I have long suspected that depression might be the most realistic way of feeling. I have written about the many sorrows, tragedies, and horrors of life, and have often wondered why depression is classified as a mental illness. Illness is something that is not normal. Depression should be considered a normal way of feeling, thinking, and behaving. Anybody who takes a hard look at life realizes that as we age, if we don’t die young, we go through a long period of physical, and often mental, disintegration. In old age we become more and more reliant upon doctors, surgeries, treatments, therapies, medications, and hospitals. In the end, we die, often in great pain and agony. Some of us may think that there is life after death, but that is most unlikely.
Even if we are especially blessed with a life full of riches, good health, respect from the community, and fine children, we still have to go through the degeneration of old age and the ultimate insult of death.
When we look around us we see a world overflowing with misery. I have written about the massive amount of tragedy in the world resulting from poverty, disease, starvation, war, accidents, natural disasters, lack of clothing and shelter, mental illness, pain, addiction, sexual abuse, crime, envy, cruelty, sadism, dishonesty, deceit, disloyalty, treachery, infidelity, political tyranny, bigotry, ignorance, and many other causes of sorrow. Nobody goes through life without experiencing some of these evils. Yet most of us find that life is sweet, and we have a desire to go on living and not to die. One would think that it would be quite natural to want to commit suicide, but that is looked upon as a horrible thing. Why?
In an article by Tali Sharot in the June 6, 2011, issue of Time Magazine entitled: “The Optimism Bias,” the author, a cognitive scientist, finds that we are all genetically programmed with optimism. She says that without a neural mechanism generating optimism, all humans would be mildly depressed. In other words, even though the events of life should make us depressed, we tend to look for a silver lining because of an evolutionary adaptation of our brain which makes us optimistic even in the face of horror and tragedy. This is a tremendously important finding about human nature. It is actually this genetic tendency toward optimism that keeps the human species alive. Without it we might all commit suicide.
Tali Sharot’s finding helps explain the existence of religion in our world. A number of cognitive scientists, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and David Sloan Wilson, claim that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. Humans go on believing in gods, heavens, paradises, and life after death, despite the complete absence of evidence for their existence. I assume that such beliefs help to relieve us of the crushing grief surrounding the death of a loved one. They help us to deal with the dismal prospect of our own death. In the usual religious funeral services, the pastor will assure the relatives that the deceased “is in a better place.” Most people are unable to deal with the likelihood that such beliefs are overly optimistic and unwarranted.
One of the most terrible tragedies that can occur to a family is the death of a young child. While such a death destroys the life of some parents and siblings, others are somehow able to deal with it. They may be comforted by the belief that the child went to heaven and is living a life of wonder and beauty in the presence of God. If such people were able to critically examine such beliefs I think they would wind-up in deep despair. They would realize that there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The genetically built-in predisposition toward optimism enables such persons to get around the enormous grief of death and to go on living.
Despite this neural predilection for optimism, millions of people in America and around the world are depressed. The use of antidepressant medicine is widespread. Some critics claim that we use far too many antidepressants. I don’t agree. If the sorrows of the world are as prevalent as I think, it is surprising that there are not more people on such medications. Even depressed people want to go on living and do try to find happiness. The genetic predisposition toward optimism makes them eager to find some good even in bad situations. Nobody wants to be unhappy.
Our gene for optimism might help explain many of the ways we seek to find pleasure. Today I was listening to some beautiful music. It made me feel wonderful--as have so many beautiful pieces of music. Perhaps music is one of our ways of coping with the sadness of life. During times of depression and sorrow I have often turned to music. One piece that has soothed me is the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. While I do not believe in God, I remember the line in the movie Amadeus where Salieri looks at the scores of Mozart and complains that somehow this must be the voice of God. There are times in great music when it almost seems that the beauty comes from something supernatural.
It is a good thing that we are blessed with a gene that veils the sorrows of life. It enables us to go on living, and sometimes to feel great bliss in the midst of all the bad things of life. It is wonderful to enjoy the pleasure of love and sex, to feel the beauty of a lovely spring day, to appreciate great art, literature, film, and theater, to take joy in the play of young children, to take pleasure in food and drink, to dance, to sing, to laugh, and sometimes, even to cry. Bart Ehrman tells us that we should confront the evil in the world by enjoying life, and that part of that enjoyment should be the helping of other people. Perhaps that is the answer to depression.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Newt the Salamander
In a recent editorial, The New York Times described Newt Gingrich’s many inflammatory rants against Democrats. Newt called President Obama and his party: “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then averred that: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” Then, stooping to abject racism, he charged that President Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.”
Gingrich has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Newt is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior during his efforts to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.
Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.
In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Gingrich divorced his second wife, Ginther, and married Callista Bisek.
In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.
While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on the Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.
On May 15,2011, on Meet The Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, the following day Newt issued a statement saying that he opposes an individual mandate.
On April 20, Newt Gingrich said he would have voted for Paul Ryan's Medicare reform and praised it as just a "first step” toward fixing our health care system. On May 15Gingrich ripped Ryan's plan as "radical change."
As of March 7, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”
In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. In April of 2009, he testified before the House against cap and trade.
Do the Republicans really want this clown to be President of the United States?
Gingrich has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Newt is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior during his efforts to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.
Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.
In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Gingrich divorced his second wife, Ginther, and married Callista Bisek.
In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.
While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on the Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.
On May 15,2011, on Meet The Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, the following day Newt issued a statement saying that he opposes an individual mandate.
On April 20, Newt Gingrich said he would have voted for Paul Ryan's Medicare reform and praised it as just a "first step” toward fixing our health care system. On May 15Gingrich ripped Ryan's plan as "radical change."
As of March 7, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”
In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. In April of 2009, he testified before the House against cap and trade.
Do the Republicans really want this clown to be President of the United States?
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harold Camping
Harold Camping has made millions of dollars falsely predicting the coming Rapture and the end of the world. The dimwits who believe in him and who sold everything and emptied out their bank accounts on the strength of his prophesy are nothing more than marks in a great scam. Is Harold going to give his millions to those poor dummies who relied on him? No, apparently he is just moving the date for the apocalypse to October 21, 2011. It is likely that many of his followers are so stupid that they will go on believing in him and prepare for the October date.
If Camping is so sure of the October date, perhaps he would be open to a wager. I would be willing to bet Harold $10 million that October 21 will go by like any other Fall day, like May 21, like September 1994, and that there will be no Rapture, no end of the world, no apocalypse. Harold may refuse to bet me because I don’t have $10million, or because he doesn’t believe in gambling, but if I were to lose, what difference would it make? Harold and his believers would all be sucked-up into heaven, and people like me would be left on earth to experience the horrors he predicts.
There is only one reason why Harold Camping is a false prophet. The reason is that there is no such thing as God, and any prediction based on the Book of Revelations in the Bible is pure nonsense. There is a large number of phony prophets out there claiming that the world is about to come to an end. I have heard Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Tim LaHaye and others who claim to believe that we are approaching the apocalypse. They base their whole argument on the wording of the Book of Revelations. None of them seems able to pierce the veil of idiocy surrounding that book and the absurdity surrounding all predictions based on the Bible.
The Judeo-Christian Bible is not a book of history. It is not a book of fact. Virtually nothing in it is true. It is a fairy-tale, a book of myths, which, in many cases, is based on more ancient myths of other ancient religions. Millions of dimwitted people base their lives on this book of myths, just as millions of Moslems base their lives on the Quran. In the absence of a real god, or of any real evidence for the existence of God, these people latch onto the one thing that they believe gives them access to the teaching of God. It is pitiful.
I wish people would read my book: "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence." It is available on Kindle and can be brought-up on any device that has Kindle applications. In it I demonstrate that the Bible is merely a kind of mythological sacred scripture. I show that Moses was nothing more than a mythical figure, that the Exodus never happened, and that Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than a Jewish holy man who wanted to share certain ideas about Judaism based on the teachings of the Pharisees. In no way did he want to start a new religion naming himself as the Son of God. The poor misguided millions of sheep who went on to create and follow a church based on this misinterpretation of his teaching are always prey to the seduction of cults, sects, televangelists, rogues, and phonies of every kind.
If Camping is so sure of the October date, perhaps he would be open to a wager. I would be willing to bet Harold $10 million that October 21 will go by like any other Fall day, like May 21, like September 1994, and that there will be no Rapture, no end of the world, no apocalypse. Harold may refuse to bet me because I don’t have $10million, or because he doesn’t believe in gambling, but if I were to lose, what difference would it make? Harold and his believers would all be sucked-up into heaven, and people like me would be left on earth to experience the horrors he predicts.
There is only one reason why Harold Camping is a false prophet. The reason is that there is no such thing as God, and any prediction based on the Book of Revelations in the Bible is pure nonsense. There is a large number of phony prophets out there claiming that the world is about to come to an end. I have heard Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Tim LaHaye and others who claim to believe that we are approaching the apocalypse. They base their whole argument on the wording of the Book of Revelations. None of them seems able to pierce the veil of idiocy surrounding that book and the absurdity surrounding all predictions based on the Bible.
The Judeo-Christian Bible is not a book of history. It is not a book of fact. Virtually nothing in it is true. It is a fairy-tale, a book of myths, which, in many cases, is based on more ancient myths of other ancient religions. Millions of dimwitted people base their lives on this book of myths, just as millions of Moslems base their lives on the Quran. In the absence of a real god, or of any real evidence for the existence of God, these people latch onto the one thing that they believe gives them access to the teaching of God. It is pitiful.
I wish people would read my book: "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence." It is available on Kindle and can be brought-up on any device that has Kindle applications. In it I demonstrate that the Bible is merely a kind of mythological sacred scripture. I show that Moses was nothing more than a mythical figure, that the Exodus never happened, and that Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than a Jewish holy man who wanted to share certain ideas about Judaism based on the teachings of the Pharisees. In no way did he want to start a new religion naming himself as the Son of God. The poor misguided millions of sheep who went on to create and follow a church based on this misinterpretation of his teaching are always prey to the seduction of cults, sects, televangelists, rogues, and phonies of every kind.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Catholic Church Smokescreen
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has just released a report explaining the scandal of priests who abused thousands of young boys over several decades and who were protected by the hierarchy. As one who was raised in the Catholic Church, attended Catholic grammar school and college, and who even briefly entered a Catholic seminary, I can say that the Stories in the news about the report are consistent with the fact that the Catholic Church is an organization that sees its primary mission as preservation of its own existence--and not necessarily the promulgation of the teachings of Jesus Christ or the worship of God.
The report says that the abuse of these thousands of children occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed amid the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and ’70s. The New York Times reported that this “blame Woodstock” explanation has been floated by bishops since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002. Now the bishops, who are the ones largely responsible for the continuation of this abomination, have offered this phony report as a lame excuse for their inexcusable behavior.
In one of its most bizarre findings, the report says that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia, which it defines as a “psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviors about prepubescent children.” The report goes on to say: “Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.”
I can tell you that the priests who abused children are pedophile priests. During my life as a lawyer I had the opportunity to conduct a great deal of research on the subject of pedophilia and on one occasion I wrote a lengthy report for the court in connection with the sentencing of a pedophile. I can say for certain that the conclusions of the Church’s report are hogwash. The Church is attempting a vast cover-up of its own complicity in the abuse of so many children.
Another dishonest revelation of the report is the claim that the scope of abuse of “prepubescent” children was far less than imagined. The report employs a definition of “prepubescent” children as those under age 10. Using this cutoff, the report found that only 22 percent of the priests’ victims were prepubescent. However The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies a prepubescent child as generally age 13 or younger. The New York Times reports that if the bishops had used that cutoff, a vast majority of the abusers’ victims would have been considered prepubescent. Moreover, even if some of the priests’ victims were 14, 15, or16, the sexual attack on such youngsters is still repellent.
Perhaps the most outrageous finding of the report is the claim that the silence by the young victims “is one reason why the abusive behavior persisted.” In other words, blame the victims. Can the Catholic Church be so indifferent to the suffering of these innocent young victims that it fails to realize why so many failed to speak-out about the unspeakable behavior of their trusted priests?
The real cause of the sexual abuse of children by priests is self-evident. During the 1960s and 70s vocations to the priesthood began to fall-off dramatically. In order to fill-up the seminaries, the Church loosened its ban on people with alternate sexual preferences. When I entered the seminary in 1958, the priests in charge questioned me and all other novitiates extensively to be sure we were not homosexual or pedophiliac. In the following decades, such screening simply was not done.
The result of the loosening of criteria for entrance into the priesthood was the ordination of large numbers of men who did not have the usual heterosexual orientation. To men with pedophiliac predispositions, employment by the church became an enticing occupation. Such men were not driven by desire to serve God. Rather, they were encouraged by the opportunity to be around, influence, and exert authority over young boys. In my research I came to understand that most pedophiles are not attracted to grown women. They are strongly attracted to young boys. By becoming priests they were able to avoid the uncomfortable problem of having to explain why they were not getting married. On the contrary, they could feel assured that their parents and relatives would admire and respect their choice of vocation.
It should be understood that homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles. They are not interested in having sex with children. However, some forms of pedophilia do involve homosexuality. I do not believe that the ordination of homosexuals hurt the Church. Consensual homosexual behavior between adults should not be considered a reason for denial of ordination and should not be thought of as a sin. But many pedophiles are sexually attracted to children of their own sex. Pedophilia is a crime and an abomination. A child cannot consent to such treatment. It is irrelevant that the crime is caused by a mental irregularity. Many crimes are caused by psychological disturbances. That is not an excuse. The sexual abuse of a child is no more excusable than the rape of a woman.
According to the report, it was not possible for the church, or for anyone, to identify abusive priests in advance. The report said that priests who abuse minors have no particular “psychological characteristics,” “developmental histories” or “mood disorders” that distinguished them from priests who had not abused. In other words, the bishops want the public to let them off the hook because there was nothing they could do to prevent this atrocity. Well, I do not believe that for a moment. I remember the grilling we received when I entered the seminary, and if the church had continued that form of screening there might have been fewer priests but there also would have been far fewer pedophiles.
More important, the actions taken by the bishops after learning about the sex abuse of children were unconscionable. Instead of reporting these offenders to the police, the bishops sent them to internal programs run by the church. After treatment, the pedophiles were transferred to other parishes where many of them continued their predatory behavior toward young boys. Basically, the bishops committed the crime of aiding and abetting in the commission of felonies. In legal terms it is called “compounding a felony.” The bishops should have been sent to prison. The only reason they were not jailed is that the scandal did not break until years after much of the abuse was conducted and somehow the bishops received special treatment from the law because of their positions in society.
I suspect that there was more than one motive for the cover-up by the bishops of these crimes. Obviously, the bishops did not want to see the priests being hauled before the courts with the accompanying bad publicity for the Church. Also, they obviously felt that the Church could not afford to lose more priests from its already thinning ranks. But one further motive may have prevailed. I suspect that large numbers of bishops were also themselves pedophiles who understood the sexual drives of these priests and wanted to protect them.
One would think that an organization dedicated to religion, holiness, worship, and truth, would have the decency to come clean about this scandal. Instead, this report shows the Church for what it really is. There is nothing holy about the Holy Catholic Church.
The report says that the abuse of these thousands of children occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed amid the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and ’70s. The New York Times reported that this “blame Woodstock” explanation has been floated by bishops since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002. Now the bishops, who are the ones largely responsible for the continuation of this abomination, have offered this phony report as a lame excuse for their inexcusable behavior.
In one of its most bizarre findings, the report says that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia, which it defines as a “psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviors about prepubescent children.” The report goes on to say: “Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.”
I can tell you that the priests who abused children are pedophile priests. During my life as a lawyer I had the opportunity to conduct a great deal of research on the subject of pedophilia and on one occasion I wrote a lengthy report for the court in connection with the sentencing of a pedophile. I can say for certain that the conclusions of the Church’s report are hogwash. The Church is attempting a vast cover-up of its own complicity in the abuse of so many children.
Another dishonest revelation of the report is the claim that the scope of abuse of “prepubescent” children was far less than imagined. The report employs a definition of “prepubescent” children as those under age 10. Using this cutoff, the report found that only 22 percent of the priests’ victims were prepubescent. However The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies a prepubescent child as generally age 13 or younger. The New York Times reports that if the bishops had used that cutoff, a vast majority of the abusers’ victims would have been considered prepubescent. Moreover, even if some of the priests’ victims were 14, 15, or16, the sexual attack on such youngsters is still repellent.
Perhaps the most outrageous finding of the report is the claim that the silence by the young victims “is one reason why the abusive behavior persisted.” In other words, blame the victims. Can the Catholic Church be so indifferent to the suffering of these innocent young victims that it fails to realize why so many failed to speak-out about the unspeakable behavior of their trusted priests?
The real cause of the sexual abuse of children by priests is self-evident. During the 1960s and 70s vocations to the priesthood began to fall-off dramatically. In order to fill-up the seminaries, the Church loosened its ban on people with alternate sexual preferences. When I entered the seminary in 1958, the priests in charge questioned me and all other novitiates extensively to be sure we were not homosexual or pedophiliac. In the following decades, such screening simply was not done.
The result of the loosening of criteria for entrance into the priesthood was the ordination of large numbers of men who did not have the usual heterosexual orientation. To men with pedophiliac predispositions, employment by the church became an enticing occupation. Such men were not driven by desire to serve God. Rather, they were encouraged by the opportunity to be around, influence, and exert authority over young boys. In my research I came to understand that most pedophiles are not attracted to grown women. They are strongly attracted to young boys. By becoming priests they were able to avoid the uncomfortable problem of having to explain why they were not getting married. On the contrary, they could feel assured that their parents and relatives would admire and respect their choice of vocation.
It should be understood that homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles. They are not interested in having sex with children. However, some forms of pedophilia do involve homosexuality. I do not believe that the ordination of homosexuals hurt the Church. Consensual homosexual behavior between adults should not be considered a reason for denial of ordination and should not be thought of as a sin. But many pedophiles are sexually attracted to children of their own sex. Pedophilia is a crime and an abomination. A child cannot consent to such treatment. It is irrelevant that the crime is caused by a mental irregularity. Many crimes are caused by psychological disturbances. That is not an excuse. The sexual abuse of a child is no more excusable than the rape of a woman.
According to the report, it was not possible for the church, or for anyone, to identify abusive priests in advance. The report said that priests who abuse minors have no particular “psychological characteristics,” “developmental histories” or “mood disorders” that distinguished them from priests who had not abused. In other words, the bishops want the public to let them off the hook because there was nothing they could do to prevent this atrocity. Well, I do not believe that for a moment. I remember the grilling we received when I entered the seminary, and if the church had continued that form of screening there might have been fewer priests but there also would have been far fewer pedophiles.
More important, the actions taken by the bishops after learning about the sex abuse of children were unconscionable. Instead of reporting these offenders to the police, the bishops sent them to internal programs run by the church. After treatment, the pedophiles were transferred to other parishes where many of them continued their predatory behavior toward young boys. Basically, the bishops committed the crime of aiding and abetting in the commission of felonies. In legal terms it is called “compounding a felony.” The bishops should have been sent to prison. The only reason they were not jailed is that the scandal did not break until years after much of the abuse was conducted and somehow the bishops received special treatment from the law because of their positions in society.
I suspect that there was more than one motive for the cover-up by the bishops of these crimes. Obviously, the bishops did not want to see the priests being hauled before the courts with the accompanying bad publicity for the Church. Also, they obviously felt that the Church could not afford to lose more priests from its already thinning ranks. But one further motive may have prevailed. I suspect that large numbers of bishops were also themselves pedophiles who understood the sexual drives of these priests and wanted to protect them.
One would think that an organization dedicated to religion, holiness, worship, and truth, would have the decency to come clean about this scandal. Instead, this report shows the Church for what it really is. There is nothing holy about the Holy Catholic Church.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Slick Mitt Romeny
George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, and former governor of Michigan, was too honest. He admitted that when he visited Vietnam he was “brainwashed” by the generals. For this candor he lost his bid to be Republican nominee for president. His son Mitt learned the lesson well. He decided that the last thing you need in politics is honesty and integrity. With his oily neat hair, abundant fortune, and vulpine character, he may be the frontrunner in the race to get the prize that escaped his father.
In 2006, when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he supported and signed a health care law that became the model for the federal health care law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed by President Obama. The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage. It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who are not eligible for Medicaid. The law also subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL.
Now that he is again running for President, Romney has condemned the federal health care law that was based on his state law. His most fervent distinction is that his was a state law and that the law signed by President Obama is an excessive exertion of federal power. This is not the first time Romney has had to explain his many flip-flops on political questions. Like all of his other flip-flops, however, the explanations he provides are little more than nit-picking and quibbling.
In 1994, when Mitt was running against Ted Kennedy for senator from Massachusetts, he said: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” During the 2002 governor's race in Massachusetts, Romney said: "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." Yet, when he first began campaigning for president, Romney came out in support of state laws forbidding abortion and criticized the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. He said: “I am firmly pro-life.”
In his 1994 senate run, Romney indicated that he opposed prayer in the schools. In 2007, he called for allowing prayer in school ceremonies.
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research and promised to lobby President Bush to provide federal funding for such research. During his presidential campaign, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agreed with Bush's decision to ban federal funding for stem-cell research.
In Romney's 2002 race for governor, he said: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” But just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association. He said: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.” The Associated Press reported in April 2007 that Romney never sought a hunting license in any of the four states where he has resided.
In 2002 Romney supported the right of homosexuals to form civil unions and said he would support domestic partnership benefits. He said: "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation." During his first campaign for president, however, Romney stated that he is opposed to such civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.
These are just a few of the issues on which Slick Mitt has changed positions since he started running for president. Romney has calculated that the base of the Republican Party is far more conservative than the electorate in Massachusetts. He simply could not get nominated with the positions which he embraced during his races for senator and governor of Massachusetts. He appears to have calculated correctly. Republican voters do not care that this man is a total fraud and liar. They like him now that he is speaking like a true conservative. What does this say about the values of the “values” Party? Is honesty not one of the Republican values?
In an editorial, The New York Times said of Mitt Romney: “It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.”
Romney called himself the candidate of “change.” What did he mean? John McCain made a good point when he said that sure, Romney was the candidate of change because had changed his position so many times.
What this country needs is not the small change of an imposter like Mitt Romney. It still needs a man of integrity like Barack Obama.
In 2006, when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he supported and signed a health care law that became the model for the federal health care law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed by President Obama. The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage. It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who are not eligible for Medicaid. The law also subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL.
Now that he is again running for President, Romney has condemned the federal health care law that was based on his state law. His most fervent distinction is that his was a state law and that the law signed by President Obama is an excessive exertion of federal power. This is not the first time Romney has had to explain his many flip-flops on political questions. Like all of his other flip-flops, however, the explanations he provides are little more than nit-picking and quibbling.
In 1994, when Mitt was running against Ted Kennedy for senator from Massachusetts, he said: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” During the 2002 governor's race in Massachusetts, Romney said: "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." Yet, when he first began campaigning for president, Romney came out in support of state laws forbidding abortion and criticized the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. He said: “I am firmly pro-life.”
In his 1994 senate run, Romney indicated that he opposed prayer in the schools. In 2007, he called for allowing prayer in school ceremonies.
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research and promised to lobby President Bush to provide federal funding for such research. During his presidential campaign, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agreed with Bush's decision to ban federal funding for stem-cell research.
In Romney's 2002 race for governor, he said: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” But just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association. He said: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.” The Associated Press reported in April 2007 that Romney never sought a hunting license in any of the four states where he has resided.
In 2002 Romney supported the right of homosexuals to form civil unions and said he would support domestic partnership benefits. He said: "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation." During his first campaign for president, however, Romney stated that he is opposed to such civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.
These are just a few of the issues on which Slick Mitt has changed positions since he started running for president. Romney has calculated that the base of the Republican Party is far more conservative than the electorate in Massachusetts. He simply could not get nominated with the positions which he embraced during his races for senator and governor of Massachusetts. He appears to have calculated correctly. Republican voters do not care that this man is a total fraud and liar. They like him now that he is speaking like a true conservative. What does this say about the values of the “values” Party? Is honesty not one of the Republican values?
In an editorial, The New York Times said of Mitt Romney: “It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.”
Romney called himself the candidate of “change.” What did he mean? John McCain made a good point when he said that sure, Romney was the candidate of change because had changed his position so many times.
What this country needs is not the small change of an imposter like Mitt Romney. It still needs a man of integrity like Barack Obama.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Why Do Catholics Go On Believing?
When I was a young boy I wanted to be a Catholic Priest. It seemed like a sure way to gain prestige and honor throughout one’s life. I went into the Catholic Seminary, but while I was there it occurred to me that there may be no such thing as God and that I may be wasting my life. I left the seminary and began a lifelong search for the truth about God. Ultimately, I concluded that there is no such thing as God, and that all teaching about him is an illusion.
Today, as I drive by Catholic Churches on Sunday the parking lots are filled with cars. It is plain to see that millions of Americans still believe in the Church and still go to weekly mass. It astonishes me to think that with all of the scandals and errors of the Church, there are still a lot of people who want to believe that this is the true religion.
People do not seem to be bothered by the silliness of a Pope strolling around magnificent cathedrals clad in lustrous medieval vestments and wearing a fabulous medieval crown. They are not turned off by the absurdity of a Pope claiming to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. They are not in the least bothered by the claim that Catholic priests can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
Catholics go on believing even when their rational faculties are attacked by the most bizarre claims of the Church. When the Shroud of Turin was exposed as a Thirteenth Century forgery, believers refused to accept the evidence and continued to venerate the cloth. When the James Ossuary was proven to be a fraud, believers continued to insist that it was the receptacle of the bones of James, the brother of Jesus.
Catholics who study history seem unfazed by the many atrocities and abominations committed by the Catholic Church in the name of God. They hear about the Crusades and their slaughter of innocent Jews and Moslems. They read about Medici Popes with their rampaging greed and lust. They read about the Inquisition and its sheer horror. They read about the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 1400s and the Church’s confinement of Rome’s Jews to a place called the Ghetto. They learn of Pope Pius XII’s failure to speak out against the Nazi terror and the aid given by Catholic priests to escaping Nazis who were being sought after World War II for crimes against humanity.
When the Catholic Church forbade the use of contraceptives, millions of Catholics went on attending mass while continuing to use the forbidden birth control devices and pills. When it was revealed that thousands of Catholic priests had practiced child molestation on tens of thousands of victims over several decades and that the hierarchy had protected the priests and failed to enforce the laws against this abomination, Catholics simply continued to attend mass in the dioceses where such priests and bishops fester.
Catholics have a powerful need to believe in their Church even in the face of the worst scandals and happenings. In my book, "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence" (now available on Kindle), I discuss the reasons why people go on believing in God despite the absence of evidence for his existence. This need to believe in God makes them able to believe in the Catholic Church with all of its disgrace, dishonor, and scandal. Catholics are taught that the Church is more than just the popes and clergy. It is the body of Christ, and therefore even when a bad priest (say a pedophile) says mass, he is capable of turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
As I noted in a previous blog, the “sacrifice” of the mass is actually a reprise of a bloody and disgusting lynching and murder of Jesus as a human sacrifice to propitiate a loving God on account of humanity’s sins. The whole basis of the mass is an affront to human intelligence.
Somewhere in my youth, after leaving the seminary, I began to realize these things and stopped considering myself a Catholic. I don’t fully understand why most thinking Catholics do not do likewise.
Today, as I drive by Catholic Churches on Sunday the parking lots are filled with cars. It is plain to see that millions of Americans still believe in the Church and still go to weekly mass. It astonishes me to think that with all of the scandals and errors of the Church, there are still a lot of people who want to believe that this is the true religion.
People do not seem to be bothered by the silliness of a Pope strolling around magnificent cathedrals clad in lustrous medieval vestments and wearing a fabulous medieval crown. They are not turned off by the absurdity of a Pope claiming to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. They are not in the least bothered by the claim that Catholic priests can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
Catholics go on believing even when their rational faculties are attacked by the most bizarre claims of the Church. When the Shroud of Turin was exposed as a Thirteenth Century forgery, believers refused to accept the evidence and continued to venerate the cloth. When the James Ossuary was proven to be a fraud, believers continued to insist that it was the receptacle of the bones of James, the brother of Jesus.
Catholics who study history seem unfazed by the many atrocities and abominations committed by the Catholic Church in the name of God. They hear about the Crusades and their slaughter of innocent Jews and Moslems. They read about Medici Popes with their rampaging greed and lust. They read about the Inquisition and its sheer horror. They read about the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 1400s and the Church’s confinement of Rome’s Jews to a place called the Ghetto. They learn of Pope Pius XII’s failure to speak out against the Nazi terror and the aid given by Catholic priests to escaping Nazis who were being sought after World War II for crimes against humanity.
When the Catholic Church forbade the use of contraceptives, millions of Catholics went on attending mass while continuing to use the forbidden birth control devices and pills. When it was revealed that thousands of Catholic priests had practiced child molestation on tens of thousands of victims over several decades and that the hierarchy had protected the priests and failed to enforce the laws against this abomination, Catholics simply continued to attend mass in the dioceses where such priests and bishops fester.
Catholics have a powerful need to believe in their Church even in the face of the worst scandals and happenings. In my book, "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence" (now available on Kindle), I discuss the reasons why people go on believing in God despite the absence of evidence for his existence. This need to believe in God makes them able to believe in the Catholic Church with all of its disgrace, dishonor, and scandal. Catholics are taught that the Church is more than just the popes and clergy. It is the body of Christ, and therefore even when a bad priest (say a pedophile) says mass, he is capable of turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
As I noted in a previous blog, the “sacrifice” of the mass is actually a reprise of a bloody and disgusting lynching and murder of Jesus as a human sacrifice to propitiate a loving God on account of humanity’s sins. The whole basis of the mass is an affront to human intelligence.
Somewhere in my youth, after leaving the seminary, I began to realize these things and stopped considering myself a Catholic. I don’t fully understand why most thinking Catholics do not do likewise.
Friday, May 6, 2011
THE CIVIL WAR
The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. This is clear from the pronouncements of all the leaders of that time. Lincoln made it emphatically clear in his Second Inaugural Address when he said: “One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.” The arguments made today by right-wing apologists for the Southern cause are spurious at best.
What is not fully understood is the reason why slavery was so important a ground for conflict between the North and the South. It was not simply racial bigotry that caused the South to so fervently support the institution of slavery. It was money and greed. Slaves were considered property, and a very large percentage of the wealth of southern planters was tied-up in slaves. To the southerners, abolition of slavery meant abolition of much of their fortune. In addition, refusal of the government to allow the expansion of slavery to the western part of the country meant a stark restriction on where and to whom slave holders could sell their slaves. Lincoln said: “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.”
The powerful hatred between North and South was generated by the fear in the South that the North planned to take away a very large part of southern treasure. For this, the southerners were willing to fight to the death.
It is immaterial that many of the common southern soldiers did not own slaves. Like everyone today who wishes to become more affluent, they looked upon slavery as a way to gain riches, and considered the institution of slavery to be a proper capitalist endeavor.
Even the southern slave holders knew that slavery was wrong. They clung to it because of its importance to their economy. They could not simply free their slaves without giving-up much of their wealth. Those few who did free their slaves showed a lot of courage and humanity.
Slavery was, after all, a gigantic horror. In my mind it is second only to the Nazi Holocaust in evil. Regardless of whether slave traders and slave owners thought that Black people were inferior, they knew that they were human beings and not just animals. Many felt deep pangs of conscience at the exploitation of their fellow men, and some people, like the Englishman Wilberforce and the American William Lloyd Garrison, could not tolerate such evil.
The legacy of slavery today is a divided America. It is not just divided between whites and blacks. It is divided between rich and poor, northerners and southerners, liberals and conservatives. It is no coincidence that the most conservative parts of America are in the South where slavery was prevalent, or that the most liberal areas are in the North where abolitionism prevailed. The legacy of racial intolerance which once belonged to southern Democrats called “Dixiecrats,” now belongs to southern racists called Republicans or Tea Partiers. They continue to recite all of the old slogans and canards of states’ rights, smaller government, and freedom from governmental interference, but what they really want is the right to continue their discrimination against and mistreatment of African Americans. They deeply resent the fact that some of their tax dollars are spent to aid poor Black people, and that the government is the main enforcer of the civil rights of Blacks.
What is not fully understood is the reason why slavery was so important a ground for conflict between the North and the South. It was not simply racial bigotry that caused the South to so fervently support the institution of slavery. It was money and greed. Slaves were considered property, and a very large percentage of the wealth of southern planters was tied-up in slaves. To the southerners, abolition of slavery meant abolition of much of their fortune. In addition, refusal of the government to allow the expansion of slavery to the western part of the country meant a stark restriction on where and to whom slave holders could sell their slaves. Lincoln said: “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.”
The powerful hatred between North and South was generated by the fear in the South that the North planned to take away a very large part of southern treasure. For this, the southerners were willing to fight to the death.
It is immaterial that many of the common southern soldiers did not own slaves. Like everyone today who wishes to become more affluent, they looked upon slavery as a way to gain riches, and considered the institution of slavery to be a proper capitalist endeavor.
Even the southern slave holders knew that slavery was wrong. They clung to it because of its importance to their economy. They could not simply free their slaves without giving-up much of their wealth. Those few who did free their slaves showed a lot of courage and humanity.
Slavery was, after all, a gigantic horror. In my mind it is second only to the Nazi Holocaust in evil. Regardless of whether slave traders and slave owners thought that Black people were inferior, they knew that they were human beings and not just animals. Many felt deep pangs of conscience at the exploitation of their fellow men, and some people, like the Englishman Wilberforce and the American William Lloyd Garrison, could not tolerate such evil.
The legacy of slavery today is a divided America. It is not just divided between whites and blacks. It is divided between rich and poor, northerners and southerners, liberals and conservatives. It is no coincidence that the most conservative parts of America are in the South where slavery was prevalent, or that the most liberal areas are in the North where abolitionism prevailed. The legacy of racial intolerance which once belonged to southern Democrats called “Dixiecrats,” now belongs to southern racists called Republicans or Tea Partiers. They continue to recite all of the old slogans and canards of states’ rights, smaller government, and freedom from governmental interference, but what they really want is the right to continue their discrimination against and mistreatment of African Americans. They deeply resent the fact that some of their tax dollars are spent to aid poor Black people, and that the government is the main enforcer of the civil rights of Blacks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
