With the Devout
Religion again. Or rather, still. It never does go away, does it. Funny how people keep urging us to have more of it when its consequences so often seem so very…unpleasant.
Jonathan Derbyshire has a couple of posts on the subject – one about the fallacy that atheists and materialists lack a sense of wonder or awe and the other a review of what sounds like a very irritating book on atheism. Theists have the most remarkable way of assuming that only they are capable of an enormous range of human qualities and aspirations – morality, imagination, dreams, commitment, wonder, honesty, dedication, kindness, mercy, courage, putting the cap back on the toothpaste, virtue, monogamy, not picking their noses in public. Hey, I hate to tell you, but non-theists are capable of all those too, and in the meantime they don’t bore everyone to death talking about some non-existent geezer in the sky who tells everyone not to use condoms or not to let women leave the back room or not to let Adam and Steve get married. Two for the price of one. We can have good qualities and we don’t dress up all our sadistic controlling exploitive impulses by pretending God told us to beat the crap out of this woman or to shoot this Dutch guy six times and then cut his throat and run away.
Garry Wills had an interesting Op-ed in the NY Times a couple of days ago.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies. Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein’s Sunni loyalists.
Well, frankly, I don’t understand that fundamentalism either. At all. It’s beyond me. There are some aspects of religion that (I think) I do understand, but there are others I don’t. I knew a fundamentalist once – someone I worked with. He was one angry dude, man. All his religiosity seemed to express itself in rage at people who didn’t share it. (In fact he once got suspended for half a day for threatening to kill a co-worker for – well for saying exactly what I’m saying: ‘Jim, for a religious guy, you sure seem to have a lot of anger.’) That’s what religion seems to be for a lot of people – a hell of a good pretext to be in a frothing rage all the time. About what? About people who don’t share their loathsome narrow rage-filled punitive view of the world, that’s what.
Maybe that’s not fair. Maybe in some circumstances and settings they are sweet and kind and compassionate. Only that’s not what the rest of us see – I suppose because we’re the spawn of Satan. But then that’s the problem. Religion is just another way of creating ingroups and outgroups, and it sanctions much worse treatment for the outgroups than is normally considered reasonable.
A third post of Jonathan’s touches on this point.
Now I was reminded of all that when I read this in Mark Schmitt’s post:
“The right question, I think, is not whether religion has an undue influence, but why it is that the current flourishing of religious faith has, for the first time ever, virtually no element of social justice? Why is its public phase so exclusively focused on issues of private and personal behavior? Is this caused by trends in the nature of religious worship itself? Is it a displacement of economic or social pressures? Will that change? What are the factors that might cause it to change.”
If Schmitt is right in his characterization of what he calls, following Robert Fogel, the “Fourth Great Awakening” in American Protestantism, what implications does this have for Sandel’s attempt to connect religious belief with a certain form of public life – with being a citizen with certain responsibilities?
Good question. And no, I haven’t the faintest idea what the answer is.
Here is a handy, or at least hilariously funny, page of atheist quotations. Well not all that funny, but it certainly made me burst out laughing.
Welcome to the Western canon, OB ;)
Pretty funny, isn’t it! Montaigne, Shelley, Shaw…oy veh.
Having read this blog, and Ms. Benson in particular, for some time I report myself as unpleasantly surprised by this comment.
She cites one fundamentalist she knows who was a nasty jerk.I hear tell you can find nasty jerks even at faculty meetings of Ivy League universities. As it happens, I know a lot of fundamentalists. Many are decent, generous, kindly people whose religion animates them and contributes to their gentleness of soul. I have also not noted secularists to be necessarily more decent and righteous. I remember Solzhenitsyn’s comment that the real depredations of the twentieth century were made possible only because their perpetrators had an ideology–ideologies, I might point out, that were relentlessly nonreligious. For that matter, exhibiting “frothing rage” is hardly limited to religious people; witness the squeals of outrage among the goodthinkers at Bush’s re-election. (For what it’s worth, I voted for Kerry.)
Jonathan Derbyshire’s comment that these fundamentalists religious activities have no social justice aspect is simply wrong–unless by “social justice” he means “subscribing to the dogmas of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” I am aware of any number of church groups involved deeply in social improvement activities from clothing drives for the third world to feeding the hungry in the inner city. One church I know supports medical work in an African country. They call it missionizing but they do not evangelize, simply hope that their good works will bring those they help to ask about their religious views. What the hell’s the matter with that?
But why bother doing some research before making such an uninformed comment, when the feeling of moral and intellectual superiority is so satisfying?
By the way, I am Jewish. For every fundamentalist Christian I come across who assures me I’m going to hell I know several who sincerely want to know about my beliefs. What their private feelings are I don’t know and frankly I don’t care. In the current world-historical situation, as a Jew I’m in a lot less danger from Baptists than I am from the Moslem extremists that the Western secular left seems able to embrace.
Garry Willis clearly prefers the secular societies of Europe. Given the history of the last century I can’t say that I join him on that. Willis’s comparison of American Protestant fundamentalism to al-Qaeda and Islamic fascism is unfounded and vicious. I’m hardly an admirer of Pat Robertson, but how many airliners have his congregants blown up recently? How many car bombs have they set off? Or, if I may ask, the deaths of how many Jews has been plotted from the campus of Oral Roberts University?
“Fundamentalist” is a word that admits of several connotations and likening fundamentalists in the U.S. to Islamic fascists because they’re both “fundamentalist” is easy, cheap,and false.
As long as I’m ranting I’ll point out that secularists, at least secular leftists, don’t really have a problem with religiously prompted pronouncements on public policy. I don’t see any fear for the First Amendment when Catholic bishops support unilateral disarmament. There is something called, if you please, the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, and that doesn’t seem to constitute an assault on the separation of church and state. It’s only unprogressive religious expression that threatens us, apparently.
““Fundamentalist” is a word that admits of several connotations and likening fundamentalists in the U.S. to Islamic fascists because they’re both “fundamentalist” is easy, cheap, and false.”
Bully to Alex Bensky. The idea that conservative Christians and Islamic fundamentalists are birds of a feather is both ridiculous and insulting to Christians – or, more precisely, it is insulting because it is ridiculous (since if it were true it would not be insulting even if Christians felt insulted). It is, after all, one thing to be opposed to the official recognition and ‘celebration’ of ‘gay marriage’ and another thing to call for the stoning to death of sodomites. I happen to be a secular conservative who considers that ‘gay marriage’ is something between an absurdity and an abomination, but I do not believe that homosexuals should be persecuted. Besides, I also consider that there are sound, secular-conservative arguments against postnatal, perinatal and prenatal infanticide, against fornication and against adultery, though I admit that sexual morality is a complicated issue. In other words, as a secular conservative I share many of the values of Christian and Jewish conservatives – not because of what the Bible ordains, but because evolutionary psychology has clearly demonstrated that no civilised society can survive without adherence to these values – or, to put it both bluntly and metaphorically, sexual repression is the oxygen of civilisation and sexual liberation is its Zyclone-B. And that’s an empirical issue, not a value judgment. Of course, if the survival of civilised society is of no concern to you, then my argument will hardly convince you.
The divide is not (or, rather, should not be) between secular ‘progressives’ on the one hand and religious ‘fundamentalists’ on the other – but between civilised people (whether secular or religious) and the assorted totalitarians at the gates, regardless of whether these totalitarians are of the secular or religious variety. After all, if political tolerance or mass murder is the litmus test, surely the secular Richard Dawkins and the religious Pat Robertson have more in common the secular Fidel Castro and the religious Osama Ben Laden?
Well, I did express some tentativity in my comments, after all. Some of them were more speculative or questioning than flatly assertive. But now I feel like getting all assertive on your asses.
“As it happens, I know a lot of fundamentalists. Many are decent, generous, kindly people whose religion animates them and contributes to their gentleness of soul.”
Well good. My comment was indeed partly wondering about that. I think that is one thing that religion can do, but it doesn’t seem to have been doing it much lately.
But I must say I have my doubts. I do have to wonder how a religion can contribute to anyone’s ‘gentleness of soul’ when its public spokesmen (and they are men) are people who do things like blame feminists for September 11. The public face of Christian fundamentalism does not strike me as gentle, it strikes me as vindictive, repressive, and angry.
“I am aware of any number of church groups involved deeply in social improvement activities from clothing drives for the third world to feeding the hungry in the inner city.”
Again, good, but again, the comment was about the public face of fundamentalism – the rhetoric of its spokesmen and wheeler-dealers, not so much the doings of its members. Perhaps I should have specified that; at any rate, that is what I meant.
Do we hear Pat Robertson railing much about the plight of the poor in the US?
“In the current world-historical situation, as a Jew I’m in a lot less danger from Baptists than I am from the Moslem extremists that the Western secular left seems able to embrace.”
Err – if you think anybody at B&W embraces Muslim extremism, you’ve never read a word of it.
“”Fundamentalist” is a word that admits of several connotations and likening fundamentalists in the U.S. to Islamic fascists because they’re both “fundamentalist” is easy, cheap,and false.”
The two halves of that sentence contradict each other. Since ‘fundamentalist’ means more than one thing, it is perfectly possible to argue that Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are alike in some respects without being identical. That’s what I’m arguing. You’re right that it’s cheap: nobody gives me a dime for it. I don’t think it is false, I think it’s true. That’s why I’m saying it.
“As long as I’m ranting I’ll point out that secularists, at least secular leftists, don’t really have a problem with religiously prompted pronouncements on public policy.”
Oh yes I do. You’re making some pretty stupid generalizations yourself here.
“The idea that conservative Christians and Islamic fundamentalists are birds of a feather is both ridiculous and insulting to Christians”
Same answer. I didn’t say they were birds of a feather, or identical. But fundamentalism does have some common features, and I think they’re bad and harmful, and that’s the point I was making – in a preliminary sort of way.
Prenatal infanticide, eh – that’s a good one. In response I charge the foetus with breaking and entering, assault, GBH, trespass, and littering.
I would never employ someone to clean my house (if I had a house, which I certainly don’t) in the first place. Ever. The mere idea of it gives me hives. And before you say it, no, not just on pious grounds (though on those) but on selfish ones.
If I were going to, I wouldn’t employ either of those people.
If your stunning point is merely that religious belief can (sometimes) make (some) people behave better, I don’t deny that.
“Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain”. No, one might add, but there’s good portions of it freely available to pregnant rape vitims in Roman Catholic Ireland, Portugal and Poland who need an abortion.
On the whole though some good arguments here. I am becoming seriously pissed off with the lazy Secular Left = Friends of Osama / Religious Right = Clansmen pigeonholes abounding in the broadsheet columns on both sides of the Atlantic… good to see standards are not slipping here…
“I remember Solzhenitsyn’s comment that the real depredations of the twentieth century were made possible only because their perpetrators had an ideology–ideologies, I might point out, that were relentlessly nonreligious”. Yes, and Stalin was easily the worst, but that comment was well before the banning of use of condoms by the Vatican and the effects on millions of HIV / Aids victims accross the third world.
“If your stunning point is merely that religious belief can (sometimes) make (some) people behave better, I don’t deny that.”
My point is that (at least in the United States, in the 21st century) moderately religious people are less likely to commit crime or indulge in anti-social (though non-criminal) behaviour, such as wanton, extramarital child-bearing or wanton desertion of one’s offspring than non-religious people – possibly because God is a far bigger inner policeman than conscience alone. What percentage of Orthodox Jews or churchgoing Catholics or Protestants have a criminal record or abandon their children or beat their wives? I don’t know but my guess is that it’s well below the national average. I’m not talking about religious fanatics who believe that they have received personal instructions from God to assassinate abortionists or slit the throats of infidels or invade Iran, but about ‘run of the mill’ Judeo-Christian fundamentalists.
The tragedy, for secularists like myself, is that God is a useful fiction and that ‘godless’ civilisations of the fun society type don’t seem to survive very long, though I would very much like to be mistaken on that point. So perhaps we should act ‘as if’ some omniscient and just policeman is keeping tabs on us. So to speak: what would Jesus do, if he existed (and rewrote the Sermon on the Mount to remove the social justice bullshit)? Would he drive an SUV or cycle to work? Would he dump his wife once she lost her sexual attractions and replace her by an Asian babe? Would he pilfer office paper? Etcetera ..
Prenatal infanticide: perhaps I should have specified that by that I mean late-term abortions, not the consumption of morning-after pills. There are endless, almost insoluble moral and pragmatic arguments pro- and contra- postnatal and prenatal infanticide, but at least one should call it what it is rather than resort to a euphemism: any unborn child capable of surviving removal from the womb is, by definition, an infant (not a potential infant or infant-to-be). Killing an infant before it is born is prenatal infanticide, period.
Needless to say, your ‘Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense’ does deserve a rave review.
“What percentage of Orthodox Jews or churchgoing Catholics or Protestants have a criminal record or abandon their children or beat their wives?”
You mean Orthodox Jewish or Catholic or Protestant men, in that sentence.
“I don’t know but my guess is that it’s well below the national average.”
Ah! Well that’s convincing. You don’t know but based on the very supposition you’re trying to argue for, you make a guess. Well done.
Sure, I concede the point about the internal cop. I’ve already said I don’t deny that. But there’s a lot more to it than that. I might whip up a little thought experiment to rival yours.
Thanks for dictionary remark! As good as a thousand Indulgences.
Sorry about the venial sin of unintended gender discrimination.
I’ll mention it at my next confession — shag, that probably means an extra three Hail Marys.
And I should have added:
What would Jesa Christa have done? Would she start faking orgasms once her husband lost his sexual attractions?
At least I don’t have to fear that some Christian wacko will knock me off my bicycle, shoot me and slit my throat for blasphemous remarks like these ….
Indeed you don’t. Which is exactly why I’ve been posting a lot about Theo van Gogh. If I really thought fundamentalist Christians were the exact equivalent of Islamists in every way, wouldn’t I have matched every one of those posts with one about a Christian fundamentalist, even if it took me all day to find one? I’ll answer for you: yes, I would. I didn’t. I don’t think that. Nevertheless I do think they have elements in common.
OK, re my ‘argument’ that religious people are less likely to end up in the nick than the non-religious.
It’s a common-sense, a priori assumption that people who fear they will burn in hell for stealing your heirlooms are less likely to do so than people who don’t. Perhaps it’s wrong, but the burden of proof would lie with anyone who made a counter-claim (i.e. that religious people are MORE likely to be felons). However, this is a comment box — and I can’t write a forking PhD on the subject on a Sunday afternoon.
But I’ll do some googling after evening prayers — of course, if I come up with counter-evidence, I won’t hide it. In fact, I quite enjoy finding that my prejudices are (very occasionally) incorrect and replacing them by postjudices. That’s why science (as opposed to religion) is such FUN — when people prove you are wrong, you know they are actually doing you a favour. Ditto, of course, when you prove yourself to be wrong.
And puh-leez would somebody prove that I am talking total garbage when I claim that society needs sexual liberation like a fish needs an oxygen mask. I just can’t wait to tell the next attractive chick I meet that she should follow the dictates of her conscience and drop her knickers straight away (it’s an old Private Eye cartoon, BTW)
God speed …
I agree about the stealing heirlooms thing (up to a point anyway – people can always come up with rationalizations etc). But that’s not the only kind of choice, issue, preference, etc. I can think of a great array of other kinds of choice where it would emphatically be the secular person I would choose, not the religious one. Advising a pregnant 13-year-old on what to do, for example. I will elaborate, but right now I have to do some rather demanding editorial work.
As for sexual liberation, it depends on how you’re defining it. But I emphatically do not think women (or girls) should be forced to bear children they don’t want to bear. Ever. I think that outcome is vastly worse than the alternative.
Wait – I don’t agree with that whole claim. I read it too hastily. You sneaked something past me there.
“It’s a common-sense, a priori assumption that people who fear they will burn in hell for stealing your heirlooms are less likely to do so than people who don’t. Perhaps it’s wrong, but the burden of proof would lie with anyone who made a counter-claim (i.e. that religious people are MORE likely to be felons).”
No it wouldn’t. Yes it’s a common-sense idea and may be right, no the burden of proof is not on people who don’t find that sufficient.
A small correction to something mentioned in passing by Cathal. The Morning-After pill is NOT the same as RU-486 (an abortion pill). The Morning-After pill (such as Plan-B or Prevens) is merely a double dose of progestin, the same hormone found in regular birth control pills, and it works by suppressing ovulation, NOT by expelling a fertilized egg. But because most people don’t grasp this rather basic fact, it is often difficult to get in many parts of the U.S. Chain drugstores like Walmart refuse to carry it, and many states require a doctor’s prescription in order to obtain it.
Sorry to go off about this, but it pisses me off no end when newspapers and TV pundits repeatedly get it wrong.
Thanks for the correction, Connie.
“‘As long as I’m ranting I’ll point out that secularists, at least secular leftists, don’t really have a problem with religiously prompted pronouncements on public policy.’
Oh yes I do. You’re making some pretty stupid generalizations yourself here.”
Of course it’s a generalization; as to whether it’s a stupid one, well, maybe so, maybe not. Many of the people who see the First Amendment as under attack when Catholic clergymen oppose abortion seem to have no problem when, say, a Catholic bishop’s conference supports unilateral disarmament. Similarly, a Baptist minister speaking out against abortion is a threat to all we hold dear, yet there is a group that styles itself something like the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights and I don’t see them excluded from pro-choice demonstrations–nor should they be.
“The two halves of that sentence contradict each other. Since ‘fundamentalist’ means more than one thing, it is perfectly possible to argue that Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are alike in some respects without being identical. That’s what I’m arguing. You’re right that it’s cheap: nobody gives me a dime for it. I don’t think it is false, I think it’s true. That’s why I’m saying it.”
I pointed out that Christian fundamentalism, at least in the U.S., seems to have somewhat different effects on the people around them than Islamic fundamentalism. I guess they have common characteristics in the same sense that double parking and murder are both against the law.
My comment about the social justice, or lack thereof, in fundamentalist activities was a direct response to the citation from Jonathan Derbyshire.
As a regular reader of B & W I’d be astonished to know that anyone involved with it has any use for Moslem extremism. I don’t think a fair reading of my comment could lead to the conclusion that I think it does.
Prenatal infanticide, eh – that’s a good one. In response I charge the foetus with breaking and entering, assault, GBH, trespass, and littering.”
That is a good one. The foetus is an invitee in most cases and can’t be charged with trespass.
I’ll second Cathal Copeland on Fashionable Nonsense and for that matter the rest of the site, which is always interesting.
“Of course it’s a generalization; as to whether it’s a stupid one, well, maybe so, maybe not.”
It’s wide of the mark with reference to B&W. We’ve said quite a lot about the desirability of keeping religion out of politics; we don’t think it’s just fine if it’s the right kind of politics.
“I pointed out that Christian fundamentalism, at least in the U.S., seems to have somewhat different effects on the people around them than Islamic fundamentalism.”
In some ways, yes, but in other ways no. Biblical literalism is not much different from Koranic literalism – although the Sharia is a great deal worse than, say, the 10 Commandments, so that’s good.
“As a regular reader of B & W I’d be astonished to know that anyone involved with it has any use for Moslem extremism. I don’t think a fair reading of my comment could lead to the conclusion that I think it does.”
Well, I was reacting to this –
“In the current world-historical situation, as a Jew I’m in a lot less danger from Baptists than I am from the Moslem extremists that the Western secular left seems able to embrace.”
I took the ‘secular left’ to be meant for B&W. If it doesn’t, why say that?
“The foetus is an invitee in most cases and can’t be charged with trespass.”
Most? Maybe, but in many it isn’t. And in any case, the foetus is also a foetus, therefore not subject to infanticide – because it’s not an infant. So I was meeting absurdity with absurdity.
“My comment about the social justice, or lack thereof, in fundamentalist activities was a direct response to the citation from Jonathan Derbyshire.”
I know. And I was explaining what I took him (and Ishtiaq Ahmed) to be talking about – public rhetoric as opposed to the actions of each church. Fundy public rhetoric doesn’t say much (well, anything, really) about the poor and exploited and underpaid and overworked – it’s too busy fretting about gays and family values.
Thanks for the always interesting thing.
“It’s a common-sense, a priori assumption that people who fear they will burn in hell for stealing your heirlooms are less likely to do so than people who don’t”.
The problem with “common-sense” is it is so often wrong. In the above case, it is very wrong because empirical observation of society shows that religious people appear no better living than seculists. As Rasputin reputedly beleived, what’s the point of god’s forgiveness if you don’t maximise on it. Prederasts are over represented in the clergy. I promise not to cite studies showing that atheists are under-represented in US jails, if you promise not to give another book for me to read.
“evolutionary psychology has clearly demonstrated that no civilised society can survive without adherence to these values”.
EP has clearly demonstrated no such thing, and the validity of EP itself has been called into question, on account of it often being a collection of Just So stories. Its one thing being a bit conservative, nothing wrong with that, its quite another to claim that conservative values are required for the continuation of civilised society, and further, to claim that this has been established and is a matter of fact.
Connie, RE: morning after pills – I was always under the impression that modern morning after pills achieved a substantial percentage of their contraceptive effect by preventing implantation or disrupting it, which under many perspectives makes them very early abortion agents.
“I pointed out that Christian fundamentalism, at least in the U.S., seems to have somewhat different effects on the people around them than Islamic fundamentalism. I guess they have common characteristics in the same sense that double parking and murder are both against the law.”
Perhaps more even than that. I guess they have common characteristics in the same sense that murdering abortion doctors and murdering film-makers are both against the law.
PM: The earliest versions of the morning-after pill had a slight risk of preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, but that risk was never “substantial”. The now-standard progestin-only emergency contraception pills (ECPs) work only by preventing ovulation or fertilization and have no effect on implantation.
Croxatto, Horatio (2003), “Mechanisms of Action of Emergency Contraception,” Steroids, 68, 1085-1098.
Marions, Lena (2002), “Emergency Contraception with Mifepristone and Levonorgestrel: Mechanisms of Action,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 100, 65-71.
But let’s be serious for a moment. The move to restrict or ban ECPs in the U.S. isn’t about protecting fertilized human ova. If that were the case, then Christian fundies and their ilk would also be trying to ban many other types of medication (e.g., certain common analgesics and antibiotics) that also interfere with implantation. They’d also be up in arms about fertility clinics, which routinely throw away frozen fertilized ova. Let’s face it: This is all about controlling other people’s sex lives. This is about making people “pay for their sins” (i.e., premarital sex) with unwanted pregnancies and social disgrace.
Besides, the obvious and inevitable result of banning ECPs will be an increase in the abortion rate…so shouldn’t the blue-nosed fundies welcome ECPs? Silly question.
“Let’s face it: This is all about controlling other people’s sex lives.”
Let’s face it just that little bit more – it’s about controlling women’s sex lives. That little bit is actually a huge bit – it’s the whole thing really. I think it’s not so much about making people pay for their sins (for one thing, it’s not as if abortions for married women are okie doke for opponents). I think what it’s really about is simply making sure that women never get to say No to bearing a child. I think that act itself, quite apart from its connection with sex, is profoundly threatening to some people (including of course some women). Threatening in pretty much exactly the same way that women walking around in the world without a man’s permission and without bags over their heads, is threatening to some people. Women just – have – to be controlled and kept in order and watched and confined. They just have to.
There’s definitely a patriarchal thing going on with that ban-the-pill movement here in the States. But I wouldn’t completely rule out Connie’s idea that “making those sinners pay” plays a big part in the bible-thumpers’ motivation. If the negative consequences of premarital sex were completely eliminated, would any but the most cowed and brainwashed believers follow those silly religious injunctions? And, as Connie rightly points out, banning the morning-after pill would actually increase the number of abortions. So this obviously isn’t about saving the unborn. It’s all about control–mostly of women, but also of men. The only reason the righteous faithful aren’t quite so zealous about banning condoms is that they can’t make the same bogus “it’s abortion!” argument–because even the dumbest cluck knows how a condom works.
Connie, that Croxatto paper makes it pretty clear that the evidence is hardly overwhelming:
“Some studies have found alterations in endometrial morphology or in the expression of certain progesterone-dependent molecules [21, 22 and 23]. Whether or not such changes have any impact on endometrial receptivity is open to question. Other workers have found either negligible alterations or none [19, 20, 24 and 25]; and in the case of LNG, full publications in refereed journals do not support the hypothesis that it alters endometrial receptivity or impedes implantation.”
Furthemore, it doesn’t seem like there was much evidence one way or the other until very recently, so I don’t think it is fair to criticising people for being unaware of 2002 research papers.
“But let’s be serious for a moment. The move to restrict or ban ECPs in the U.S. isn’t about protecting fertilized human ova. If that were the case, then Christian fundies and their ilk would also…be up in arms about fertility clinics, which routinely throw away frozen fertilized ova.”
You know I think I’ve heard a few of them moan about that actually.
Can’t say I’m familiar with the US debate myself, over here the question is normally framed in terms of ‘morning after pills freely available = lots of kids having sex too young’, no one seems too bothered by the mode of action, distinctions between preventing fertilisation and implantation are for fundamentalists, like you say.
OB: Yup. Women are clearly the main target of this campaign, although I’m sure the fundies also want to rein in male sexuality as well.
Karl: Thanks. Re banning condoms and pills: Japan, which isn’t notably fundamentalist, or even religious, refused to allow the sale of birth-control pills until just a few years ago. Even now they are difficult to obtain. And condoms there are not easily available, except in a couple of Condomania megastores in downtown Tokyo. Apparently the main method of birth control in Japan is abortion, about which the Japanese seem to have qualms whatsoever. I never could figure out the Japanese.
PM: Here in the U.S. I haven’t heard of any organized opposition to fertility clinics. Nor have I heard any outcry against other common medications that slightly increase the risk of preventing implantation. The fundies’ selective bias in this matter is interesting and revealing. Over here, we also hear that same “freely available pills = too many young kiddies gettin’ it on” argument. But every reputable study I’ve ever read or heard of indicates that the availability of contraception has practically no effect whatsoever on how many kiddies are gettin’ it on, or how early they get crackin’ on it. All that banning or restricting contraception does, really, is increase the number of teen pregnancies and abortions.
Just last night, as I was flipping through the TV news channels, I came across a Fox News show about…the morning-after pill! The anti-ECP spokesman kept insisting that the pill works by preventing implantation. The spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood didn’t even bother to address this issue and kept insisting that banning the pill is discriminatory to women. Honestly, why does the left have such incompetent spokespeople? When addressing a Fox News audience, you are not likely to gain any traction with that tactic. She should have insisted that the pill does NOT work by preventing implantation and that the anti-ECP man’s argument is erroneous. You don’t let your opponent slide on a crucial matter like that.
“why does the left have such incompetent spokespeople?”
Why indeed. I’m always asking that question. (Maybe Fox News carefully picks incompetent spokespeople for the left. That could be part of it.)
In answer to Jonathon’s post af Mark Schmitt’s question in OB’s post, there are perhaps two factors at work in why he sees no component of social justice.
First, confirmatory bias; one starts with the question as to whether there is real committment to the poor, et al. and goes looking and sees lots of public faith stuff that has no relation to social justice.
We should also note that there is a strong ethic against ‘displaying’ good works, and a great many Christians do individual actions and even commit all or part of their lives to service in doing good elsewhere. The magnitude of this is not trupeted by the doers, though it is quietly upheld for support by others vie personal and local church-levle networks.
Second, the idea of ‘social justice’ he has is different to that of many Christians. To a left activist it implies a need that systemic injustice is to be fought with overt political means. To a Christian it may mean for example that she sees a need for poor children to be educated, fed and watered, and here’s her $, her volunteer time and her fundraising.
Politically-aware churchmen pronouncing on social issues in the media seem to share the leftish idea of social justice that would be rejected by ‘fundamentalists’.
“why does the left have such incompetent spokespeople?…She should have insisted that the pill does NOT work by preventing implantation….You don’t let your opponent slide on a crucial matter like that”
Well many morning after pills say that preventing implantation may be one of the methods of preventing pregnancy in the associated leaflet. And it seems that it was only fairly recently that the scientific evidence allowed people to make a fair judgement on whether or not ECPs did prevent implantation. So I think you are being unfair to the spokespeople of the left here. Like I say, I wasn’t aware of the evidence that it mostly works by preventing fertilisation (not being a frequent reader of Obstetrics and Gynecology, although it is less important in the context of the UK debate) – it seems that the scientific evidence has been a long time coming…of course now that its here, it would be a good idea to disseminate that knowledge widely, particularly amongst those whose job it is to argue issues like these.
ChrisPer, yes but we’ve already stipulated several times now that we’re not talking about individual Christians but about the public rhetoric. I’m perfectly willing to believe that many Christian fundamentalists do charity work; the point about public rhetoric remains.
And you may be right about confirmatory bias. So, show us some fundamentalist public rhetoric that does fret about the poor and exploited. (And no, I don’t mean foetuses. Let me specify: actually born poor and exploited people.)
Nailed me there. I personally don’t give a hoot about the poor and oppressed, or public rhetoric of the ‘fundamentalists’. I will here assume that public rhetoric includes the stuff preached up front, what is quoted in the media, the writing of Christian columnists and maybe TV services preaching (never listened to one).
The public rhetoric I have heard most of is in churches, and it is focused on calling people to worship God, to be like Jesus, to forgive others, to pray for the sick, and ‘opening up to the holy spirit’. Public rhetoric also holds up as examples individuals who are giving big-time, often is the service of the poor in the third world.
I can remember one sermon in my 20 years of Church life focused on sex; it seemed to be calling on Christian married couples to abstain from ass-f*cking (to do a Wonkette). I am convinced I must have also heard several against ordaining openly active gays or women. (Not condemning them as people, but making an argument on the conflict with biblical values). Same church I might add saw two women ordained later.
I can however recall lots of media reporting on such matters (selects for controversy), lots of stereotyping in popular music, movies and plays; I think that such sources ‘distil’ the wowserism into the public mind, like predators concentrating mercuric contamination up the food chain.