An Interesting Agreement with a Conservative Catholic View

I have expressed previously my view that the Catholic Church will tie its future with conservative culture of the southern hemisphere since there are far more people involved than the Catholic population in the West. Furthermore, I have agree with the view that there is no middle ground to much of what is the official Catholic belief system. If the pope were to reverse decisions regarding female clergy or homosexuality, etc., he would lose the vast majority of his followers and, most likely, would not regain any of the more liberal population in the West. For the latter, the opportunity to address these controversial issues when it would make a big difference has passed. For all those who identify with liberal positions, they have come further down the road of spirituality and recognize that one need not identify with a religion, with all its inherent problems, in order to be spiritual.

For the first time, I just read a column that, more or less, agreed with this view, but comes to the point from a totally different perspective.  Samuel Gregg happily sees the demise of a more liberal Catholic population as good news. He sees that the Catholic Church will be better off without them. Those who remain want the orthodoxy of the conservative beliefs to be respected and treasured.

I admit that his view ultimately is consistent with mine, except for its assessment of the merits of the outcome.

A Pathway to Political Sanity

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein previously published a most direct indictment of the Republican Party when they essentially assigned them with the blame for the congressional polarization.

Now, they have focused on what can be done to make matters better. The column is most helpful since it essentially reviews and rebuts all the possible solutions offered by others and the proceed to suggest what they consider to be avenues to improvement.

They identify four possible ways to ameliorate the political polarization.

1. Realistic Campaign finance reform
2. Converting votes into seats
3. Restoring majority rule in the Senate
4. Expanding the electorate

Campaign finance reform has been discussed often. They emphasize the need for openness and transparency in who is doing the funding. They (and I agree) cannot foresee that the Supreme Court will alter its views of campaign financing. There is no hope that any real control over the amount raised or how it is used will be enacted. I do not see this recommendation as significantly different from what others have tried to articulate.

Converting votes into seats is a real possibility. California has led the way to change how congressional districts are drawn. Using a non-political commission will increase the possibility that districts will reflect the population rather than current elected officials. 

I have previously lamented the misuse of the filibuster rule. I recognize that enabling the majority to "rule" may not result in outcomes that are consistent with my views, but that is the inherent purpose of a democracy. Elections make a difference.

Expanding the electorate focused on an area that was new to me. Recognizing that some nations, e.g., Australia, have very high voter turnout, they concluded that we should adopt financial encouragement so that people would vote, e.g., establish a national lottery for voters. Other mechanisms could help, but the bottom line is that the current situation results in those highly committed to extremes voting far more than those with moderate views. Expanding the electorate would temporize the outcome. There would be more moderates elected and moderate views would be more reflected in all elected officials if they wanted to remain in office.

Mann and Ornstein have done a service by their being so forthright about the problems confronting the nation.

Is Religion Inherently Intolerant?

One outcome, and possibly the most relevant to me, that emerges from reading is that some of it actually causes me to rethink my position or view regarding anything at all. As I have referenced in prior blogs, I have come a long way from my adherence to a highly structured belief system to a point where I now view religion as inherently intolerant and essentially, a negative force.

However, I was forced to review my position when I read an interesting column by a rabbi who reported his experience with a "born again Christian" cab driver. The cab driver had two problems: (1) after finding out that the rabbi had such positive views of Jesus, he could not understand how the rabbi could then not see Jesus as Christians do, i.e., Son of God, and (2) his wife, who supported him through his history of substance abuse, did not identify with his new-found religious beliefs, causing him to question whether he could continue his marriage.

The rabbi was able to help the cab driver by focusing on a most tolerant view about beliefs. The rabbi summarized his view, as follows:  I don't believe that you have to be wrong for me to be right.

I surely do not have a problem with the rabbi's tolerant vision. My problem is that his views represent such a minority within the world of religious beliefs that his vision does not represent the general outcome of religious beliefs. What I am saying is that the rabbi's vision would be worth trying to replicate except for the reality that human beings tend not to tolerate what could be called cognitive dissonance. Thinking that another's world view, even if dramatically different from one's own, can be "right" for the other, and, at the same time, one's view which is at total variance with the other, is also "right", at least for the one holding the view.

Moreover, I am not sure that such a view makes sense. The difference between "religious" beliefs and other types of "beliefs", e.g., political, life-style, is that religion is not indifferent to the relationship between the "belief" and the "consequences". If it is possible for two radically different beliefs could both be right, then it is very hard to understand the sense of adopting one rather than the other.

If the rabbi had adopted a view that no one knows God and that all religions are inherently searching for understanding that is forever beyond the reach of humanity, I would have no problem. I have no problem that neither the rabbi nor the Christian had beliefs that were inherently true. All that they have are beliefs that assist them in coping with life as they experience it. Admittedly, the human experience is a trip that challenges everyone. That some people need "religion" to cope with life is human, even if it is not "true" or "real".

For the moment, then, I still conclude that religion is inherently intolerant, even if some adopt a tolerant perspective that is uncommon and virtually impossible to disseminate on any wide basis.

Finally, a Definitive Article regarding Republican Extremism

I am clearly a person with liberal, democratic biases. I, along with many others, have had a tough time over the years. So many times, issues that were so clear to me (and others) were thwarted by the power of money that infiltrated throughout congress.

At the same time, I have tried to be aware that we are a democracy that requires attention to those who think differently. Those close to me may consider such attempts to be weak since I seldom altered my views. But, I tried and, occasionally, changed.

I was ecstatic when Obama won the Presidential election. I did think that this election would be transformative. Obviously, I was most disappointed by the last three years. I was aware of the Republican opposition and the problems associated with passing any meaningful legislation. While I could understand why Obama decided to do what was possible, given the opposition, I wanted him to go down a road that may well have been a total disaster.

I have shared by frustrations with the inability of Congress to alter its polarization. I am convinced that funding by special interests is the root cause of the extreme positions taken by both parties. At the same time, my bias was that the problem rested more with the Republicans than the Democrats.

Now, two of the more esteemed and reasonable authorities on Washington politics have written a very strong article that essentially ties all of Congress's problems to the Republican Party.

I can now feel better about myself. My biases are now validated by reasonable authority figures! I can sleep better.

The Common Good seems Dead!

I am sad to think about what I have been reading about the Supreme Court's wrestling with the Affordable  Health Care Act. It is sad to think that there is no consideration of the common good.

Before commenting further on this perception, I repeat prior writings about my disappointment that President Obama did not take a more active leadership role in the development of this legislation. Leaving it to Congress was a terrible mistake. Compounding that error was the fact that President Obama did not state upfront that he wanted a single payor system, e.g., extending Medicare to all, funded through taxation. I have been and remain convinced that there is no other fair and economic rational method of delivering universal health care. I was open to all sorts of methods for this to occur, e.g., public monies with private insurance carriers, e.g., Germany. In short, I did not like the legislation and only saw it as a vehicle to make a step towards a more rational system.

At the moment, though, what strikes me so strongly is the fact that our nation's historic thrust to promote individualism rather than the common good seems like an albatross that will do us in. From a personal perspective, I can understand the more selfish, individualistic views of many since I know that I am satisfied with my situation. But, I want everyone to enjoy my basic situation, knowing that they can go to bed at night knowing that they too know that their family is fed, living in an acceptable home, with children who are being educated appropriately and their health care needs met. Why should some have these rather basic needs of human beings be relegated to some because they lucked out while others are left in the dust?

The notion of the common good is so basic in my outlook on life that I am disturbed by its lack of relevance to so many. It is one of the more distasteful aspects of our nation. Granted, the pursuit of the individual has had many benefits to our nation's growth. I do not advocate losing it as much as wanting it to be balanced with the incorporation of the common good into the fabric of our nation's soul.

Of interest, it is even more puzzling to me that so many people with religious beliefs do not seem to realize the contradiction of their belief in a caring God and their personal attitudes to those who are left outside the pool of benefits enjoyed by the rest of us.

I do not have any idea about the future. I know that I will most likely not live long enough to see the terrible consequences of this myopic view of life. In a way, it makes it easier to tolerate the situation since I will not most like experience the consequences of such short-sightedness.

Happy Birthday, Patrick!

All so suddenly, we lost a dear friend,

Franklin, more than a pet,

Loved us, and everyone,

Children ever so much.

Memories of Franklin remain,

How could they fade,

After so many, many moments,

Sealed with licks and kisses.

Could we cope with another?

Maybe wait to be sure,

But no, needing another,

Patrick came to our need.

He may be timid,

But did he ever find his home,

A place where he is loved,

Returning love without measure.

Never ceasing to be amazed,

Watching him view his ocean,

Wondering how could anyone,

Be more at one with his world.

Never expecting another Franklin,

And surely, so different,

But does he love,

Children his number one.

Life is short, Franklin’s for sure,

We hope Patrick’s is long,

Never missing a moment,

We want to be all he thinks we are.

We are happy you are alive!

"Religion" conceptualized for Atheists

Alain de Botton recently published a book, "Religion for Atheists", that reflected on the positive features of religion, in spite of his convictions that there is no God. He is an atheist who recognizes that people benefit from the rituals and symbols that support them during the ups and down of life. 


I surely recognize what he is talking about. I experienced many of the positive aspects of religion that he wants now to re-create for atheists. It sounds strange until one considers that Catholic theology of sacraments and days of special significance references explicitly the relationship between these events and our earthly life. For example, the Eucharist celebration is reflected in family meals, Penance noted in human forgiveness of another's hurt, Christmas as the incorporation of the Winter Solstice and Easter, the emergence of Spring. Preaching often references these human events in order to connect the "real" world with the "religious" world.


I can understand why he sees a benefit of establishing a formal, albeit atheistic, religious ritual of our human events. 


My problem has to do with the notion of "religion". Religion has become for me a negative force, resulting all too often in bigotry, alienation from others, hatred, and violence. The good of religion that is well documented is outweighed by the negative results, also well documented. At this point in my life, I remain a believer in a God who is completely beyond my comprehension. I recognize a God within an evolutionary context. The world is inherently beautiful and a reflection of that God and we can see some reflection of him in the wonder of creation, including ourselves. Recognizing that we are responsible for adopting behaviors that are consistent with the gifts of the universe creates a "demand" on us. Transmitting this notion of God is admittedly much more difficult than participating in rituals that communicate meaning about our lives and associated responsibilities. 


I do see problems in my approach. Just as it is difficult to "teach" the benefits of delayed gratification or the need to accept an inherent responsibility for others, based on our humanity, it is also hard to teach "religious truth" without also conveying prejudice and alienation. Religious becomes an absolute and inherently divisive. If truth is absolute, clearly those not adhering to those beliefs are wrong, with implications of negative outcomes. 


While it might be easier to adopt "rituals, even as atheists, I would argue that it is a lesser way to achieve a good end.