August 26, 2012
-
A Rant
Every once in awhile, somebody asks the question “Why blog?” Today is one of the days when I have a perfect answer to that question. I had two experiences this morning that were strong reminders that it’s nice to have a blog to turn to when you really need to rant and there is either nobody around to rant to or the one person who is available (Dan) agrees with you, so yelling at that person is no fun.
On Sunday mornings, it’s my habit to watch the CBS Sunday Morning Show and Face the Nation as I am getting up and ready for church. Face the Nation this morning focused on the Republican National Convention which takes place this week. Bob Schieffer interviewed Marco Rubio. Now, I tend to like Marco Rubio. He’s a modern example of the American Dream. He’s a first generation son of Cuban immigrants who has risen to serve in the U.S. Senate. He’s young, good looking, well spoken, and appears to have a very nice family. He makes a very good impression.
Part of the interview was devoted to the topic of taxes, always a popular topic in an election year. Mr. Rubio was talking the Republican line about how the Democrats want to raise taxes and how that prevents the development of small businesses which create jobs. I have a hard time understanding how people can buy into that argument. For one thing, the proposed tax increases are on personal income, not on businesses. For another, the proposed tax increases are on the wealthiest 2% of the population. Those folks are not starting small businesses. I can pretty much guarantee that Bill Gates is not going to start a corner hardware store or a family drugstore in your neighborhood. The Democratic proposal is continued tax relief for the middle class and increasing taxes on the very wealthy to help pick up the slack. It’s the middle class who start small businesses. They aren’t going to have increased taxes. I don’t understand why that discrepancy is not clear. The fact of the matter is that the Republican party feels that the middle class should carry most of the weight of supporting the government and that the very wealthy should have tax breaks.
After I watched Face the Nation, Dan and I went to church. We are lifelong Roman Catholics and participate actively in our parish. We have been unhappy with the Church recently, though. At least in Minnesota, the Catholic Church has become very politically active. I am a little worried when any church, even my own, begins campaigning for the passage of laws that require everyone to live by the beliefs of that church. At least in Minnesota, the Catholic Church has become very active in trying to get the vote out to pass an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They have poured a lot of money into that effort. Both Dan and I have a problem with that.
We are not really gay right activists, and to our knowledge, we do not have close friends who are gay. We are, however, in favor of equal civil rights for all citizens and this is a civil rights issue. We cannot see a reason for not allowing gay people to be married under civil law. We aren’t really sure why a man would want to marry a man or a woman would want to marry a woman, but that is because we are not gay. We do think that all citizens should have equal rights under the law.
We understand that the Catholic Church has the right to refuse to perform gay marriages if it chooses to do that. We do not necessarily agree with that, but we understand that the Church is not a democracy and that it has the right to decide who is eligible to receive its sacraments. Our problem comes from the opposition to allowing gays to be married under civil law. The Church does not recognize civil marriage anyway. It considers the marriages of heterosexual couples who are married in civil ceremonies to be invalid and does not allow those couples to receive the sacraments of the Church. It seems contradictory to campaign to prevent people from entering into a civil contract that the Church considers invalid anyway. If people married in civil ceremonies are not really married, what difference does it make to the Church if gay people participate in civil ceremonies? How can an organization spend time and money opposing something that it does not recognize anyway?
This morning, our priest began his sermon by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. When he said that, Dan stood up and walked out. I followed him. The priest may have been going to address only the sacrament of marriage. We don’t know because we did not stay to hear. Dan is really angry. He wants to call the parish office tomorrow and tell them to take our names off all lists. I am trying to get him to wait to do that until he has cooled off. He can always do it then if it still seems like a good idea. Anyway, it looks like we may be church shopping.
So, it’s been an interesting and upsetting day and the day is still young.
Comments (15)
If you go back through history there is a long, long line of brilliant thinkers who loved the teachings of jesus but were repelled by christianity. From ghandi to thomas jefferson and beyond.
If organized religion were more about fostering self-transcending love and compassion and humility and less about dogma and fear mongering and greed and egotism and conformity, I wouldn’t have any beef with it. But it’s hard to shake the feeling that “religion” is just a big ugly mess. Even christians despise it and don’t want to be called christian or religious because the words seem toxic to them, they prefer follower of christ or insist it’s a relationship, not a religion.
I’m an atheist, and what I find most disheartening about organized religion is that atheists are often more disheartened by the corruption of christian ideals than most so-called christians. Almost every atheist I know was appalled at how most of what bush stood for was the opposite of what jesus taught, while tens of millions of christians not only supported him but practically worshiped him.
I’ve formed a thesis as to how that sort of reversal is possible, but I won’t bore you with it, I’ve rambled enough on your blog. Let me just say it’s nice to see a christian who cares about loving their neighbor, tolerance, compassion and the like.
@agnophilo - I do like belonging to a church, and I am sure that we will either find a way to reconcile with ours or find a new one. I think the community experience of a church is important.
I have heard many people say that if Jesus returned today, He would not be a Christian. I think that may be true. He certainly did not practice exclusion and that is so prevalent today.
I think this year has been very emotional for many people. The election has stirred up so many emotions because there are two distinct sides to almost everything and religion is mixing so very thoroughly into politics. This year is why the founding fathers wanted to separate religion and politics (the founding fathers were often more Unitarian than the conservative pundits want to believe). I agree with both your rants. There are logical issues that are not focused on because of the emotions and the “spin” put on everything (by both sides). It is necessary to think through the propaganda, but there are lots of nonthinking people in the U.S. who just follow what their church or political party tells them. When did the Republican Party become the Christian party? I was angry to find I was one of the “unChristians” that Santorum denounced because I belong to a progressive (mainstream) Christian church rather than a fundamentalist one. When did it become OK to compare the sitting president to Hitler? What about the respect for the office if not the person? And don’t get me started on churches regulating the lives of everyone in the country. I used to be a Republican, but now I am an Independent because I just can’t go where the Republicans are going. I am ranting right along with you. I think a lot of us are.
@symbolreader - I just hope the ranters are also the voters. I am a little afraid if they are not.
I agree that there are many people who hear “raise taxes” and do not think about what the real proposals are. They just think “No! I don’t want that!” and follow the Republican line. Low income people need to understand that the Republicans are not their friends. Unfortunately, many of them don’t know that.
I was raised in a very Republican family and I considered myself a Republican for many years. I just cannot follow them anymore, though. I try very hard not to discuss politics with any of my relatives. I know that I cannot change them and trying only creates division.
Fundamentalism scares me. Nobody should believe anything just because they are told to believe it. The fundamentalists seem to demand following without questioning. That’s never a good thing.
@agnophilo - You must not know a lotta of atheists. (I don’t either personally btw)
Karl friggin Rove is an atheist I do believe. More than likely Cheney and Bush are too…but it is in their self interest to proclaim Christianity.
Rand is the heart and soul of the Republican Party….not Jesus. Jesus is to be used to serve their self interest like a Bitch and he serves them OHHH too well. They are soo friggin cocky these days they don’t even hide it cuz they know the religious are just that brainwashed. Not all Atheists were appauled by the invasion of Iraq…Rove was one of the perpetrators.
@Nance1 - BTW..I too am atheist.
@tendollar4ways - And you think most atheists are sociopathic con men?
@Nance1 - I think (and please don’t take offense at this, I’m not trying to paint you with the same brush) that that need for community and support and acceptance that draws people to churches is the same need that draws people to groups like the KKK which are also christian (though you would probably say they’re not what you would consider christian). I’ve never had that sense of community or that kind of networking but I can see the appeal. I think it’s just harmful when it drives people to bad ideologies – many people in that church probably didn’t agree 100% but didn’t have the courage or the conviction to go against the grain and leave behind their friends, people they might even want to date or marry, their family, neighbors etc.
If churches were more about discussion and were more pluralistic instead of having one guy up front dictating what everyone else should think (a model more suited to the middle ages than to today) this could be avoided, but then you can kiss orthodoxy goodbye, and if everyone contributes then there’s no need to pay lots of money to church “leaders”, so no big sect is going to go for that.
@Nance1 - The healthcare reforms raised taxes, but they were designed to reduce medicare/medicaid costs and bring healthcare costs down by as much as 10% of the GDP. That’s a steal at ten times the price. It’s like complaining about paying taxes for the water supply to be cleaned even when it costs twice as much in health costs to leave it dirty. Government exists for a reason, it’s not just democrats burning money in a big fire and saying “mwahahaha, what shall we waste now?!”
@agnophilo - I agree with you here. We spend twice as much per capita on health care as the next highest spending country in the world with much poorer results. Our health care system ranks #37 in the world even with all we spend on it. There has to be a better way.
I am not sure that the Health Care Reform Act is the total answer to the problem, but at least it is something. It would be better to have a single payer system without all the money spent on filing claims and insurance companies fighting to avoid paying claims. This country was not ready to buy into that, though.
@agnophilo - Not at all. However…the sociopath knows how to manipulate. What easier group of people to lead around on a leash than the religious? An army of willful morons at your disposal. I take it back…Bush is probably devout. Cheney…more than likely an Atheist. Murdoch? Has to be Atheist. I bet the friggin Pope is Atheist.
That Akin Dude….he is devout. He also could very well have cost the Repubs the election.
Nancy I do not want to enter this debate but as much as I know the marriage – intitution always was between man and woman or between men and women to continue the generations :It is the natural way in most of the civilizations, ancient , primitive or not, biblical or not. I am not sure the modern times are really “humanist”.
Michel
Love
ps : the feature reply does not work for me .
@Nance1 - I agree entirely. And yeah republicans would never go for that, in their philosophy less efficiency and less treatment just means more profit. Here’s a clip from the nixon tapes:
President Nixon: Say
that
I—I—I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but
I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your
judgment.
You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.
Ehrlichman: This, uh,
let me, let
me tell you how
I am—
President Nixon:
[Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: This—this
is
a—
President Nixon: I
don’t
[unclear]—
Ehrlichman:
—private enterprise one.
President Nixon: Well,
that
appeals to me.
Ehrlichman: Edgar
Kaiser is
running his Permanente
deal for profit.
And the reason that he can—the reason he can do
it—I had Edgar Kaiser come
in—talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth.
All the incentives
are toward less medical care, because—
President Nixon:
[Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: —the less
care they give
them, the more money they make.
President Nixon: Fine.
[Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear]
and the
incentives run the
right way.
President Nixon: Not
bad.
@tendollar4ways - I get your point, but the way you put it is kind of obnoxious.
@fauquet - Actually the most common form of marriage was polygamy, one man and many women. And this is true in the bible as well. And the first state-sanctioned gay marriage was between emperor nero and his male slaves around the time of the dawn of christianity. But either way slavery was a tradition that went back thousands of years, just because something’s always been a certain way doesn’t make it right. Marriage used to be a contract between a man and his future wife’s father where the woman had no say and was sold like cattle – should we go back to that system because it’s traditional? What next, binding of feet?
RYC : Thanks Nancy for your kind comment about the twins . My wife too would have liked having twins but no !
but we got 6 children.
Love
Michel
As a Christian I don’t profess to be a Saint. I just try to live as Jesus taught. Not always successful.
I agree with all you have said and intend on linking this post. To bad I’m not on FB, I’d link it there.
Came here through Bonnie’s link to your page & I’m glad she sent me. This is a terrific post! Very well explained & down to earth, as well as proof that you can be a Christian & open minded. Hats off to you & your hubby for walking out in protest. If only more people had that kind of courage. Well done!