X ackly

Ugh, I'm so sick and freaking tired of religious groups having some sort of protected status as though they're anything more that a group of people with common unsubstantiated opinions. They love to imply that being "anti-Catholic" is like being "anti-black" when it's much more like being "anti-Scientologist". I'll be "anti-Catholic" as long as they have moronic opinions, and if Amanda is I hope she stays that way.

How fucked up is our country? The top story on memeorandum is the bloggerz. The second story? The US is beginning its military push in Baghdad. Nothing like priorities.

Then again, considering how the NY Times reported the case for the invasion of Iraq, I suppose we should be grateful that they're remaining silent now.

If Edwards doesn't stand his ground on this it will really affect how I vote. My piddly little vote might not matter in the long run but damn it, I want to see a candidate who will stand up to these people.

i think we can safely assume the edwards camp knew what anti-church statements amanda and melissa were putting out there on their respective blogs before they hired them. if edwards fires amanda and melissa because of this shit-stirring by the catholic league, then they're going to look like they didn't do their homework (which i doubt) and edwards is turning his back on his own staff to placate the right. that would be a very bad tact to take for a candidate who wants to position himself as the most progressive in a democratic primary. firing the bloggers will alienate me and a lot of tech-savvy progressive primary voters, which is way worse than pissing off the catholic leage. the catholic league is going to back an anti-choice republican in '08 no matter what, so edwards has a lot more to lose if he capitulates to them rather than keep two very talented pro-choicers on staff.

My boyfriend - who is Catholic and goes to Mass every Sunday* - has a special hate for the Catholic League. You may recall a few years back, they were raising a stink about Opie and Anthony and the sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral stunt - all this while the abusive clergy crisis was at its peak. (Of course, the Vatican turned a blind eye as well, but the CL's drumbeating and painting the radio stunt as the worst thing that could possibly be done made their actions more loathsome.)

* Keep in mind he's for gay rights and supports same-sex marriage, has out-of-wedlock sex with me and although personally opposed to abortion, vowed to support my choices when I had a pregnancy scare.

"anti-Catholic"?

Well... speaking as an Episcopalian (I've heard us referred to as "Catholic lite") I've never found them to be anti-me.

But what would I know? Everyone knows real Christians hate Teh Gays.

Sorry Brunette, you boyfriend isn't Catholic. If he does all the things you say he does he is not taking the word of the Pop and the Bible as infallible by putting it into practice in his life. He's just a guy who goes to church on Sunday's. That's fine, but don't pretend he's Catholic. That's like saying my boyfriend is a Republican who votes in every primary but loves gay marriage, gun control, abortions, the View, and voted for Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford. If it doesn't walk like a duck, quack like a duck, vote like a duck, and follow like a duck, it ain't a duck.

Donahue and the Catholic league do not speak for everyone who is Catholic. Most people who I know that are Catholic think he is a big mouthed retard just like Pat Robertson. Donahue exists to be mean and cause as much trouble as possible. That is his thing.

If Edwards buckles to this nut that he does not have the spine to be President.

Sorry Brunette, you boyfriend isn't Catholic. If he does all the things you say he does he is not taking the word of the Pop and the Bible as infallible by putting it into practice in his life. He's just a guy who goes to church on Sunday's. That's fine, but don't pretend he's Catholic.

Buffy, this is precisely the sort of prejudice I come up against from bigots like you who think they can dictate what it means to be a Christian. If Brunette's boyfriend says he is Catholic, who the fuck are you to say he isn't? Who died and made you God???

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, so kindly shut the fuck up.

I'm with buffy. The phrase "who the fuck are you to say" seems to come up an awful lot around here, but if everyone's free to call themselves whatever they want, words lose meaning and communication becomes difficult. Law Fairy, who are you to say I'm not black despite the tendency for my lily-white scandinavian skin to burn in the summer or that I'm not a woman despite my penis?

Granted it's not as clear-cut, but the position of the Catholic church is pretty clearly laid out and I'd say if you're not in for the vast majority of it, it's pretty silly to call yourself Catholic.

So, Buffy, let me get this straight--I can't be a "Catholic" and still have gay friends and want them to be happy too? Last time I checked, the God I believe in (and, you know, the God I worship every weekend at Sunday Mass) told his followers to treat everyone with love and respect, and to do that whole 'love thy neighbor' business. Just sayin'. Just because it don't quack like a duck (cos, who knows, maybe it was raised by a cartoon cat who looked likt Sylvester the Cat, or by parents who believed that--gasp--gay people are people too) don't mean that it ain't a duck.

Also, how exactly "should" a Catholic vote? Because, since I'm Catholic, should I vote for someone who is pro-life, while turning a blind eye to the fact that the same person who is pro-life may be sending other people off to fight in a war and possibly get killed, which, you know, kind of fucks with the whole "respect life" idea, because I refuse to accept the fact that a fetus is more important than an 18-year-old soldier?

(Sorry, last sentence doesn't make much sense, but eh, that's the gist of it, at least).

jeff, I phrased it that ay for two reasons: 1) buffy's comment was incredibly ignorant and narrow-minded and reminded me of a lot of the bullshit I have to put up with CONSTANTLY from people who don't bother learning an ounce more about my religion than about the crazies who happen to worship the same God I do; and 2) buffy's always shooting off her mouth with something astonishingly ignorant, and my patience is low today.

She's a billion percent wrong and if you agree with her, so are you. Tell me, jeff, what religion are you?

Nope, I'm with the TLF on this one, and I have a lot to back me up on it. I was raised catholic (admittedly agnostic now), my mother went to a convent during her formative years, and still goes to church every single day. While she is pro-life in theory (providing that our government would put up the funds or shut up when it comes to single pregnant woman and promote a comprehensive sex ed that includes information on barrier method birth control), there is a group of nuns that are actively working toward choice, and they are catholic, cause the old pope said it was okay to have different opinions(Not this new asshat, though, sigh). She is also staunchly anti-war, which the real catholic church is also. And if someone refuses to condemn gays, perhaps they are following a tenent of christ: "ye without sin may cast the first stone" So go away buffy

why would anyone assume that Edwards has either balls or principles? He's raw ambition like the rest of them. He's going to drop Amanda like a hot potato, and I hope Amanda drops him.

Militant atheist. So I guess that makes my answer "none".

Let me head off at the pass "so you believe in X crazy thing that that Y crazy atheist believes", because the definition of athiest doesn't call for a specific set of beliefs as does the doctrine of the Catholic church, it only says I don't believe in the existance of any gods.

But I do see the slipperly slope here, I've referred to myself as a feminist and I clearly don't always agree with everyone here. The major difference I see is there isn't a governing body that discourages differences of opinion within feminism, which is basically the opposite of the Catholic church. Still, I certainly grant that the definition of something like "Catholic" or "liberal" or even "woman" or "native american" - that all of these are not trivial. Still, why not just denounce your Catholicism if it seems to not play very nice at all with your other views, which were reached by reason, experience, and education rather than tradition?

Still, why not just denounce your Catholicism if it seems to not play very nice at all with your other views, which were reached by reason, experience, and education rather than tradition?

You see, jeff, here's where I suspect that your own religious beliefs (or, if you prefer, "lack" thereof, although I think everyone is in some sense religious -- to be clear, when I say "religious" I don't mean you have to believe in any God or even any spirituality) are preventing you from appreciating the diversity to be found in religions.

Why do you believe there's no room for diversity in religion? Are you so well schooled in Catholic or other religious philosophy and literature that you know for a fact that "being Catholic" means PRECISELY that, e.g., you believe everything the Pope says? Or are you willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, people who ACTUALLY attend church and ACTUALLY educate themselves about the Bible and associated theological and philosophical works (not to mention church history) might have a better idea about whether or not they're Catholic than you do?

What I hear from a lot of people is that I "can't" call myself a Christian because I don't believe X. And you know who are the only ones who say this to me? Non-Christians. Not even fundamentalists go so far as to say I can't "possibly" be a Christian even though I disagree with them so strongly.

If even fundamentalists grant that there's room for me in their religion... where's your beef?

Oh, jeesh, I got so caught up in making other points I forgot the reason for choosing that specific quote of yours :0)

jeff, religion is a major MAJOR part of my identity, and of many of my friends' (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) identities as well. For example, I disagree with my dad a lot. A LOT. Let's say that one day we got in a horrible fight and I "disowned" him as a father. Am I going to change my name, now that I don't consider myself part of his family anymore?

This is a really imperfect analogy, but the basic idea is that religion isn't something you just "choose" like you would choose a flavor of ice cream, and it's insulting to those of us with deeply-held beliefs to suggest that it is.

I have a real problem with this as well, and I think Law Fairy and several others have spoken well on the subject.

I don't know anyone who believes everything about his/her religion, or for that matter, political party, etc. That's a limited view point, and I think it's more than insulting to say that brunette's boyfriend *can't* call himself a Catholic because he believes in the basic human rights of others.

Additionally, I think that ultimate spirituality and not religious edicts and dogma are the reason that many people choose their respective religions. The two are very different things.

Back to the original issue, Salon is reporting that Edwards has fired Amanda and Melissa.

"fundamentalists grant that there's room for me"

They want more numbers. But then, so do I.

In any case, I see your point that there can't be one definition of Catholicism, although I suspect the leaders of the church wish there were.

There's a lot of discussion of vague "spirituality" and "my God" and so forth, and I'm not trying to discourage that from anyone. But why take on the name "Catholic" if it doesn't describe your views? I guess I just don't understand. Why battle with these hateful people over the use of the word? The religion is fairly absurd, when you get down to its catechism and rules - why not just let the fundies have it?

I was raised Catholic, so I have some idea what I'm talking about. And I'm telling you, it IS ice cream. Spurning silly religious indoctrination is something worth doing, just like spurning silly patriarchical indoctrination. Then you won't be forced to try to argue semantics because the leaders of your chosen religion are middle-ages throwbacks.

I was raised Catholic, so I have some idea what I'm talking about. And I'm telling you, it IS ice cream.

What you mean is, for YOU it's ice cream. But obviously you're going to say that because YOU don't want to be Catholic. It's a way bigger deal for others.

It's kind of like a straight person shrugging and saying "what's the big deal about gay marriage? Who cares?" A straight person doesn't care because she doesn't want to marry a woman. But if I want to marry a woman, it's unfairly dismissive of me and what's important to me to assume that everyone should care about it as little as you.

MN, GROSS.

Now I really, REALLY hope he loses.

I could be wrong, but I think I have about 10 gay friends who would find that pretty insulting. Trust me, you can be de-Catholified, but unless you're Ted Haggard, you can't be de-gayed.

Consider also: someone's being gay is a trait that's basically innocuous from my point of view - it doesn't affect me one way or the other, really. But I'm surrounded by Catholics who pass laws saying I can't buy beer on Sunday (to choose one absurdly minor example from hundreds of major ones). So it's fair to say I'm personally invested, to some small degree. I know you don't believe in the crappy things they do - in fact, compared to two randomly chosen indiviuals, we probably agree better than 97% of them. But by sharing their title, you increase their numbers and power. Why not start with "I have my own personal beliefs about God which stem from a family background of Catholics". It's a mouthful, but it's accurate, and then you don't have to associate with them more than is necessary.

Jeff - That's typically what I do actually say. It isn't that I agree with Catholicism 100%. My grandmother was raised in a convent, and my family is strictly Catholic, but my brother is gay and still a spiritual person with a Catholic background.

It is as much cultural as it is anything else, and that isn't something that is easy to escape from.

And in my area, the Catholics are usually the ones attempting to buy alcohol on Sundays. It's the Baptists who are so strict about alcohol. That isn't to deflect from Catholicism, but to point out that your experiences aren't necessarily everyone's experiences and that there are varying degrees within each experience.

But by sharing their title, you increase their numbers and power. Why not start with "I have my own personal beliefs about God which stem from a family background of Catholics". It's a mouthful, but it's accurate, and then you don't have to associate with them more than is necessary.

jeff, this evidences your fundamental misunderstanding of me and other religious persons.

Religion isn't about helping anyone's "numbers," and it's crass and indescribably rude of you to phrase this in terms of some kind of political numbers game. I am who I am, and if you want to reject that, fine, but leave me the fuck alone. You don't get to define me. I cannot fathom how this is not the end of the conversation.

I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. I'm a Christian. Why should I pretend to be something I'm not?

Please stop insulting me. It's getting tiring.

Law Fairy - I am not God, I am a human with reason who says: If Catholic tradition and the Bible say certain things, and a guy rejects a bunch of them proudly and publicly, he isn't a Catholic just because he goes to church. Just like I'm not pregnant just because I visit the maternity ward, darling.

The FSM knows I've disagreed with a TLF a lot about issues of religion, and I'm sure that most regulars here aren't that far behind the FSM. But I can't find a single thing she's said in this thread that's wrong.

Religion is an identity. People who work on Saturdays and don't go to synagogue or fast on Yom Kippur but still celebrate Jewish holidays are Jewish. People who haven't seen the inside of a Catholic church in 40 years and don't care much for the Pope but still get personally offended when someone jokes about Catholic sex scandals are lapsed Catholics, but still Catholics.

For example, PZ Myers is a Christian atheist. He celebrates Christmas and other Christian markers, even if his views on religion are slightly less derisive than those of Richard Dawkins.

So someone who goes to Mass every Sunday is very much a Catholic, regardless of what he thinks about abortion or gay rights. If you only counted people who adhered to every authoritarian commandment in their respective scriptures as religious, 98% of the world's people would be nonreligious.

Maybe it's just because my religion (and "my God", thank you very much) are so personal to me, but you know what? My faith in my God and whatever else I believe in have kept my head above water during some really fucked-up, life-altering, sad, depressing, challenging times in my life. My belief in God makes me a Catholic, regardless of whatever people say about God or what God/Catholicism means to them.

I don't understand why I should denounce Catholicism (or help "increase their power"--um, again, maybe it's just me, but I don't see it that way), despite the fact that I don't agree 100% with how people interpret stuff. God (I believe) has helped me and kept certain people alive and healthy in my life...why should I throw that belief away just because I happen to disagree with other stuff? I just don't understand where it says that a Catholic has to agree with every single belief. I believe in God, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, I accept transubstantiation, and I believe in a hell of a lot of other stuff. I don't think I should have to say "I have my own personal beliefs about God which stem from a family background of Catholics", because I hold those beliefs on my own, not because of my family's beliefs alone.

told you so. Maybe we should reexamine our policy on the vagina litmus test. I'd take Hillary over Edwards any day.

Religion is an identity to those who don't care to actually practice it. Religion is a discipline for those that do. And those that do don't think those that don't are religious. Again, it's fine, but you are required to go to mass (or meet with bodies of believers). If you don't go to church for 40 years you're an ex-Catholic. You don't remain an elementary school student when you stop going to church and you don't remain a Catholic when you stop going to mass.

If I came strolling in here and announced that "I'm a republican, because my parents were republicans, and even though I don't agree with everything they say, I give them money and vote for them", I'd be jumped on like hyenas on a sick gazelle and I SHOULD be. So why does religion get a free pass? Why can we hide behind it, "ooh, sorry, I can't help it, it's just my religion". If you think there's no connection between the Catholic church and the patriarchy you hate so much, you're out of your mind. At least take responsibility. I'm granting that there's a difference between religion and beliefs, but the association isn't trivial. The existance of moderate Catholics creates a situation where it's much more difficult to criticize the true crazies and stop their influence. James Dobson gets the president's ear because "there's 200 million Christians in this country".

Alon: point taken but I think PZ Myers does more to subvert organized religion than any human alive.

Ironic how the people who are inclined to say someone else "isn't a real Christian/Catholic" because they happen to be pro-choice/pro-gay marriage/etc. are essentially expressing the same attitude as the people who say that all self-described Muslims are terrorists who want to kill everyone who doesn't share their radical fundamentalist beliefs, therefore Islam is an ~EEEEEVIL~ religion.
The thing is, there are degrees. Religion is just another word for what you believe, and everyone's got a different idea of what's most important. If some or all of your beliefs happen to mirror those of an officially recognized religion, you can slap a handy label on yourself to save time so other people with similar beliefs can recognize you more easily, but no one is a "true" Muslim or a "true" Christian, etc. I'm sure there are a lot of self-identified Christians/Catholics out there who are, say, pro-gay marriage whom some people would say are hypocrites or "not real Christians/Catholics." I know there are a lot of self-identified Christians/Catholics out there who are adulterers and/or divorcees (also biblical no-nos) yet who feel completely justified in calling themselves Christians, because they at least agree with their religion on the "big important stuff" like abortion or gay marriage.
Saying someone "isn't X enough" because what they perceive as essential to "X" differs from what you do is never a good idea, whether you're saying "You're not a real Catholic if you support gay marriage" or "You're not a real feminist if you shave your legs" or any other "You're not a real X if you Y" argument where 95% of a person's beliefs jibe with X but the remaining 5% disparity is seen as sufficient to invalidate the other 95%.
In the end, it's all cherry-picking. I personally find it very telling when people cherry-pick the stuff that justifies predjudice and intolerance instead of the unifying "love they neighbor" stuff. It's never really about the religion as much as it is an excuse to justify what you already believe.

buffy and jeff: I'm done. I don't need to defend myself to you. You wanna remain stymied in ignorance and bigotry, knock yourselves out.

who say that all self-described Muslims are terrorists

I would never suggest such a thing. I would suggest they reconsider their association with the word.

When you use the word "bigotry" in this context you do a great disservice to real use of the word. Religion is a group of ideas, and ideas have no inherent protection or value. When they're irrational, they will be torn down, and that is not bigotry and more than everyone here is a bigot towards conservatives.

And as for ignorance, I think I'm pretty well studied on issues of religion. I've given this more time and care and study than the vast majority of people I know.

It's a shame to see you posit something difficult to defend - the feminist who takes pride in her association with a generally reactionary, anti-feminist group, and then when cornered, claims there is no need to defend it as it lies under the magical, anything-goes umbrella of religion. If there's one thing that prevents us from making any progress, that's GOT to be it.

Buffy, while you are entitled to your personal view, Alon's view is closer to what the Catholic Church actually teaches about who is a Catholic.

According to canon law, a Roman Catholic is a baptized person who has not formally and publicly renounced his association with the church, emphasis on the word "formally" and "publicly" by a "formal act". One ABSOLUTELY remains a Catholic and subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction when one stops going to mass; according to Church teaching, one should confess and return to mass per the Sunday obligation.

The foregoing is confirmable from Circular Letter 10279/2006 of 13 March 2006 from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

I agree with Buffy and the others. Anyone can say that they're Catholic, but the Church teaches very specific things, and those who claim to be Catholic while ignoring the moral and spiritual principles of Catholicism are only deluding themselves. So, for instance, people who call themselves Catholics but support the death penalty, or the invasion of Iraq, or capitalism, or who reject evolution, or think only Christians are saved--none of these people are really Catholic, and one hopes they have the honesty to admit that.

I should say, I would like to apologize if this has gotten a little personal, and my intent with my last post wasn't "ha, ha, you quit, I win". I'm looking for acknowledgement of problem with seeking out associations with groups there's really no need to associate with. And I understand the cultural aspect, I do. I figure if I'm an environmentalist who drives sometimes, there can be feminists who attend Catholic church. And I should add as well that I have several great progressive friends who consider themselves "Christian". But I want to (and I suppose I have) made it clear that I'm not one of those "to each his own" types when it comes to religion. I have a strong belief that our world is shaped by religious beliefs and even well-meaning liberal Christians are causing some finite degree of harm by virtue of that. Anyhow, Law Fairy, I often find your comments insightful and that certainly won't cease to be the case.

The fired them according to Salon

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Buffy, that article is 4 hours old, unconfirmed and unreliable.

As a practicing Catholic, and lemme just say that these people do NOT represent me. First of all, I tend to agree with Amanda and Melissa on most things, but even if I didn't, they have a right to say whatever they want about the Catholic Church... free speech is great like that. So far as I know, they certainly weren't saying anything bad about American Catholics as individuals or even a group, just about the leadership and dogma - which, let me tell you, is a very, very different thing.

What makes it unreliable?

Buffy, saying that you're not really a Catholic if you don't follow Papal teaching is like saying you're not really white if you don't believe in European superiority. In terms of metaphysics, Christianity and Islam are identical. The distinction between atheism and theism is one of belief; the one between Christianity and Islam isn't.

Jeff, I don't think religion gets a free pass here. It does in mainstream discussions, but not here. Thanks to Samhita, I imagine everyone here recognizes the Catholic Church's role in depriving women of the right to choose, for example.

And Dobson represents Christians like David Duke represents white people. Dobson is more mainstream simply because fundamentalism is more mainstream than overt racism.

I know there are a lot of self-identified Christians/Catholics out there who are adulterers and/or divorcees (also biblical no-nos) yet who feel completely justified in calling themselves Christians, because they at least agree with their religion on the "big important stuff" like abortion or gay marriage.

Abortion isn't mentionned in the Bible and gays are mentionned a scant few times eternal compared to the condemnations of infidelity.

buffy has been antithetical to feminism and anti-racism as long as she's been on the site so i think we can ignore her as a troll.

"So, for instance, people who call themselves Catholics but support the death penalty, or the invasion of Iraq, or capitalism, or who reject evolution, or think only Christians are saved--none of these people are really Catholic, and one hopes they have the honesty to admit that."

If this is true, why was my parish (and I don't think they should have been doing this in the bulletins, but eh, whatever) supporting Bush in the last election for being pro-life? Isn't he, after all, responsible for the invasion of Iraq? What does that say about those "Catholics" who thought it was OK to publish that in a church bulletin? Does it make them not Catholic because they were pro-life and pro-Iraq invasion?

Jeff, I don't think religion gets a free pass here. It does in mainstream discussions, but not here. Thanks to Samhita, I imagine everyone here recognizes the Catholic Church's role in depriving women of the right to choose, for example.

Samhita?

the fact that only one news outlet (if that's what Salon is) has this "story", a close reading of the very text of the "story" yields ambiguities and the fact that the Edwards campaign has a lot to gain by gauging the reaction of the (now largely angry) netroots before swinging the guillotine axe OR not.

The wording of the story sounds like a non-denial denial. Fired means fired, and I suspect we will find that Team Edwards played Salon here. Which would be a refreshing switch, from their appearance of getting played.

One signed fax to Reuters from the campaign saying "we fired them" would end this. The fax does not exist; the bloggers had not been fired and may well not get fired.

Actually Buffy, Jeff, and Hercules are wrong. See: Second Vatican Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

This spawned a kindler, gentler breed of Catholics, such as nuns and priests who dressed in turtlenecks and hiking boots, actually building houses in third world countries. There is/was a large community of these people in all ranks of the church (my father and many of his friends included). Sadly, the current 'tard in the Vatican is starting to exterminate them as a species.

If anyone doubts Abbé Pierre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbé_Pierre) was Catholic, you seriously need your head checked.

Anyone who caves to these kooks can suck dog balls for all I care.

I'm an atheist, and my insight into religion is pretty limited, but for what it's worth.

It seems to me the central debate is around what it means to identify as part of a group that defines itself by sharing a certain set of beliefs. Are you bound to adhere to every single belief enumerated by the head of your group, or is there room for dissent and debate within the group? Further, how are we going to define the group, by what its members believe, or by what its head says they should believe?

Now it seems to me fairly obvious that in practically every religion I can think of, there's significant room for dissent and debate. If there weren't, there would never be internal divisions within any religion, and there are, so that's the end of that. Furthermore, if a significant number of Catholics object to a given belief (such as the unacceptability of contraception), that can call into question either the practitioners' Catholicism or the Catholic-ness of that belief.

Now buffy, who tends to pop up a lot to say insulting and oblivious things (I mean, really, calling people "darling"? What's that about?), seems to believe that there is no room for dissent and that it is the Catholic-ness of the dissenters that is at stake, rather than the Catholic-ness of the belief. I disagree. But the issue is really that buffy sets herself up as some kind of authority--i.e., she doesn't articulate her opinion as an opinion but as some kind of received fact. Witness this statement:

"Religion is an identity to those who don't care to actually practice it. Religion is a discipline for those that do. And those that do don't think those that don't are religious."

What she doesn't seem to get is that those who don't "practice" their religion (which means, those who don't practice it in the way she thinks it should be practiced, as clearly Brunette's boyfriend is practicing his religion) don't feel any need to defer to her on whether or not they're Catholics. Nor am I sure where buffy is getting her standards from, as I seem to recall her claiming not to be Catholic in an earlier thread.

Jeff, race is a far more complex identity than skin color--check out the history of fair-skinned black people "passing" in America. I'm sure they burned if they stayed out in the sun too long. But the issue here is lived experience--do you experience this society in the way a black person does? I kind of doubt it.

EG, I know I couldn't pass as black. My point was only that it matters what other people think, that we can't simply self-define ourselves at will and have it be meaningful.

To summarize, I wasn't agreeing exactly with buffy, I think my point was maybe more subtle, I was asking, WHY associate willingly with organizations with questionable reputations when we needn't do so, and I was trying to point out the effects of such as association that we need to accept should we really want to call ourselves by that name.

Also: I didn't mean to imply that James Dobson represents the average Christian, I mean to say that his power and influence are not only related to the fundie morons that agree with him, but to the huge number of Americans who call themselves "Christians", whether they like it or not, whether it's fair or not.

I know you meant that, Jeff, and to a large part, I agree. Identity is, to a great degree, externally defined--the experience of being black in the US is based not only in community and culture, but also in being treated as black by the power structure.

My point was that buffy herself does not constitute that power structure, and that if there is a critical mass of pro-choice, pro-contraception Catholics (which there is), then the pronouncements of those like her don't carry the weight she wishes they do.

jeff, one can identify as anything he wants. It is his right but how others see him is different. If someone identifies as Catholic or Episcopalian because it brings him great joy and rewards it's his right. There is no need for litmus tests unless one's behavior negatively affects others e.g. Ted Haggard's rank hypocrisy re: his church e.g. anti-feminist women who call themselves feminists to confuse young women.

Crab, true -- it's hard to trust a single story coming from a single outlet. But at the same time, I haven't seen Shakes or Amanda weigh in yet. Which makes me think they've been informed that their jobs are on the line and they can't talk about it.

Which kinda makes me wanna lose my lunch.

E.g. if you tell everyone you're black and announce racism no longer exists or that you think blacks should "get over it."

Heh. For a minute, donna, I thought you were responding to me and all I could think was "But I would never say something that boneheaded!" And then, I felt like an idiot.

Haha, I noticed that too.

donna darko,

Right, but I'm not talking about "rights" or taking away anyone's "rights". I'm talking about how you can call yourself whatever you want but if everyone thinks you're nuts it's pretty pointless. And as I made an effort to argue, the more people calling themselves "Catholics", the more problems we have with the crap that's usually associated with Catholics.

See, Jeff, that's where I disagree. I think that the more people who call themselves Catholics, but disagree with the Catholic Church's regressive, sexist teachings, the less leverage those teachings will have.

It's a fair point. Things get more subtle here; Sam Harris has a good treatment of it in "The End of Faith".

Imagine silly example that will probably cause me more trouble that its worth: A whole bunch of people start joining the Banana Fans of America. They're "moderate" - they don't care all that much for bananas but they like the name. Now it's in the news: "BFA membership has increased 10 fold in the last year!". And your local politician thinks, "shit, I should stop giving funding for k-12 education, when what people are really interested in is banana research!"

Pretty ridiculous, I know, but it was off the top of my head. But if you don't buy it, at least you can see it?

Plus with religion there's another added complication: You're giving creedence to allowing people to think whatever they want with no real justification. If there can be "moderate" people who believe in immaculate conception, it makes it hard to argue with those who believe in "god says condoms are the devil".

Samhita?

She's the one who does the international feminist blogging here.

Well, I think it kind of depends, re: the banana people. If the banana fans really are moderate, i.e., they're thinking "Bananas are nice and all, but not as nice as public school," they will express their displeasure with such a policy, writing letters to the editor that say things like "I'm a Banana fan, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to education." Similarly, if pro-choice Catholics take pains to assert that the right-wing lobby doesn't represent their interests, I think it's the meaning of Catholic that'll shift. Or, rather, I hope that's how it would go. We're both presupposing a fairly honest political system, and, well, not so much, really.

As to "allowing people to think whatever they want with no real justification," I don't see how one could stop people from thinking whatever they want. It's not a question of "allowing" or not--buffy doesn't "allow" me to disagree with her: she has no control over it. If other people wish to believe that God is opposed to condoms, that's their business. What is important to me is whether or not we allow them to inflict their beliefs on others. I don't see my moderate, non-fundamentalist Christian friends running around trying to inflict their belief in the virgin birth on me, so I don't consider that to be a problem. The problem is that the godbotherers are trying to inflict their anti-condom nonsense on others, and to make public policy out of it.

"Allow" was poor word choice. Make that "encourage" or "make it acceptable in matters of public discourse" and you'll see what I meant. It's true that if nobody inflicts their crap on anyone we're fine, but that never seems to happen so I'm all for going to the source and trying to convince people to stop associating with certain organized religions. Insofar as we respect religion, we force ourselves to take the beliefs of the godbotherers much more seriously than we should have to.

This religious talk is just plain silly. Every one knows that if you say you build with LEGO, but then use MegaBlocks instead, you don't build with LEGO.

Jeff, how religious moderates identify has nothing to do with the religious right's political power. Jerry Falwell doesn't claim to speak for 240 million American Christians but for 70 million Evangelicals, most of whom agree with at least his social policy.

I think I've made it pretty clear that the connection isn't that literal, but has to do with the nature of discourse and the perception of a ruling majority of Christians. If we were only 30% Christians instead of 80%, there'd probably be many fewer attempts at a theocratic overthrow.

Furthermore, the religious right identifies as Christian but does not follow the basic precepts of Christianity. Moderate Christians like The Law Fairy are better examples of Christians than the religious right. She does less harm to Christianity than the religious right.

She does less harm to Christianity than the religious right.

Thanks for the ringing endorsement, donna.

;) (totally teasing, of course -- I do very much appreciate having people like you acknowledge that it's possible to be both a Christian and a rational and good person)

jeff, I know I said I was done but your last comment was just off-the-wall, out-of-left-field batshit crazy. Where are all these attempts at theocratic overthrow, and how did I, specifically, help them?

If you can't identify a specific, sound way in which I am making this country a horrible place and I am going to cause us to live in a theocracy, then kindly stop your hypocritical proselytizing.

I meant you are a better promoter of Christianity than the religious right to rational, sane people. The religious right appeals to non-thinking, insane people. I fully endorse The Law Fairy. Furthermore, jeff, you identify as a feminist but have questionable views. I don't think you promote feminism.

If we were only 30% Christians instead of 80%, there'd probably be many fewer attempts at a theocratic overthrow.

The upper class is only 10% of the population, but has no trouble engaging in class warfare against the bottom 90%. Americans are only 5% of the population, but are earnestly trying to control the other 95%.

"I fully endorse The Law Fairy."

Hee. I'm EG, and I endorse The Law Fairy!

I am DD and I endorse The Law Fairy, EG et al!

And I'm The Law Fairy, and I endorse donna and EG!!

I hope this doesn't make us a cartel...

I fully endorse the theocratic overthrow!!!

I'm Tom Head, and I fully endorse Donna, EG, and the Law Fairy!

Cheers,

TH

We rool the Feministing skool.

I endorse Donna, TLF, EG, and Tom Head.

You want a rallying cry? How about the last minute of this Howard Dean video? (h/t My Left Wing)

We are not gonna beat the Republicans by voting with the the Republicans 85% of the time.

THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GONNA BEAT THE REPUBLICANS IS TO SAY WHAT WE MEAN, TO STAND UP FOR WHO WE ARE, TO LIFT UP A DEMOCRATIC AGENDA AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA BECAUSE IF YOU DO THAT THE DEMOCRATIC AGENDA WINS EVERY TIME!

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!

I'M TIRED OF BEING DIVIDED!

I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO THE FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHERS ANY MORE!

I want an America that looks like America where we're all included hand in hand. We have a dream we can live the dream if we're all together black and white gay and straight man and woman. America, the Democratic Party!

STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

I'm Vervain and I fully endorse DD, TLF, EG, TH and AL.

They're good people. ;)

And back on topic, if John Edwards fires those two ladies just to pander to the religious right, he's an idiot, and his ratings will take a dive into the toilet, right alongside Hillary's.
As DD's post so beautifully illustrated, Dem voters are sick of having to choose between the guy who represents Republican views and the guy straddling the fence who's hijacked their party. They want someone who takes a stand and defends it when challenged, instead of wilting and backing down.
Seriously, give us someone with a better campaign slogan than
"At least I'm not the other guy."
Please?

feminist but have questionable views

I don't see what this has to do with feminism - if anything, my strong anti-organized-religion feelings are pro-feminism, not anti. There was one other thread where I expressed disagreement with the majority. Everything else, I read every day and don't comment if I agree. That's got to be 95%.

Where are all these attempts at theocratic overthrow,

Please tell me you're kidding. This is a feminist blog, right? Are you aware that your biggest enemies are the Christian conservatives that are running our government?

identify a specific, sound way in which I am making this country a horrible place
Sure. Last Sunday when you went to church and put money on the plate, I bet some of that made its way to some anti-abortion politician, or some "pregnancy crisis center", or at the very least to recruit more Catholics, most of which won't end up sharing your enlightened views.

Longtime listener, first-time caller.

I don't agree with every single feminist or pseudo-feminist thought on every feminist blog. Sometimes I run across comments I find antithetical to feminism. Sometimes I run across views I find non-essential to feminism. That doesn't mean I'm not a feminist; it means I have my own views on some subjects, and there's room for differences in interpretation.

I don't agree with every thought laid out on a liberal blog. Some comments I find antithetical to liberalism; some views I find non-essential to liberalism. There are things about the Democratic party I'd like to change. But no one has suggested that maybe I'm not a Democrat because of that.

But somehow, even though those personal and political views are just as deeply held as my religious ones, if I don't toe the line with every minute aspect of the Catholic church, I don't get to be a Catholic anymore. Despite the aspects of the thousands-of-years-old institution that I identify with, the fact that I disagree - vehemently - with some of their publicly held political views means I'm fooling myself.

Maybe I have faith that, given their history of modernizing (admittedly slowly) in the past, there is hope for more change in the future. Maybe I support the good work that they do while also making my own efforts to counteract the bad. Maybe every individual and institution has its good points and its bad points. Maybe there's just something that I'm getting from the Catholic church that The Honorable Judgey McJudge up there will never understand 'cause she ain't me.

Seriously, I would rather hear Amanda Marcotte make ten thousand mocking references to the Sky Fairy than have Ms. McJudge presume to define my beliefs for me. At least Amanda is only attacking an instution - one which, I admit, has plenty of warts. Start attacking people with the implication that they're kidding themselves or that they're just naive little tots who don't know better, and they start getting ticked off.

And here I was hoping that my first comment here might be something charming and snarky. The next one, maybe.

k-rist, what a fucking mess.

Salon is also saying take this with a grain of salt, i note, all seems to be rumors a swirling still.

but yeah, the day Edwards does something to please -Michelle Malkin- or the Donohue creature is the day he can kiss off my vote.

which is not to say i think it's a really terrific thing to blithely kiss off the religious left either, which sweeping generalizations about any given religion can do, like it or not.

and, just a general note, stuff like "godbags:" probably not something i'd want to be flinging around right now, did i want to keep the base as wide as possible.

but, it's a bit early to be -firing- people. but then, what do i know.

gah. it's gonna be a long two years.

ACG - Happy 1st comment! Personally, I like snark.

I wish more people would stand up and remind the "you can't pick and choose" crowd that the bible itself was (and is) a collection of writings that were ~gasp~ cherry-picked because they were suitably representative of the religion. Over the years things have been added and taken out in accordance with changing beliefs and attitudes.
Hell, the New Testament only exists because JC woke up one moring and said (not an actual quote) "Overall, Judaism is pretty neat, but it advocates this, this and this, which are just not cool." A large enough group of people agreed with him, and voila!, new religion.*

So, for anyone telling TLF and others like her that she's not a "real" Catholic--aren't you glad Jesus wasn't a "real" Jew?

*Extremely abbreviated summation of a really massive and complex chunk of history. Do not utilize this quote in any oral exam, term paper, or thesis.

Sure. Last Sunday when you went to church and put money on the plate, I bet some of that made its way to some anti-abortion politician, or some "pregnancy crisis center", or at the very least to recruit more Catholics, most of which won't end up sharing your enlightened views.

ROFLMAO.

jeff, take a browse through my church's website and come back after you've learned something. Or does my church not count as a "real" Christian church because we welcome Teh Gays?

ACG, welcome! Fantastic first comment! I can't wait to read more of them :)

That looks like a wonderful church, as far as churches go.

I read about Angelicanism on wikipedia and on your church's website. It looks like it's a pretty clean organization compared to the Roman Catholic Church, but certainly you can forgive my confusion on such a subtle point as to your Catholic-ness if you're not part of the Roman Catholic Church. It's nice to see you're not giving money for abstinance education in Africa.

I'm too busy now to refine my argument about the side effects of even liberal Christianity, but know I'm not the only one who's making it.

I'm too busy now to refine my argument about the side effects of even liberal Christianity, but know I'm not the only one who's making it.

jeff, I'm well, WELL aware of this fact. Of that you can be absolutely assured.

This whole thread reminds me of my first post on feministing, when I mentioned in passing that I was a Jewish atheist, and some troll named Fitz almost had a conniption fit about how that wasn't allowed. The more things change, huh?

If you're referring to me, I think I made it clear somewhere up around comment #7 or 8 that I am perfectly able to comprehend the difference between cultural and practicing versions of religion, and the idea of an "Jewish atheist" is pretty familiar to me since I live with one.

Further, I think "troll" is pretty unfair. I'm not looking for a reaction, and I think my comments are reasonable and fairly well thought out. A troll wouldn't spend time reading the web site of Law Fairy's church in order to learn more about it. There's a significant number of progressive, feminist people that find religion even in its most liberal forms a shackle, certainly a bigger impediment to progress than many of the relatively minor things that inspire loads of anger on this site (and I'm not saying they shouldn't).

you're an ass not a troll. there were threads where 20 women said one thing and you insisted you knew what was better for women.

EG writes:
This whole thread reminds me of my first post on feministing, when I mentioned in passing that I was a Jewish atheist,

Okay, you are now officially even cooler than I thought. And that's not easy!

Cheers,

TH

you're an ass not a troll.

Phew! Now that I can live with!

But really, I kinda resent that my opinion doesn't have equal weight as any woman here. Perhaps there were threads where "20 more experienced feminists" or "20 better educated feminists" or even just "20 other people" or "everyone but you". But "20 women?" I call shenanigans.

i've changed my mind. you're a troll.

bill donahue has no credibility. bigots like dinesh d'souza, linda chavez and alan keyes are on the advisory board of the catholic league.

Aw, Tom, you always know how to make me blush!

Jeff, I didn't call you a troll--I can't even imagine how you would think I was. I called the departed, unlamented Fitz a troll, and he was. I by implication called Buffy a troll, as she was the one claiming that somebody couldn't be Catholic because they didn't do what she thought a Catholic should do. (That's one I stand behind, by the way--Buffy is a total troll.)

I don't really agree with your argument; I don't think that TLF and the friends I have who are religious are making it easier on the wacko Christian right--certainly they're spending all the time I know about doing things to piss the right off. I do find it frustrating how in the US religion can be used to justify actions that non-religious philosophies can't, and that it's taken be a signal of goodness (honest, god-fearing, etc.), and that religious belief is almost taken for granted in public life. I think that's very different from telling TLF that she's unwittingly helping Pat Robertson and his like, however.

I should totally have said "Pat Robertson and his ilk" in that last sentence. "Ilk" has a certain slimy, loathesome connotation that is just perfect for Pat Robertson.

Thanks, EG.

If it helps any, my conservative Christian dad and I don't really talk about social issues anymore, because it always ends in a yelling match. So I like to think I'm doing my part to piss off the right ;)

Also, to be fair, since I'm a Christian, I know how to speak in the "language" of other Christians and I have in fact helped some "see the light," so to speak, and let go of some of their more troubling views. (Indeed, a huge part of what helped to ultimately turn me from crazy fundie to outspoken feminist was a close friend of mine from college -- an Episcopalian who came out our senior year. I can guarantee that if he'd been an atheist, in my warped world I would have had a much easier time writing him off as someone not to waste my time with). It's kind of like why it's helpful to have male feminists -- as EG notes, there's an incredibly unfair and discriminatory bias in place. It's wrong, but it's there. And it never hurts to have people who CHALLENGE the assumptions we make about people simply because they bear some descriptor. In my mind, feminism is all about enabling people to be individuals, free of stereotype and connotation. Having people like me who are unfairly associated with one thing, saying or doing something completely unpredictable, helps to shake the foundations of our biased notions and wrongheaded ideas.

It's wrong that many Christians won't listen to atheists -- but I like to think that people in my position can help, ever so slightly, to open some of their minds even just a tad so that maybe someday, jeff, you won't see the very existence of Christians as such a threat to your way of life.