And speaking of the health care situation, I highly recommend Glenn Greenwald’s incisive analysis at Salon earlier this week. It’s the best comprehensive overview I’ve yet seen, exposing precisely how powerful economic interest groups that have gained considerable control of the American political process in several decades of neoconservative dominance will not relinquish that control. And how and why the Democratic party continues to cave in to those groups.I'm really surprised that there's anyone, especially Matt [Yglesias at Think Progress], who actually believes this -- that the Obama White House is merely an impotent, passive observer of what the Democrats in Congress do and can't be expected to do anything to secure votes for approval of the health care bill it favors. As the leader of his party, the President commands a vast infrastructure on which incumbent members of Congress rely for re-election. His popularity among Democrats vests him numerous options to punish non-compliant Democrats. And Rahm Emanuel built his career on controlling the machinations within Congress. The very idea that Obama, Emanuel and company are just sitting back, helplessly watching as Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and the Blue Dogs (Rahm's creation) destroy their health care legislation, is absurd on its face.
This is how things always work. The industry interests which own and control our government always get their way. When is the last time they didn't? The "public option" was something that was designed to excite and placate progressives (who gave up from the start on a single-payer approach) -- and the vast, vast majority of progressives (all but the most loyal Obama supporters) who are invested in this issue have been emphatic about how central a public option is to their support for health care reform. But it seems clear that the White House and key Democrats were always planning on negotiating it away in exchange for industry support. Isn't that how it always works in Washington? No matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter which party controls the levers of government, the same set of narrow monied interests and right-wing values dictate outcomes, even if it means running roughshod over the interests of ordinary citizens (securing lower costs and expanding coverage) and/or what large majorities want.
On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat who talks of “bending the curve” but has only recently begun to make the moral case for reform. Mr. Obama’s explanations of his plan have gotten clearer, but he still seems unable to settle on a simple, pithy formula; his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee.
In a posting several days ago (here), I noted that when I look at the gap between what George W. Bush did in setting a system of torture in place, and what the United Methodist Church teaches about issues of justice and peace, I am deeply troubled. I also noted the discrepancy between what the United Methodist Church teaches about homophobia and heterosexism, and the behavior of some of its own institutions and members.I'd like to imagine the feelings of Judy Shepard as the hate crimes bill named after her murdered son passed the House in the presence of the woman whose contribution to the passage of that law was to attempt to besmirch his memory with ugly distortions.
But judging by Congresswoman Foxx's preposterous comments earlier in the day, I doubt she felt much besides a peevish sense that her side lost one more battle in what they like to call "the culture war." I rather suspect that calling bigotry and hate by their proper names is still news in Mrs. Foxx's private, personal, dark corner of North Carolina, where it's clearly still a cold October night in Laramie in 1998.
During the 2004 presidential campaign pitting George W. Bush against John Kerry, conservative voices in the hierarchy were dominant, fearless, relentless—in brief, overwhelming. Progressive voices in the Church leadership were, to be charitable, conflicted. It might be said that progressive Church leaders had qualms because of the abortion and stem-cell issues. But the issues of poverty, social justice, and war did not seem to detain the conservative leaders in the Catholic Church from speaking out strongly in a way that left little doubt that they supported the reelection of George W. Bush.
I have been fighting with myself about this posting. Because, God help me, I cannot read the sickening memos about our recent legacy of torture that the government released yesterday (here), without reminding myself that George W. Bush is a Christian. And, to be specific, a United Methodist.You know, religion isn’t changing that much. Here’s the most liberal church of all, the Episcopal Church, being divided down the center by it. And here’s the United Methodist Church pastors holding at the national assembly this last summer to allow pastors to deny membership to lesbian and gay people. Allowing them to deny membership, not ordination or marriage – membership.When I read this, when I read the torture memos and remember that George W. Bush is a United Methodist, when I read the noble UMC General Conference resolution against homophobia and heterosexism but look at how some Methodist institutions actually behave, I have to speak out. I have to ask my United Methodist brothers and sisters please to address the disparity between the words and the deeds within their institutions—to call their Wesleyan brothers and sisters to accountability.
And the United Methodists have this great tradition of progressive kind of stance with John and Charles Wesley and the Native Americans and all that kind of stuff – they’ve always been liberal – now they’re being taken over by these right-wing organizations within their church. And the Catholic Church, I mean when the Pope just a few weeks ago says it’s as important to save the world from homosexuality as it is to save the rain forests, I think we haven’t gotten very far with him either.
Meanwhile, the Cardinal Newman Society (here) remains the gift that keeps on giving—for bloggers like me, at least; for those of us interested in the interface between religion and politics in the U.S., who think it’s important to track the efforts of right-wing pressure groups to keep American churches in a little box owned exclusively by the right.But the growing movement to stop Obama's visit isn't your ho-hum sort of Catholic League media dust-up, where Bill Donohue harumphs on television and then goes away. It's part of a well-funded lobbying effort by a group of right-wing Catholics to run liberal Catholics, and dissenting doctrine, out of the church, and to recruit the remainder of the faithful for the GOP.
This is a group of rabid right-wingers who came together to make sure Catholic universities enforce Catholic doctrine. They publish the work of ultra-right Opus Dei member Rev. C. John McCloskey, who has argued that "for a university to be truly Catholic," its faculty must be "exclusively" Catholic. Operation Rescue fanatic Randall Terry, who converted to Catholicism recently, is bringing his special kind of crazy to the movement. "The faithful Catholic world is justly enraged at the treachery of Notre Dame's leadership," Terry rants. "Notre Dame will rue the day they invited this agent of death to speak." Once a thug, always a thug.
There are a couple of things about this culture-warfare-as-usual controversy that are fresh and consequential enough to be of interest. The first is the protesters and their connections. Many are part of a vocal, Internet-savvy lobby that has been agitating to coerce the church's prelates into denying Communion to Catholic officeholders who deviate from a rigidly "pro-life" line. Made up of a number of smaller groups, this lobby has campaigned to keep other pro-choice officeholders (of any religion) from speaking at Catholic schools. Its supporters also have been vociferously active in the movement to use abortion as a wedge to lever Catholics into the religious right.
The effort turns on convincing Catholics -- for decades now, the principal swing voters in presidential elections -- that they're obliged to vote on the basis of moral issues important to the right wing of the church, such as abortion, stem cell research and, more recently, marriage equality.
The Newman Society is linked to two organizations -- CatholicVote.org and the Fidelis Center -- whose programs are clearly geared toward bringing Catholics into the Republican Party.
Early in March, I published a number of postings examining the right-wing political ties and agenda of the Cardinal Newman Society, a watchdog group that claims to be concerned about safeguarding the orthodoxy of American Catholic colleges and universities (here and here and here). Here’s what is really going on. Ayatollah Reilly searches for hot button issues on Catholic campuses -- anything that has to do with gays gets them excited, as do performances of “The Vagina Monologues” and, of course, pro-choice speakers (few of whom actually even discuss abortion in their presentations) – that will energize their base of donors and activists. Then they highlight these offenses on the Web and through direct mail to generate revenue.
It is good work if you can get it: for his efforts Reilly (according to a 2007 financial disclosure report) drew a nearly six-figure salary.
There’s a fascinating array of op-ed statements the last several days, re: the pope’s recent statement that condoms not only don't solve the problem of AIDS in Africa, but make it worse (1). Much of the commentary in the secular media in the U.S. is critical of the pope’s statement. Newspapers with a history of promoting the faith-based abstinence-only approach of the Bush administration and the Republican party, however, have been publishing editorials applauding the pope for standing up for morality.A misfortune of the AIDS epidemic in Africa has been intellectual dishonesty, ignorance and tribal superstition. So much bizarre and retrograde thinking has led to the needless deaths of millions. . . . Pope Benedict's pronouncement serves to confuse an already murky picture and to reinforce ignorance. It is particularly unfortunate because its source is "infallible." To many poor, downtrodden Africans, the Vatican is just this side of Heaven and the pope's voice is that of Jesus Christ. . . .
I can't be faulted if I conclude, like many others, that Pope Benedict lacks empathy for his black flock. Driving all pronouncements by the Vatican against condoms is the Vatican's abhorrence of all forms of contraception, no matter the consequence of their denial. As Rebecca Hodes of the Southern African Treatment Action Campaign said, "Religious dogma is more important than the lives of Africans."
That millions more might die and millions of kids orphaned is insignificant for the Pope as it was to narrow-minded African leaders like Thabo Mbeki.
I agree with the pope when he advocates abstinence, celibacy and marital sex. In Africa, they are alone insufficient. Pope Benedict must acknowledge that human beings are fallible; our sins shouldn't cause our demise.
In the end, the pope's words were unwise, shortsighted and unjustified.
In any case, the real problem with the church's position is not that it's shoddy science; it is that it's immoral. It means more people will get infected, fewer people will get treatment and more people will die.
It would be nice if the recent outrage directed at Connecticut state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor and state Sen. Andrew McDonald and their call for transparency in parish finances were matched by an equal or greater outrage at the pope's disregard (if not contempt) for the people of Africa. It would seem we have come to expect so little from our religious leaders.
When the pope goes to Africa and tells people that using condoms is wrong, he is not a preacher of love; he is a preacher of death.
In “AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right,” an April 2008 story in First Things, Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark argue that condoms are not the answer at all. They also cite a 2007 article in The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, which listed "Ten Myths" about AIDS prevention, including that condoms are ineffective.
They don't mention that the author of the piece was James D. Shelton, MD, science advisor at the U.S. Agency for International Development under George W. Bush. Shelton apparently isn't as categorical about condoms (the Lancet piece is behind a firewall) as the First Things authors, either.
Interesting echoes of points I’ve made in previous postings, in a number of online articles I’ve read in the last few days. Today’s AlterNet carries an article by Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive entitled “Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches” (www.alternet.org/rights/90829).His research provides convincing evidence that gay clergy, and especially those in stable relationships, are being driven away from parish ministry. In terms of paid staff the NHS employs as many Anglican clergy as the 10th largest diocese in England.'The churches must no longer be allowed to bask in the glow of self-righteous (and empty) proclamations about their commitment to justice for despised minorities, while they permit themselves the right to discriminate freely against gay and lesbian employees. There is nothing daringly countercultural in the least about the church’s commitment to homophobic discrimination.
The Church cannot go on ignoring the reality of a "diocese" where over 20% of male staff are not only gay, but actually in same-sex partnerships. On the eve of the Lambeth Conference it is time for the Church of England to affirm the gifts and calling of gay people and to stop living in denial.
Without the basic protection of health and safety legislation and employment rights, many are feeling very vulnerable at this time (my emphasis).
Where is the conscience of a man who habitually denounces the Philistine politician for expediency and lack of moral leadership while himself pretending to be someone he is not, for political reasons?Walden lambasts the silence of Rowan Williams on the subject of LGBT Christians—a silence that speaks volumes about his unwillingness to exemplify precisely the kind of courageous leadership he enjoins political leaders to demonstrate in other areas:
“The more politics looks like a form of management rather than an engine of positive and morally desirable change,” he intoned a year ago, “the more energy it loses.” As Dr Williams seeks to resist change that he almost certainly believes in, his Church presents a pretty good spectacle of energy-leaching entropy itself.
The oblique way that he addresses the subject suggests that he finds it as difficult as many others to see how the Church can continue to discriminate against practising homosexuals in an age in which scientific knowledge tells us that sexuality is rarely a question of choice. Sacred texts can be disputed, but all that matters is what the Bible would have said had it been known that homosexuality is largely genetic. How Christian can it be to deny men and women a sexuality that is, in Christian terms, God-given?Again, this is a point I have made repeatedly in previous postings, as I reflect on the curious lacunae in many current church leaders’ statements about key social justice issues of our time—see, for instance, my 16 June comments on a roundtable discussion sponsored by United Methodist Bishop of Florida, Timothy Whitaker, which notes the deafening silence about the place of gay persons at the table in this church-sponsored discussion of key issues affecting the human community (http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2008/06/place-of-gay-human-beings-as-church.html).
Why does the Archbishop not say out loud what we all suspect that he believes? His views on everything from Israel to Afghanistan via a third runway at Heathrow airport are as forthright as they are predictable. To listen to the Archbishop, the infamy of US imperialism is unparalleled in human history, yet on gays in the Church he marches, if not shoulder to shoulder, in perilous proximity to the American Right. Besides seeking to avoid schism he perhaps fears that an openly liberal stance could damage the CofE's image even among the modern-minded, and that the pews would be emptier than ever. However rational these fears, they are based on calculation, not conviction (my emphasis).
And another thing . . . (to channel Gilda Radner. I wish. That marvelous human being had more wit in her little finger than I have in my entire body.)
Lots of thoughtful analysis today of Obama’s proposal to continue (and correct) the Bush faith-based social service initiative, a subject about which I blogged yesterday. Alternet provides helpful excerpts from a recently published book—Frederick Lane’s The Court and the Cross: The Religious Right’s Crusade to Reshape the Supreme Court (Boston: Beacon, 2008) (see www.alternet.org/story/90284).The more significant story was contained in David Kuo's 2007 book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. Kuo, the number two official in OFBCI from 2001 to 2003, wrote a classic ex-administration-insider, where-the-bodies-are-buried book, the chief purpose of which was to complain that Bush and his political advisers had in fact not done enough to channel funds to FBOs -- by Kuo's calculation, just 1 percent of what Bush had publicly promised (my emphasis added).Second, there is wildly insufficient accounting for the funds presently being disbursed through the faith-based programs. As the faith-based initiative is currently configured, it gives the benefit of the doubt to faith-based communities, in reporting results and use of funds they have received.
More than anything else, the OFBCI and the various agency centers have been tremendously successful at awarding funds to faith-based organizations with few if any strings attached . . . . One of the significant problems with the Bush faith-based initiative is that no one really knows where the money is going. In January 2006, Josephine Robinson, director of the Office of Community Services within the Health and Human Services Department, conceded to the Chicago Tribune that given the number of staff in her office, there was definitely a limit to how much monitoring of grant recipients could take place. FBOs are not supposed to use federal money for "inherently religious" activities, but the combination of vague guidelines and inadequate oversight makes it virtually impossible to know if the boundaries of the Constitution are being observed (my emphasis added).Third, the faith-based initiative, as it is currently configured, has set up a para-government structure based in the private sector, ostensibly to provide quality control in faith-based social service programs. This para-government structure is not working.
As part of his faith-based initiative, Bush also instructed the secretary of Health and Human Services to use his Demonstration and Research Authority, a program within HHS, to establish the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF). According to the CCF's website, the purpose of the fund is to "help faith-based and community organizations increase their effectiveness and enhance their ability to provide social services by building their organizational capacity." The Republican Congress appropriated $30 million for the CCF in FY 2002, and over the next four years, more than doubled the size of the program to $64.4 million in FY 2006.Fourth, there is the crucial issue of religiously based discrimination. As currently configured, the faith-based program allows religious groups freedom to discriminate that is not permitted to any other program or group receiving federal funds.
The CCF's goal of training FBOs to become more effective applicants for the federal funds available under Bush's executive order is disconcerting enough. Even more worrisome is the fact that the CCF does not directly administer its funds itself. Instead, it awards grants to "intermediary organizations" that are charged with providing "technical assistance and capacity-building sub-awards" to smaller FBOs . . . .
A portion of his [i.e., Kuo’s] book is devoted to a discussion of the political uses of the Compassion Capital Fund, in which a handpicked panel of Religious Right activists graded the grant applications. Many groups, Kuo said, received high scores (and thus grants) more on the strength of their support for the Bush administration than their ability to provide assistance to the poor and downtrodden. A review panel member reportedly told Kuo some time later that when she saw an application from a non-Christian group, she simply gave the application a zero and moved on. According to the panelist, many of her peers did the same thing.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious organizations have always had a limited exemption to discriminate on the basis of religion for religiously oriented positions in their organization (for instance, a Unitarian Church can advertise for and hire only Unitarians to serve as minister). But Title VII's prohibitions against discrimination on other grounds -- race, gender, national orientation, etc. -- still apply, and when filling purely secular positions, the prohibition against religious discrimination must be observed as well. When Congress passed the Job Training Partnership Act in 1982, it permitted religious organizations to participate in the federally funded program only so long as they agreed not to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring anyone under the program.I also highly recommend Pam Spaulding’s commentary entitled “That Little Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Idea . . .” (www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5985). As Pam Spaulding notes, before reacting to Obama’s proposal, it is advisable to read what he actually said in his speech earlier this week about faith-based programs. Her article helpfully appends the text of the speech, along with a fact sheet from the Obama campaign commenting on the speech.
. . .
As Representative Barney Frank, D-Mass., inimitably put it, "The notion that you need to allow religious groups to discriminate to receive federal funds is a lie. If you dip your fingers in the federal till, you can't complain if a little democracy rubs off on you" (my emphasis added).
People have been seeing red lately—well, it seems the Vatican has—over media reports of Pope Benedict XVI’s fascination with the latest-old fashions in papal attire. As an article on today’s Clerical Whispers blog entitled “‘Vintage’ Pope Benedict XVI: Media Victim" notes, Benedict has made a name for himself by re-introducing such arcane articles of papal attire as a red woolen cap with ermine trim (the camauro) that dates to the 12th century; the ombrellino, a small parasol used to symbolise the pope's temporal powers; a higher-than-high miter; and lacier and more richly embroidered surplices than the Catholic world has seen in lo these many years (see http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/07/vintage-pope-benedict-xvi-media-victim.html).