Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

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

1234579

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Modern Man 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.
    Which he uses as a justification for why it totally isn't all the other shit that caused the economic fucking over of the working class. It is the rich person's "those poor people, if only we could save them from themselves outside of telling them how shitty they are" bullshit. Saying you had nothing to do with the poverty of the working class and the solution is to basically bitch them until they stop being so terrible is the opiate of the rich.

    From the book reviews, I have a shitload of problems with his shit:
    1. Assumes a vision there is little evidence most of the founders believed in it. He relies on the idea that they were mostly unified in their vision.
    2. Doesn't really show causation. This is especially a problem when there are plenty of other possible problems such as the decline of decent paying working class jobs meaning they are going to be poorer even if they work as hard.
    3. Without knowing causation, there is no real solution possible.
    4. As a libertarian, the idea of any government involvement in the solution is anathema so the result is a wishy washy solution that relies on the rich as a deus ex machina that we have no reason to believe will happen.
    5. Assumes pretty much everything is getting worse. For example, that the working class is less law abiding despite crime rates dropping.
    6. This limits most of the value to a fairly useless description of shit we know happened and correlation we know about.

    Couscous on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Krugman has a good run through of his claims and the problems therein.

  • Erich ZahnErich Zahn Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    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 people don't vote or express themselves openly, and are frequently quashed/silenced/ignored when they do so, allowing "demographic leaders" to do whatever the fuck they want.

    The Catholic Church is basically like the Democratic Party in this regard.

    Erich Zahn on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Modern Man 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 ...

    This always gets on my nerves. Those aren't values that make you succeed. They are being successful. Its like saying that if you want to have money you should have parents that have money.

    Edit: Upon sober reflection I have decided to "to have money you should go on vacations" better states my point.

    rockrnger on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Mikey CTS wrote:
    Really? You do know that this has been an ongoing battle in this country for the last thirty years, maybe longer? Not just prayer in school, but the textbooks with intelligent design in them. There's nothing subconscious about it. They want religion in schools and they've been fighting to have it a very long time.

    Yes, and both as a child and a father I've lived in areas on the forefront of this. I'm still pretty sure that people want ID in schools because they don't want the government doing what they perceive as teaching their children that their religion is false. I don't think most of them actually want to use schools to spread religion, though again, I'm sure that is true for many.

  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Couscous wrote:
    Modern Man 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.
    Which he uses as a justification for why it totally isn't all the other shit that caused the economic fucking over of the working class. It is the rich person's "those poor people, if only we could save them from themselves outside of telling them how shitty they are" bullshit. Saying you had nothing to do with the poverty of the working class and the solution is to basically bitch them until they stop being so terrible is the opiate of the rich.

    From the book reviews, I have a shitload of problems with his shit:
    1. Assumes a vision there is little evidence most of the founders believed in it. He relies on the idea that they were mostly unified in their vision.
    2. Doesn't really show causation. This is especially a problem when there are plenty of other possible problems such as the decline of decent paying working class jobs meaning they are going to be poorer even if they work as hard.
    3. Without knowing causation, there is no real solution possible.
    4. As a libertarian, the idea of any government involvement in the solution is anathema so the result is a wishy washy solution that relies on the rich as a deus ex machina that we have no reason to believe will happen.
    5. Assumes pretty much everything is getting worse. For example, that the working class is less law abiding despite crime rates dropping.
    6. This limits most of the value to a fairly useless description of shit we know happened and correlation we know about.

    To be clear, I'm not in here arguing that being religious, prioritizing education, or brushing your teeth before bed make you socioeconomically successful; Murray basically does that in his book, and feels that those are values that ought to be glorified and promulgated, and that's his business.

    What I do see as being a valuable contribution specifically to the discourse on large populations and religion is that, as it turns out, being better educated and making more money don't necessarily make you less religious, which was the impression that I had before hearing that piece on NPR on Tuesday. The "100 pages of data" was in reference to that, since eb was basically dismissing the entire book (including the aforementioned tidbit that I found relevant to this thread) based on an ad hominem against Richard Murray. If he has data that show that upper-middle-class white people -- and he says these trends ring true across all ethnic groups -- are just as or more religious than their lower-middle- and working-class counterparts, then I think that's an interesting finding.

    EDIT: Actually, prioritizing education probably would make you more successful... but I feel it's still pretty clear what I meant by listing his list of White People Virtues.

    Hamurabi on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Yar wrote:
    Mikey CTS wrote:
    Really? You do know that this has been an ongoing battle in this country for the last thirty years, maybe longer? Not just prayer in school, but the textbooks with intelligent design in them. There's nothing subconscious about it. They want religion in schools and they've been fighting to have it a very long time.

    Yes, and both as a child and a father I've lived in areas on the forefront of this. I'm still pretty sure that people want ID in schools because they don't want the government doing what they perceive as teaching their children that their religion is false. I don't think most of them actually want to use schools to spread religion, though again, I'm sure that is true for many.
    Demanding that schools have official prayer is the same as spreading religion.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Yar wrote:
    Mikey CTS wrote:
    Really? You do know that this has been an ongoing battle in this country for the last thirty years, maybe longer? Not just prayer in school, but the textbooks with intelligent design in them. There's nothing subconscious about it. They want religion in schools and they've been fighting to have it a very long time.

    Yes, and both as a child and a father I've lived in areas on the forefront of this. I'm still pretty sure that people want ID in schools because they don't want the government doing what they perceive as teaching their children that their religion is false. I don't think most of them actually want to use schools to spread religion, though again, I'm sure that is true for many.

    One person's "teaching my children that my religion is false" is a another person's "teaching your children facts."

    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    DoctorArch wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    Mikey CTS wrote:
    Really? You do know that this has been an ongoing battle in this country for the last thirty years, maybe longer? Not just prayer in school, but the textbooks with intelligent design in them. There's nothing subconscious about it. They want religion in schools and they've been fighting to have it a very long time.

    Yes, and both as a child and a father I've lived in areas on the forefront of this. I'm still pretty sure that people want ID in schools because they don't want the government doing what they perceive as teaching their children that their religion is false. I don't think most of them actually want to use schools to spread religion, though again, I'm sure that is true for many.

    One person's "teaching my children that my religion is false" is a another person's "teaching your children facts."
    Especially when what is held as true in that religion is pretty much universally considered a load of crap by actual biblical scholars. For example, most of fundamentalism is laughed at by actual religious academics.

    Couscous on
  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    Fundamentalism isn't based on facts. Not even biblical facts.

    gotsig.jpg
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Yar wrote:
    Mikey CTS wrote:
    Really? You do know that this has been an ongoing battle in this country for the last thirty years, maybe longer? Not just prayer in school, but the textbooks with intelligent design in them. There's nothing subconscious about it. They want religion in schools and they've been fighting to have it a very long time.

    Yes, and both as a child and a father I've lived in areas on the forefront of this. I'm still pretty sure that people want ID in schools because they don't want the government doing what they perceive as teaching their children that their religion is false. I don't think most of them actually want to use schools to spread religion, though again, I'm sure that is true for many.

    Besides the fact that the school having everyone pray is spreading religion, it helps ostracize anyone who doesn't go along with it. You can't pretend that those who don't pray, who would be in the minority, wouldn't be noticed when it would get pointed out every day when they don't participate. That is not a good thing.

    PSN: allenquid
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    I found this to be a good analogy for the current Bishops vs. Obama mess (from Salon.com):
    David Boies calmly and clearly explaining the new regulations as an issue of labor law, and the government’s regulation of employers (relatively minimal, compared to other countries) on issues of health, safety and non-discrimination.

    I’ve tried to make the same points: What if Catholics didn’t believe in child labor laws? Would we let church-run agencies flout them? Boies used the example of a religion that believed people shouldn’t work after age 60: Could they legally ban older people from employment? Of course, they could do neither. This is indeed an issue of religious freedom: the freedom of non-Catholics not to be bound by the dictates of the Catholic Church in the workplace.

    They're right in that the administration needs to rebut every accusation of infringing upon religious expression with the fact that the government absolutely has the right to regulate labor law.

    DoctorArch on
    steam_sig.png
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    removal of all the contraception.....

    I just.

    I don't....

    yeah...

    gonna walk away now and try to not explode over the nice clean internets.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    removal of all the contraception.....

    I just.

    I don't....

    yeah...

    gonna walk away now and try to not explode over the nice clean internets.

    They think masturbation is a sin too.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    The whole Catholic Bishop outrage at the contraceptive mandate is bullshit. I can only hope that this case http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10365739-catholic-tv-network-sues-us-over-birth-control-mandate will result in multiple ruling that state that your religion doesn't allow you to flout the laws.

    I also hope they get judges who can word their responses in subtle ways that equate to:
    1. Remember the whole "give on to Caesar what is Caesar's" quote, yeah that also means if you take public money you have to follow the rules and if that's a problem don't be a greedy bitch by taking the money and then turning around to bitch about how you're rights are being violated.
    2. Being the boss doesn't allow you to lord your beliefs over your employees and if you don't like that don't run a business bitch.
    3. Also you fuckers have quite the nerve to cite morality when you were the bitches shuffling around child predators instead of outright removing them because you felt it was more important to maintain you public image while also lying through your fucking teeth.

    Obviously, they would say in terms that would using profanity but I really want to see them get their asses handed to them and see the courts make this mostly into a non-issue before the general election. Obviously the right will cling to this as red meat but once the courts tell them they are fucking wrong, it loses much of it's clout amongst the non-fundamentalists that might be willing to go along with politicians that cling to such values as political talking points.

    Mill on
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist A banana is good. It tastes the same going in or going out! Registered User regular
    DFA_Contraceptives_Graphic_Final.png

    But science and facts never stopped the Catholic church from being total assholes.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    DFA_Contraceptives_Graphic_Final.png

    But science and facts never stopped the Catholic church from being total assholes.

    That is a fantastic graphic.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/white-house-announces-contraception-accommodation-for-religious-orgs
    On a conference call with reporters Friday, a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.

    "All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    ...wont the insurance companies just pass on the added cost to the religious institutions they're providing insurance for?

    Pretty clever, i guess, using the insurance companies as a buffer... there must be other complications though.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    There's no added cost. Contraceptives are cheaper than delivering a baby.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote:
    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/white-house-announces-contraception-accommodation-for-religious-orgs
    On a conference call with reporters Friday, a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.

    "All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.

    That's going to be a tough sell.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I hope it gets through, but I can see a shitstorm over that specifically. But I echo what @Tenek said.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Tenek wrote:
    There's no added cost. Contraceptives are cheaper than delivering a baby.

    ...true.

    So what are the potential downsides to this plan? I.e. what are the churches going to be bitching about?

    KalTorak on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/26ba6381-www.wlos.com.shtml
    The president of the Catholic Health Association, a trade group representing Catholic hospitals, says the organization is pleased with the revised rule. Sister Carol Keehan says it "responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed."
    So they have no problem with giving their employees contraceptives as long as they don't have to pay for it?

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    This compromise is actually kind of clever. It achieves the same result (universal access to contraception for women), so it's really win-win. I resent the fact that it was an issue at all and how unjustified the outcry over it was, though.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I don't understand how this changes anything. I am pretty sure previously the church was not itself paying for these contraceptives, but rather a health care plan that covered them. Now... they are paying for a plan that pays for the contraceptives on the down-low or something? What?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist A banana is good. It tastes the same going in or going out! Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Cue wingnuts saying that the Catholic hierarchy sold out.

    DisruptedCapitalist on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    This compromise is actually kind of clever. It achieves the same result (universal access to contraception for women), so it's really win-win. I resent the fact that it was an issue at all and how unjustified the outcry over it was, though.

    Is it possible that it was a political move? Now the GOP looks like it was throwing a shitfit over nothing.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    Tenek wrote:
    There's no added cost. Contraceptives are cheaper than delivering a baby.

    ...true.

    So what are the potential downsides to this plan? I.e. what are the churches going to be bitching about?

    Possibly nothing. Or they might continue. It's hard to tell - they're morally obligated to complain about contrabortigaymarristemcells but they've never been obligated to do anything about it.

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote:
    I don't understand how this changes anything. I am pretty sure previously the church was not itself paying for these contraceptives, but rather a health care plan that covered them. Now... they are paying for a plan that pays for the contraceptives on the down-low or something? What?

    I assume, they were not ok with any increased cost in the plan, being attributed to the coverage.

    And if contraceptives did actually lower costs or not increase them in insurance plans, why didn't all plans already offer that as a means of lowering their costs?

    rodq.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    HamHamJ wrote:
    I don't understand how this changes anything. I am pretty sure previously the church was not itself paying for these contraceptives, but rather a health care plan that covered them. Now... they are paying for a plan that pays for the contraceptives on the down-low or something? What?

    It doesn't. I guess it makes it look like the Catholic bishops overcame the big scary Obama White House and caused them to change things. But policy wise it's fine.

    Also, it means birth control is now "controversial" which is only good news politically (in the sense that women will fuck your shit up if you go after birth control, but not so much with abortion). Not in the sense that it could possibly restrict access, but I don't see that happening in this country for parenthetical reason above.

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    It doesn't. I guess it makes it look like the Catholic bishops overcame the big scary Obama White House and caused them to change things. But policy wise it's fine.

    Also, it means birth control is now "controversial" which is only good news politically (in the sense that women will fuck your shit up if you go after birth control, but not so much with abortion). Not in the sense that it could possibly restrict access, but I don't see that happening in this country for parenthetical reason above.

    Between the Komen uproar and this, it's been a fantastic week for Democrats. I lot of people on the left have been saying for years that the anti-abortion crowd also wants to target contraception, but no one believed them. Now, it's increasingly obvious to the general public that the conservatives do want to come for their birth control pills.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/health-insurance-industry-concerned-with-new-contraception-rule
    AHIP, the lobbying arm of the American health insurance industry, says it's not yet ready to sign-on to the new contraception coverage rules outlined by the White House today.
    “Health plans have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that aim to improve patient health and reduce health care cost growth," AHIP Press Secretary Robert Zirkelbach said in a statement. “We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set. As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process.”

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/boehners-office-not-satisfied-with-so-called-compromise
    In response to the rule change offered by the Obama administration Friday on the issue of contraception coverage at religious organization, John Boehner spokesman Michael Steel gave the following statement, expressing concern that the change doesn't go far enough:
    The Catholic Church and others in our nation’s religious community are not yet convinced the President’s mandate doesn’t constitute an attack on religious freedom, which has been a fundamental American right for more than 200 years. It’s clear that these organizations were not included in developing the so-called compromise offered today. The President should take up the Bishops’ offer to find a resolution that respects all Americans’ Constitutional rights. In the meantime, the House of Representatives, led by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will continue to work toward a legislative solution that achieves that same goal.
    I am fucking tired of people acting like this is a constitutional issue.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Me thinks Obama may be attempting to start a cultural war that he knows he can win.

    steam_sig.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    DoctorArch wrote:
    Me thinks Obama may be attempting to start a cultural war that he knows he can win.

    and it's about time, start hitting these fuckers where it hurts and show them that they do not represent America

    If obama keeps hitting them on gay and women's rights he will win

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote:
    Me thinks Obama may be attempting to start a cultural war that he knows he can win.

    and it's about time, start hitting these fuckers where it hurts and show them that they do not represent America

    If obama keeps hitting them on gay and women's rights he will win

    Surprise of all surprises, turns out Americans take their equality stuff pretty god-damn seriously. Someone forward the GOP with that message, on November 7th.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote:
    Me thinks Obama may be attempting to start a cultural war that he knows he can win.

    and it's about time, start hitting these fuckers where it hurts and show them that they do not represent America

    If obama keeps hitting them on gay and women's rights he will win

    Surprise of all surprises, turns out Americans take their equality stuff pretty god-damn seriously. Someone forward the GOP with that message, on November 7th.

    I was reading an Economist article today (just cause I like getting a perspective of a world I will likely never be a part of) about the growing acceptance of out-of-the-closet homosexuals (and transsexuals) in the mega corporate world. Basically their take was companies who aren't making efforts to show their acceptance of such employees risk not only losing the talent pool of homosexuals, but also heterosexuals who are not down with working for someone that is refusing to get with the times. We're beginning to see the day when intolerance towards sexual preference/identity will be relegated to the crazy hick uncle fodder of conservatism.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    A good op-ed on CNN about the birth control thing.
    When a Catholic organization hires employees from the general public, offers services to the general public, and accepts government money for those services, it should not be allowed to impose its theological conditions on its employees' health care choices by refusing to cover contraception. That is not religious freedom; that is religious imperialism and comes dangerously close to the "establishment of religion" that is prohibited by the Constitution.

    Full Text: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/opinion/glass-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    CptKemzik wrote:
    DoctorArch wrote:
    Me thinks Obama may be attempting to start a cultural war that he knows he can win.

    and it's about time, start hitting these fuckers where it hurts and show them that they do not represent America

    If obama keeps hitting them on gay and women's rights he will win

    Surprise of all surprises, turns out Americans take their equality stuff pretty god-damn seriously. Someone forward the GOP with that message, on November 7th.

    I was reading an Economist article today (just cause I like getting a perspective of a world I will likely never be a part of) about the growing acceptance of out-of-the-closet homosexuals (and transsexuals) in the mega corporate world. Basically their take was companies who aren't making efforts to show their acceptance of such employees risk not only losing the talent pool of homosexuals, but also heterosexuals who are not down with working for someone that is refusing to get with the times. We're beginning to see the day when intolerance towards sexual preference/identity will be relegated to the crazy hick uncle fodder of conservatism.

    I think Frank Bruni recently wrote an op-ed in the NYT about that, though more about customers and corporate image than employees, referencing Starbucks, Amazon, and Microsoft supporting the recent gay marriage bill in Washington state.

Sign In or Register to comment.