their personal bonsai.


    We progressives are trapped by our trust in human decency; the most effective way, possibly the only way, to save the dream of democracy is to employ the same sorts of authoritarian methods that wingnuts have been conditioned to respond to, but that is antithetical to progressive philosophy. What to do?


    A religious person might be convinced the Devil was laughing his ass off at the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Religions folk can't help it--they're, well, religious. They literally cannot comprehend another level of awareness, and all human behavior is interpreted through that distorted lens.


    For the record, my personal ideas on the matter can lead one to a similar, and ironic, conclusion. Spirituality, which I describe as a mix of curiosity, imagination and sense of mortality, is common to nearly all humans. In fact, I would argue it is a defining trait of human evolutionary development. This trait gave rise to the Scientific Method, but it previously gave rise to Religion, which is merely an authoritarian exploitation of that natural human curiosity about Life, The Universe, and Everything.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Lurking Canadian8:08 AM

    It's not that long ago that Ann Coulter was saying we thought abortion was a sacrament. I can't decide if this is a step forward of back.

    And I remain completely baffled by this Hobby Lobby thing. If I "sincerely believe" that my faith requires me to sacrifice my neighbour's baby at the altar of Moloch, does the RFRA exempt me from following that law, too?

    ReplyDelete
  117. William Miller8:43 AM

    "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." Typical bumper-sticker logic.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Helmut Monotreme8:43 AM

    I deeply regret that I can only upvote this comment once.

    ReplyDelete
  119. William Miller8:54 AM

    It's not a new idea, of course. It's just never worked out in reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king

    ReplyDelete
  120. philadlephialawyer9:38 AM

    Right. Hence the move to label all atheist as "scientismists." Science, in their minds, can't be just a tool (ie the scientific method), it can't even be just widely held scientific theories, like TOE and the Big Bang Theory, nor can it be, at bottom, simply a continuation and formalization of every day epistemology (ie sensory data plus logic are really the only ways to learn anything about the world) that is used not only in science, but in forensics, history, etc., not to mention common sense, but it must be something else besides. It just MUST be a religion too, because, as you say, they can't comprehend folks not having a religion. All the big questions (origin of life, origin of the universe, etc) must not only have answers, but the answers must be such that they are complete and decided, now and forever. Since they crave that certainty, they can't comprehend that others don't. Or that others, while perhaps craving it, have come to terms with the impossibility of that. Same with "meaning" in life. Their religions give them a sense of meaning, and they can't comprehend how others can live without it, or more specifically, how others can live without it being, as you say, dictated from on high, and, again, unchanging and completely decided already for them and for all humans to come.

    ReplyDelete
  121. BigHank539:44 AM

    The difference between a sacrament and the Pill is that the Pill works whether or not you believe in it. A sacrament without belief is an empty ritual--but I guess just going through the motions is enough for conservatives these days.

    ReplyDelete
  122. BigHank539:46 AM

    I'd really appreciate these little hints before the service next time.

    ReplyDelete
  123. XeckyGilchrist10:14 AM

    It's a favorite rightie whine. Like how showing Sarah Palin saying unforced stupid things in an interview was anti-Palin.

    ReplyDelete
  124. It is also why authoritarian abusers prefer that everyone be religious. Religion depends on an Ultimate Authority, whether be a priest, a pope, an invisible sky-daddy, or even a collection of fables in a book. Hence, religious folk are naturally open to exploitation by cynical abusers.


    Scientific methods of inquiry (and, like you, I do not restrict the term to the popular idea of "science"), is designed to be resistant to this sort of corruption. It does happen, of course, humans being fallible creatures, but it can only be corrupted in this way by disregarding the basic methodology.


    Religion has authoritarianism "built-in," while scientific methods of inquiry intentionally view authority with suspicion. This is something else religious people cannot grok--that genuine investigations depend upon critique. Absolute authority is suspicious.


    Which worldview do the plutocrats prefer dominate society? Hmmmmm….

    ReplyDelete
  125. "If I "sincerely believe" that my faith requires me to sacrifice my
    neighbour's baby at the altar of Moloch, does the RFRA exempt me from
    following that law, too?"


    Well, how many billionaire donors support you?

    ReplyDelete
  126. LittlePig10:38 AM

    Yep. I was repeating HL's wording, and sure enough they are full of shit. They are even stupider than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  127. LittlePig10:48 AM

    Indeed. Think how rapacious the actual human beings running the corporation are, and then imagine an entity that doesn't even have to bother to go to church in real life. Not even the hypocrisy of pretending to believe among other humans.one day out of the week. What does the corporation wear to church on Easter?



    And I thought the whole 'the purpose of a corporation is to make money, period' was High Holy Text for the Chamber of Commerce set. How does that jibe with an ostensibly Christian corporate person?

    ReplyDelete
  128. StringOnAStick11:07 AM

    I have an older, very fundy half sister, and I've realized her need for a Magic Answer Book to all Things was partly due to her chaotic first few years of life, combined with an authoritarian personality. Every bad thing that befell anyone was immediately explained by her as the result of a religious/moral failing. One of her sons now has a terminal brain cancer, and that "X therefore Y" outlook on life has hit the wall, hard.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Daniel Björkman11:21 AM

    Alas, so many good ideas would work just fine if only human nature was completely different. :P

    ReplyDelete
  130. LittlePig11:27 AM

    And blowing the Graven Image clause, at that. That one right up there at the front of the contract. I mean come on, he didn't even get to stealin', killin' and adulterin'.

    ReplyDelete
  131. It's tricky, because we all know people for whom religion has been useful in difficult situations. I will admit, reluctantly, that it can be positive when used responsibly on a small scale.


    The problem is that this same tool that seems innocuous, or even beneficial, for responsible individuals is disastrous for societies on a large scale. I am aware of no example in history of religion not being abused and exploited for terrible purposes--sooner or later. This is not because it is inherently "evil" to take comfort in religion; it is because there are inherently "evil" people, and religion is an open conduit into people's control centers.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Daniel Björkman11:54 AM

    Nothing, except that you'd need to be able to keep a straight face about it while going through all the motions of showing religious zeal on the subject. And you'd need to do it a lot, because you'd have to argue with all sorts of official people about it and write angry letters to newspapers decrying the attacks on your freedom to practice your devoutly held faith, and just generally convince both the public and the authorities that this wasn't just some cynical ploy to do what you wanted to do. But if you did all that and you went through a few decades of court battles, yeah - I think it could be done.

    Of course, anyone who's crazy and fanatical enough to pull that off would be too crazy and fanatical to pull it off with something this practical and beneficent. That's the problem with the world - the awesome power of barking lunacy is always used for evil, never for good. :P

    ReplyDelete
  133. Daniel Björkman11:58 AM

    I think it's just another way of saying, "they're completely refusing to budge just like we're always completely refusing to budge! What's up with that? Having inflexible principles is our thing! :o"

    ReplyDelete
  134. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person12:35 PM

    Apparently he Used-to-be-a-liberal

    Glad to be rid of him...

    ReplyDelete
  135. Halloween_Jack12:42 PM

    Adults Only: What the Apostle Saw

    ReplyDelete
  136. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person12:43 PM

    Not really sure the Chech would admit that stuff actually existed...

    ReplyDelete
  137. Halloween_Jack12:44 PM

    No doubt in homage to the wedding ritual where the bride and groom feed each other and end up with sticky white stuff all over their faces.

    ReplyDelete
  138. BTW--I'm certain of all this because god told me it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  139. XeckyGilchrist1:04 PM

    http://img.pandawhale.com/post-11756-I-Understood-That-Reference-gi-PzDh.gif

    (But also, speaking of crazy fundies. That comic went from gentle nonsense to finger-wagging Christopathy over the years.)

    ReplyDelete
  140. StringOnAStick1:05 PM

    It has changed her relationship with religion, somewhat. I think she's mostly in denial and emotional shutdown, and doesn't have the energy for the culture wars like she used to. Mostly she's just plain lost because she followed the Magic Answer Book to the letter, and now this happens.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I also like how "briefly blogged for the Edwards campaign until religious nuts threw a hissy fit over her criticism of church leaders and got her fired" somehow morphs into "former Democratic operative." Yeah, this someone arguing in good faith.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Matt Jones12:35 AM

    Shorter Timothy Carney: "I mean, it's impossible to decide between breaching the imagined preferences of an imaginary invisible man in the sky and the bodily agency of real live women..."

    ReplyDelete
  143. Sondra1:12 PM

    As usual when I read these articles that attempt to seem logical, my mind just ends up on tilt. But since I have a lovely liberal higher education, most of which I vaguely remember, I'll just say "ex falso sequitor quod libet".
    "Anything follows from a false premise"

    ReplyDelete