Infidels of Every Denomination

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Denounces The Vatican

Yes, you read that right.  Earlier this week the San Francisco Board of Supervisors issued a resolution denouncing the Vatican and its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith generally with regard to its teachings about homosexuality, and specifically about it's directive to the Archdiocese of San Francisco (among others) and Catholic Charities not to participate in adoption placements.  (I've included the full text of the resolution at the end of this entry.)  The directive was in response to legislation requiring that adoption services not discriminate against lesbian and gay applicants.

You've already seen my mixed thoughts about such anti-discrimination policies that don't allow exemptions for religious services providers.  I wish I could tell you that my opinion has solidified one way or the other, but it hasn't.  I'm still torn, and suspect I will be for some time.

What's interesting me here is the Supervisors' resolution itself.  The Vatican is a sovereign nation, and it's perfectly legitimate for a nation or one of its political subdivisions to denounce the conduct of a foreign state (which the Supervisors made clear it was doing in the second paragraph -- the first "whereas" clause -- of the resolution).  In that sense, what the Supervisors did was proper.  Where things get sketchy is that it's not just a nation -- it's also the center of a religious body:  is it proper for a government entity to officially denounce the teachings and directives of a particular religion, and the actions of its clergy?

The Big Deal about Big Love

HBO's new series Big Love has gotten quite a bit of press, mostly aimed towards its portrayal of a polygamous family.  The key word being "polygamous."  Perhaps some of their promos mentioned the word "Utah."  One word you most definitely didn't see, however, was "Mormon."

Interesting, that.  Especially since, from where I'm standing, the show's about a Mormon polygamous family -- the most relevant word being "Mormon."

I wonder how the press -- and the Mormon church -- would have reacted to that?

Catholic Charities stops facilitating adoptions in MA

I may have more to say about this later,  but I wanted to at least get things started.

As you may know, Massachusetts has a law prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbian families when placing children for adoption.  A few months ago Catholic Charities' board unanimously voted to continue to facilitate adoptions of hard-to-place children in state care, despite the state law.  Last week Catholic Charities announced that, pursuant to the decisions of local bishops, it would no longer participate in adoptions in Massachusetts.

First, kudos to Catholic Charities' board -- especially the members (seven, I believe) who resigned in protest -- for intending to make this decision after careful thought and consideration.  It's my sincere hope that those former board members -- perhaps with the assistance of others still on the board -- have the desire and ability to found a new agency that continues the good work that Catholic Charities had been doing for all children.

Second, was there really no way to work around this apparent conflict?

Intelligent Design is struck down in PA, but what does the opinion foretell about the future of an independent judiciary?

It's been a rough few months for this blogger, which is why you haven't seen me in a while.  This doesn't mean that there hasn't been a lot happening on the legal front -- there has.  And, hopefully, I'll be able to do some catching up during the next few weeks.  Today, though, it's time for current events.

Earlier today a judge from the Middle District of Pennsylvania held, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, that the School District cannot require students to hear about Intelligent Design.  The court determined that  "the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."  The court based its ruling, in part, on the fact that plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

In case you're wondering, the judge who decided the case -- the Hon. John E. Jones III -- is a 2002 Bush appointee.

In a striking commentary on the current climate in the US, the court apparently felt constrained to preemptively defend its own decision -- and itself -- from charges of judicial activism.  The court not only protested any such label, but criticized the school board and its attorneys in a manner rarely seen in court decisions.

What Would Jesus Wear?

The Church of England's Bishop of Bolton says God *hearts* sexy panties!

Activate, a women's Christian charity, has put out a book called Open the Door which offers fun suggestions for ways that religious leaders can get women interested in going to church again. The suggestions include "pamper parties" (spa nights), murder mystery evenings (Abel is dead! whodunit?!), knitting groups, and...lingerie parties.

No, seriously.

It [the book] says: "What a tragedy that we are surrounded daily with television programmes, art, film and even real-life stories sold to magazines and newspapers that champion casual sex and pornography, yet as Christians we often have so little to say about it."

Well...ok. I was under the impression that y'all couldn't shut up about it and that Teh Sex was Teh Evil, but, whatever.

It doesn't specify any particular type of lingerie to be offered at these parties but I can't help imagining what might be popular. Panties with "WWJD" on the crotch ought certainly to give a randy husband pause, no? Maybe something saucier, perhaps a red thong reading "Stone Evil" or "Temptress". Maybe man panties that say "God's Rod"! Oh, I could so get rich off this...

Bishop Cakeordeath sez:

They are the modern version of the Tupperware party and they are a natural way for women to meet. They can lead to a discussion of themes such as Adam and Eve and relations between people and God.

Or, they can lead to a ribald game of "pass the dildo" like what happened at the one lingerie party I've ever been to. (Also, he said "relations". hee!)

But hey, I'm totally in favor of sacred sexuality, so why should Christians have all the fun? If you're of a more alternative sort of faith, you can wear these proudly and testify!

Horned One Come undies

Worship Here panties

Sacred Site dainties

Voodoo Queen panties (nice veve!)

"Rub me for good luck" Buddha panties

British Muslims Working to Counter Extremism

The Guardian reports that Muslim leaders in Britain have agreed to form a national council in order to address the special needs and challenges of British Muslims as well as to weed out all extremist elements.

Lord Ahmed, who unveiled the proposal as part of the government's programme of tackling extremism and engaging disaffected Muslim youth in Britain, said there were 2,000 imams, of whom only 300 were "homegrown". Too often sermons were delivered only in Arabic and women and young people were excluded from the mosque committees which employed imams. In some cases those running Britain's mosques were illiterate or even had criminal records, he said. The council would be independent of the government and led by the community to establish a common platform for every Islamic tradition in Britain.

"This is a historic move. As British Muslims we need to be prepared to modernise the way we operate, encouraging integration and helping our children to feel proud to be British," said Lord Ahmed.

"We are no longer Pakistani Muslims or north African Muslims but British Muslims. We need to attract young suitable candidates who will be homegrown imams rather than asking for imams from outside. The prayer is in Arabic but the translation must be done in English so that we can reach the 50% of under-24s who do not understand Arabic," he said.

I think it's an important move that the British Muslim community is taking the lead in making these changes and setting its own tone. I do have to wonder how much of this is in response to Tony Blair's recent threats to shut down mosques deemed "extremist" and to deport Islamic foreign nationals who preach fundamentalist views-- I couldn't blame them for wanting to take initiative on their own rather than be seen as an unruly force in need of strict discipline from non-Muslim government leaders. Still, I'd like to think that a plan like this would have come into being on its own simply out of rage and frustration at the extremist elements wresting control of the faith from the peaceful, honest Muslims just trying to go about their lives and practice their religion nonviolently.

At any rate, it's a bit of good news, and at a time when we can certainly use all we can get.

RIP

Artist, feminist, activist, and matriarch of the Goddess movement Monica Sjoo died of cancer back on August 8th, so I'm not quite sure why The Guardian is only running an obit article now. However, it's a very nice overview of the life and work of this fascinating and powerful woman.

We have also lost this week a remarkable, courageous man with the death of Simon Wiesenthal. An indefatiguable Nazi hunter, I have a personal profound respect for his insistence that the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust deserved to be remembered and honored (my grandfather, who survived the camps, is in this number), and he believed that each individual has the responsibility to guard against the rise of neo-Nazi or fascist regimes. Wise thoughts for these times, indeed.

The world is poorer for their loss, but richer for their lives.

Immune to Shame

Somehow "the Teflon Pontiff" just doesn't roll off the tongue.

But the Vatican's just slippery as a greased-up jackhammer jesus these days, innit? They're refusing to help track down an accused Croatian war criminal who is believed to be in hiding from a UN war crimes tribunal in a Catholic monastery. Yes, when it comes to horrible crimes amongst their own, Vatican policy is all about sheltering the perps and stonewalling justice.

Which brings us to the Justice Department's decision that the Pope has immunity as a head of state against a Houston lawsuit accusing him of conspiring in a coverup of the molestation of three boys by Catholic clergy. Attorney Daniel Shea is challenging the constitutionality of this decision on the grounds that the Pope is the head of a church, not of a state. Think about this-- can you imagine the Justice Department blithely granting immunity to an Islamic leader who was responsible for hiding from justice followers who committed crimes against American children? It's high time we stopped assuming that a leader's holiness is in direct proportion to his Christianity. This idea that the Pope is beyond the realm of human justice is simply ludicrous.

But really, who can possibly think that the Vatican isn't totally committed to purging its clergy of child molesters? I mean, they are going to make sure that no gay men are allowed to become priests, whether or not they are faithfully celibate, in order to "restore credibility" to the church in the wake of scandals. They're going to scour seminaries, rooting out teh gay.

Church officials and their conservative backers said it would be irresponsible not to look at the role homosexuality might have played in the high rate of abuse by Catholic priests.

...even though homosexuality has about as much to do with child molestation as any particular race has to do with raping women. See? The God Squad's on it! Why don't we all just stop persecuting them?

Meanwhile, in Mexico, a Catholic bishop can't understand why anyone would find it disturbing that his church knowingly accepts money from criminal drug rings:

On Monday, the bishop said money can start out being dirty but "can be transformed" when it enters the church, Mexican news media reported.

Yeah, and that's exactly what Jesus said when he caught those money changers in the temple. Or, you know, he kicked them out on the principle that in the church, financial ends don't justify the means.

Hmmm...of course...this might just be a clue! Maybe the rationale for all those molestations is that an underage penis can start out being dirty but can be transformed when it enters the church servant.

Is there ever a point at which the Vatican practices the Catholic rite of reconciliation and simply takes responsibility for its own sins and failings? I was raised in the Catholic church and you know what, I'm glad I left at the first opportunity, because it would disgust me to belong to a religion whose leaders think it is better to hide and shelter known criminals than to protect the children in its flock, and that is more concerned with maintaining a death grip on power and privilege and money than on doing the right thing. I feel sorry for the many, many good people who are Catholic and the many decent and honorable priests and nuns who deserve much more strength of character and purity of spirit in their leaders.

National Day of Prayer

September 16th has been designated by Bush as a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Katrina victims. (You know, in case you were living under a rock, or were on vacation or working for FEMA and therefore missed the news.)

Certainly, it is hardly unusual for any political leader in America to call for a day of prayer, particularly in the wake of tragedy. What IS unusual is how often Bush designates them, and frequently for no particular reason (though I'm going to guess lagging poll numbers).

As a spiritual person myself, I know what comfort prayer can bring when one is grappling with grief and confusion. Those of us who believe in such things find it important to offer aid and solace and support to the suffering on a spiritual level in addition to a physical one. I think that everyone who is inclined to should spend however much time they wish in prayer for Katrina's victims; I think it is an appropriate time for spiritual leaders to gather their congregants and for groups to seek time together with their members, and to call privately for prayer or meditation or ritual.

But I find it extremely inappropriate for public leaders to do the same. (In that, I find myself in the company of some pretty cool guys.)

New Spin From An Old Idea

I think there's a reason that I first read the word as "theidiocy" when I began reading this NY Times article by Edward Rothstein.

The actual word, and the subject of his commentary, is "theodicy"-- a term referring to the belief that vindication of the goodness of God can be found in the existence of evil, or more particularly that an "evil" event can be explained as the manifestation of divine goodness and justice. Since it's kind of convoluted reasoning, it may not surprise you that it was real popular in the medieval era and less so post-Enlightenment. It's kind of like Karl Rove saying that Bush's razor-thin margin of victory in 2004 is evidence proving a mandate. (ok, and he pretty much did say that...so I guess that tells you what era our administration most resembles, not that you didn't know already.) Rothstein seems to use the term somewhat loosely, to mean any assignment of cause to any person, group, or power in order to explain the effect of a disaster or other generally inexplicable and devastating event, where there is no logical proof of cause and effect.

The thrust of the article is that we are crafting a new theodicy to explain Hurricane Katrina. I bet you'll agree, thinking of the wackjobs on the right who are eagerly calling the disaster proof that God hates gays, druggies, and sluts. Guess what-- you're wrong. (Even though that would be a much more classic example of a theodicy-- God causes floods to wipe out sinful cities, thus proving that he is super just and mega committed to rewarding goodness and punishing evil-- than what Rothstein actually proposes.)

No, the theodicy that he sees is that people are pointing to the hurricane and the flood as proof of a lousy administration-- that we're mad at Bushco. because we think that if they had been better people, there wouldn't have been a hurricane.

Yeah. Because, you know, anyone who criticizes Bush over the federal (lack of) response to the disaster is a medieval thinker. Probably we also want to treat the victims' humour imbalances.

He's in part talking about the folks who lay Katrina at the feet of global warming and anti-environmentalism, but he seems to take a broader view:

There is a theodicy at work here, in the ways in which the reaction to natural catastrophe so readily becomes political. Nature becomes something to be managed or mismanaged; it lies within the political order, not outside it. Theodicy, if successful, does not overturn belief but confirms it. So, for some commentators, the flood and its aftermath provided confirmation of their previous doubts about the Bush adminstration.

It's sort of a nerdy way of criticizing the post-Katrina Bush critics for "playing the blame game".

Here's where the argument falls down: For those of us who've been taking the administration to task over Katrina, it's not the flood or any natural effects of the aftermath that confirm our previous doubts about the Bushies, it is their handling of, lack of preparation for, and reaction to those events that confirms it.

Get it? It's not that we think God or Mother Nature or Aquaman pushed a whole lot of water over the levees because they were mad at George Bush for being an oversized Mike Teevee complete with cowboy hat. It's that we saw the levees breaking as a logical result of slashed federal funding that prevented the fortification and upgrades of the levees-- as something that could have been avoided, or at the very least something we needed to try a lot harder to prevent. It's not that we think that poor black people dying proves that George Bush is a racist, classist patrician pig. It's that he and his administration showed themselves to be racist, classist, patrician and by the way *incompetent* pigs when they failed to act or even show concern at a time when swift and decisive action would have saved many (largely poor and black) lives, particularly when contrasted with the swift and decisive action and great concern demonstrated over the extension of one white brain-dead woman's life. Get it? If preventative measures had been taken, if the threat of flooding and hurricane damage in the region had been taken as seriously as we knew it was, if at LEAST every single official involved had made the storm a priority and rushed to mobilize as fast as possible and helped the victims instead of blaming and shooting them-- if after all that there was still flooding and destruction and even death (as surely there would have been), most people would be saying, "well, it was a terrible tragedy and we will mourn it for a long time, but everyone worked hard and we did the best we could."

And whether or not you agree that global warming had any measurable effect on Katrina (I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to make any assertions), it's clear that draining swamp and marshland to build casinos and housing developments damaged the natural defenses of the Gulf Coast. Holding anti-environmentalist officials accountable for actions that made the aftereffects worse is not the same thing as blaming them for the existence of natural disasters in the first place.

But pardon, good gentles, prithee I fear I am in excess of the choler, and mun find the cirurgeon to cure me. Alas!