So Religion's for Fools, eh? Fools and Liberals! [Separation of Church and State Thread]

Honk

Javen wrote:

It's pretty old, but someone linked it on FB and it really set me off for some reason. There's just no reason for adults to act this way.

How the hell do people in that position of power get to act that way?

skyrimisneato

KalTorak wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

So NPR just ran a story that is indicating that Obama is going to make the rules looser under pressure from Catholics. That blows.

goddamnit

I hurt my hand hitting the steering wheel when I heard that. It seemed like there was enough speculation in the reporting that he might not change his position in the end, but apparently he's stated that he's "willing to compromise" and so far the usually means he will get nothing he originally went for.

Hacksaw

Let's see what he has in mind before we all quietly lose our shit, shall we?

skyrimisneato

Yeah, I guess alternative language that vastly increases the loophole around anti-discrimination law for church-like institutions is being drafted by some Republican bastard, so that's not exactly a positive development. And the new USA Cardinal came out publicly, to plead for a bigger exemption: "and you'll never hear from us again". As if. More like: "give us an inch so we can take your mile, suckers".

KalTorak

Oh ok; I'd heard the "compromise" language earlier, thought he'd made a decision on it.


Yeah, Dolan is an even bigger shit now that he's a cardinal. Big surprise.

skyrimisneato

KalTorak wrote:

Oh ok; I'd heard the "compromise" language earlier, thought he'd made a decision on it.


Yeah, Dolan is an even bigger shit now that he's a cardinal. Big surprise.

Sorry I confused you. It doesn't appear that the final decision has been made, but it has just become apparent that the Republicans and Catholics are working in concert against this. Not a surprise I suppose, but the whole story got me very annoyed, I'm sorry that it wasn't really news.

Yes, Dolan is an ass.

Bagginses

nexuscrawler wrote:

The Church and Catholics are two very different groups

one of them lives in the 14th century

Come on, Italy isn't quite that bad.

16th century at the worst.

skyrimisneato

@Bagginses wrote:

nexuscrawler wrote:

The Church and Catholics are two very different groups

one of them lives in the 14th century

Come on, Italy isn't quite that bad.

16th century at the worst.

Doesn't that depend on whether you are in the south or north?

nexuscrawler

skyrimisneato wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

So NPR just ran a story that is indicating that Obama is going to make the rules looser under pressure from Catholics. That blows.

goddamnit

I hurt my hand hitting the steering wheel when I heard that. It seemed like there was enough speculation in the reporting that he might not change his position in the end, but apparently he's stated that he's "willing to compromise" and so far the usually means he will get nothing he originally went for.

Manchin and Kaine are both already splintering off

Couscous

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/09/421871/catholic-bishops-demand-all-businesses-be-given-the-right-to-deny-women-contraception-coverage/

According to a report in USA Today, they aren’t just demanding a broader religious exemption from the new contraception coverage rule — they want contraception coverage removed from the Affordable Care Act altogether:

The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”

“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said.

Fuck the Catholic Church. So would a Christian Scientist be able to avoid the health care law under their bizarre idea of freedom of religion?

KalTorak

Yeah, we all know about your desires to open a pharmacy that only dispenses godly drugs, thanks.

skyrimisneato

Couscous wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/09/421871/catholic-bishops-demand-all-businesses-be-given-the-right-to-deny-women-contraception-coverage/

According to a report in USA Today, they aren’t just demanding a broader religious exemption from the new contraception coverage rule — they want contraception coverage removed from the Affordable Care Act altogether:

The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”

“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said.

Fuck the Catholic Church. So would a Christian Scientist be able to avoid the health care law under their bizarre idea of freedom of religion?

That church is so fucking out of touch, even with it's own membership. Why do those fucking assholes get to have a say in our political process again?

Modern Man

skyrimisneato wrote:

That church is so fucking out of touch, even with it's own membership. Why do those fucking assholes get to have a say in our political process again?

Because we live in a democracy?

DisruptedCapitalist

It's all a nontroversy drummed up by the media and or the GOP because the primary isn't getting any interest. According to some statistics I saw, something like 90% of Catholics in America support insurance coverage for contraceptive sand even several prominent Catholic Universities provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plan.

skyrimisneato

Modern Man wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

That church is so fucking out of touch, even with it's own membership. Why do those fucking assholes get to have a say in our political process again?

Because we live in a democracy?

Also one with separation of church and state. I know I'm oversimplifying, but this kind of thing goes against the spirit of our founding principles at the very least. If it was not legal then it wouldn't happen, but they still wield too much influence as tax-exempt dicks.

Modern Man

skyrimisneato wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

That church is so fucking out of touch, even with it's own membership. Why do those fucking assholes get to have a say in our political process again?

Because we live in a democracy?

Also one with separation of church and state. I know I'm oversimplifying, but this kind of thing goes against the spirit of our founding principles at the very least. If it was not legal then it wouldn't happen, but they still wield too much influence as tax-exempt dicks.

That is not what separation of church and state means. Religious people and organizations are free to be involved in political issues and to advocate for changes in the law. Having a religious viewpoint does not make someone a second-class citizen.

enlightenedbum

skyrimisneato wrote:

That church is so fucking out of touch, even with it's own membership. Why do those fucking assholes get to have a say in our political process again?

Because an impressive number of our media are old Catholic men who think:

1) Catholics are the most important voters
2) All Catholics think just like them.
3) Women are dumb.

Hamurabi

So I'm going to go ahead and treat this like the [Religion Thread], and make a post about an interesting finding by Charles Murray. He was a co-author on The Bell Curve, and is out with a new book about growing class differences among the white working- and middle-class.

But the most interesting finding in the book, imo, is that religiosity does not decrease (among white people) with rising levels of education and income. I was under the impression that it was definitely the case that as levels of education and socioeconomic status rose, that so did secularism and/or atheism, and that being poorer made it statistically more likely you would be religious... but this seems to fly in the face of that conclusion.

I mean, we could get into how this is a survey of one subset of people, isn't a big enough sample size, etc... but even among just the people surveyed, this is kind of surprising.

Sicarii

I love that "compromise" means "give me 100 percent of the things I want."

Hamurabi

Honk wrote:

Javen wrote:

It's pretty old, but someone linked it on FB and it really set me off for some reason. There's just no reason for adults to act this way.

-snip-

How the hell do people in that position of power get to act that way?

Were those legislators, or random fucksticks?

Also: why was there a Hindu prayer being recited in a government establishment to begin with?

enlightenedbum

Hamurabi wrote:

So I'm going to go ahead and treat this like the [Religion Thread], and make a post about an interesting finding by Charles Murray. He was a co-author on The Bell Curve, and is out with a new book about growing class differences among the white working- and middle-class.

But the most interesting finding in the book, imo, is that religiosity does not decrease (among white people) with rising levels of education and income. I was under the impression that it was definitely the case that as levels of education and socioeconomic status rose, that so did secularism and/or atheism, and that being poorer made it statistically more likely you would be religious... but this seems to fly in the face of that conclusion.

I mean, we could get into how this is a survey of one subset of people, isn't a big enough sample size, etc... but even among just the people surveyed, this is kind of surprising.

Charles Murray is a hack and should be ignored.

Mikey CTS

Modern Man wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

That church is so fucking out of touch, even with it's own membership. Why do those fucking assholes get to have a say in our political process again?

Because we live in a democracy?

Also one with separation of church and state. I know I'm oversimplifying, but this kind of thing goes against the spirit of our founding principles at the very least. If it was not legal then it wouldn't happen, but they still wield too much influence as tax-exempt dicks.

That is not what separation of church and state means. Religious people and organizations are free to be involved in political issues and to advocate for changes in the law. Having a religious viewpoint does not make someone a second-class citizen.

But we aren't talking about individuals, we're talking about an organization. Becoming involved in politics can cause their tax-exempt status to be revoked. I'm not saying they've crossed that line yet with their current rhetoric, only that there is a difference between individuals getting involved and organizations getting involved.

skyrimisneato

Modern Man wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

Modern Man wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

That church is so fucking out of touch, even with it's own membership. Why do those fucking assholes get to have a say in our political process again?

Because we live in a democracy?

Also one with separation of church and state. I know I'm oversimplifying, but this kind of thing goes against the spirit of our founding principles at the very least. If it was not legal then it wouldn't happen, but they still wield too much influence as tax-exempt dicks.

That is not what separation of church and state means. Religious people and organizations are free to be involved in political issues and to advocate for changes in the law. Having a religious viewpoint does not make someone a second-class citizen.

That entirely depends on the religion and the jurisdiction. Either way, I already acknowledged your point in my post before you made it: "I know I'm oversimplifying".

skyrimisneato

Modern Man wrote:

Mikey CTS wrote:

But we aren't talking about individuals, we're talking about an organization. Becoming involved in politics can cause their tax-exempt status to be revoked. I'm not saying they've crossed that line yet with their current rhetoric, only that there is a difference between individuals getting involved and organizations getting involved.

It can, if they advocate for or against a specific candidate. They're free to take a position on public policy. Tax-exempt entities aren't required to be completely neutral on matters of politics.

Just mostly.

Weird post jumping magic again!!

Modern Man

Mikey CTS wrote:

But we aren't talking about individuals, we're talking about an organization. Becoming involved in politics can cause their tax-exempt status to be revoked. I'm not saying they've crossed that line yet with their current rhetoric, only that there is a difference between individuals getting involved and organizations getting involved.

It can, if they advocate for or against a specific candidate. They're free to take a position on public policy. Tax-exempt entities aren't required to be completely neutral on matters of politics.

Hamurabi

enlightenedbum wrote:

Hamurabi wrote:

So I'm going to go ahead and treat this like the [Religion Thread], and make a post about an interesting finding by Charles Murray. He was a co-author on The Bell Curve, and is out with a new book about growing class differences among the white working- and middle-class.

But the most interesting finding in the book, imo, is that religiosity does not decrease (among white people) with rising levels of education and income. I was under the impression that it was definitely the case that as levels of education and socioeconomic status rose, that so did secularism and/or atheism, and that being poorer made it statistically more likely you would be religious... but this seems to fly in the face of that conclusion.

I mean, we could get into how this is a survey of one subset of people, isn't a big enough sample size, etc... but even among just the people surveyed, this is kind of surprising.

Charles Murray is a hack and should be ignored.

He does come to the wrong conclusion; he feels like the lesson to draw from the success of upper-middle-class America is that their values -- which he establishes in the book are more conservative than progressive -- should be more widely encouraged and glorified.

But are you going to argue with 100 pages of data tables? The same thing happened with The Bell Curve, iirc: the authors went to great pains to document every single one of their claims and generalizations, but they weren't what people wanted to hear (namely, that intelligence is a highly deterministic variable and is highly genetically correlated) and so they were shot down.

enlightenedbum

He cooks data to prove that white people are better than everyone else. That's his schtick.

Modern Man

Hamurabi wrote:

He does come to the wrong conclusion; he feels like the lesson to draw from the success of upper-middle-class America is that their values -- which he establishes in the book are more conservative than progressive -- should be more widely encouraged and glorified.

I get what you're saying, but I wish there was a less charged way to discuss values without using the conservative/liberal label.

Values like not having kids out of wedlock should be a universal, rather than "conservative" goal.

enlightenedbum wrote:

He cooks data to prove that white people are better than everyone else. That's his schtick.

His new book only looks at sub-groups of white people in order to avoid this whole controversy.

Mikey CTS

Modern Man wrote:

Mikey CTS wrote:

But we aren't talking about individuals, we're talking about an organization. Becoming involved in politics can cause their tax-exempt status to be revoked. I'm not saying they've crossed that line yet with their current rhetoric, only that there is a difference between individuals getting involved and organizations getting involved.

It can, if they advocate for or against a specific candidate. They're free to take a position on public policy. Tax-exempt entities aren't required to be completely neutral on matters of politics.

I agree. Like I said, their current rhetoric doesn't cross that line.

I remember reading that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were going to be removed from Texas textbooks (a large motivator for this is their views on religion, so I guess it's okay to discuss in this thread?). Have these beeks been distributed yet or was this abandoned?

enlightenedbum

Modern Man wrote:

Hamurabi wrote:

He does come to the wrong conclusion; he feels like the lesson to draw from the success of upper-middle-class America is that their values -- which he establishes in the book are more conservative than progressive -- should be more widely encouraged and glorified.

I get what you're saying, but I wish there was a less charged way to discuss values without using the conservative/liberal label.

Values like not having kids out of wedlock should be a universal, rather than "conservative" goal.

enlightenedbum wrote:

He cooks data to prove that white people are better than everyone else. That's his schtick.

His new book only looks at sub-groups of white people in order to avoid this whole controversy.

While still concluding their values are better and that they should be adopted by everyone.

He's amazing.

nexuscrawler

Those charities and hospital that are subject to the mandate because they're fucking corporations

enlightenedbum

Back directly on topic:

The White House is "all talk, no action" on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said.

They will NEVER be happy and want birth control eliminated entirely. Fuck the Catholic Church, which should have lost all moral authority a decade ago.

Modern Man

enlightenedbum wrote:

While still concluding their values are better and that they should be adopted by everyone.

He's amazing.

Well, he's pretty much on the mark on that point. Maybe not as much on the religiosity angle, though.

skyrimisneato

Can someone enumerate those values that Charles Murray advocates, for the benefit of those PA denizens who will never read his book, but want to participate in the thread, please? I followed the links to the stories, but they are pretty light on specifics.

Hamurabi

enlightenedbum wrote:

He cooks data to prove that white people are better than everyone else. That's his schtick.

To be clear: I'm not white, but I also can't argue with statistics that show that white kids test higher on IQ tests (which you can value as you will) than other ethnic groups. Now, is that because white kids are just inherently superior to all other types of kids? I'm not a social scientist or biologist, but I'd wager that they're not somehow inherently smarter than those other groups; I presume there are other factors, that correlate with race but that aren't due to race, that are the reason for that outcome.

Modern Man wrote:

Hamurabi wrote:

He does come to the wrong conclusion; he feels like the lesson to draw from the success of upper-middle-class America is that their values -- which he establishes in the book are more conservative than progressive -- should be more widely encouraged and glorified.

I get what you're saying, but I wish there was a less charged way to discuss values without using the conservative/liberal label.

Values like not having kids out of wedlock should be a universal, rather than "conservative" goal.

enlightenedbum wrote:

He cooks data to prove that white people are better than everyone else. That's his schtick.

His new book only looks at sub-groups of white people in order to avoid this whole controversy.

I was using those terms in a broader sense -- not as U.S. political labels. I would label "conservative" cultural values as being the ones outlined in that NPR piece: reverence of the institution of marriage; (serial) monogamy; religiosity; using socioeconomic status as a measure of success and overall self-worth; etc. I would label "progressive" values as being things like: recognition of alternative lifestyles (not strictly vis-a-vis sexual orientations, but more generally); not limiting oneself to thinking of marriage as the natural apex of a relationship; pinning self-worth to more than just socioeconomic success; etc.

Couscous

But are you going to argue with 100 pages of data tables?

Interpretation of data and selection of what data you use is just as important as the data itself.

There are plenty of reasons other than inculcating values for why more church attendance can make a specific group richer.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15178817

Researchers have documented extreme inequalities in wealth ownership, but the processes that create these inequalities are not well understood. One important contributing factor that attracts little attention is religion. This study explores the relationship between religious participation, religious affiliation, and patterns of wealth accumulation. I argue that religion affects wealth ownership indirectly by shaping demographic behaviors. I also argue that religion directly influences wealth accumulation by identifying valuable goals, by providing a set of competencies that direct strategies of action, and by contributing to social contacts that provide information and opportunities that can enhance wealth ownership. The findings suggest that Jews enjoy tremendous gains in wealth ownership, while conservative Protestants accumulate relatively little wealth. In contrast, mainline Protestants and Catholics are indistinguishable from each other and from the general population. The results demonstrate the importance of family processes in shaping wealth accumulation, and they underscore the importance of culture in shaping economic behavior and ultimately in creating social inequality.

http://www.economist.com/node/5327652

Other economists, though they think Mr Gruber's approach is clever, are not sure that he has established a causal link between religious attendance and wealth. So how might churchgoing make you richer? Mr Gruber offers several possibilities. One plausible idea is that going to church yields “social capital”, a web of relationships that fosters trust. Economists think such ties can be valuable, because they make business dealings smoother and transactions cheaper. Churchgoing may simply be an efficient way of creating them.

Another possibility is that a church's members enjoy mutual emotional and (maybe) financial insurance. That allows them to recover more quickly from setbacks, such as the loss of a job, than they would without the support of fellow parishioners. Or perhaps religion and wealth are linked through education. Mr Gruber's results suggest that higher church attendance leads to more years at school and less chance of dropping out of college. A vibrant church might also boost the number of religious schools, which in turn could raise academic achievement.

Finally, religious faith itself might be the channel through which churchgoers become richer. Perhaps, Mr Gruber muses, the faithful may be “less stressed out” about life's daily travails and thus better equipped for success. This may make religion more appealing to some of those who turn up only once a year. But given that Jesus warned his followers against storing up treasures on earth, you might think that this wasn't the motivation for going to church that he had in mind.

The book itself seems like the usual libertarian load of crap.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/charles-murray-book-review.html
Basically, it is also ignorant of history. The working class being a bunch of drunk ignoramuses who were fucking lazy was considered a truism among rich people in the past. Many of the founders assumed it and was part of the reason why they limited it to landholding people and disliked the idea of democracy.

Oh, and his argument is basically that the poor are lazy.

Modern Man

skyrimisneato wrote:

Can someone enumerate those values that Charles Murray advocates, for the benefit of those PA denizens who will never read his book, but want to participate in the thread, please? I followed the links to the stories, but they are pretty light on specifics.

Roughly, get an education, work full-time, be involved in your community and don't have kids out of wedlock.

Oh, and religiosity, though I would put that under community involvement.

Couscous

SO does he ever do anything to actually prove causation?

skyrimisneato

Modern Man wrote:

skyrimisneato wrote:

Can someone enumerate those values that Charles Murray advocates, for the benefit of those PA denizens who will never read his book, but want to participate in the thread, please? I followed the links to the stories, but they are pretty light on specifics.

Roughly, get an education, work full-time, be involved in your community and don't have kids out of wedlock.

Oh, and religiosity, though I would put that under community involvement.

I guess I don't see the controversy then, since those don't much seem to be politically charged one way or the other, if you ignore the religiosity bit. Most people would acknowledge that those are good things for a democratic society (except the religiosity bit). On the other hand, throwing out the religiosity bit means that you are ignoring what he actually wrote, and only attending to the things you like in what he wrote, so ...

AngelHedgie

Oh, and the "100 pages of data" makes me more, not less skeptical, since data dumps are a classic crank technique.