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.