Posts Tagged “morality”
Christians really despise what they call “moral relativism” — i.e. the notion that morality is decided by humans and not dictated from on high by the Almighty. The result, Christians claim, is a moral and ethical “free for all” with individuals deciding their own morals and ethics. They say this allows people to grant themselves license to misbehave, denying their deity’s role as the sole arbiter of morals (WebCite cached article). But even so, that doesn’t prevent these same Christians from engaging in moral relativism, themselves!
Perhaps no event has brought this relativism to light better than the revelation of Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump’s “hot mic” moment from the 1990s (cached) … which you, Dear Reader, no doubt have heard more about than you care to already. Keeping in mind that what Donnie talked about, in that moment, was — as vice president Joe Biden explained, candidly (cached) — sexual assault, it’s true that some Rightists have disavowed him, and some have even expressly revoked their endorsements (cached). Yes, at long last, some folks on that side of the aisle have finally recognized that Donnie is an infantile man-child, 70 years old going on seven months.
Yet, many others are standing firm with him and refuse to acknowledge there’s anything wrong with Donnie bragging about how he could assault any woman he wants and get away with it because he’s a star. Most of these are devout Religious Rightists who profess high morals. Among those who’ve doubled down in their defense of little Donnie is Sean Hannity of Fox News (cached):
Here, Seanie displays his ability to rationalize Donnie’s hypersexed frat-boy bravado using a variant of fallacious appeal to tradition: The legendary King Solomon, you see, had a whopping 300 concubines (in addition to 700 wives who were princesses). So gee, Sean, because Solomon had such a vast harem, I guess it’s OK for your pal Donnie to go and grab as many pussies as he wants and never be prosecuted for sexual assault? Is that what you want us to think? After you’ve blustered and fumed for over a decade over how morally bankrupt the American Left has been? Really!?
Note, it’s not just Hannity’s appeal to the Biblical Solomon being used to rationalize Donnie’s horrid spew. Former New York mayor (and Trump BFF) Rudy Giuliani used a couple different justifications for his pal (cached):
Rudy Giuliani defended Donald Trump’s crude remarks about women Sunday, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” that “men at times talk like that.”
But the former New York City mayor also admitted that what Trump was describing in a 2005 video is sexual assault.…
Tapper pressed Giuliani on Trump’s claim — in the video from a 2005 “Access Hollywood” interview published Friday by The Washington Post — that because he is a star, he could walk up to women and “grab them by the pussy,” asking who Trump did that to.
“First of all, I don’t know that he did it to anyone. This is talk, and gosh almighty, he who hasn’t sinned, throw the first stone here,” Giuliani said.
Tapper said: “I have never said that; I have never done that. I am happy to throw a stone. I have been in locker rooms. I have been a member of a fraternity. I have never heard any man, ever, brag about being able to maul women because they get away with it — never.”
Giuliani responded: “We’ve taken it to an extra degree of what he said. But the fact is that men at times talk like that. Not all men, but men do. He was wrong for doing it.”…
“Gosh almighty, there were an awful lot of things, particularly Hillary Clinton attacking the women that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted, sexually abused — and she was the leader of the attack against them — so maybe he felt that at least put in context the kind of anger there would be at him,” Giuliani said.
So, because everyone’s a sinner, according to the Rudester, no one is allowed to hold Donnie accountable for his words. Also, because Hillary went after her husband’s accusers in the 1990s, that also makes Donnie’s words just fine.
Call me crazy, but I’m with Tapper: I’ve listened to a lot of men brag about a lot of things, but never once have I heard of them say he could freely commit sexual assault (not because they’re famous, or for any reason). I have never heard any such words come from the lips of any man. Not once. Ever! So when Giuliani claims that “men talk that way” … well, no, Yeronner, as a matter of fact, they don’t.
Yes, the Rudester did tell Tapper that Donnie’s bragging was wrong, and said he wasn’t trying to excuse it; however, by using these rationales to dismiss Donnie’s words, that’s precisely what he was doing! If the Rudester had truly meant to say that Donnie’s bragging was wrong, he’d have said it was wrong — and then he’d have stopped talking. But he didn’t do that. Instead, he carried on, as though Donnie’s words weren’t inexcusable.
Look, let’s not kid ourselves here about the Right. Sure, they talk a good game about morality and how important it is and how everyone must live up to the highest moral standards, because the Almighty demands it of us … but whenever another Rightist they love is caught saying or doing something that’s undeniably immoral, they just reel off excuse after excuse, including the old reliable “we’re all sinners, no one should cast stones” thing (i.e. the Pericope Adulterae in the gospel according to John) and they whine that the Left is just as bad (which is the old “two wrongs make a right” fallacy). Sorry to say, that’s not going to fly, either.
If one wants to run around condemning the sins of others — as the Right is wont to do, especially in the case of Donnie’s despised opponent in this election — then one can’t say, on the other hand, that one isn’t allowed to condemn the sins of one’s own colleagues. It’s blatant hypocrisy, which — as it happens — the founder of Christians’ own religion explicitly ordered them never to engage in, not at any time or for any reason. Yes, that means even in the context of a presidential election.
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Hat tip: Raw Story.
Tags: 1 kings 11:3
, 2016 presidential election
, donald trump
, hot mic
, john 8:1-11
, king solomon
, king solomon's wives
, moral relativism
, moral relativity
, pericope adulterae
, presidential election
, rudy giuliani
, sean hannity
No Comments »
Honestly, although I’ve posted many stories along these lines, it brings me no joy to do so. It’s not as though I like heaping derision on people like the one I’m about to mention. But at the same time, the topic I’m addressing here isn’t something that can be ignored. You see, Christians love to say that morality comes only from belief in God, and more specifically, from their God. They say that the more people believe in their God, the better off everyone will be, because everyone will be morally upright. Religious Rightists in particular often demand that Americans turn to God (or return to God) in order to alleviate all of society’s ills.
The problem with this sort of thinking is that it’s just not fucking true! Believers in deities, which includes Christians, are not — as it turns out — any more or less moral than any other segment of the population. Yet, they keep on bellyaching that more Americans need to be Christian, usually their own particular variety of Christian, as though this reality weren’t the case. And they use their assertion of moral superiority in order to rationalize imposing their religion on everyone.
Hence, when notable examples that run contrary to this trope come up, I must mention them. Because they’re object lessons in the reality of both religion and human nature that shouldn’t be ignored, merely because they’re inconvenient.
The latest politician-crusader for Jesus who turned out not to be very morally upright after all, as the Indianapolis Star reports, is Judson McMillin, floor leader of the Indiana House (WebCite cached article):
Rep. Jud McMillin, a rising star in the state’s Republican Party, abruptly resigned Tuesday.
The Indianapolis Star has learned that the surprise resignation came after a sexually explicit video was sent via text message from McMillin’s cellphone. It’s unclear who sent the text or how broadly it was distributed.
The Brookville Republican sent a separate text message apologizing to his contacts for “anything offensive” they may have received after he said he lost control of his cellphone.
McMillin claimed his cellphone had been stolen in Canada. But it remains unclear if it actually had been stolen, or who sent out the video in the first place.
The reason this is significant is that McMillin was a chief among the Indiana legislators who’d campaigned to legalize discrimination against gays and others, in the name of “religious liberty,” earlier this year. He did this because, apparently, the Christians of Indiana were being ruthlessly oppressed by gays. Or something.
As the Star mentions, though, this sexting scandal shouldn’t really have been a surprise:
In 2005, his career as an assistant county prosecutor in Ohio came to an end amid questions about his sexual conduct. He admitted to a relationship with the complainant in a domestic violence case he was prosecuting, but he insisted the relationship began after he stepped off the case, according to the Dayton Daily News. He resigned a week after he stopped working on the case.
As something of a counterpoint, the Star article closes by mentioning that another Indiana legislator, this one a Democrat, was also involved in a sexting scandal. Which brings me around to my original point: Christians, including outspoken crusading Christians, aren’t any more morally upright than any other kind of person. They have the same impulses as everyone else. And their religious beliefs simply aren’t sufficient to change them.
Which brings me to a corollary point to consider: If being a Christian isn’t enough to make one change one’s behavior, then really, what value can it have? How truly “divine” can it be, if it carries no power to change people for the better? If moral behavior is something people need to work on, regardless of whether or not they’re Christian, then does being Christian really matter, where morality is concerned? Where, exactly, is the connection between Christianity and morality, if Christians are not — as seems to be the case — any more moral than any other type of human being?
If Christians were honest with themselves and everyone else, they’d admit being troubled by this. They’d admit their beliefs don’t make them morally superior. And they’d stop telling everyone else that they’re immoral because they’re not Christians. Because all those things are lies — and they fucking well know it, even if they won’t admit it.
Photo credit: Demotivators (defunct).
Tags: brookville IN
, christian right
, indiana house of representatives
, indiana legislature
, jud mcmillin
, judson mcmillin
, religious right
, sex scandal
, sexting scandal
No Comments »
Note: There’s been some news about this story; please see below.
I assume a lot of my readers will have heard about Michigan Republican legislator Todd Courser who came up with a truly bizarre scheme to deflect criticism which would come over an affair he’d been having with fellow Republican legislator Cindy Gamrat. This crazy scheme involved releasing a phony story that he’d met with male prostitutes, and — has says — had been intended to “smoke out” someone who’d been blackmailing him (WebCite cached article). I haven’t figured out how planting a “false flag” story would have done this, nor has anyone else … but since news of this broke, Courser has been petulant and defiant about it.
Given how wingnutty this scheme was, I’d assumed that mental illness somehow figured into Courser’s plans. I mean, it really is so astonishingly crazy that no person in his/her right mind would have cooked up such a scenario. So as with most cases of religiosity entangled with mental illness, I hadn’t planned to blog about it.
But Courser posted a response to the scandal raging around him on Facebook (cached) that — while it’s long and rambling and still may evince just a little mental instability — is coherent enough, and aligns well enough with Christian thinking, to indicate that the man knows what he’s doing and is motivated more by his religiosity than any mental illness he might have. The idiot begins with a statement which makes clear he intends to use his religiosity to rationalize what he did:
My lack of righteousness does not negate God’s righteousness –
From this point on it’s mostly a self-serving and self-pitying ramble of how he’s a sinner and all of that bullshit, interspersed with Bible quotations:
There has been nothing more humbling than to know each and every day that I am a sinner and need a savior – nothing in my actions negates Him or His promises. What my actions showcase are my lacking and how far off the mark this man’s condition is from God’s Holiness.
Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.”…
In my life sin had its root and it worked to undo so much and has yet to undo so much more; my life, my reputation, my relationship with my wife and children and my extended family; not to mention my relationships and reputation around the world. This sin in my life has been and will continue to reap its reward. In all of this many have commented publicly and have enjoyed the spectacle of watching a man burn and have reveled in the joy it has brought in themselves, but all of this has also brought so many who have been absolutely encouraging and supportive.
He also wants us to know he’s not alone, and how reassured he’s been by knowing it:
A special group has been of those men who have come forward to express their own failures to me in fidelity and what guilt and shame they have felt for their own failures in their own faith and faithfulness to God, His holy word, and to their wives and children. Just having heard their stories has been some of the most humbling experiences of my life; with several have come forward to share their pain for participating in/and addicted to pornography and what that has wrought in themselves and their families. And finally a couple have come forward to express their guilt and shame for being faith filled but struggling with how to reconcile that with having homosexual tendencies and trying to reconcile that with their faith. In every one of these experiences it has been an incredibly humbling to me.
He also complains that he’s been criticized, and punctuates this whine with a Bible quote that implicitly threatens his critics with his God’s judgement:
It is mystifying to be in the middle of this hurricane and to be totally here and be present and feel the full fury of so much condemnation. It seems to have brought out the best in some and the most vile in others; so many words of encouragement and yet so many people who revel in piling on and watching another burn alive. I hope all of you who read this can live without having to live thru this personally and I hope that in your lives you have no sin to be held accountable for and so do not need a savior; I am just clearly in need of one; my life and my actions in no way diminish Him, or His plan, or His hope and sacrifice for all who have sinned.
Galatians 6:7 “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
That’s about all of Courser’s pathetic, whining spew I can stomach repeating here. But it’s enough to make clear the theme of his argument, which is that, like everyone, he’s a “sinner”; that all he did was “sin”; that his God is great; in the end, that’s all that matters; and so he’s certainly not going to do anything like resign over it.
This ridiculous screed immediately reminded me of a common Christian slogan: “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.” It’s a convenient rationale for not having to accept the consequences of their own bad behavior or their failure to live up to the standards that they believe their own Jesus taught. They can just do anything they want, any time they want, to anyone they want, and no one’s permitted to say anything about it, because after all they’re just “sinners” and can’t help themselves. He even cited John 8:7, which is the part of the story of the woman taken in adultery in which Jesus says that “He who is without sin may cast the first stone.” Courser, thus, is telling his critics that they’re just as bad as he is and therefore are not allowed to criticize him any more.
As I said, this Facebook post is long — perhaps a lot longer than it needed to be — but it was composed with a clear argument in mind, and it makes that argument quite readily. What’s more, that argument is one that a lot of Christians make when they’ve been caught doing things they shouldn’t … so it’s not really all that novel or unusual (at least, not anywhere near as unusual as the scheme Courser had been plotting which led up to it). So, contrary to my initial impression of Courser, I no longer believe he’s so mentally ill that he’s not aware of what he’s doing. He does understand what he did, and he’s doubling down on it rather than making any concessions.
This dual Christian principle … i.e. that everyone sins all the time so Christians can’t be expected to behave themselves; and whenever they do cross the line, no one is allowed to point it out, because everyone’s a sinner anyway … makes that religion one of the most dysfunctional and amoral philosophies one can imagine. And honestly, it really needs to just fucking stop. If Christians really are following the true religion taught by the true Almighty, one ought to expect that, as a population, they’d behave better, collectively, than everyone else. That they cannot or will not exhibit better behavior than the rest of humanity tends to discredit the supposed divine nature of their religion.
Update: After a strange and convoluted legislative proceeding, Rep. Courser finally resigned, and Rep. Gamrat was expelled, from the Michigan legislature (cached). He quit in spite of insisting that he hadn’t done anything wrong, but if he did, it was OK because other people have done it and he’s a sinner anyway so the poor little thing couldn’t help himself.
Photo credit: Motifake.Com.
Hat tip: Raw Story.
Tags: all have sinned
, christian right
, christians aren't perfect just forgiven
, cindy gamrat
, lansing MI
, lapeer MI
, religious right
, todd courser
2 Comments »
Note: There’ve been some updates to this story since I first published it; please see all the footnotes below.
I haven’t blogged about the reality-TV show originally named 17 Kids and Counting, the Duggar family who stars in it, or the Quiverfull movement to which they belong (WebCite cached article). Honestly, there hasn’t seemed to be much point in it. To begin with I don’t even give a flying fuck about any so-called “reality” shows (they aren’t “real,” they’re scripted). And the Quiverfulls are just a freakish evangelical Protestant collective of insane wing-nuts to which I’d have preferred never to call anyone’s attention. But given this latest bit of news, I don’t think it can be avoided any more. As In Touch Weekly reports, one of the Duggars’ sons, Josh, had molested a number of girls as a teenager (cached):
Josh Duggar of the TLC hit reality show 19 Kids and Counting was named in a police report as the “alleged offender” in an underage sexual abuse probe, In Touch magazine is reporting exclusively.
The charge being pursued while Josh was a minor was sexual assault in the fourth degree, multiple sources who have seen the police report and are familiar with the case told In Touch. According to the report, Josh was brought into the Arkansas State Police by his father, Jim Bob, who said he caught him leaving a young girl’s bedroom and “learned something inappropriate happened,” one source said.
These charges were never dealt with at the time:
A bizarre turn of events prevented police and prosecutors from finishing their investigation and possibly prosecuting. The state trooper who originally took the report about Josh shortly before 2005 never followed up. That state trooper was later convicted on child pornography charges and is serving a 56-year prison sentence.
When the state trooper ran into trouble, someone from the Arkansas State Police alerted the Child Abuse Hotline about the Duggar situation that had been sitting inactive. That’s when the Crimes Against Children Division and Springdale Police Department got involved. By then the three-year statute of limitations had passed and it would not have been possible to pursue prosecution of Josh if the allegations warranted, so the investigation was discontinued. “A technicality prevented any further action,” a source familiar with the case told In Touch. “That’s been the biggest regret in all of this.” (The statute of limitations has since been lengthened.)
Hypocritically, this erstwhile pervert worked for the Family Research Council, a Christofascist outfit which sanctimoniously rages about what it perceives as “immorality,” especially of the sexual sort. He’s resigned already (cached), and the FRC insists it never knew about this. I admit that’s possible, but even if it’s true, it doesn’t excuse Josh having taken a job with them, knowing his own past.
In the meantime the usual suspects are lining up to support the teen child molester. Among them is presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who had this to say (cached):
“Josh’s actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them himself, ‘inexcusable,’ but that doesn’t mean ‘unforgivable,’” Huckabee said in a statement posted on Facebook Friday [cached]. “He and his family dealt with it and were honest and open about it with the victims and the authorities. No purpose whatsoever is served by those who are now trying to discredit Josh or his family by sensationalizing the story.”
Shucksabee is, of course, wrong to claim that the problem here is that this is “sensationalism.” Not at all. Nor is Josh Duggar’s status as “forgiven” relevant to anything. No, the actual problem is that this guy was a pervert as a teen, but was never prosecuted for it because the trooper who would have done that was, himself, a pervert! A secondary problem is that Josh Duggar was a fucking hypocrite to have taken a job with a Christianist morality-force in spite of his own far-less-than-moral background.
Oh, and … I note that Shucksabee has all sorts of sympathy for the Duggar family, and is sanctimoniously outraged on their behalf that this story was even reported, but he has no fucking sympathy for any of Josh Duggar’s molestation victims (at least one of which, stories suggest, was one of his sisters). I get why Shuckasabee is defending them: They’re militant Christianists like himself, and they’re extremely well-known, by virtue of their TV show. He cannot — and will not — concede any possibility of anything being wrong with this.
But it’s not just Shucksabee railing at the insolence of the media reporting this. Raw Story has cataloged many other examples of other Christians supporting Josh and the other Duggars (cached), many of them excusing what he did as no big deal, or with the old adage that “boys are curious.” Fuck that shit — and I mean that. Those people all need to go fuck themselves.
For the last time, let me be clear: Militant Christianists like the Duggars and their defenders, including Mike Huckabee, are damned fucking hypocrites — every single last fucking one of them. They scream and rail and bluster and fume over the “immorality” of things like gay marriage, and demand that it be outlawed, but when one of their own was caught behaving immorally, it’s nothing to be concerned about, shut up about it, everyone go home, there’s nothing to see here, etc. Christianists bellyache about something they call “moral relativism” and they almost always condemn it — loudly! But here’s a rather brazen example of them actually engaging in moral relativism.
Update 1: TMZ reports that the Duggars’ cable network, TLC — after running silent for a while — finally pulled their show from its schedule (cached).
Update 2: The center young Josh was sent to after his molestation was discovered, was founded by a guy who, it turns out, has a checkered history of his own with women (cached). What a wonderful crew! Their pretensions, lies, disingenuity, dissembling, and hypocrisy are now more apparent than ever. (Hat tip for this: Friendly Atheist).
Update 3: Officials in Arkansas are falling all over themselves to defend Josh Duggar and sing his praises, and the state’s courts are wiping his record clean (cached). Well done, Christians! You must be so proud!
Update 4: It’s the end of the road for this oversized Christianist brood. After hemming and hawing for far too long, TLC finally managed to kick the Duggars and their phony puritanical act off the air for good (cached).
Update 5: It turns out that Josh Duggar had subscribed to the cheaters’ Web site Ashley Madison, and even paid for a “guaranteed affair” (cached). In a statement, he finally admitted to being “the biggest hypocrite ever,” but most Americans already knew that about him — and the rest of his family — long ago.
Photo credit: Motifake.
Tags: 17 kids and counting
, 19 kids and counting
, 2016 presidential primary
, christian hypocrisy
, christian morality
, darrel hignite
, gop presidential primary
, jim bob duggar
, josh duggar
, sgt darrel hignite
No Comments »
It’s no secret that the Fox News network is a leading bastion of Religious Right ideology. Pretty much every big name on the network is a committed Christianist to one degree or another. Oddly enough, in spite of the fact that the Religious Right movement for which this channel works is a product of Protestant evangelical Christianity, many of the channel’s biggest names — e.g. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity — are Roman Catholic. Of course, the rivalry between these wings of Christianity hasn’t gotten in the way of these folk marching in lock-step with their Protestant brethren and sistren. It’s surprising how few differences there are among them, even if historically Catholics and Protestants had been known to go to war with each other.
At any rate, one of Fox’s more overtly religious mouthpieces for Christofascism is Fr Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest who — like his fellow Catholics on Fox — has made common cause with Protestants. As Raw Story explains, he recently appeared on the channel to declare that atheists are unfit to serve as president (WebCite cached article):
Catholic priest and Fox News contributor Father Jonathan Morris argued over the weekend that atheists were not suitable candidates for president because it was “hard to trust” someone who did not believe that God would punish them.…
According to Morris, anything that did not “inform” a public official’s life was not faith “because faith is a set of beliefs.”
“It’s a belief in God, it’s a belief that there are eternal consequences for your actions,” he explained. “And I think that a leader that doesn’t have that — a set of core beliefs that help him to make justice an important part of his life and his decisions because he knows that there are eternal consequences, well, it’s somebody that it’s hard to trust.”
This might seem a reasonable conclusion to Christofascists like Morris and the rest of the insane crew he works with at Fox. But if one thinks about it, it doesn’t really work. I’d much rather have as president someone who can figure out right and wrong on his/her own, and who has both the ability and willingness to do the right thing of his/her own accord, without having to be frightened into it by threat of punishment imposed by some wild-eyed cosmic sky-tyrant. An upstanding, effective leader should not need metaphysical beliefs to drill morals and ethics into him/her.
But then, I’m just a cynical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen, so what the hell could I possibly know about such important things?
One thing I’d like to point out about Fr Jonathan, however, is that he’s part of the Legion of Christ, a clerical order that’s been mired in scandal for a number of years. I’ve blogged about this order and its attendant scandal several times. A Vatican investigation — which, typically, took far longer than it needed to have — ended up substantiating accusations against the order’s founder, Fr Marcial Maciel (cached). The order remains under Vatican oversight, and a number of Maciel’s underlings and other officials of the order are being investigated.
Now, my mention of Morris’s order’s sordid past might seem inappropriate … as though I’m smearing him for the misdeeds of others. Perhaps I am. To be clear, I’m not saying Morris must have been involved in any shenanigans. But I’d like to point out that, for several years, he was on the staff of the order’s seminary in Rome. He very likely had direct access to the order’s leadership, some of whom the Vatican has investigated. What does that mean for Fr Jonathan? I have no idea … but that’s the problem. The Legion of Christ remains under a cloud of suspicion — a cloud that the R.C. Church itself created, on its own.
Oh, and I’m not even going to go into the part of the US Constitution which says there can never be any religious test for any official in the country, including the presidency. (That part, by the way, is Article VI paragraph 3. Just in case you wondered. Not that religiofascists give a shit that it’s there.)
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
, christian right
, eternal damnation
, fox news
, Fr Jonathan Morris
, fr marial maciel
, jonathan morris
, legion of christ
, legionaries of christ
, no religious test clause
, president of the united states
, religious right
, roman catholic
, threat of eternal damnation
, us president
No Comments »
By now I assume most of my readers have heard of “the Ice Bucket Challenge” which has become a wildly successful fund-raiser for the ALS Association. Well, it turns out that the R.C. archdiocese of Cincinnati doesn’t approve. As the Cincinnati Enquirer reports, they’ve declared the challenge and its associated charity persona non grata (WebCite cached article):
The Archdiocese of Cincinnati has asked the principals at its Catholic schools not to encourage students to raise money for the ALS Association as the ice-bucket challenge becomes an internet sensation.
The challenge itself is fine, said Dan Andriacco, spokesman for the Archdiocese.
The Archdiocese just doesn’t want fundraising to be sent to the association, which funds at least one study using embryonic stem cells, Andriacco said.
“(Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) is a terrible disease,” Andriacco said, a day after an email was sent to principals from Superintendent Jim Rigg.
“We appreciate the compassion that has caused so many people to engage in this,” Andriacco said. “But it’s a well established moral principle that a good end is not enough. The means to that ends must be morally licit.”
An embryo must be destroyed to harvest its stem cells, Andriacco said. Many Catholics relate that to abortion.
Gosh, I’m so glad the archdiocese managed to acknowledge how horrific ALS (aka “Lou Gehrig’s disease”) is. They just don’t approve of the science being done to fight it. The archdiocese demands Catholics give the Church all their charity money:
The Archdiocese asks that any money raised is sent instead to the John Paul II Medical Research Institute in Iowa City, Iowa, where the research is only conducted using adult stem cells.
Gee, how convenient of the Church to decide that it should retain custody of all that money. Hmm. I wonder who’s profiting off that? Anyone care to guess?
By the way, the idea that adult stem cells are equivalent to embryonic stem cells, is a Roman Catholic lie. They are not, in fact, the same. There are things embryonic stem cells can do, which adult stem cells cannot — which the Church pretends is not the case. It is, of course, true that adult stem cells have their virtues as well; the bottom line is that both types of stem cell research are necessary for ALS research. Limiting oneself to just one type is foolhardy.
In any event, the R.C. Church doesn’t have the standing to declare whether or not any given medical-research charity is morally acceptable. As I’ve blogged so many times before, the Church tore up and burned its “moral arbiter” card long ago, when as a matter of long-standing worldwide policy its hierarchs purposely allowed its own clergy to abuse children in its care and actively protected the abusers from being caught and punished. (On top of all that, they’ve had the gall, over the past several years, to blame their own policies and behavior on other people and things, including Jews, gays, the Devil, the mass media, and even the child victims themselves.) They’ve got the morals of the Mafia and the scruples of used-car dealers. I no longer fucking care what any given R.C. hierarch thinks about the morality of anything — nor should anyone else. They no longer have a vote.
As a token of my disrespect for the Cincinnati archdiocese’s announcement, I’ve just donated to the ALS Association. And I urge all my readers to do the same. Please give as generously as you can. Thank you!
Photo credit: Kelly McBride/The Community Press, via the Cincinnati Enquirer.
, als association
, archdiocese of cincinnati
, catholic church
, cincinnati OH
, dan andriacco
, embryonic stem cells
, embryonic stem-cell research
, jim rigg
, lou gehrig's disease
, medical research
, roman catholic
, roman catholic church
, stem cell research
2 Comments »
Every time some hideous catastrophe takes place in the occidental world, inevitably, people start musing about “where God was” while it was going on. I’ve noticed this has been particularly common in regard to the Aurora massacre that happened just over a week ago. CNN’s Belief blog alone has hosted multiple postings which ask this one question … but that’s hardly the only place. The media and the blogosphere are literally choked with people asking that question. Last Sunday, preachers and pastors around the country were (trying to) answer it for their flocks during their sermons, and I assume are still trying to do so.
I tangentially mentioned that particular question myself, just a few days ago — so I have to confess, even I have stumbled into it. Given how frequently this question has come up, I’ve decided I must address it a little more directly.
The question, “Where God was during the Aurora massacre?” is a direct consequence of “the problem of evil” which lies at the philosophical heart of the Abrahamic faiths.
Elsewhere I’ve devoted an entire Web page to this particular dilemma. To keep it brief, the problem lies in the fact that the Abrahamic faiths believe in a creator deity which is simultaneously omnipotent (i.e. having the power to do anything s/he/it wants), omniscient (i.e. knowing everything that can be known: past, present, and future alike), and benevolent (i.e. wanting there to be no suffering on the part of anyone). In spite of this supposed combination of traits, though, we know that this deity’s creation contains suffering … a lot of it. Over the centuries many theodicies have been proposed to explain how this presumed creator deity can have all three of these traits yet still there is a lot of suffering. All of those theodicies, however, fail the test of logic, because they all fail to take into account the absolute nature of the three traits the Abrahamic deity is assumed to possess, as well as his role as the creator of the universe.
The one most apologists use is the “free will” theodicy, or the claim that the creator has given humanity “free will,” so that each of us can do whatevever s/he wishes at any time, and said deity refuses to do anything about it … hence there is suffering in the world that God cannot prevent. Unfortunately this fails for three reasons: First, not all suffering is even of human origin, so that someone’s presumed “free will” played no role in it and cannot have caused it. Second, that creator deity is believed to have intervened in human affairs many times in history and has gone so far as to order people around; clearly he is not some kind of remote spectator-being who’s philosophically opposed to getting involved in people’s decisions and unwilling to get in their way. Third, as the creator, he must have known how his creation would turn out; he must have known in advance what everyone would do; he must have known there would be widespread suffering for uncountable billions of people over many generations; yet — despite knowing all of this prior to the moment of creation — he created the universe anyway.
Ultimately, a truly omnipotent and omniscient being can never be absolved of any responsibility for what he creates; if he exists, and if he created this universe, he and he alone is responsible for everything that ever happens in it. Those who are part of that creation can, at best, only be secondary agents — since he created them as they are, and they did not create themselves. In the end, simply put, it is logically impossible for the creator of the universe we live in — which has suffering in it — to simultaneously be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. It just doesn’t work.
The curious thing about the problem of evil is, as soon as you take the Abrahamic deity’s presumed benevolence out of the equation, the rest of it actually becomes logically tenable. Removing his omnipotence or omniscience tends not to work so well: If you assume the creator was less-than-omnipotent, you’re still left with a creator who made a universe he knew would get out of his control and have suffering in it that he couldn’t do anything about; and even if the deity was less-than-omniscient, he still must have had some idea that he was risking creating a universe that might have suffering in it. So even taking either or both of those out, you’re still left with a creator-being who must have behaved in a less-than-totally-benevolent manner.
While this is coolly logical, it unfortunately does not fit with prevailing notions about the Abrahamic faiths. Most Jews, Christians and Muslims are unnerved even to consider that the deity they worship might be something other than benevolent. Some are willing to dispense with his omnipotence or omniscience (e.g. Harold Kushner, author of the best-selling When Bad Things Happen to Good People), but for the most part they simply refuse even to entertain the idea that their creator deity could be anything less than loving and compassionate.
Thus, as far as I’m concerned, for followers of the Abrahamic faiths to have to ask themselves, “Where was God during the Aurora massacre?” just provides more evidence of the inherent, undeniable absurdity of their beliefs. They shouldn’t even be asking it! What they should be asking — instead — is, “Why do I believe in a creator-deity to whom tradition assigns a combination of traits that logic tells me he can’t possibly have?”
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Tags: 2012 aurora shootings
, abrahamic deity
, abrahamic faiths
, creator deity
, evidential problem of evil
, judeo-christian faiths
, problem of evil
, religious philosophy
1 Comment »