Politics

Until I read Rich Lowry's column in the Oregonian today, I didn't realize how wacko the religiousy libertarian wing of the Republican Party had become.  Way wacko.  Following Lowry's logic about why Catholics with a moral distaste for contraception shouldn't have to comply with health insurance laws that apply to everybody else, apparently anybody with a moral objection to any law should be able to ignore it. About a month ago, people who thought religious institutions shouldn’t be forced to pay for things they morally oppose were unremarkable, boring even. Now, they are waging a heinous War on Women. Through the…

A week after I wrote "Contraception should be covered by religious organizations," I'm still amazed that providing birth control benefits to women via a health insurance plan is controversial in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This isn't the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church doesn't run the western world. Few people, and certainly not the United States Constitution, believe the Pope is infallible when he makes moral pronouncements.  So why should the Obama administration, or anyone else, take seriously the freak-out of religious fundamentalists over its decision to require faith-based organizations which employ members of the general public to…

Bizarre. Mystifying. Irrational. That's what religion is. And that's also how I look upon the freak-out that erupted after the Obama administration required religious organizations (colleges, hospitals, etc.) which serve the general public to cover contraception, just like others who offer health insurance are required to do. Note: contraception. Not abortion. Birth control pills, condoms, IUD's. The Institute of Medicine recommended that birth control be fully covered under health plans.  But, you know, the Institute of Medicine used facts, evidence, research, and common sense in reaching that conclusion, which weirds out faith-based folks. Preventing unwanted pregnancies saves lives, reduces abortions, and enables…

Do people have free will? No. Is almost everything in the cosmos determined? Yes. Have humans evolved a core morality? Yes.  Put these facts together, and you arrive at a persuasive scientific argument for favoring progressive politics. Read all about it in a post I wrote for my other blog, "Science supports a progressive political agenda." One more fact: Will lots of people disagree with this conclusion? Yes.

Thank you, Rick Perry. Your homophobic video, where you bizarrely speak of Obama's "war on religion" (huh?), has inspired me to carry on with my own genuine war against hateful religious dogma such as you espouse.  Take 30 seconds to watch it. Then, if you're as disgusted as I expect you'll be, head to You Tube and click on the thumbs-down (dislike) icon. So far about 87,000 people dislike the video and 2,000 like it. Good to know Rick Perry doesn't represent Americans. Just the mean-spirited ones.  

I don't understand why there's so much concern about "Islamists" being voted into power in Egypt. Fundamentalist Christians do their best to dominate politics in the United States. So do fundamentalist Jews in Israel. Why isn't there an equally fervent outcry about "Christianists" or "Judaists" taking over? Well, there is. Andrew Sullivan wrote a good piece about this back in 2006. So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian…

I liked this column by E.J. Dionne a lot. "Election 2012's Great Religious Divide" makes some excellent points about how religion and politics intersect here in the United States. Yes, everyone is part of a religious minority. Especially atheists and agnostics, since the vast majority of Americans are believers in some faith. In the United States, we have no religious tests for office. It’s true that this constitutional provision does not prevent a voter from casting a ballot on any basis he or she wishes to use. Nonetheless, it’s the right assumption for citizens in a pluralistic democracy. All Americans…

I've argued before that religious beliefs have no place in politics. (See here, here, and here.) This isn't the same as saying that religious people can't be politically active. Heck, if that were the case the vast majority of American citizens would be apolitical. I just feel that when it comes to policy-making, elected officials should offer up good reasons for why they want to do X rather than Y. Then those who disagree with that choice can engage in a rational debate rather than being met with a faith-based "just because." Pastor Robert Jeffress has a different point of…

Tonight, during a wine tasting event, I chatted with a guy about the dismal state of national and international politics. Opposing positions have gotten absurdly extreme. Republicans have almost nothing in common with Democrats. Israelis have almost nothing in common with Palestinians. With such little common ground, there's no room for two parties at odds with each other to negotiate a mutually acceptable deal. We talked about how both Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians have an absurd belief that the territory Israel occupied in the 1967 war is "holy" or a "promised land." Absurd, because these religious claims are based…

To me, there's no place for religion in politics. Sure, virtually every politician in the United States who occupies a high office will be religious, because this is a highly religious country and voters are biased against atheists. But political decisions should be based on evidence, reasoning, values -- not blind faith in some supernatural force. (See some previous blog thoughts on this subject here, here, here, and here.) Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times, who is about to step down and become a full-time writer, wrote a great piece: Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith. Which…

Call me skeptical -- "You're skeptical, Brian!" (thanks) -- but somehow I doubt that praying is going to reduce the federal deficit. Better come up with a better plan, Republicans. The national debt is a “moral threat” to the United States, House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday, an impending peril about which some people are realizing they “better start praying."

President Obama's speech at yesterday's memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shooting inspired me. So I wanted to share some excerpts from his remarks which bear on any sort of discourse -- including "conversations" on this blog and elsewhere on the Internet. (Since quite a few visitors here live overseas, a brief background on the events that have shaken up the United States: last Saturday a Congresswoman, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head by a young man, Jared Loughner, as she was speaking with constituents in Tucson, Arizona. Giffords survived, but six other people were killed…

I've been underwhelmed by the religious'y "Restoring Honor" Glenn Beck rally held in Washington D.C. yesterday. Beck's big message was faith, hope, charity. Wow. What a non-big, and vague, theological surprise. Our country would supposedly do better if people had more faith in something (God, presumably), had more hope in something (not sure what), and were more charitable (beneficiary of largesse left undefined). After reading some news reports of what was said at the rally, I'm left with significant philosophical questions and political worries. On the philosophy front, I'm wondering what God we're supposed to turn back to, as Beck…

When I read the facts about the Islamic mosque planned for a site a few blocks from "ground zero," a.k.a. the spot where the World Trade Center towers once stood, it's difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. There already is a mosque four blocks from ground zero. So what's the big deal with having one two blocks away? Plus, the proposed development actually is a cultural center, which will include a mosque. As a Washington post story says (registration may be required to read it): The plan is for a cultural center that would contain a mosque.…

Often people say, "What's the harm if people believe in whatever religion they want to, no matter how weird it might seem to others?" Well, here's a good example of some harm: the June 21, 2010 cover of Newsweek. The caption under the photo of Palin with a halo and hands prayerfully folded reads:Saint SarahWhat Palin's appeal to conservative Christian women says about feminism and the future of the religious right.I've been told by a friend who was born in Germany, visits Europe regularly, and keeps up on European goings-on directly via reading online news sources that politicians in Europe…