Tag: Theocracy

  • Blitzkrieg

    CFI has background information on the Ohio bill saying public schools have to treat religious claims as valid in homework and on tests.

    This law is part of an escalating effort by dark money-funded Christian Nationalist organizations to impose their narrow interpretation of Christianity nationwide. The law, titled the Ohio Student Religious Liberties Act of 2019, includes a provision stating that “[a]ssignment grades and scores … shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student’s work.” It now moves to the Ohio Senate, and then to the desk of the Governor.

    The Act mirrors prefabricated legislation written and disseminated as part of Project Blitz, an active plot by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation to impose Christian Nationalism on Americans through a flurry of lawmaking in the states. A model “Preserving Religious Freedom in School Act” appears on page 122 of the most recent Project Blitz manual (available here). Similar laws have been proposed or enacted in Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Oklahoma.

    “This law represents a new low in the ongoing efforts of the religious right to force Christianity into our secular public school system,” said Nick Little, CFI’s Vice President and General Counsel. “Our schools should be about facts, not beliefs. Under this law, a high school teacher would be compelled to treat as correct student claims that the earth is 10,000 years old, or that evolution did not occur, provided that student held them as religious beliefs. Even in math class, a student could claim a biblical belief that the value of pi was 3, and could not be corrected. It’s completely contrary to the very notion of education.”

    By privileging religious beliefs over and above all other student-held beliefs, the law violates the neutrality towards religion that both the state and federal constitutions mandate. “If you want to teach your children that cavemen rode dinosaurs, or that all but two of each animal were killed in a global flood, then the place to do that is at home or in church,” continued Little. “But you can’t insist that your children be allowed to essentially invent their own answers to questions in science class. That’s not science, it’s educational anarchy.”

    But god, so there.

  • “What is the right punishment for blasphemy?”

    The Times of India reports:

    H Farook, 31, from Bilal Estate in South Ukkadam here, was hacked to death by a four-member gang, late Thursday night. He was a member of Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam (DVK), and an atheist. According to police, Farook was administering a WhatsApp group where he posted rationalistic views against his religion. He also posted rationalistic messages on his Facebook page which came in for criticism by members of the community.

    Meanwhile, Ansath, 30, a Muslim realtor, surrendered before the judicial magistrate court -V on Friday evening in connection with the murder.

    “Farook’s anti-Muslim sentiments had angered people. This may be a possible motive for murder,” said S Saravanan, DCP, Coimbatore.

    Yesterday BBC Asian Network tweeted this:

    It has since apologized, but how clueless (or worse) do you have to be to say that in the first place?

    BBC News reports:

    Pakistan says it has asked Facebook to help investigate “blasphemous content” posted on the social network by Pakistanis.

    Facebook has agreed to send a team to Pakistan to address reservations about content on the social media site, according to the interior ministry.

    Blasphemy is a highly sensitive and incendiary issue in Pakistan.

    “Blasphemy” shouldn’t even be a meaningful concept in a reasonable world. We obviously don’t live in such a world, but we have our hopes and dreams.

    Earlier this week Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif voiced his support for a wide-ranging crackdown on blasphemous content on social media.

    In a statement on his party’s official Twitter account, he described blasphemy as an “unpardonable offence”.

    Shame on him then. What theocratic zealots mean by “blasphemous content” is anything at all that questions supernaturalist claims. We should all be free to create and share that sort of content.

    Then on Thursday, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar reasserted Pakistan’s determination to tackle the issue, saying he would take “any steps necessary” to make sure Pakistan’s message got across.

    He said he had asked officials to liaise with the FBI in the US and with social media platforms on a daily basis.

    “Facebook and other service providers should share all information about the people behind this blasphemous content with us,” he is quoted as saying by the Dawn newspaper.

    There has been little official description of what blasphemous content has been found online so far, but in the past blasphemy accusations have ranged from depictions of the Prophet Muhammad to critiques and inappropriate references to the Koran.

    Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. The Koran presumes to tell everyone what to do, down to the smallest details of private life. Of course we get to talk back to the Koran. The Koran is not the boss of us.

  • Happy holidays

    The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture, Sid Miller, on Facebook yesterday:

    If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them. Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don’t say anything.

    That’s not nice. That’s not necessary. This is a big country; Texas is a big state; not everyone is religious and not everyone who is religious is Christian. If someone says a friendly “happy holidays” why get in a rage about it?

    But I guess he’s not that kind of guy. His most recent post:

    Good morning my friends. I hope your day is off to a great start. We are just a few days away from welcoming the birth of our savior. As we prepare for Christmas and the joy that accompanies it, I pray that you will thank God for the blessings that come with living in “one nation under God.” Merry Christmas and may God bless you, your family, our great state, and the United States of America.

    No. That’s just rude. Trying to force his god on everyone is just rude. “Happy holidays” is (deliberately) inclusive of everyone; “under God” very much is not.

    (Also – what’s with the guy riding a longhorn? Why’s he riding a longhorn to the pharmacy? Who does that?)

  • If members of the Kansas government feel the need for spiritual solace

    Rob Boston at Americans United reports on theocracy in Kansas.

    Suppose you have a job at a private company. Suppose some of your colleagues do a bible study thing in their lunch hour. You and your friends have a secular sandwich together and all’s well. (Unless the bible studiers are hogging the break room.)

    But then suppose it’s the boss who suggested the bible study, and the boss attends regularly. Hmm. Could the boss be using attendance as points toward promotions and raises? All’s not entirely well then.

    Now suppose it’s not a private company, but a government office. Major problem.

    A scenario like this is playing out in Kansas, a state that has been experimenting with a sort of de facto“faith-based” government under Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. Courtney Canfield, a business-filing specialist at the Secretary of State’s Office, says she was fired in 2013 because she declined to attend a Christian service that was heavily promoted by Assistant Secretary of State Eric Rucker.

    Canfield’s complaint alleges that the Secretary of State’s Office routinely invited employees to attend services conducted by Dave DePue, a minister who acts as a sort of “unofficial pastor” to Kansas lawmakers and officials, reported the Wichita Eagle.

    See, that’s not cool, even without the firing. That’s embarrassingly theocratic.

    “These invitations were distributed during normal business hours and included a ‘prayer guide’ to be utilized at that week’s service,” Canfield’s lawsuit reads. “Despite the repeated invitations, Plaintiff never attended such a service. While Plaintiff was a Methodist, she did not regularly attend church services or otherwise practice any particular religious beliefs in any way.”

    And you know what? That’s none of her boss’s business. Her boss has state power, therefore he has no business pushing anyone to attend “services” of any kind.

    All of this could have been avoided if officials in Kansas spent more time doing their jobs and less time worrying about the spiritual lives of their employees.

    A good first step would be to send that “unofficial” chaplain packing. The capital of Kansas is Topeka, and the city and its surrounding metropolitan area have a population of about 234,000. There appears to be no shortage of houses of worship there.

    If members of the Kansas government feel the need for spiritual solace, let them avail themselves of one of those.

    If they can’t stand to work for eight or nine hours without refreshing church services mixed in, they should get jobs in those houses of worship instead of the state government.

  • For all artists who have suffered at the hands of ignorance, violence and gagging

    At PEN South Africa, ZP Dala has written a gut-wrenching account of her persecution for the horrific crime of saying she admires the work of Salman Rushdie.

    The week beginning 15 March 2015 was supposed to have been the highlight of my literary career. I was due to launch my debut novel What About Meera in a prestigious function on Saturday, 21 March and preceding this I was the featured author at one of South Africa’s most sought after literary festivals, The Time of the Writer. The theme of the 2015 Festival was “Writing For Our Lives” and in the wake of the atrocious Charlie Hebdo tragedy as well as the gagging of Bangladeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen who was forced into exile after being attacked, the group of African writers that assembled for the festival felt a deep sense of poignancy to speak out for freedom of expression.

    That was before the new wave of machete-attacks on atheist writers in Bangladesh started. What an appalling year it’s been.

    I was invited to speak at a literary event on Tuesday, 17 March and in the spirit of openness my co-panelists and I spoke openly about a writer’s right to express. I was asked which writers I admired and I mentioned, amongst others, Sir Salman Rushdie, whose brilliant works far superseded the archaic fatwa that had been declared on him in the early eighties after writing The Satanic Verses.

    Immediately, as I mentioned Rushdie’s name, a large contingent of the audience stood up and walked out. I graciously ignored the walk-out and continued with my speech. I didn’t know then what sinister repercussions awaited me.

    What awaited her? The next morning, being forced off the road by a car with three men in it.

    …as I had no choice but to pull over, one man got out of the car and advanced towards my car. Within seconds, he viciously reached into my car (my window was open, it was sunny Durban after all) and hit me with brute force on my face with a brick, and holding a knife to my throat he growled “Rushdie bitch”. Had another car not pulled up nearby, I know he would have stabbed me.

    I suffered a severe concussion and a fractured cheekbone, and was hospitalised, but the injuries that were not so visible were the most malicious. In one day, my life changed. I was subjected to severe harassment by militant Islamists who were cowardly enough to never come out in the open, but began slandering my name and personal reputation in rampant anonymous emails to the media, and on social media.

    Because she said she admired Salman Rushdie.

    I experienced social media bullying, my email was hacked into, many friends “jumped ship” and the bookstores that were carrying my novel were threatened by militant groups to pull the books off the shelves. All in a day, I was ostracised and ridiculed by many in the Islamic community, although there were those who supported me and helped my frightened young children.

    The book launch was cancelled and my book sales suffered terribly. It seemed that the freedom of a writer still was under threat. Nothing much had changed. It was through the amazing support of PEN, the entire literary and journalistic community both in Africa and abroad, that I managed to keep my strength and fight to keep my books on the shelves. Rushdie, other fellow authors and PEN were my pillars of strength and encouraged me to forge forward and to heal my body and mind instead of retaliating with bitterness.

    I did what I could to be one of those people. I’m proud to consider ZP Dala a friend.

    Men turned up at her house to tell her husband to “silence his woman.”

    I was told by religious leaders to repent and recant my admiration of Rushdie’s writing and to publicly state my “Islamic leanings”. Being questioned about my religious beliefs was an infringement of my basic human right. But I held firm to my words and drew on the strengths of all the writers who reached out to me from all over the world.

    Being questioned about our religious beliefs is indeed an infringement of our basic human rights. Theocracy is an infringement of our basic human rights, and people who try to force others – yes, including their children – to submit to a religion and its laws are theocrats and rights-infringers. ZP Dala gets to choose her own beliefs, as we all do.

    Then there was the terrible hospitalization and captivity. PEN called for her immediate release and she was tossed out in the middle of the night. It took her a long time to recover.

    I suffered strong ostracisation within my own people, my novel was criticised even before it was read, my credibility as a writer was severely compromised and even my very sanity was questioned. I was invited to events only to be made the butt of jokes. I attended the book launch of a stalwart of the Muslim community, and I was ridiculed in a public speech as well as the grand old lady inscribing in my purchased copy of her travelogue “I can sell books without a brick”.

    I withdrew into seclusion, afraid of what people were saying, and even worse…what people could do. Again, PEN members, Rushdie and many other fellow writers reached out to me when I desperately emailed them, asking for guidance.

    I was one. I told her I’d be happy to publish anything she wanted to write on the subject, or to share anything she wrote for PEN or any other outlet. This is that. I’m glad she decided to write it for PEN – my place would have been a safer choice, and PEN is a more public choice. Now we all have to stand by her.

    It is now about five months since this awful experience. I have physical scars on my face, but the emotional upheaval caused me to question my place as a writer. I was offered asylum via various international embassies but I refused to run away, uproot my young family and to accept defeat.

    I am still fighting many demons. Now, I finally have found the courage to come out in public and have begun to speak widely and openly about my experience and the writer’s right to freedom of expression. I am not afraid of the bullies, the militants, the hooligans hiding behind skull caps, the doctors and their drugs or the people that point at me in the supermarket line. I also remain fighting for a debut novel that did not deserve the birth it was given.

    I will never forget what Rushdie said to me when he reached out to me after he heard of the assault and harassment. He told me my life as I know it will never be the same again. And he was right. Yes, I continue to write creatively and it sustains my soul. But now my passion lies in speaking out for all artists who have suffered at the hands of ignorance, violence and gagging. Perhaps that little spark that was born on the greens of Trinity College has ignited a worthy fire.

    Strength to you, ZP.

     

  • Supreme confusion

    The Supreme Court IS NOT the Supreme Being, says Mike Huckabee. No, it’s not, and neither is the supreme being.

    That is, the imagined tyrant in Mike Huckabee’s head does not exist and has no authority over us, no matter how ardently Mike Huckabee insists it does and it has.

    Mike Huckabee thinks he gets to treat his god as the boss of all of us, even those of us who pay enough attention to realize that Huckabee’s projected god is just a fantasy. Mike Huckabee is wrong. He may some day be able to do it by force, but he has no right to.

    Mike Huckabee doesn’t get to say that because his imaginary Big Bully hates same-sex marriage, the law should forbid same-sex marriage. Nobody elected Mike Huckabee’s Big Bully.

    If you can’t negotiate with it, it’s not a legitimate authority.

    Away with it, into the attic with the rest of the junk.

  • Vote for the theocrat!

    Quoth Mike Huckabee:

  • ACLU Sues Bishops on Behalf of Pregnant Woman Denied Care at Catholic Hospital

    The ACLU has a press release on its lawsuit against the bishops, so I can just publish the whole thing here for your enlightenment and discussion.

    ACLU Sues Bishops on Behalf of Pregnant Woman Denied Care at Catholic Hospital

    Suit Claims Religious Directives Put Women’s Health at Risk

    December 2, 2013

    CONTACT: 212-549-2666; media@aclu.org

    NEW YORK and DETROIT— The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman who miscarried and was denied appropriate medical treatment because the only hospital in her county is required to abide by religious directives. The directives, written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, prohibited that hospital from complying with the applicable standard of care in this case.

    Tamesha Means rushed to Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, when her water broke after only 18 weeks of pregnancy. Based on the bishops’ religious directives, the hospital sent her home twice even though Means was in excruciating pain; there was virtually no chance that her pregnancy could survive, and continuing the pregnancy posed significant risks to her health.

    Because of its Catholic affiliation and binding directives, the hospital told Means that there was nothing it could do and did not tell Means that terminating her pregnancy was an option and the safest course for her condition. When Means returned to the hospital a third time in extreme distress and with an infection, the hospital, once again prepared to send her home. While staff prepared her discharge paperwork, she began to deliver. Only then did the hospital begin tending to Means’ miscarriage.

    “They never offered me any options,” said Means. “They didn’t tell me what was happening to my body. Whatever was going on with me, they discussed it amongst themselves. I was just left to wonder, what’s going to happen to me?”

    Catholic-sponsored hospitals are required to adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk. They also direct health care providers not to inform patients about alternatives inconsistent with those directives, even when those alternatives are the best option for the patient’s health. The lawsuit charges that, because of the directives, the USCCB is ultimately responsible for the unnecessary trauma and harm that Means and other pregnant women in similar situations have experienced at Catholic-sponsored hospitals.

    “The best interests of the patient must always come first and this fundamental ethic is central to the medical profession,” said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan. “In this case, a young woman in a crisis situation was put at risk because religious directives were allowed to interfere with her medical care. Patients should not be forced to suffer because of a hospital’s religious affiliation.”

    Because she received neither the information nor the care appropriate for her condition, Means was unable to direct her course of treatment and suffered unnecessarily. Her story is not unique. Research, including that of Lori R. Freedman, PhD, and Debra B. Stulberg, MD, recounts other stories of patients being denied information and appropriate care at hospitals bound by the bishops’ directives.

    “A pregnant woman who goes to the hospital seeking medical care has the right to expect that the hospital’s first priority will be to provide her appropriate care,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “Medical decisions should not be hamstrung by religious directives.”

    Tamesha Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

  • Freedom is doing what you’re told

    Sometimes the stupid is too grating to bear. On October 25th the Air Force Academy made a decision to allow cadets taking their honor code to opt out of saying “so help me God” at the end of the oath. Well I should hope so – it’s a federal institution, so obviously it shouldn’t be requiring employees to swear an oath to a god. But two Texas Congressional Representatives want to put a stop to it – they want the federal government to force people to swear an oath to a god.

    Republicans Sam Johnson of Plano and Pete Olson of Sugar Land introduced a bill last week to require Congressional approval before any changes may be made to oaths to enlist in the Armed Forces.

    Their legislation comes on the heels of a decision by the Air Force Academy on Oct. 25 to allow cadets taking their honor code to opt out of saying “so help me God” at the end of the oath.

    Olson, a former Navy pilot, said military personnel who undergo stressful training to prepare for protecting the nation should be allowed to exercise their religious freedoms.

    That last item is the part that’s too stupid to bear. Allowing people to exercise their religious freedoms would be making the oath to god optional, not keeping it mandatory. The Air Force Academy decision was to allow people to opt out, not to forbid people. Opting out is freedom; not allowing opting out is not freedom.

    Jeezis. There should be a “can you think?” test before people can run for Congress.

    Johnson spent seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, during which time he said he found strength in God.

    “I can tell you from experience, there are no atheists in foxholes,” Johnson said in a statement. “Many people don’t know this but when you survive a near-death experience you realize that the only thing you had to hold on to was your faith in God.”

    And yet – notice that that has nothing to do with swearing an oath to god because told to by the Air Force Academy in the name of the US government. Nothing at all. It’s laughably easy to believe in a god who thinks oaths are a bit of petty human bossiness and an insult to god.

    According to Religion News Service, the Air Force changed the oath after the New Mexico-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained about the presence of religion in the military. The group says Christianity is given a higher pedestal at the Air Force Academy and has been critical of its use in official military practices.

    Other military academies do not use the word “God.”

    “It’s not only my experience, but that of my fellow POWs, veterans, and those currently in harm’s way that make ‘so help me God’ vital to the oath,” Johnson said.  “I urge my colleagues to join this effort to protect the legacy of freedom of religion.”

    Has he picked a fight with the army, the navy, and the marines, yet?

     

     

  • Baroness Warsi will defend

    The Telegraph rejoices at another paean to theocracy from “Baroness” Warsi.

    Baroness Warsi will defend the right of Christians, Muslims, Jews and others to publicly practise their faith insisting that “people who do God do good”.

    Her comments come in a speech in London marking the first anniversary of a landmark visit to the Vatican by a delegation of ministers in which she claimed that British society is under threat from the rising tide of “militant secularisation”.

    Lots of work done in two sentences.

    Warsi will “defend the right” – that’s not under attack. Nobody is taking away anyone’s right to publicly practice a religion, unless (of course) the “practice” is against a law or a set of local rules or the like. If someone’s religion requires her to scream under my windows at 3 in the morning, then I’m going to summon some cops to interfere with her right to practice in that way. If someone’s religion requires her to beat the crap out of her children then social services need to interfere with her right to practice in that way.

    “People who do God do good.” Not necessarily. Some do, some don’t. Some do harm. Some do appalling harm.

    How was Warsi’s junket to the Vatican a “landmark”? Who cares that it was exactly a year ago? Why is a delegation of government ministers visiting the Vatican – a religious institution, not a real state, despite its status as a pretend state courtesy of Signor Mussolini – at all? And what business does a government minister have attacking secularism? What business does a government minister have promoting or even demanding theocracy? Secularism doesn’t threaten the right to publicly practice a religion. It threatens only religious interference in or replacement of this-world government.

    Lady Warsi, who combines a ministerial role in the Foreign Office with being Britain’s first minister for faith, will say that she went to meet Pope Benedict last year “to tell the world that Britain does do God”.

    She will say: “There is one big reason why I made the case for faith that day … and why, I have made freedom of religion and belief a priority, and that’s that people who do God do good.”

    Why does Britain need a “minister for faith”? For that matter why does “faith” even need a minister for faith?

    Warsi is spectacularly clueless if she doesn’t realize that freedom of religion and belief depends on secularism.

    H/t Roger.

  • Part 3 of the Legion of Death’s “Directives”

    The instructions.

    Prenatal diagnosis is not permitted when undertaken with the intention of aborting an unborn child with a serious defect.

    No matter what the defect. No matter how unable the parents are to deal with an infant born to suffer and then die. No matter how much futile suffering is in store for the infant.

    Those evil bastards.

    52. Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices but should provide, for married couples and the medical staff who counsel them, instruction both about the Church’s teaching on responsible parenthood and in methods of natural family planning.

    53. Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.

    Then get out of the field.

    I’ll skip the rest for now, because it’s separate from the “when in doubt, refuse the woman treatment” issue.

    This situation is an absolute nightmare. Because of the free exercise clause of the Constitution, the US government is very leery of messing with churches, even with churches that are simultaneously running a huge chunk of the health care sector and refusing to provide certain kinds of care on dogmatic authoritarian reactionary religious grounds that should have no place in a health care system. That means that the US government allows churches to run health care systems but refuses (or at least neglects) to monitor them properly.

    Catholic bishops are in charge of a big fraction of the US health care system.

    That needs to change.

     

     

     

  • The ERD part 2

    The US Catholic bishops’ orders to Catholic health care providers.

    Page 20 still.

    28. Each person or the person’s surrogate should have access to medical and moral information and counseling so as to be able to form his or her conscience. The free and informed health care decision of the person or the person’s surrogate is to be followed so long as it does not contradict Catholic principles.

    Doesn’t that sound familiar. From the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:

    ARTICLE 16:
    Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical production and the right to protect the moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shari’ah.

    ARTICLE 22:
    (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

    (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah

    (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

    ARTICLE 24:
    All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

    ARTICLE 25:
    The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

    You can haz all the rights to all the things so long as it does not contradict Catholic principles/in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. You can haz all the rights to all the things we say you can have, and no others.

    Back to the bishops. Page 21.

    36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

    Fuck you, bishops.

    Page 22.

    37. An ethics committee or some alternate form of ethical consultation should be available to assist by advising on particular ethical situations, by offering educational opportunities, and by reviewing and recommending policies. To these ends, there should be appropriate standards for medical ethical consultation within a particular diocese that will respect the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility as well as assist members of ethics committees to be familiar with Catholic medical ethics and, in particular, these Directives.

    In other words, all ethics must be Catholic “ethics” – i.e. church dogma.

    Page 24.

    For legitimate reasons of responsible parenthood, married couples may limit the number of their children by natural means. The Church cannot approve contraceptive interventions that “either in anticipation of the marital act, or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, have the purpose, whether as an end or a means, to render procreation impossible.” Such interventions violate “the inseparable connection, willed by God . . . between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive and procreative meaning.”

    Absolutely none of your business. Butt out.

    Page 25.

    41. Homologous artificial fertilization (that is, any technique used to achieve conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage) is prohibited when it separates procreation from the marital act in its unitive significance (e.g., any technique used to achieve extracorporeal conception).

    Oh ffs. Get over yourselves. “Ew no conception in a petri dish, ew.”

    Page 26. Here we go.

    45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

    Then get out of the field. It’s legal. If you don’t want to do it, get out of the health care field. You shouldn’t be in it in the first place. We don’t need Catholic health care any more than we need Catholic accounting or agriculture or engineering or transportation. Your field is godbothering. Stick to that.

    Listen up, any of you planning to have bad miscarriages that fail to complete.

    47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

    48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

    49. For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.

    Look at that. Look at 48 – they’re saying just leave ectopic pregnancies alone, so that the tube will burst and the woman will probably die of an infection. And 49 is Savita’s death sentence.

    Fuck you all. Fuck you hideous evil monsters.

     

  • Start at the beginning

    Now. Let’s be thorough about this. I need to understand the Ethical and Religious Directives – commonly and folksily called ERD – and just exactly how they function, and why. I need to know if and how and why anyone relevant (like, hospital administrations, and medical practitioners) considers them binding. I also need to know what they say.

    So let’s take a look.

    Page 4.

    The Directives have been refined through an extensive process of consultation with bishops, theologians, sponsors, administrators, physicians, and other health care providers.

    That’s ridiculous, and dangerous. Bishops and theologians have nothing relevant to say.

    But of course the whole thing comes from bishops. The wretched thing is on the USCCB website. It’s theirs. It’s Orders From the Bishops. Bishops are telling medical professionals what to do, as medical professionals. This is a fucking outrage.

    Still page 4.

    …the Directives will be reviewed periodically by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (formerly the National Conference of Catholic Bishops), in the light of authoritative church teaching, in order to address new insights from theological and medical research or new requirements of public policy.

    Authoritative church teaching, theological and medical research – bad, bad, bad.

    Page 13.

    9. Employees of a Catholic health care institution must respect and uphold the religious mission of the institution and adhere to these Directives. They should maintain professional standards and promote the institution’s commitment to human dignity and the common good.

    What is the status of that? Is it a condition of employment? Can the bishops fire medical practitioners who fail to adhere to these Directives? Can they force hospitals to fire medical practitioners who fail to adhere to these Directives? That was at issue with the nun who agreed to the abortion at St Joseph’s hospital in Phoenix, certainly.

    Page 19 – it starts to get sinister.

    When the health care professional and the patient use institutional Catholic health care, they also accept its public commitment to the Church’s understanding of and witness to the dignity of the human person. The Church’s moral teaching on health care nurtures a truly interpersonal professional-patient relationship. This professional-patient relationship is never separated, then, from the Catholic identity of the health care institution. The faith that inspires Catholic health care guides medical decisions in ways that fully respect the dignity of the person and the relationship with the health care professional.

    That first sentence is very sinister. Some people – lots of people – are forced to “use institutional Catholic health care” because it’s all that’s available to them. Nobody should be forced to accept anyone’s commitment to any church’s understanding of anything as a condition of getting medical treatment. Nobody. Ever. Medical care should be secular.

    Page 19 still.

    24. In compliance with federal law, a Catholic health care institution will make available to patients information about their rights, under the laws of their state, to make an advance directive for their medical treatment. The institution, however, will not honor an advance directive that is contrary to Catholic teaching. If the advance directive conflicts with Catholic teaching, an explanation should be provided as to why the directive cannot be honored.

    Well fuck you.

    Page 20.

    26. The free and informed consent of the person or the person’s surrogate is required for medical treatments and procedures, except in an emergency situation when consent cannot be obtained and there is no indication that the patient would refuse consent to the treatment.

    Now they’re lying, because Catholic hospitals routinely don’t tell patients that they are not getting standard of care treatment for reasons of theology. They don’t require informed consent at all.

    That will be part one. To be continued.

     

  • Hospital administrators interfered

    More detail, from the full report by the National Women’s Law Center.

    the Study revealed four serious lapses in care resulting from religious restrictions:

    • Doctors performed medically unnecessary tests, resulting in delays in care and additional medical complications for patients. These tests were done solely to address hospital administrators’ concerns that the treatment complied with religious doctrine.
    • Doctors transferred patients with pregnancy complications because their hospitals’ religious affiliation prohibited them from promptly providing the medically-indicated standard of care.
    • Hospital administrators interfered with doctors’ ability to promptly provide patients with the standard of care.
    • Hospital administrators interfered with doctors’ ability to provide patients with relevant information about their treatment options.

    The religious administration of these hospitals is over-ruling the technical decision process of doctors, and endangering and sometimes killing women by doing so.

    Why, exactly, is this being allowed?

    One illustrative horror story:

    Yvonne Shelton, a nurse employed in the labor and delivery unit at a nonsectarian hospital in New Jersey, refused to assist in two cases of women experiencing serious pregnancy complications: an emergency hysterectomy of a woman who was eighteen weeks pregnant and experiencing a life threatening condition, and another patient, also with an pregnancy that was not viable, who needed to have labor induced in order to save her life.83 Based on her religious beliefs, Shelton refused to assist in any procedure that terminated fetal life. She considered such procedures to be unacceptable abortions, even though nothing could be done to save the pregnancies and the procedures were necessary to save the women’s lives.

    The hospital offered Shelton a transfer to another unit where she would avoid such conflicts, but she refused to make the change. After being fired, Shelton sued the hospital, claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of religion. The court ruled in favor of the hospital. It found that the hospital’s transfer solution had been a reasonable accommodation, and that its overriding responsibility was to protect a patient seeking emergency care.

    Note that. Shelton not only refused to assist, she refused to do a different job. She wanted to insist on staying in the very job she refused to do, so that she could prevent women from getting needed medical care. She wanted to make women like that die.

    With respect to Catholic-affiliated hospitals, they are governed by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which provide guidance on a range of reproductive health services including surgical sterilization, family planning, infertility treatment and abortion.

    They are “governed by” Catholic religious directives. Hospitals are governed by Catholic religious directives.

    Medical care is a technical subject. It’s not religious doctrine. Religious directives should play no role in the governance of any hospitals.

    We don’t let Catholic religious directives govern engineering firms, do we. No we don’t. We don’t want papal edicts deciding on the safety of airplanes or bridges or tall buildings. Why do we allow Catholic religious directives to govern hospitals? Is it because it’s only women who are killed by this disgusting policy?

    Most individuals and even many health providers presume that the Directives’ prohibition on the provision of a range of abortion services applies only to nonemergency pregnancy terminations of otherwise viable pregnancies. But the Study is consistent with anecdotal accounts that provide strong evidence that some hospitals and health care providers have interpreted the Directives to prohibit prompt, medically-indicated treatment of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, placing women’s lives and health at additional and unnecessary risk.10

    As did University Hospital Galway.

    Miscarriage, or pregnancy loss before twenty weeks gestation, occurs in ten to twenty percent of all diagnosed pregnancies.11 The standard of care depends on the condition which caused the miscarriage as well as the particular circumstances of the patient. One factor is whether the patient is stable, or unstable. An unstable patient is one who is “within reasonable medical certainty” likely to experience a “material deterioration” of her condition during a transfer to another hospital.12 Signs that a patient is unstable include heavy bleeding, severe pain, and a rising temperature — an indication of the onset of an infection.13 If it is determined that nothing can be done that would allow the woman to continue her pregnancy, the established standard of care for unstable patients who are miscarrying is an immediate surgical uterine evacuation.14 In the case of such a patient, immediate uterine evacuation reduces the patient’s risk of complications, including blood loss, hemorrhage, infection, and the loss of future fertility.15 A delay in treatment may subject a woman to unnecessary blood transfusions, risk of infection, hysterectomy or even death.16 (Emphasis added.)

    As happened at University Hospital Galway.

    I’m now wondering if anybody has any actual figures on this. It seems pretty clear that many of these deaths won’t be reported in the way Savita Halappanavar’s was – they won’t be reported as malpractice at the behest of religious doctrine. But perhaps some have been?

    At any rate – it’s a fucking outrage, it has to be stopped, attention has to be paid.

     

     

  • It’s not just Ireland

    I’ve been re-reading the National Women’s Law Center report on religious restrictions at hospitals that put women’s lives at risk, from January 2011. It’s about what happened to Savita Halappanavar last month and what happens to a significant (but unknown) number of women because of religious bullshit surrounding the termination of pregnancy. It’s about hospitals substituting religious bullshit for technical medical understanding and experience.

    The summary is Women’s Health and Lives at Risk Due to Religious Restrictions at Hospitals, New Center Study Shows.

    What it tells us.

    The Center’s report, Below the Radar: Ibis Study Shows that Health Care Providers’ Religious Refusals Can Endanger Pregnant Women’s Lives and Health, demonstrates that certain hospitals, because of their religious beliefs, deny emergency care, the standard of care and adequate information to make treatment decisions to patients experiencing miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. The study and report focused on cases where no medical intervention was possible that would allow the patient to continue her pregnancy and where delaying treatment would endanger the woman’s health or even life.

    Exactly what happened to Savita Halappanavar, you see. University Hospital Galway denied her the standard of care, because of religious obstruction. She died.

    “Most women assume that when they go to a hospital they will be offered the best medical treatment options for their diagnosis,” said NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger. “But this report paints a chilling picture of women with ectopic pregnancies or suffering miscarriages who are not offered the full spectrum of medically appropriate treatment options because they have gone to a hospital whose religious affiliation conflicts with the provision of those options.”

    And they won’t be told that, so they don’t report it. If they die, their relatives don’t report it.

    The reports highlight stark cases where doctors noted a discrepancy between the medically-accepted standard of care for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy and the treatment provided by hospitals due to their religious affiliation.  For example, while the standard of care for certain ectopic pregnancies requires patients to receive the medication methotrexate, doctors in the study reported that their hospitals forbade the use of the drug.

    A fetus can’t survive an ectopic pregnancy. Methotrexate dissolves the fetus. The godbotherers forbid it – they want the woman to keep on having the fetus stuck in her fallopian tube until the tube bursts.

    One doctor in the study reported several instances of potentially fatal tubal ruptures in patients with ectopic pregnancies at her Catholic-affiliated hospital.  She said that her hospital subjected patients with ectopic pregnancies to unnecessary delays in treatment, despite patients’ exhibiting serious symptoms indicating that a tubal rupture was possible.  These patients, therefore, were denied emergency care to which they were legally entitled.

    Which puts their lives at risk, as well as their future ability to reproduce.

    And here is the situation in that hospital in Galway. Emphasis added.

    In some of the miscarriage cases described in the Ibis Study, the standard of care also required immediate treatment. Yet doctors practicing at Catholic-affiliated hospitals were forced to delay treatment while performing medically unnecessary tests.  Even though these miscarriages were inevitable, and no medical treatment was available to save the fetus, some patients were transferred because doctors were required to wait until there was no longer a fetal heartbeat to provide the needed medical care. This delay subjected these patients to further risks of hemorrhage and infection and could have violated their right to receive emergency medical treatment under federal law.

    This isn’t priest-ridden Ireland we’re talking about, this is the US of A. This is priest-ridden healthcare in the US of A.

    Some doctors at religiously affiliated hospitals are speaking out. Dr. Robert B. Holder, an ob-gyn at Sierra Vista Regional Health Center, a Catholic–affiliated hospital in Sierra Vista, Arizona told the Center: “A couple came into the ER after the wife had miscarried one of her twins at home. When I determined that the remaining twin was in a hopeless situation, this couple faced a tragic, heart-wrenching decision. After helping them make the medically appropriate decision to complete the miscarriage, I contacted the hospital’s administration to seek permission to perform a uterine evacuation. I wasn’t granted permission and I was told to inform this already traumatized couple that their decision was seen as “unethical” per the Directives.

    “I was ashamed and angered when I transferred this patient by ambulance to a secular hospital in Tucson, 80 miles away to get proper care,” he added.  “This patient was successfully treated in the end, but ultimately she didn’t receive the treatment she was entitled to in her local community hospital.”

    That’s disgusting. It’s all disgusting.

  • The bishops prattle of humility

    The US Catholic bishops are chastened by their failure to impose their religious views on the electorate last week, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan lectured them yesterday on what to do about it.

    To think harder and realize that they should pay more attention to human well-being as opposed to pretended goddy mandates?

    Don’t be silly.

    After sweeping setbacks to the hierarchy’s agenda on Election Day, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan on Monday (Nov. 12) told U.S. Catholic bishops that they must now examine their own failings, confess their sins and reform themselves if they hope to impact the wider culture.

    “That’s the way we become channels of a truly effective transformation of the world, through our own witness of a repentant heart,” Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the 250 bishops gathered here for their annual meeting.

    Repentant for being bossy authoritarian theocratic bullies who abuse the illegitimate power of the pulpit to try to force people to do things that are not good for them?

    Don’t be silly.

    On Monday, various speakers reiterated that they were not about to change their beliefs or policy positions, but they indicated they have to rethink their strategy. Dolan’s approach in his presidential address was to repeatedly stress the theme of humility and the need for bishops to go to confession to renew themselves spiritually so that they can then preach their message more effectively.

    They need to pretend to be more humble so that they can force people to do what they pretend God commands. There’s nothing humble about that.

  • Mandatory bullying in the schools

    Sometimes the ugliness is just suffocating, and also hard to believe.

    Take a good idea…

    On Mix It Up at Lunch Day, schoolchildren around the country are encouraged to hang out with someone they normally might not speak to.

    The program, started 11 years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center and now in more than 2,500 schools, was intended as a way to break up cliques and prevent bullying.

    And it would also teach children some useful things – such as, that you don’t have to eat lunch with the same people every single day; that it can be interesting and fun to get to know different people; that it can be a nuisance to have to spend time around people you don’t like but that it’s going to happen anyway and you might as well get used to it and practice being civil about it.

    But nooooooooooooooo – the theocrats don’t think so.

    But this year, the American Family Association, a conservative evangelical group, has called the project “a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools” and is urging parents to keep their children home from school on Oct. 30, the day most of the schools plan to participate this year.

    What the fuck?

    Why, because everybody outside your own tight little clique is (because outside your own tight little clique) one of them there HoMoSeckShuals? And eating lunch with them is “promoting” their “lifestyle”?

    Ugly ugly ugly.

    “I was surprised that they completely lied about what Mix It Up Day is,” said Maureen Costello, the director of the center’s Teaching Tolerance project, which organizes the program. “It was a cynical, fear-mongering tactic.”

    A tactic for the sake of what? What does not sitting with different people at lunch get them? What is that I don’t even.

    Well it’s because the SPLC recently added the AFA to its list of hate groups. (Gee, I wonder why.)

    “The reality is we are not a hate group. We are a truth group,” said Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the association. “We tell the truth about homosexual behavior.”

    Although the suggested activities for Mix It Up at Lunch Day do not expressly address gay and lesbian students, the law center itself promotes equal treatment for gays and lesbians and that philosophy then informs the school program, he said.

    “Anti-bullying legislation is exactly the same,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda. No one is in favor of anyone getting bullied for any reason, but these anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students who believe that homosexual behavior is not something that should be normalized.”

    Who believe that? Or who inflict that (baseless, nasty, hatey) belief on students they take to be HoMoSeckShuals. If the students are telling other students that they should not be normalized, then they’re bullying.

    Parents who are on the American Family Association e-mail list were encouraged to keep their children home on that day and to call school administrators to tell them why.

    Horrible, harm-doing, malevolent people. Bullying for Jeezis.

  • Xianityophobia

    Right right right, I’m an “Islamophobe,” and criticizing Islam is punching down because Muslims are a despised group. (The second part is true, but the first part doesn’t follow. Punching Muslims is punching down, but punching Islam isn’t, because Islam itself is what punches down. Islam has huge, illegitmate power in many many parts of the globe. Punching Islam does not equal punching Muslims. Yes one can be a stalking horse for the other, but that doesn’t make them identical.) So allow me to be a Christianityophobe for a few minutes. Not that I wouldn’t be anyway, but I feel like pointing it out.

    Russia. Russia seems to be getting more and more priest-ridden and believer-whipped. This time it’s believers shouting about a production of Jesus Christ Superstar, and getting it shut down.

    A theatre in the south Russian city of Rostov has dropped a production of Jesus Christ Superstar after protests by Orthodox Christians.

    A Russian company was due to stage the Andrew Lloyd Webber rock opera at the Rostov Philharmonic next month.

    Protesters had complained the opera projected the “wrong” image of Christ.

    News of the cancellation baffled members of the cast and caused indignation among commentators wary of Church interference in public life.

    Exactly. Church interference in public life. This is why I’m phobic about theocratic religions – because they interfere.

    Local Russian Orthodox protesters lodged their complaint with prosecutors in Rostov-on-Don, a city of one million, and also wrote a letter to the management of the Philharmonic, according to the Rostov Times newspaper.

    Citing a “new law protecting the rights of believers”, they described the musical as a “profanation” and said any such production should be submitted to the Russian Orthodox Church for approval.

    It is unclear to which law the protesters were referring. The lower house of the Russian parliament, the State Duma, is currently considering a bill which would make it a crime to offend the “religious feelings of citizens”.

    They want everything submitted to the relevant theocrats for approval. That’s what they all want, and that’s why we have to push back.

  • ACLU v theocracy

    The ACLU says no your religion does not mean that you get to harm people. It has to say that, because people who run Catholic schools want to harm people because religion.

    Emily Herx, a former Language Arts and Literature teacher at St. Vincent de Paul, a Catholic School in Indiana, was fired after she requested time off to receive in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.  She is suing the school for sex and disability discrimination in federal court, and today we filed a friend-of-the court brief to support her legal arguments.  A few states over, Jane Doe (a pseudonym), an employee at a Catholic school in Missouri, was fired for becoming pregnant outside of wedlock.  Today the ACLU of Kansas & Western Missouri filed a complaint on Jane’s behalf with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sex discrimination.  

    But sex discrimination is practically the whole point of God. Women are always trying to do things and you need God to tell them they’re different and special and complementary so they’re not allowed to. The ACLU is messing with serious stuff here.

    St. Vincent’s pastor told Emily she was a “grave, immoral sinner” and it would cause a “scandal” if others learned that she used IVF treatment.  The president of Jane’s school told her that he was worried about others people’s perceptions about her pregnancy…It would be illegal for almost any employer to fire an employee who is (or is trying to become) pregnant.  But in these cases, the schools are arguing that they are entitled to discriminate because they are a religiously affiliated school.  That is flat out wrong.  When it comes to employees like Emily and Jane, who have absolutely no religious duties or responsibilities, it is always illegal for religiously affiliated employers to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, national origin, or disability.  Because only women can become pregnant, these schools discriminated against Emily and Jane on the basis of their sex.

    God said they could. God said they have to.

    We’ve said it before and we’ll keep saying it—religious freedom does not come with a license to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, national origin, or disability.  Period.  The First Amendment protects our right to believe whatever we want and to act on those beliefs, unless those actions harm others. We live in a diverse society and the freedom to believe what you want comes with the responsibility to respect other people’s rights and beliefs, as well.  Just as restaurant owners in the 1960s were required to serve African-Americans despite their religious opposition to racial integration, and religious schools were required to pay male and female teachers equally, even though they believed the Bible considers men the head of the household, schools like St. Vincent cannot fire Emily and Jane because of their pregnancies, even if they believe IVF treatment or pregnancy outside of wedlock are sins.

    It can if we live in a theocracy! And the theocrats are working on it.

     

  • If women have choices

    What do you do when women attain not only equality but, in some areas, numerical superiority?

    Well if those areas are things like doing most of the domestic work, or low pay, or getting hassled in the street, you do nothing. But when those areas are desirable things like university education?

    You slam the door on them, so that they won’t have any numerical superiority any more. You make sure there won’t be more women than men graduating from universities by not letting so god damn many women in in the first place.

    In Iran,

    36 universities have announced that 77 BA and BSc courses in the coming academic year will be “single gender” and effectively exclusive to men.

    It follows years in which Iranian women students have outperformed men, a trend at odds with the traditional male-dominated outlook of the country’s religious leaders. Women outnumbered men by three to two in passing this year’s university entrance exam.

    Senior clerics in Iran’s theocratic regime have become concerned about the social side-effects of rising educational standards among women, including declining birth and marriage rates.

    Yes, that is a worry. Always. If women have choices about what to do with their lives, many of them will not get married very young, many of them will not start having children very young, many of them will have one or two children instead of five or ten. Some will not get married at all, some will not have children at all. That’s how it is when people have choices – many of them will decide for themselves what kinds of lives they want to have. (Many, not all. Some will do the expected thing, or submit to pressure, or make mistakes that commit them to lives they never actually chose to have.)

    Theocrats, naturally, think that’s an outrage. They think god wants people to have the kinds of lives that god thinks they should have, and they also think they know that, and they also think they know that what god wants should be binding on humans.

    So they move to stunt and truncate the lives of women, and to take choices away from them, so that they will revert to marrying young and having children young and often, because of their lack of choices.

    Under the new policy, women undergraduates will be excluded from a broad range of studies in some of the country’s leading institutions, including English literature, English translation, hotel management, archaeology, nuclear physics, computer science, electrical engineering, industrial engineering and business management.

    The Oil Industry University, which has several campuses across the country, says it will no longer accept female students at all, citing a lack of employer demand. Isfahan University provided a similar rationale for excluding women from its mining engineering degree, claiming 98% of female graduates ended up jobless.

    Shirin Ebadi has written to Ban Ki Moon and to Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights.

    Ebadi, a human rights lawyer exiled in the UK, said the real agenda was to reduce the proportion of female students to below 50% – from around 65% at present – thereby weakening the Iranian feminist movement in its campaign against discriminatory Islamic laws.

    “[It] is part of the recent policy of the Islamic Republic, which tries to return women to the private domain inside the home as it cannot tolerate their passionate presence in the public arena,” says the letter, which was also sent to Ahmad Shaheed, the UN’s special rapporteur for human rights in Iran. “The aim is that women will give up their opposition and demands for their own rights.”

    However, the science and higher education minister, Kamran Daneshjoo, dismissed the controversy, saying that 90% of degrees remain open to both sexes and that single-gender courses were needed to create “balance”.

    Because if women ever have more of a good thing than men do, that’s “imbalance.” This principle does not hold true in the other direction.