Freedom, Joy, and Tau Ceti's Planets

"Freedom" shouldn't mean "free to agree with me." As a Catholic, I wouldn't be allowed to force others to believe as I do - even if I could. We're told to take freedom very seriously. Citizenship, too:

• "Freedom for 'People of Any Faith or No Faith At All'"
  (November 9, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Freedom, Citizenship, and All That
  • "Rooted in the Dignity of Every Human Person"

This week I found good news for folks who value freedom, and life; and exciting news from a team of astronomers:

1. Good News: Two Religious Colleges
   Exempt from Lethal Health Care
   • America's Rulers and Religious Freedom
   • The Little Sisters of the Poor and Washington
2. More Worlds: Planets Orbiting Tau Ceti
   • "They are everywhere..."
   • Alone?
3. Suffering and Joy During Advent
   • "Nothing Remotely Naïve"
   • "...Something to do With Free Will..."
   • "God is Good ...We Human Beings are Free..."
   • "...Love is Stronger than Death..."
4. Satawa's Nativity Scene is Back!
   • Well-Wishers, Carolers, and a Priest
   • City Hall, Persistence, and Freedom

---

Freedom

I'm an American. I was born during the Truman administration, spent my youth in the '60s, remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism, and the heyday of political correctness. I like freedom, and am convinced that freedom is not being forced to go along with what a government wants.

If you follow this blog (thank you!) you've probably seen this before:

• Religious freedom is vital
  (Catechism, 2104-2109)
  • For everybody
    (Catechism, 2106)
• Some actions are always wrong
  (Catechism, 1789)
  • Even if the President says it's okay
    (Catechism, 2242)
• Human life
  • Is sacred
    (Catechism, 2258)
  • Begins at conception
  (Catechism, 2270, 2274)
• Murder is wrong
  (Catechism, 2259-2262, 2268-2269)
  • Even when
    • It's legal
    • Called something else
    (Catechism, 2270-2275, 2276-2279)

Enough background. Here's my take on the week's news:

---

1. Good News: Two Religious Colleges
Exempt from Lethal Health Care

"Religious schools claim 'major victory' after ruling on contraception mandate"
FoxNews.com (December 19, 2012)

"Two religious-affiliated colleges claimed a 'major victory' Tuesday after a federal appeals court ordered the Obama administration to verify that it is revising the so-called contraception mandate in ObamaCare.

"The decision out of the D.C. Court of Appeals effectively reinstated a challenge that had been dismissed by lower courts. Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College were arguing against the federal health care overhaul rule that requires employers to provide access to contraceptive care.

"The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has represented several plaintiffs challenging the rule, hailed the court decision....

The Becket Fund "protects the free expression of all faiths." ("Our Mission," www.becketfund.org) The outfit is named after Thomas a Becket, an appointee of Henry II.

You've probably heard what happened. There was a conflict of interest, during which the English king apparently said "will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest?" (History Learning Site) Maybe it was "turbulent priest." (Spartacus Educational) Either way, Thomas a Becket was a troublemaker.

He's known as Saint Thomas a Becket now. Cleaning the blood off Canterbury's cathedral floor was probably rather easy. Cleaning Henry II's reputation wasn't, and that's another topic. I've mentioned St. Thomas a Becket before. (September 6, 2011)

Wheaton and Belmont Abbey colleges probably won't be the last organizations to need help, so here's where to find the Becket Fund:

• The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
  (www.becketfund.org)
  • "Our Mission"
  • "Our History"

America's Rulers and Religious Freedom

"...'The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom,' Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund, said in a statement. 'The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road.'

"The court ruling did not overturn the contraception mandate. Rather, it effectively put the court case on hold while requiring the Obama administration to follow through on its pledge to revise the mandate as it pertains to religious-affiliated groups.

" 'We take that as a binding commitment,' the court said in its ruling Tuesday. The court ordered the administration to file status reports every 60 days on its progress toward issuing a new policy in the first quarter of 2013.

"The contraception rule does include an exemption for religious organizations -- but that exemption does not cover many religious-affiliated organizations like schools and charities...."
(FoxNews.com)

The "exemption for religious organizations" is a joke.

"...The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain 'religious employers.' That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to 'Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,' or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served...."
("USCCB Responds To Inaccurate Statement Of Fact On HHS Mandate Made During Vice Presidential Debate," USCCB Media News Release (October 12, 2012))

It seems to me that hospitals run by folks with ethical standards are in a Catch-22 situation. If they refuse to serve people outside their faith, they'd probably be guilty of discrimination on the basis of religion. If they are willing to help anybody, they have to offer lethal "womens' health services," or be fined out of existence.

It looks like a well-crafted scheme to edge 'religious people' out of health care. I can, in a way, admire the craftiness: but I don't approve. At all.

The Little Sisters of the Poor and Washington

"...Meanwhile, other groups have expressed concern about what the mandate will mean for their own survival. One group, The Little Sisters of the Poor, told The Daily Caller that the mandate could be a 'serious threat' to the group's U.S. mission of 300 nuns.

"The organization, as a Catholic group, opposes contraception, and the concern is that the fine that could be imposed for violating the rule would impose financial hardship. 'We have no extra funding that would cover these fines,' Sister Constance Carolyn Veit, spokeswoman for the organization, told the Caller...."
(FoxNews.com)

Reality check here. American news media, FoxNews.com included, tends to focus on the word "contraceptive" in these health care issues.

What the Department of Health and Human Services wants really is "contraception," as the word is used in my dialect of English. Messing with human reproduction on the physical, psychological, and philosophical levels, is a problem for practicing Catholics.

I hope a great many more folks would also be concerned about "contraception" that involves killing someone who has already been conceived.

Sure, humans aren't very pretty for the first few months. But we're still human, even if we can't speak for ourselves: or run away.

"...The Department of Health and Human Services mandate requires employers to provide coverage for 'preventive health.' It defines this coverage to include sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-causing drugs. The Obama administration's proposed compromise would mandate that insurance companies, not employers, provide this coverage.

"The mandate's religious exemption applies only to employers who primarily serve and employ their coreligionists and have the inculcation of religious values as their primary purpose...."
(CNA (March 8, 2012))

In the end, I'm confident that outfits like Little Sisters of the Poor will once again be free to help the poor and the helpless.

What concerns me is the process which will sort out today's lethal government policies. I hope that Americans will correct this problem though peaceful means: preferably by swapping out the lot we've got running our country in the next few elections.

---

2. More Worlds: Planets Orbiting Tau Ceti

"Potentially Habitable Planet Detected Around Nearby Star"
Mike Wall, SPACE.com (December 19, 2012)

"A sun-like star in our solar system's backyard may host five planets, including one perhaps capable of supporting life as we know it, a new study reports.

"Astronomers have detected five possible alien planets circling the star Tau Ceti, which is less than 12 light-years from Earth - a mere stone's throw in the cosmic scheme of things. One of the newfound worlds appears to orbit in Tau Ceti's habitable zone, a range of distances from a star where liquid water can exist on a planet's surface.

"With a minimum mass just 4.3 times that of Earth, this potential planet would be the smallest yet found in the habitable zone of a sun-like star if it's confirmed, researchers said...."

A key word there is "perhaps." We don't know much about Tau Ceti's planetary system. These astronomers found the planets by sifting through information about the star's motion. My guess is that someone's going to challenge their conclusions soon.

However, Steve Vogt, of the University of California, Santa Cruz; and University of Hertfordshire's Mikko Tuomi; aren't crackpots. I think it's quite likely that they're right.

"They are everywhere..."

"...'This discovery is in keeping with our emerging view that virtually every star has planets, and that the galaxy must have many such potentially habitable Earth-sized planets,' study co-author Steve Vogt, of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a statement. 'They are everywhere, even right next door.' [Gallery: 7 Potentially Habitable Exoplanets]

"The five planet candidates are all relatively small, with minimum masses ranging from 2 to 6.6 times that of Earth. The possibly habitable world, which completes one lap around Tau Ceti every 168 days, is unlikely to be a rocky planet like Earth, researchers said.

" 'It is impossible to tell the composition, but I do not consider this particular planet to be very likely to have a rocky surface,' lead author Mikko Tuomi, of the University of Hertfordshire in England, told SPACE.com via email. 'It might be a "water world," but at the moment it's anybody's guess.'..."
(Mike Wall SPACE.com)

The Space.com article doesn't explain Mikko Tuomi's "water world" comment. He's almost certainly talking about a planet that's mostly water: not just partly covered by water, like Earth. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 23, 2011)

What's exciting about Tau Ceti's planetary system, assuming that the study's conclusions hold up, is that they're very, very, close to being as massive as Earth. It's getting hard to keep up with the growing list of known and 'possible' planets circling other stars: including a few that might, maybe, be the right temperature and right size to support life.

Alone?

I don't 'believe in flying saucers.' But I don't believe that we're alone in the universe, either. I simply don't know whether we share this vast creation with other living creatures, or not.

However, as a practicing Catholic, I'm not allowed to say that there can't be other worlds like ours. That's been a rule since 1277.

---

3. Suffering and Joy During Advent

I think it's important to not that Archbishop Chaput wasn't speaking, or writing, directly to folks in Newtown, Connecticut. The post cited by CNA was on The Catholic Standard and Times' website. The ink-on-paper publication is gone, and that's another topic. ("About Us," CatholicPhilly.com)

I recommend reading Archbishop Chaput's column:

• "Advent, suffering and the promise of joy"
  Archbishop Chaput, Weekly column, Catholic Philly (December 19, 2012)

"Nothing Remotely Naïve"

"Archbishop Chaput: Advent's message relevant in wake of tragedy"
CNA/EWTN News (December 18, 2012)

"The message of Advent is applicable in today's world, especially in light of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia said in his Dec. 17 column.

" 'In these final days of Advent, the Church urges us to lift up our hearts and prepare to rejoice,' he said. 'There's nothing remotely naïve in this call to joy; the Church knows the harshness of the world far too well for empty pieties.'

"Even in the face of tragedy, such as the recent elementary school shooting in which a lone gunman killed his mother and 26 students and faculty at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Archbishop Chaput said that God is present...."

CNA/EWTN News apparently got a pre-publication release of Archbishop Chaput's column, which is dated December 19, 2012: which has nothing to do with what the archbishop said.

I think it's important to remember that there's more to Christmas than cheerful sentiments and 'presents under the tree.' As Archbishop Chaput said, "...'There's nothing remotely naïve in this call to joy....' "

I've posted about Christmas before:

• ""...A Savior has been Born for You Who is Messiah and Lord...""
  (December 25, 2011)
• "Christmas: Mything the Point"
  (December 18, 2011)
• "My Take on the News: Jingle Bells, Jangled Nerves, and Good Advice"
  (December 16, 2011)

"...Something to do With Free Will..."

"...When trying to comprehend the violence and evil that took place that day, people will ask how God could allow such suffering to exist in the world, the archbishop noted.

"Although these questions 'sound reasonable,' he said, they are 'all evasions,'

" 'We might as well ask, "Why does God allow us to be free?" '

"Archbishop Chaput recalled that humanity has the blessing of being loved unconditionally by its Creator. And although God seeks our love, 'we will never be coerced by the One who loves us.'..."
(CNA/EWTN News)

Free will is an awkward gift. We've got enormous power over our lives: and personal responsibility for our decisions.

I haven't run into very many good, brief, discussions of free will. Archbishop Chaput's is one; another was in, oddly enough, a Monty Python movie. (May 23, 2012) Some of my take on free will:

• "The Power to Hurt: Or Help"
  (June 27, 2012)
• "Sin, Freedom, and Toy Monkeys"
  (May 23, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Evil: Hard to Ignore; Difficult to Explain
  • Evil, Grace, and Getting a Grip

Archbishop Chaput had more to say about free will.

"God is Good ...We Human Beings are Free..."

"...'God is good, but we human beings are free, and being free, we help fashion the nature of our world with the choices we make,' he said.

"That means that while 'evil is frightening,' it is unfortunately 'not incomprehensible,' he wrote. 'We know it from intimate experience.'

" 'What we never quite expect is for our private sins, multiplied and fermented by millions of lives with the same or similar "little" sins, to somehow feed the kind evil that walks into a Connecticut school and guns down 26 innocent lives, 20 of them children,' he said...."
(CNA/EWTN News)

Archbishop Chaput isn't, I'm quite sure, telling us that we should writhe in anguish or stand petrified in fear at the wretched vileness of our bad habits. I've mentioned Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" before. Fairly often. (December 14, 2012; December 16, 2011; December 5, 2011)

"...Love is Stronger than Death..."

"... In the Old Testament, God revels that 'love is as strong as death,' Archbishop Chaput said. In God's redeeming plan, 'love is stronger than death.'

" 'The surprise is the persistence of God's fidelity and mercy. The surprise is that, despite our sins, we still long to be the people God intended us to be.'

"He said that 'the only effective antidote' to evil in the world is for each person 'to live differently from this moment forward.'

"'We make the future beginning now,' he added...."
(CNA/EWTN News)

He also suggested that we should pray for the grieving families in Newtown. That sounds like a good idea.

---

4. Satawa's Nativity Scene is Back!

"Long-time Michigan roadside nativity resurrected"
Carl Bunderson, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (December 18, 2012 )

"A 67-year-old tradition of placing a nativity scene on a public median in Warren, Mich. has been re-established after a four-year legal battle involving the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

" 'John Satawa was persistent enough to follow through,' CNA was told Dec. 17 by Richard Thompson, president of Thomas More Law Center, which represented Satawa, the crèche's caretaker...."

I've mentioned the Thomas More Law Center before. (August 20, 2012) They're one of many outfits trying to preserve freedom in America:

• Thomas More Law Center (www.thomasmore.org)
  • "About the Thomas More Law Center"

I think that's a good thing, even if today's establishment doesn't. I learned that the government isn't always right during my teens, and haven't forgotten 'the good old days:'

• "Remembering the '60s; Praying for America"
  (November 6, 2012)
  Particularly
  • 'The Good Old Days' - Weren't
• "HHS Mandate, Catholic Bishops, and Foster Auditorium"
  (February 12, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Reality, Nostalgia, and the Establishment
• "Oh, For the 'Good Old Days?' "
  (November 28, 2010)

And that's another topic or two.

Well-Wishers, Carolers, and a Priest

"...Satawa is 'an individual citizen who was not going to disappear silently into the night, but was going to fight the decision of the road commission to maintain this tradition that had been going on since 1945,' Thompson said.

"The crèche was erected again Dec. 15 by Satawa, his family and friends, and local Boy Scouts, after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in his favor on Aug. 1.

"While the nativity scene was being erected, Warren police controlled traffic as well-wishers gathered, carolers sang Christmas songs, a priest from nearby St. Anne's Catholic Church blessed the display and passing motorists sounded their horns in approval...."
(Carl Bunderson, CNA)

It looks like at least some of Satawa's neighbors are happy about the crèche being back. Others may be appalled, disgusted, or insulted.

I wonder if anybody's looked into the possible harmful effects of pink plastic flamingos on the public's 'mental health.' And that's definitely another topic.

City Hall, Persistence, and Freedom

"...In 2008 the Macomb County Road Commission received a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation objecting to a private citizen placing a nativity scene on a 60-foot-wide median.

"They claimed the crèche violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and the county immediately ordered the display removed.

"Satawa had gotten permission for the crèche several times, and in 1995 the local police department finally gave him a blanket permission to erect it in the future, so that he would not feel it necessary to ask again.

"On March 9, 2009, after receiving the Freedom from Religion Foundation's letter, a highway engineer for Macomb County, Robert Hoepfner, wrote to Satawa denying him a permit to resurrect the manger scene and only citing reasons related to the establishment clause for the denial.

"Satawa then sued the Macomb County Road Commission for violating his rights under the establishment and free speech clauses of the First Amendment, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...."
(Carl Bunderson, CNA)

Sometimes 'you can't fight city hall.' When Sauk Centre widened the street I live on, we lost three elms from the front yard. I was going to protest, but decided not to after seeing them used as an example of safety hazards. As it turns out, one of them had a hollow core: and would probably have fallen in the next big storm.

Sometimes a person can resist the powers that be, and win. Being right helps, I think.

Related posts:

• Freedom
  • "Good News (Not in the News); Assumptions; December 21 and the Mayan Calendar"
    (December 14, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Cardinal Dolan and News: But Not the Establishment Kind
  • "Conscience in the News; a Radar Map of Titan; Exploring Mars"
    (December 14, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Illinois Against Pharmacists: Sometimes Conscience Wins
  • "Freedom, Fear, Mayan 'Doomsday,' and a Solar Super-Flare (Maybe)"
    (November 30, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Conscience and American Courts: A Little Good News
  • "Recovering from a Hurricane; Defending Freedom; Studying the Cosmos"
    (November 22, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Religious Liberty, the Constitution, and a Step in the Right Direction
  • "Defending Religious Liberty; and Living in a World of Wonder"
    (November 16, 2012)
    Particularly
    • "Prayerfully Resolute"
• Science
  • "Conscience in the News; a Radar Map of Titan; Exploring Mars"
    (December 14, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Titan's Longest Known River, So Far
    • Another Picture from Mars
  • "Defending Religious Liberty; and Living in a World of Wonder"
    (November 16, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Mars, Microbes, and a World of Wonder
    • Step Back, and Look
  • "Alpha Centauri, Freedom, and Me"
    (October 19, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Science, Religion, and a Hairball
    • Alpha Centauri, Planets, and Life
  • "An Ancient Brain, Politics, and Searching for Life on Mars"
    (October 12, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Simple Critter with a Complex Brain, a Half-Billion Years Ago
    • A Scoopful of Mars
  • "Science isn't a Four-Letter Word"
    (January 29, 2012)
    Particularly
    • 1277 and All That
• "They are everywhere..."
  • "GJ 667Cc: Heavier than Earth, Maybe About as Warm"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 6, 2012)
  • "GJ 1214b: Water in the Atmosphere; Close; and No Vacation Destination"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 23, 2011)
  • "Life on Other Worlds, and the Catholic Church"
    (January 11, 2011)
  • "God's Creation: He Seems to Think Big"
    (September 23, 2010)
  • "Planets Found Circling Other Stars: 429 So Far"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 15, 2010)
• Speculating
  • "Alien Life will Most Likely be - Alien"
    Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (April 12, 2010)
    Particularly
    • 'Life as We Know It,' Class M Planets and All That
  • "Gods, Demons, and Used Spaceship Dealers"
    Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (February 13, 2010)
  • "Beautiful Space Princesses, Almost Certainly Not: Flying Whales, Maybe"
    Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (December 8, 2009)
  • " 'All We Want is Peace and Quiet' - Another Look at the Mind of the Alien"
    Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (December 9, 2009)
  • Earth May Not Be a 'Class M' Planet"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (December 5, 2009)
    Particularly
    • Doesn't Everybody Dream of Flying?

The Establishment Clause; Religious Freedom; and Getting a Grip

All sorts of people live in America. We've got folks:

• Who want freedom from religion
• Whose religious beliefs make faith look like a psychiatric condition¹

And we've got a whole lot of folks who don't fall into either or those niches. I'm one of those 'none of the above' types.

I'm also a practicing Catholic, which means that I have to care about religious freedom. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2104-2109) Even for folks who don't agree with me. (Catechism, 2106)

Getting a Grip About Freedom

The 'Bill of Rights,' as first ratified in 1791, starts this way:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...."
(Bill of Rights Transcript Text," archives.gov)

America's self-described 'better sort' have decided that this means nobody's supposed to talk about religion: unless they say the 'right' things.

There's another way of looking at the First Amendment, but it's what the establishment² sometimes calls "simplistic:"

"...Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion...."
("First Amendment," LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School)

This post started out as a footnote in Apathetic Lemming of the North. I plan to be back with today's scheduled post: but didn't want to leave this bit about the Bill of Rights as - literally - a footnote.

Related posts:

• "Freedom, 9/11, the War on Terror, and Accepting Differences"
  (September 11, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Religious Freedom: For Us; For 'Them;' For Everybody
  • Keeping America 'Safe' From Newcomers"
• "First Amendment Suspended for 9/11 Memorial Service: Wrong, but Understandable"
  (September 10, 2011)
• "Separation of Church and State, Assumptions, and Fear"
  (September 2, 2011)
  Particularly
  • The Establishment Clause, and Fear of Religious People
  • 'Stupid Religious People,' Assumptions, and Fear
  • Not-So-Stupid Religious People
• "Religious Freedom, Niemöller, and Muslims in America"
  (April 7, 2011)
• "School District Celebrates Religious Freedom Day: By Banning Bibles"
  (July 1, 2010)
  Particularly
  • 'Separation of Church and State,' State-Sponsored Religions, and Freedom From Religion

---

¹ Adapted from another one of my blogs:

• "Lemming Tracks: Cathedral Repairs, Freedom, and a Ranting Lemming"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 5, 2011)

² I remember when 'the establishment' was mostly conservative, mostly white, and almost entirely male.

That was then. This is now:

• "What's With 'the Establishment' in this Blog?"
  (September 15, 2011)

First Amendment Suspended for 9/11 Memorial Service: Wrong, but Understandable

You've probably heard or read it by now: There won't be any public expressions of faith, like prayer, at tomorrow's 9/11 Memorial Service in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg said so.

Religious People: 'Everybody Knows' What They're Like

Can't say that I blame Mayor Bloomberg, in a way:

• He's mayor of an important American city
• The 9/11 Memorial Service is a high-profile event
• Lots of folks will be watching
• There's no sense in encouraging that kind to hang around
  • What would the neighbors think?

Besides, 'everybody knows' what people with religious beliefs are like:


(ArizonaLincoln (talk), via Wikipedia, used w/o permission)

I think Mayor Bloomberg's gag order on public expression of faith was wrong. But then, I'm one of those people. You know: the sort with religious beliefs. 'Everybody' knows what they're like. All the 'right sort' in Manhattan, anyway: apparently.¹

Since the mayor suspended the First Amendment for the 9/11 Memorial Service, some of the rabble went and arranged for an off-site prayer event. (CNA) I hope they don't offend the delicate sensibilities of their 'betters.'

Reality Check: Not All Christians are Dolts

Not all folks with religious beliefs:

• Hate
  • Jews
  • Homosexuals
  • Commies
  • Anybody who dresses funny
• Assume that
  • God hates
    • Jews
    • Homosexuals
    • Commies
    • Anybody who dresses funny
  • Science is bad
  • Every word of the Bible is literally true
    • Just like 'Pastor Bombast' says

I'll grant that the religious beliefs of some folks are on a continuum with 'amusingly odd' at one end, and 'downright dangerous' at the other. The 9/11 Memorial Service marks the 10th anniversary of an example of religious beliefs gone horribly wrong. I'll get back to that.

But not all Christians are like Phelps' little band. And not all of us think Bishop Ussher was right.

Since I'm a Catholic, there are some things I must do, and some that I must not. That may sound awfully restrictive, but I think it makes sense:

• "Evolution, Space Aliens, and Two Millennia of Dealing With People"
  (July 5, 2011)
• "I Worship a Jew"
  (April 3, 2011)
• "Hating People? Not an Option"
  (December 9, 2010)
• "Is the Church For Capitalism? Yes: and No"
  (March 13, 2010)
• "The Catholic Church and Homosexuals: Harsh and Soft, Judgmental and Understanding"
  (March 13, 2009)

Religious Nut Cases: It's Not Always the Other Guys

Muslim crazies killed about 3,000 people in New York City on 9/11/2001: but it's not just 'those Muslims' who sometimes go crazy:

• "Michael Brae, a Dead Body, Freud, and Prayer"
  (November 24, 2010)
• "Crowbar for Christ in Colorado?"
  (October 7, 2010)
• "Beach Killer Joseph Burgess: A Case of Horribly Warped Christianity"
  (July 24, 2009)

Does this mean that religion is bad? I don't think so.

Fred "God Hates Jews" Phelps isn't a typical religious leader. He's not, in my opinion, even a typical American Protestant. His brand of faith contributed to my conversion to Catholicism, and that's another topic.

It's hard to shake the impression that Mayor Bloomberg, and others in America's dominant culture, assume that a handful of crazies are typical of all America's Christians. It's like assuming that all liberals are pot-smoking vegetarians; or that all conservatives look like Boss Tweed in a Thomas Nast cartoon.

Reality is more complex than those stereotypes. Yet another topic.

The Catholic Church: Intolerant? Satanic?

In a way, I'm glad that Mayor Bloomberg banned all religious expression at the 9/11 Memorial Service. I think excluding so many Americans, he made it easier for some Christians to organize an alternative service.

If he'd singled out Catholics? Some of America's Protestants would probably recognize that there was a problem. But there's a little active distrust of Catholicism in America. And a whole lot of ignorance.

At least some of America's establishment assume that the Catholic Church is deliberately obdurate about sexuality. Some zealots lump the Catholic Church in with 'Muslims and other Satanic cults.' I think these misunderstandings are related to two qualities of the Church, that we're:

• Ancient
• Deal with reality
  • Not what some contemporary culture's leaders want to believe

And that's - yet again another topic.²

Related posts:

• Religious beliefs, real and imagined
  • "Separation of Church and State, Assumptions, and Fear"
    (September 2, 2011)
    Particularly
    • The Establishment Clause, and Fear of Religious People
    • 'Stupid Religious People,' Assumptions, and Fear
    • Not-So-Stupid Religious People
  • "'Legislating Morality' - My Take"
    (June 28, 2011)
  • "Apocalypse Whenever"
    (June 14, 2011)
  • "Uncertainty, 'Being Religious,' and This Catholic"
    (February 12, 2011)
  • "Science vs. Religion: the Same Tired Old Line"
    (June 5, 2010)
• Emotion and Reason
  • "Reason, Emotion, and
    'Take These Son-of-a-Bitches Out' "
    (September 6, 2011)
  • "Loving Neighbors: Even the One Who Stole Our Gospel Book"
    (September 4, 2011)
  • "Anger, Hate, Love, Prayer and Trashing a Maywood, California, Catholic School"
    (May 26, 2010)
  • "Hating People? Not an Option"
    (December 9, 2010)
  • "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, the War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
    (December 23, 2008)
• Religious freedom
  • "New York Times Editor, Religion, and Politics: Benign But Clueless"
    (September 1, 2011)
    Particularly
    • Factual Errors, Assumptions, and Some Guy With a Blog
    • Space Aliens, Religious Beliefs, and The New York Times
    • Religion, The New York Times, and Getting a Grip
    • "Death Cookie," "God Hates You," and a Professor
  • "Catholic Teachings: Not Fashionable"
    (June 7, 2011)
  • "Pakistani Archbishop, Florida Book-Burner, and Living with Differences"
    (April 27, 2011)
  • "Religious Freedom, Niemöller, and Muslims in America"
    (April 7, 2011)
  • "Freedom of Religion, or Freedom From Religion?"
    (June 1, 2009)

The 10th anniversary of 9/11, more posts:

• "The War on Terror: 9/11/2001 - 9/11/2011"
  (September 11, 2011)

In the news:

• "Lack of clergy at Sept. 11 memorial prompts separate prayer event"
  Kevin J. Jones, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (September 10, 2011)
  

Background:

• Emotions, by themselves, aren't good or bad
  • What matters is what we decide
    • Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1771-1775
• Anger as a desire for revenge is a bad idea
  • Matthew 5:21-22
  • Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2302
• Imposing restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice" is praiseworthy
  • St. Thomas Aquinas
• Commandments boil down to 'Love God, love your neighbor'
  • Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31
  • Everybody is our neighbor
    • Matthew 5:43-44
    • Mark 12:28-31
    • Luke 10:25-30
    • Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1825

---

¹ As noted in "Related posts," a recent editorial in The New York Times renewed that paper's dedication to a drearily familiar view:

• "Separation of Church and State, Assumptions, and Fear"
  (September 2, 2011)
  Particularly
  • The Establishment Clause, and Fear of Religious People

² I run into colorful folks now and then:

• "'Death Cookie' Comic: Seemed Like a Good Idea At the Time?"
  (March 5, 2010)
• "'Catholics and Muslims along with the fake Jews all are Satanic Cults' - Who Knew?"
  (April 2, 2009)
• ""Get f****d, Catholic Church" - It Comes With the Territory"
  (March 18, 2009)

Separation of Church and State, Assumptions, and Fear

This is my third post about an op-ed piece by The New York Times' executive editor. He made some all-too-familiar assumptions about religious beliefs.

• Op-ed in The New York Times
  • "Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith"
    Bill Keller, Magazine, The New York Times (August 25, 2011)
• My posts
  • "Space Aliens, Michele Bachmann, and Daft Assumptions"
    (September 2, 2011)
  • "New York Times Editor, Religion, and Politics: Benign But Clueless"
    (September 1, 2011)

Mr. Keller also thinks that a political candidate's religious beliefs matter, and that reporters should ask questions about those beliefs. That makes sense.

Mr. Keller also seems to think that religious beliefs, if taken seriously, are a symptom of delusional thinking. That doesn't make sense. Not to me.

But then, I'm one of those people who have religious beliefs: and 'everybody knows' what they're like.

The Establishment Clause, and Fear of Religious People

Bear with me, please: This is a long quote. I think it's important to show what Mr. Keller wrote.

"...Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are both affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity - and Rick Santorum comes out of the most conservative wing of Catholicism - which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction....

"...Every faith has its baggage, and every faith holds beliefs that will seem bizarre to outsiders. I grew up believing that a priest could turn a bread wafer into the actual flesh of Christ...."¹[emphasis mine]

When folks refer to the "separation of church and state," the odds are that they mean the 'establishment clause' in the First Amendment to the Constitution:

"...Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the 'separation of church and state.'..."
("First Amendment," LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School)

Note: That's "freedom of religion," not "freedom from religion."

I've written about "separation of church and state" before:

" 'Separation of church and state' can mean anything from what the Constitution actually says, to the idea that those religious people should stay behind closed doors when they practice their - you know, that religious stuff....

"...The folks who wrote up this country's Constitution were familiar with state religions in Europe. Which is, I think, what's behind the "establishment clause." Of course, I'm one of those folks who have a 'narrow' mind. I don't get the sort of mystic crystal revelation that makes it possible to see things that aren't written in the first amendment. I discussed America's creative judiciary and Iowa on Wednesday. (November 3, 2010)..."²)

Concerns about the "separation of church and state are nothing new. The First Amendment to the Constitution includes a clause reflecting the former colonists' determination to not repeat one of Europe's mistakes.

That was then, this is now. What started as a legal measure to prevent someone from setting up a state church has changed. In the minds of America's information gatekeepers, anyway.³ The bogey man for many today seems to be religious beliefs of any sort, and the folks who take them seriously.

I'd probably as concerned as Mr. Keller, if someone tried to set up a state religion in America. Partly because I know history, partly because I have personal experience with flaky faith. I grew up in an area where a particularly virulent strain of religion was endemic. I've discussed malignant virtue, and how that was involved in my conversion to Catholicism before.

Nobody in this season's crop of candidates has called for repeal of the establishment clause, as far as I know. For which I'm duly grateful.

Why would anyone be afraid of religious people? I think it has to do with what America's 'better sort' think people who take their faith seriously are like.

'Stupid Religious People,' Assumptions, and Fear

There are folks who seem determined to prove that 'nothing makes people stupider than religion.'⁴


(ArizonaLincoln (talk), via Wikipedia, used w/o permission)

That's part of Fred Phelps' little band. He's got a sort of roll-your-own version of Christianity, and makes the news when his followers disrupt another funeral. The anti-Semitism expressed is a little unusual for what appears to be an American Protestant denomination.

Fred Phelp's Westboro (Kansas) Baptist Church isn't, as I've said before, typical of Christianity. It's not even representative of American Protestantism.

That lot, folks like the serial Quran burners in Florida, and Harold Camping's followers, tend to get in the news. They're loud, colorful, and often have a flair for the dramatic.

And they're 'religious people.' No wonder The New York Times' Mr. Keller is concerned about one of them running for office.

Not-So-Stupid Religious People

These are 'religious people,' too. I think they're not quite the same as Fred Phelps' bunch.


(The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, used w/o permission)

Catholics don't all wear 'funny looking' clothes. The clergy in that photo are in uniform. It's a photo from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences' home page.

Which gets me into the topics of science, faith, Gregor Mendel, Bishop Ussher: and a longer discussion than I have time for tonight.

Freedom of Religion: For Everybody

I've said this before: The Catholic Church teaches that freedom of religion is important. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2104-2109)

Religious freedom for everybody:

" 'Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits.'³⁴ This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it 'continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.'³⁵"
(Catechism, 2106)

I don't expect Mr. Keller to believe this, but he's safe from Catholics. We're not allowed to force our faith on others.

We are, however, obliged to point out when ethical principles are violated. And that's another topic.

Related posts:

• "Space Aliens, Michele Bachmann, and Daft Assumptions"
  (September 2, 2011)
• "New York Times Editor, Religion, and Politics: Benign But Clueless"
  (September 1, 2011)
• "Religious Freedom, a Spanish Archbishop, and Pew Research"
  (August 14, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Burning Books, Disrupting Funerals, and Getting a Grip
• "Politics, Headlines, Bachmann, and 'Those Catholics' "
  (July 17, 2011)
• "Home Schooling: It May Not be What You Think"
  (May 20, 2010)

Views:

• "Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith"
  Bill Keller, Magazine, The New York Times (August 25, 2011)

---

¹ Quotes are from:

• "Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith"
  Bill Keller, Magazine, The New York Times (August 25, 2011)

² Source:

• "Fugitive Safe Surrender: My Take"
  (November 5, 2010)

³ A gatekeeper is literally a doorkeeper or doorman: someone who guards an entrance. "Gatekeeper" may also be used as a metaphor:

"gatekeeper (someone who controls access to something) 'there are too many gatekeepers between the field officers and the chief' "
(Princeton's WordNet)

So, an "information gatekeeper" is someone who controls access to information. In America, traditional information gatekeepers have been educators, librarians, journalists, and media decision-makers. Happily, most believe that it's important to share information. "The public has a right to know" expressed that belief.

Not-so-happily, America's information gatekeepers tend to share a fairly well-defined set of values and cultural preferences. This affects their perceptions. As a result, much of the news and entertainment Americans get represents the world as a particular set of subcultures believes it is. I've discussed this sort of thing before:

• "Huckleberry Finn, [redacted] Jim, and Making Sense"
  (June 24, 2011)
• " 'Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain:' The Pope in Spain"
  (November 11, 2010)
  Particularly
  • Information Gatekeepers in a Changing World
• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009)

⁴ Excerpt from a message by University of Minnesota, Morris, associate professor Paul Myers:

"There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion...."
(Paul Myers, from Pharyngula (July, 2008)))

I've quoted University of Minnesota, Morris, associate professor Paul Myers before:

• "New York Times Editor, Religion, and Politics: Benign But Clueless"
  (September 1, 2011)
  Particularly
  • "Death Cookie," "God Hates You," and a Professor
  • "Quran, Eucharist, Atheist Book Nailed by Equal-Opportunity Desecrator"
    (August 4, 2008)

Fugitive Safe Surrender: My Take

"Separation of church and state" can mean anything from what the Constitution actually says, to the idea that those religious people should stay behind closed doors when they practice their - you know, that religious stuff. I've discussed this before. (July 1, 2010)

Where to draw the line(s) between government and church actions got in the news again this week.¹ As usual, I've got opinions. And a point of view.

Criminals, Saints, and People

First, though, a little review. Some criminals are like Joseph Burges, who was in the habit of killing young couples. He also left Bible verses near his victims. Not all criminals are like Mr. Burgess. Neither, for that matter, are all religious people.

Some criminals simply let parking tickets pile up. And some religious people spent a significant portion of their lives in activities like helping folks at the low end of Calcutta's socioeconomic scale, or getting leprosy. And those cherry-picked examples don't begin to represent the range of folks covered by either category.

The point? "Criminals" aren't the bad guys from Batman stories, or elements of society which should be sterilized to improve the race, or disgusting lowlifes bereft of human qualities. They're people.

Some, in my opinion, should be permanently restrained so that they can do no further damage - but have a chance to repent. Others, again in my opinion, do not pose a great risk to folks who do pay parking fines in a timely manner.

Which doesn't mean that I think parking wherever one feels like it should be decriminalized.

What Am I? One of those Pinko Cracker Bleeding-Heart Conservatives?

'Obviously,' I'm one of those bleeding-heart liberals who want rapists and murderers to go free.

Or, maybe it's 'obvious' that I'm one of those heartless conservatives with no feelings for the oppressed.

Actually, I'm a Catholic. I've discussed this before. A lot. (November 3, 2008, May 12, 2010, July 2, 2010, for starters)

Fugitive Safe Surrender and the Religious Menace

The point at issue this week is the Fugitive Safe Surrender, featured in The Star-Ledger and discussed in a FOXNews blog.¹

Depending on your point of view, it's a dangerous sign of creeping faith or a common-sense move to make quite a few folks' lives easier and safer. Including the ones who are criminals.

First, the sinister threat of creeping faith and the religious menace. Terms that aren't used in The Star-Ledger article, by the way.

Henry VIII, Cash Flow, and Consequences

State-sponsored religions are, in my opinion, a really bad idea. Henry VIII, again in my opinion, did England no favors in the long run by setting himself up as a sort of mini-pope. Short run? It was a good time in English history to concentrate economic and political power in London - and looting the monasteries gave the monarchy's cash flow a real shot in the arm.

Interestingly, we haven't had a "King Henry" since then - and that's another topic.

The folks who wrote up this country's Constitution were familiar with state religions in Europe. Which is, I think, what's behind the "establishment clause." Of course, I'm one of those folks who have a 'narrow' mind. I don't get the sort of mystic crystal revelation that makes it possible to see things that aren't written in the first amendment. I discussed America's creative judiciary and Iowa on Wednesday. (November 3, 2010)

Remember: I don't think state-run religions are a good idea.

That's because I'm "religious" myself. At any rate, I'm a practicing Catholic. Yet another topic.

Make supporting some church a matter for the IRS, and it's bad news for that church. Really bad public relations at the very least. In my opinion.

EEEK!! A Church!!

I think I can understand the antipathy some folks have toward religion in general, and what they think is Christianity in particular. Remember, I'm a convert to Catholicism. I grew up in a nice American household.

My parents were sensible enough: but the area I grew up in was infested with folks who hated Catholics, commies, and other 'Satanic' influences. Rock music and women wearing slacks didn't go over too well with them, either.

That, together with a weird combination of numerology and 'Biblical' Christianity, encouraged me to take a long, hard look at what this Christianity thing really was. I came to the conclusion that it wasn't, as Freud is supposed to have assumed, a psychiatric disorder. (Yet again another topic.) I also became a Catholic. (Another story.)

Folks whose only contact with religion were those 'kill-a-commie-for-Christ' types? Yeah: I can see why they'd want as little to do with 'those religious people' as possible. Which isn't the same as thinking that they're right.

Fugitive Safe Surrender: So Far, So Good

So far, the Fugitive Safe Surrender situation doesn't look like a threat to 'Truth, Justice and the American Way.' Based on published results, it seems to be working pretty well. But like the fellow said, 'all I know is what I read in the papers.'

I do not believe that it'll reform the judicial system, end poverty, and cure acne. I do think that it seems to be providing a way for folks who have gotten themselves in trouble with the law a chance to start sorting out their differences with the system.

The reaction from folks like the Freedom From Religion Foundation representative strikes me as - understandable. I even agree, that there has to be a clear distinction between what government agents do in their capacity of representatives of their organization, and what people do as citizens.

I also think that a state religion is a bad idea.

But I'm at least close to being on the same page as the Baptist pastor, who said that his church was providing a "venue" for an event, and that the folks he knew were "volunteers." Bear in mind that I'm one of those people who think that volunteer work is a good idea.

And that not everything done in public has to be part of a stridently secular government agency's activities.

Related posts:

• "Almost Political: 'Independent Judiciary' and Responsibility"
  (November 3, 2010)
• "The Catholic Church, Rules, and American Law"
  (August 22, 2010)
• " 'Army of Oppression,' Unmentionables, and Being Catholic in America"
  (August 17, 2010)
• "School District Celebrates Religious Freedom Day: By Banning Bibles"
  (July 1, 2010)
• "Beach Killer Joseph Burgess: A Case of Horribly Warped Christianity"
  (July 24, 2009)

¹News and views about the Fugitive Safe Surrender program:

" 'Safe Surrender' program in Somerset County attracts 1,400 fugitives by second day"
The Star-Ledger, via NJ.com (November 4, 2010)

"About 1,400 people wanted on non-violent warrants have already packed into the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset County this week to turn themselves in.

"That puts the state's third straight Fugitive Safe Surrender program on pace to be one of the biggest the U.S. has ever seen.

"The event is part of a national initiative, where fugitives wanted for such non-violent crimes as unpaid traffic tickets and minor drug charges can surrender peacefully and likely avoid jail time.

"Last year, 4,103 people surrendered at Bethany Baptist Church in Newark - currently the country's third-largest turnout since the U.S. Marshal Service started the effort in 2005.

"Only Cleveland and Detroit have drawn more, New Jersey parole board spokesman Neal Buccino said today."

---

"Safe-Surrender Initiative Raises Issue of Separation of Church and State"
Live Shots, FOXNews blog (November 5, 2010)

" 'Go... and sin no more.' That well-known biblical verse is not exactly what the judicial system renders when it reduces a scofflaw's fines from outstanding traffic tickets. But that's what Devon Peace felt was happening when she had the burden of $3,000 worth of traffic citations and bench warrants reduced to $900.

"The mother of four was one of thousands of people who showed up recently at a New Jersey megachurch where state and local law enforcement officials are operating the 'Fugitive Safe-Surrender,' a national initiative designed to allow people with outstanding warrants for non-violent offenses to surrender, work out payment schedules for their fines and possibly even have them reduced.

"The program has been held in more than 20 cities nationwide, and well over 25,000 people have turned themselves in. Most get a restructuring of their fines if they don't have the money to pay immediately; less than two percent of the people who surrender go to jail.

"The program has raised revenue from scofflaws who were avoiding making their payments, and it has brought peace of mind and a fresh start to people like Peace who feared being arrested.

"But it's also brought strong criticism from secular groups who say that having the scofflaws turn themselves in at a church blurs the line between church and state.

" 'Churches should not be treated as arms of our government,' says Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 'This is what you would expect in a theocracy, not a secular republic. This officially sanctioned program by Congress and the U.S. Marshal's Office gives the appearance of a direct affiliation between the U.S. government and the churches involved.'

"But Pastor DeForest B. Soaries, of First Baptist Church in Lincoln Gardens, N.J., where this week's 'surrenders' took place, defended the program. 'Our church is not proselytizing,' he said. 'We are not showing religious movies, we are not handing out Bibles. We are in that sense a venue and a set of volunteers.'..."

"...That argument was what helped convince Soaries to open the doors of his church to the program. 'This is both safe for the surrenderers and law enforcement officials,' he said. 'Anyone who has a warrant is not only running from the law but is also likely to be more dangerous than someone who's not running from the law.'

"Peace doesn't see herself as violent, but she says she lived in fear.

" 'It just basically started from parking tickets,' she said, recalling how she wound up owing thousands of dollars. 'Being careless about paying parking tickets on time, and it built up and built up and it eventually led to warrants.'

" 'It was very scary,' she said. 'I would get very nervous rolling past a police officer, any roadblocks I would try and deviate. Certain times of holidays I wouldn't even go out or be behind the wheel because I didn't want to get caught.'

"Ending the legal tangles was like being set free, she said."

Crowbar for Christ in Colorado?

Looks like somebody snapped:

"Mont. Woman Arrested for Damaging Jesus 'Porn' Art in Colo."
FOXNews (October 7, 2010)

"A Montana woman has been charged with criminal mischief after allegedly taking a crowbar to a controversial art museum display in Colorado that critics say portrays Jesus Christ receiving oral sex from another man.

"Kathleen Folden, 56, of Kalispell, Mont., was arrested Wednesday and accused of damaging the the 12-panel lithograph, 'The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals.'

"The piece, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum Gallery in Loveland, Colo., includes several images of Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man as the word 'orgasm' appears beside Jesus' head...."

Tax-Funded Porn Art? Anti-Christian Bigotry on the Taxpayers' Dime?

With something like that bit of news, it's hard to know where to start.

Government, Religion, and Taxes

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
(FindLaw)

For most of my life, according to the best and brightest in all the land (just ask them), those 45 words are their guarantee of freedom from religion. (June 1, 2009) And yes, I'm oversimplifying. A little.

It's not like a school district would celebrate religious freedom day by banning Bibles. Oh, wait: that actually happened. (July 1, 2010)

We live in - interesting - times.

My tax dollars pay the salary of a professor whose online 'art' was blasphemy. (May 26, 2010)

He desecrated a consecrated host on his own time: but the University of Minnesota, Morris, tacitly supports his views. Again, oversimplifying. A little.

Then there was "Piss Christ," an 'artistic' photograph of a crucifix in urine. Tax dollars involved. (Another War-on-Terror Blog (February 19, 2008))

Government-sponsored art goes back long before some British colonies got fed up with a disconnect between taxation and representation. It's been a way for a ruler to show that he's not just some warlord with a following - that he's got class. What part diverting tax money to encourage "Piss Christ" and related exhibitions has in a contemporary republic - is a little beyond the scope of this blog.

I do, however, think that it would be nice if America's national and state governments were a tad more discrete about how our money is spent.

And, in connection with this latest bit of weirdness, past offenses make it 'way too easy for me to jump to conclusions.

Jesus Christ Receiving Oral Sex From Another Man? Offensive?

In the 'better' circles in this country, I'd probably be considered a prude, or homophobic, or not "mature,"¹ or something else icky for expressing this idea: but I'm not happy about the Loveland Museum Gallery using public funds to display that particular bit of art.

At all.

It's not because it involves sex. God invented sex, after all. By the way, there's the fellow who had got the title 'Il Braghettone' because he was commissioned to paint pants on some of Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel. ("Last Judgment," Vatican Museums) There's a story behind that - but that's for another post.

For me, it's how that bit of art apparently treats my Lord. If you're an American, think of Martin Luther King or your favorite sports star in the place of Jesus.

But I wouldn't take a crowbar to the, ah, art.

How Can I Defend that Awful Art?!

Don't get me wrong: I think that the Loveland Museum Gallery is out of line, displaying that 'art.' Or, possibly, not making what the 'art' was supposed to be a trifle more obvious.

I also think that cutting loose with a crowbar isn't a good way to address the situation. It's impolite, illegal - and just adds to the impression that 'those religious people over there' are emotionally unstable, violent - and not quite safe to have around.

Sure, Jesus cleaned house at the Temple. (Mark 11:15-17, Matthew 21:12-17) But He's something of a special case, no matter where He is - and that was the Temple in Jerusalem, not an art gallery in some American state. I get very concerned when someone uses the 'I am the hammer of God' argument - which this lady didn't (quite) make:

"...Mark Michaels, an area art dealer, told Denver's KUSA-TV that he tried to stop her adding that the woman screamed: 'How can you desecrate my Lord?'..."
(FOXNews)

Again, I don't think the 'art' was very nice. But what we've got now is, on the one hand, an apparently-deranged woman with a crowbar being 'religious;' and on the other: well, here's an extended excerpt from that article:

"...Police spokesman Andy Hiller said the work by Stanford University professor Enrique Chagoya has a tear in the panel with the depiction of Christ. The piece is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark.

"Chagoya says he's sad that his book and the First Amendment were attacked.

" 'Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns? I made a collage with a comic book and an illustration of a religious icon to express the corruption of something precious and spiritual,' Chagoya told FoxNews.com. 'There is no nudity, or genitals, or explicit sexual contact shown in the image. There is a dressed woman, a religious icon's head, a man showing his tongue, and a skull of a Pope in the upper right corner of the controversial page. I did not make a picture of Christ. I used symbols as one would use words in a sentence to critique corruption of the sacred by religious institutions.'

"Those institutions, he says, need to be criticized when they get corrupted and people have every right to dislike his criticism, just as he has a right to express it.

" 'Violence is the opposite of what Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha taught. I am amazed that some of the followers don't adhere to the teachings. Agree to disagree and love thy neighbor,' he said. ..."

On the 'religious' side, a distraught woman with a crowbar. On the other side, a comparatively calm professor talking about love of neighbor.

No, I do not think cutting loose with a crowbar was a good idea.

Like the fellow said: 'With friends like these, who needs enemies?'

Related posts:

• "Weak-Minded: Like Copernicus"
  (October 3, 2010)
• " 'Army of Oppression,' Unmentionables, and Being Catholic in America"
  (August 17, 2010)
• "Art, Catholic Teachings, and This Catholic"
(August 9, 2010)
• "Some Catholic Blogs Bother Bishops - A Lot"
  (June 17, 2010)
• "Anger, Hate, Love, Prayer and Trashing a Maywood, California, Catholic School"
  (May 26, 2010)
• "Those Heretics May Not Like being Called Heretics"
  (May 16, 2010)
• "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
  (August 3, 2009)

In the news:

• "Mont. Woman Arrested for Damaging Jesus 'Porn' Art in Colo."
  FOXNews (October 7, 2010)

---

And, yes: I know about the pedophile priests. I've made link page to posts about the topic.

As I wrote there:

You've probably heard about those pedophile priests. What some priests have done over the last half-century was very bad. It hurt innocent people. It was not good.

---

¹ See "Weak-Minded: Like Copernicus" (October 3, 2010)).

Living in America and Living a Catholic Life

A post about Catholic Anti-Americanism? No, I haven't gone crazy. Well, crazier. (February 25, 2010)

I saw an article called "Catholic Anti-Americanism" yesterday. (Thanks, Matthew Warner and InsideCatholic, on Twitter, for the heads-up.)

"Catholic Anti-Americanism isn't your standard-issue rant about "Catholics and Muslims along with the fake Jews." (April 2, 2009)

I think the author of the article makes some pretty good points.

I'll get to "Catholic Anti-Americanism," right after:

Commie Pinkos, Bleeding Heart Liberals, and Stereotypes

If you've read another blog of mine, Another War-on-Terror Blog, you'll have gathered that I don't think America is perfect, but that I don't see this country as a source of all that is icky, either. I also don't think much of the sort of national and ethnic chauvinism I see expressed by folks I call "red, white and blue-blooded Americans." (Another War-on-Terror Blog, November 6, 2009, January 7, 2010, September 12, 2009, July 3, 2008)

I see that I've touched on that attitude in this blog, too. (April 14, 2010)

A stereotype, "a conventional or formulaic conception or image" (Princeton's WordNet) is a handy way of dealing with some facet of reality. And, in some circles, using stereotypes is a fairly good way of gaining acceptance. You have to be careful about which stereotypes you use with which people, of course.

I doubt that there are many American subcultures where most people 'know' that communist infiltrators are controlling the federal government and that America is behind all the world's unpleasantness. But, you never know.

Besides, the 'red scare' and McCarthyism haven't been current for - a long time. These days, we've got other demographics telling us to be scared of other (allegedly) terrible threats. Some folks have shown - imagination? - in their warnings: like the threat of those shape-shifting, space-alien lizard people.

I'm getting seriously off-topic.

A little more about stereotypes, and I'll get to that "Catholic Anti-Americanism" article. This excerpt is from another blog of mine:

"Stereotypes: Convenient, But Poor Substitutes for Facts

"I've run into quite a number of odd beliefs in my time. At various times, I've heard or read that:

• Commies are behind all problems
• American imperialists cause all problems
• All problems are caused by
  • Blacks
  • Whites
  • Chinese
  • Japanese
  • Jews
  • Catholics
  • Religion
    • Especially Christianity
  • Whatever
• Poverty causes crime

"I'm a bit skeptical - to put it mildly - about all of the above. If nothing else, those sincerely-held beliefs paint reality in strokes that are 'way too broad.

"Take 'American imperialism,' for example. I'm not happy about the way the Hawaiian Islands were confiscated, and I am happy that the federal government has finally started recognizing treaties it made with the American nations, well over a century ago. But I don't see big, bad Amerika as the imperialist warmonger it's made out to be in some circles.

"After all, we recently elected a Hawaiian president: Is that really the act of imperialist oppressors?..."
(Another War-on-Terror Blog (January 7, 2010))

One of the points I was trying to make was that it isn't always the other guy who's slipped into applying stereotypes as a substitute for observation and thinking.

Finally: What's All This About "Catholic Anti-Americanism?"

Here's how that insidecatholic.com article started:

"Catholic Anti-Americanism"
Joe Hargrave, insidecatholic.com (April 28, 2010)

"Inevitably, writing for a blog called 'The American Catholic' will force you to think long and hard about the relationship between Catholic and American ideals. When I began blogging there a year ago, I held to certain prejudices found among Catholic traditionalists and progressives alike -- prejudices that amounted to what I would describe as a romantic anti-Americanism: a belief that America, in conception and realization, is inherently incompatible with the Catholic Church.

"According to this view, America's intellectual roots in Enlightenment thought, Puritan jurisprudence, capitalism, and liberalism are responsible for a number of problems facing American Catholics, making us particularly vulnerable to anti-Catholic tendencies such as political and economic individualism or defiance of authority, including Church authority. As both a liturgical traditionalist and a recovering leftist, the appeal of a contrary, romantic anti-Americanism was strong.

"But a closer look at the Catholic experience in the United States, as seen from the perspective of both American Catholics and the papacy, challenges that world view. As it turns out, this kind of anti-Americanism, whether it comes from "throne and altar" traditionalism or the anti-capitalist Left, has no basis in either. It is a failed hypothesis for many reasons; here I will present three...."

The three points Mr. Hargrave made were, very briefly:

1. The idea of religious liberty - that First Amendment stuff - is an import
   • British Catholics fleeing persecution encouraged the Marlyland Toleration Act (1649)
2. The "Americanism" heresy has been "somewhat misunderstood"
   • I'll get back to this
3. America is a secular state
   • Good thing, too: for the sake of religious faith

That "Americanism" heresy is old news - and doesn't have all that much to do with speaking English with an American accent or having a bicameral legislature. Mr. Hargrave said that the "Americanism" heresy is the notion that:

1. The Church must engage in theological and liturgical experimentation or opportunism to become amiable to people of other faiths
2. The natural virtues should be elevated above the spiritual virtues of the saints
   • Because they allow men to act with greater freedom and strength
3. Religious orders are less worthy of respect, cultivating as they do the spiritual virtues

Actually, Mr. Hargrave is summarizing what Pope Leo XIII wrote, back in 1899. ("TESTEM BENEVOLENTIAE NOSTRAE | Concerning New Opinions, Virtue, Nature And Grace, With Regard To Americanism," Pope Leo XIII (Encyclical promulgated on January 22, 1899), English, via EWTN.com)

I recommend reading what Leo XIII had to say, by the way. Be sure to set aside quite a bit of time. As with most encyclicals, Pope Leo XIII didn't write with sound bites in mind. For example:

"...This over-esteem of natural virtue finds a method of expression in assuming to divide all virtues in active and passive, and it is alleged that whereas passive virtues found better place in past times, our age is to be characterized by the active. That such a division and distinction cannot be maintained is patent—for there is not, nor can there be, merely passive virtue. 'Virtue,' says St. Thomas Aquinas, 'designates the perfection of some faculty, but end of such faculty is an act, and an act of virtue is naught else than the good use of free will,' acting, that is to say, under the grace of God if the act be one of supernatural virtue...."
("TESTEM BENEVOLENTIAE NOSTRAE," Pope Leo XIII (January 22, 1899))

I think that a reasonable super-summary would be that saying that spiritual virtues aren't as important as natural virtues is - from a Catholic point of view - wack. And that some of what's in the minds of American people is okay.

Just like some characteristics of other nations are okay.

Bottom Line? America is Okay: So is Akrotiri - and Botswana - and Comoros - You Get the Idea

Developing a balanced view of the country you're in may never have been particularly easy. It's certainly not something that only Americans living in the early 21st century deal with:

"...'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.' No doubt if a decent man's mother took to drink he would share her troubles to the last; but to talk as if he would be in a state of gay indifference as to whether his mother took to drink or not is certainly not the language of men who know the great mystery.

"What we really need for the frustration and overthrow of a deaf and racous Jingoism is....."
("The Defendant," G. K. Chesterton (1901), page 125ff (Google Books) (text is also online at fullbooks.com))

Me? on the whole I like living in America. It helps that I worked in an ESL (English as a Second Language) program while living in San Francisco. I got to know people who had come to America: partly to 'get rich;' mostly to enjoy freedom.

Which threatens to draw this post into yet another topic. Time to quit.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

• "The Catholic Church: Universal. Really"
  (April 19, 2010)
• "Assumptions About Religion, and American Rules of Etiquette"
  (April 14, 2010)
• "Accommodating Indigenous Cultures: Including Ours"
  (January 10, 2010)
• "Bishops Re-Assigned in America: Including The Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades"
  (November 16, 2009)
• "American Nuns, Fitting In, and Being Catholic in America"
  (August 18, 2009)
• "'Cafeteria Catholics' and a Diverse Church"
  (June 8, 2009)
• " 'Catholics and Muslims along with the fake Jews all are Satanic Cults' - Who Knew?"
  (April 2, 2009)
• "Being Counter-Cultural in 21st Century America"
  (March 17, 2009)
  • Anti-American?
    • No
  • Off the 50th percentile?
    • Yes
• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  (November 3, 2008)
• "Elections and Citizenship, Catholic Style"
  (September 24, 2008)