A Real Moral Evil.

The Catholic Church is currently the center of a global scandal. Why this is the case only now is quite honestly not relevant because the problem has been going on for decades and possibly centuries. This is the scandal involving the rape and torture of children. Some people euphemistically call this "child abuse", but to me it is quite simply rape.

The problem seems to be exacerbated by the fact that Joseph Ratzinger (or Benedict XVI, the current pope) was at one point in charge of protecting Catholic priests from secular prosecution. For the crime of raping children. He advised these pedophiles that their crime was not the rape, but talking to outside law enforcement about it. Not only that, he transferred offending priests to other parishes which gave them a fresh batch of innocent children to prey upon. His primary interest was in defense of the church! How can any morally adjusted person even conceive of such a thing?

What would you think of a CEO of a company that ran nurseries or daycare centers around the world who did not immediately fire and report employees committing crimes against children, but transferred them elsewhere without so much as a slap on the wrist? What would you think of such a person? Their company would collapse, the CEO and all offending employees would be locked in prison. So why is this not the case for religious institutions like the Catholic church?

Another point on the CEO comparison is that a CEO does not claim to be an infallible representative of the creator of the universe (and the only one at that). The Pope is Christ's Representative on Earth. He is supposed to be the moral leader of humanity. There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1. God and Jesus Christ condone the rape and torture of children, or 2. The Pope's claim to be the last word on human morality is total B.S. Neither one reflects well on the Catholic Church.

One more point to consider is that Vatican City is a recognized state in its own right, which makes the pope the head of a church and a country. He uses this to further protect members of his church from secular prosecution. He protects rapists and sadists. This is no way for anyone to behave. The fact that the pope is considered a moral leader is frankly disgusting. I would go so far as to say that the way the church and pope have acted can appropriately be described as evil.

The Catholic church preaches moral absolutes with regard to homosexuality, divorce, abortion and condom use (all of which are labeled as abominations or moral evils) but, at the same time, wishes to protect those who commit the worst imaginable crime. For me this is clear evidence that no morally serious person should take anything it says seriously. While one could argue the superstitious and supernatural elements should not be taken literally but its moral teaching is good, this scandal completely destroys that feeble justification for its existence. The sooner people realize this the better.

Never Justified

So this weekend President Obama signed into law the Health Care reform bill that his administration and party have been working on for the past year. While the reconciliation package still (as of this writing) awaits passage in order to fix the flaws of the current bill it can be viewed as a Democratic success (to some extent: I would say that it is more a Health Insurance Reform bill than a Health Care Reform bill considering its lack of a single payer or even public option).

With this success, there has been a backlash against Democratic members of Congress. Protesters outside of the United States Capitol hurled racial epithets at African American Congressmen and homophobic slurs against openly gay Rep. Barney Frank as they tried to go to work. Some members of Congress were even spat on. This, however, is not the worst of it.

Since the bill's passage, many members of the Democratic party have been targeted by threats of violence and aggression. Several Democratic offices around the country have been vandalized by bricks being thrown through the windows. This, also, is not my focus.

My focus is on Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. If you have been following the health care debate you will know that he is the Democratic congressman who threatened to derail the entire bill if the language on abortion was not made more restrictive. He claimed that the Senate version of the bill would allow federal funding of a legal procedure. It did not. He wanted to ban people who get any government subsidy for health insurance to be banned from getting abortion coverage in their plan even if they paid for that part with their own money. This would essentially make the legal procedure all but banned for anyone that wasn't rich enough to pay for separate abortion coverage. He was eventually convinced to vote in favor of the legislation by being assured that the Senate bill does not expand abortion rights and promised by the president that an Executive Order would be signed to reinforce the limits of the Senate bill on abortion.

The abortion debate is something that I do not wish to get into in too much detail. All I will say on the matter is that I feel I do not have the right to decide about abortion because I do not have a uterus. It is completely a matter for those it will effect: women. I disagree with Mr. Stupak's position on it and am disappointed that he tried to use the health care bill as a vehicle to gain restrictions on women's reproductive rights.

What I wanted to focus on was the backlash that Mr. Stupak has faced since his vote in favor of reform. He has received calls from outraged members of the public claiming that he betrayed their cause; calling him a "baby killer" (something that was also shouted at him by a fellow Congressman as he was speaking on the floor of the House). These people identified themselves as "pro-life" and then proceeded to give him death threats. One caller wished that Mr. Stupak would get cancer and die, another said that he was the devil.

While I strongly disagree with Mr. Stupak's political positions (and his involvement with a secretive religious organization called "The Family" who have been apparently subsidizing his living expenses in Washington) I would never have condoned anyone who disagreed with him to threaten him with violence or to wish death upon him. Even if he had voted against reform the worst I would have wished for is that he not be re-elected. That is it. It is never justified to speak to another person in such a way, be they an elected government official or not.

These "pro-life" bullies (who apparently do not see the irony in wishing death upon someone else, like Dr. George Tiller, and still call themselves pro-life) cannot defend their actions in any way that will make it alright. Even if the bill Mr. Stupak voted for expanded abortion rights (which it clearly and plainly does not) this would not be justified. The fact that such vile language has been directed at him despite the fact that he is still on their side politically is nothing short of stupid.

I could lecture Mr. Stupak about him looking carefully at the people he claims to support and ask him to reconsider but frankly that is not the issue. Whatever his political or religious allegiance it is never justified to react in such a vile and threatening manner. Never.

Spitting in the Face of History.

So apparently the Texas State Board of Education has approved some right wing alterations to their curriculum which will stay in effect for ten years. While this may on the surface not be much of a surprise but one of the changes has seriously annoyed me. The change in question being the removal of Thomas Jefferson as an influential person during American independence and the Enlightenment in favor of people like Thomas Aquinas. The textbooks will also

cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.

This infuriates me. Texas is one of the biggest, most populous states in the Union and for the next decade their schoolchildren will be taught things about the founding of the USA that are flat out wrong, and will not be taught things that are vitally important.

Eliminating Thomas Jefferson is eliminating the chief author of The Declaration of Independence! That, to me, seems like an important thing to leave out of a history textbook. The problem that the ultraconservatives seem to have with Jefferson is that he was a deist who was very critical of Christianity (its super-naturalism and dogma at least) and even produced his own version of the New Testament which cut out all references to the divinity of Jesus Christ.

He was not alone in this. Benjamin Franklin, another of the Founding Fathers and a co-author of the Declaration, was almost certainly an atheist. Many of the founders were deists. George Washington refused to take communion. The Declaration and the Constitution both omit any mention of any theistic god, never mind mention of Jesus.

The separation of Church and State is something that Jefferson strongly advocated and, as a result, the United States of America was founded upon some of the best principles possible. Some religious apologists like to argue that it only works one way: that the State has no business in the Church. This is flat out wrong. The United States is founded on what Jefferson called a 'wall of separation'.

The founding of the United States is secular. To teach otherwise is quite frankly teaching a lie. I apologize if this entry has not been very well structured but this is an issue that is very close to my heart. The Texas State Board of Education should be ashamed that it has condemned a decade's worth of its schoolchildren to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what really makes their country great.

Sex. As Promised.

In yesterday's entry I said the following:

I was originally planning to talk about the third (and often most debated) choice of straight edge: the one regarding promiscuous sex. This, sadly, will have to wait for another entry as I fear I have gone on too long as it is.

I like to think of myself as a man of my word, so I shall address that point today while it is still fresh in my mind.

As part of straight edge I choose not to engage in promiscuous sex, but this often comes under scrutiny when trying to explain it because of the rather murky definition of "promiscuous". Most people ignore the word entirely and only hear "No sex". That thought alone is enough to shock them into thinking straight edge is some sort of religious cult. Not true.

Promiscuous sex, as I would define it (which is all that matters as straight edge is a personal choice, not a clear cut set of rules) is basically meaningless, emotionless sex with strangers or people with whom a personal connection is not shared. This includes one night stands (for obvious reasons). There is no provision in straight edge that says sex is not allowed, but the original Minor Threat song decried "fucking" (which I put into quotation marks for a reason in the last entry). Straight edge encourages a healthy lifestyle, both physically and mentally, so providing that sex is safe and meaningful then it is absolutely fine.

Some people would regard promiscuous sex as any sex had before marriage. With this I must contend. Marriage is essentially a legal document that makes a relationship recognized by the state (for now I will ignore that it originated as a property exchange between the bride's father and husband). It is not required for a loving, fulfilling and happy relationship. With that in mind it seems silly for someone to wait for something as arbitrary as a marriage license before engaging in sex.

With this in mind I would like to express a certain sadness for the way in which sex has been devalued in the modern world. Sex is very enjoyable and as a result, people want to experience it (a wonderful evolutionary imperative, in my opinion) and thus the attainment of sex has become a status symbol. This is especially true among young men. Throughout adolescence it seems as though in order to be accepted by one's peers, one must have sex. Because of this attitude, a lot of adolescent males and females are trying to have sex as early as possible.

Personally, I think this is a shame. With sex becoming an essential experience that one must have as quickly as possible the real beauty of it has become lost (or faded at the very least). Sex is, to me, a deep expression of intimacy between two people. Obviously, in the context of a loving committed relationship not all encounters have to be seen exclusively in this way (sometimes biological urges take over!) but it should at least be kept in mind. This is why I also have no moral issue with sexual experimentation between two consenting adults (regardless of sexual orientation. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: Homosexuality is not a form of sex, but a form of love).

I am not intending this entry to be preaching to anyone about how they approach the subject of sex. If someone is satisfied having a string of one night stands then that is completely their own business (provided they do so safely). On the same token, if someone wishes to wait until they have gotten married to have sex, that is equally their own business.

I do not wish to preach. I am simply using this entry as an expression of my attitude towards sex and how it fits in with me being straight edge. I sincerely hope that it has cleared up any confusion.