And God said, “Let there be Plan B”

Maybe I’m not authorized to speak to this issue because I’m all of an apatheist, a nominal Jew and a childfree woman. But as much as I can see the religious argument against preventing God from making babies using secular means, I have a very hard time sympathizing with opponents of contraception in principle, especially when you consider that contraceptives are (usually) a great way to avoid considering abortion. I’d hate to think how those people would react to what I’d rather get.

The new debate over reproductive issues has, thankfully, very little to do with any new seepage out of the mouth of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). (Seriously, asshole?) It has everything to do with the Obama administration’s push for a rule that would require religious organizations to cover contraception in female employees’ insurance packages. Proponents focus on the rights of the female employees. Opponents focus on the rights of the religious organizations.

There’s really not much room for compromise on this one. I myself am of two minds about it. On the one hand, anyone who works for a religious organization should know exactly what to expect of company policy when it comes to matters of the physical, especially when those matters have become politically sexy in the past couple of decades. On the other hand, at what point do we stop giving concessions in the name of religion? (That means all religions, not just Catholicism. Think about that.) There’s a reason for singular secular laws and not a patchwork of religious ones.

My rule of thumb is to stop the concessions whenever it would cause direct harm to the person in question. If an employee simply does not want to get pregnant, well, we know where the Catholic Church stands on that one. But if she got pregnant from rape, or had a reproductive ailment that would cause childbirth to injure or kill her, I would not accept the organization’s refusal to help her pay for emergency contraception the way they would if she needed to buy penicillin.

That could be the acceptable middle ground sought by the Obama administration as they attempt to limit the political fallout. Thankfully, those who are employed shouldn’t have much trouble affording contraceptives out of pocket: $292 max for a diaphragm, including the exam; $40 for a large box of condoms; and I personally don’t believe in the Pill, which screws with your hormones. We might find that this is only an issue on paper.

Unless, of course, the rape/life-threatening exemption is not included and life ends up begetting death. But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself.

This case doesn’t rate any hosannas

I don’t play this card often, but I must say I find it amusing when a controversy erupts over Muslims trying to circumvent secular law in the name of their religion, and nary a peep is heard when America’s more abundant religions do the same thing. Supreme Court case in point: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Commission, which ended in a victory for the church and school. Due to the First Amendment allowing freedom of religion, “religious workers” can no longer sue their employers for discrimination.

Here’s a snippet from the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts:

The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.

And if the reason for the discriminatory practice had absolutely nothing to do with the theology itself? Restricting this exemption to explicitly religious reasons would have been enough to make the ruling far more reasonable. Yet, as the ruling said, that would miss the point of the “ministerial exemption”; the organization alone has the decision over what relates to its theology. (Odd. I thought religious texts did.) By this logic, should we then give these same organizations and their adherents immunity from religiously justified activities considered criminal by secular law? No word on that.

If this ruling must stand, it’s important to narrow down which employees would be affected. In Hosanna-Tabor, the teacher was considered a “minister” although she performed myriad “secular” duties. I say, if you’re being paid to do any amount of religious work, you’re in. She claims the school stiffed her out of a continuation of employment she would have received after being treated for a disability. After complaining, she was threatened with dismissal. Unfair? Absolutely. Legal? Apparently. Did she do anything to impact the school’s religious teachings? She went to court, which Lutherans don’t do. Did the kids and churchgoers notice? If they hadn’t before, I bet they have now.

Can anyone currently working in the legal profession attest to my understanding that one of the goals of law is to decrease the opportunity for abuse and waste? As much as I doubt that we’ll see a rash of cases like this now that the ruling has come down, the arguments for keeping the ministerial exemption within certain limitations are stronger than the ones against it. Secular law is there for a reason: to level the playing field. And this one is drastically uneven.

The goy who cried wolf

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), who is a Catholic. Normally I wouldn’t bother mentioning the religion of an elected official, but it’s important to note this from the get-go because he has the chutzpah to tell Jews how to think. (Yes, I will be using a lot of Jewish slang in today’s column.) I believe the last person I saw do this was Norman Podhoretz, in his book Why Are Jews Liberal?, and it was only marginally less audacious.

Walsh’s editorial is about how President Obama is not pro-Israel. You know how I keep talking about my mom’s opinion? She and Walsh would agree that Obama’s recommendation of the 1967 borders as a starting point indicates an abiding belief against Israel. Which is, of course, dreck. Obama could never afford to be so malevolent, and on what basis could we accuse him of wanting to be?

But here’s the really meshuga part:

So, where is the outrage from the American Jewish community? Don’t they understand that the president is not pro-Israel? Aren’t they troubled by his history of pro-Palestinian writings, speeches, and actions? The short answer is that most American Jews are liberal, and most American liberals side with the Palestinians and vague notions of “peace” instead of with Israel’s wellbeing and security. . . . too many American Jews aren’t as pro-Israel as they should be . . .

 

First of all, Obama is only “pro-Palestinian” as far as supporting an independent Palestinian state, which most Jews support on the ground that Israelis and Palestinians could never peacefully co-exist in the same country. Second of all, how much of Walsh’s statement is an attempt to shift Jewish support to Republicans? Even if his true intent isn’t quite so cynical, it is not his place to tell other people which opinions to have.

 

I won’t even get into Walsh’s notion that America should side with Israel and, in effect, ignore any Palestinian interests. (As if that would be good for Israel! Think of who Hamas’s friends are!) The point is that if he wants Jewish voters to take him seriously, he needs to stop kibitzing to us and think for a minute. Our own identity politics are useless enough, but someone else pushing for them makes me want to plotz.

God is in the details, but so what?

Can I just say that the time between legislative sessions is the most boring time ever? You need to hope against all hope that the White House and the Supreme Court will do enough interesting stuff to fill up a daily column, and Congress tends to provide the most fascinating news. Expect executive orders such as this to take up much of TFA’s attention until mid-January.

This order makes some fairly simple changes to current rules regarding ”federally funded partnerships between the government and religious-based and neighborhood organizations.” A watchdog group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, likes some of the changes, is disappointed with others and recommends a few more. Here’s a recommendation from me: Realize that the constitutional ban on establishing a state religion does not prevent the government from giving religious groups money. Some of them are harmless.

Which brings me to one of the first changes, as proposed by a presidential advisory council on the subject: The government cannot give out funding to groups on the basis of politics, or appear as if they are. This would have been more of a problem in the Bush administration. But it’s a good idea, although the appearance issue might be too open to interpretation to stand.

Americans United would have liked the council to address religious discrimination in hiring. Under the current system, they say, qualified applicants for a job at a faith-based organization can be rejected because they are not of the same religion. As I see it, any such organization should feel free to hire an otherwise qualified applicant, regardless of religion, provided the job in question is purely operational and has nothing to do with religious messaging. If an accounting job was available at a Jewish charity, should Adam be prevented from it? Of course not.

Finally, Americans United does not want any funding “to go directly to houses of worship and permit publicly funded faith-based charities to display religious art, icons, scriptures and other symbols.” I agree, but for fiscal reasons. It’s permissible for federal funding to aid a charity proven to be beneficial and trustworthy. However, it should not be used for displays, which I would consider an advertising expense. Aid to charities should be purely operational.

Americans United has a number of legitimate criticisms with the order, but I would hope they can accept one central truth: If they do what they do ethically and respectfully, a charity is a charity.

Fighting fire with actual fire

The pastor of an explicitly anti-Muslim church in Florida wants to burn a pile of Korans on 9/11. Do we really need to get into all the reasons this is one of the worst ideas ever conceived? I would have given this guy Fail of the Week if not for the overwhelming obviousness and the fact that another fail is in the pipeline as we speak.

According to Rev. Terry Jones of the Pentecostal Dove World Outreach Center (World Outreach? HA!), there are two reasons why this event should take place: 1. It will “send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behavior.” 2. The Constitution says he can, despite the Gainesville Fire Department refusing to give him a burn notice. The approximately 50 people who support him have been mailing Korans over, presumably hoping to roast marshmallows over them later.

I could argue on the terms of reasonable people: This is offensive, this is unnecessary, this could have a negative impact on the welfare of Taliban-fighting troops and stir up even more anti-American sentiment among existing radical Muslims. But Jones has heard and seen all of that, as well as a few death threats, which is why he now carries a .40 on his hip. Therefore, the only recourse is to argue with him on his terms.

(clears throat) Burning a pile of Korans tells the radical Muslims of the world that they instill fear in you, and this knowledge will give them further impetus to want to destroy you. You would exhibit more resolve by simply continuing to believe in your own God and opening yourself up to interfaith dialogue, which may confuse the plans of perceived religious enemies. . . . There, that’s pretty much it.

But if that and an admonishment from Gen. David Petraeus aren’t enough to sway this guy, the only thing that might be is a religious admonishment, for which I recommend a Holy Grail-style God act using a megaphone and many flashlights. That may seem ridiculous, but I get the feeling that someone like Jones would fall for it. (I try not to generalize any religion, but I have found Pentecostalism to give me the most blue screens of death at any given time.)

As for his Constitutional argument, yes, Jones does have the right to burn any book he wants. I also have the right to make a trip to Gainesville and pour water on the pile, then hurl obscenities at everyone in attendance. But that would be a major hassle, and I’m broke.

There is absolutely no room for compromise or complacence on this issue. Perhaps nobody can stop Jones, but he can be told that, in a country that really does welcome all religions, his actions are inexcusable.

Little mosque and the city

For those who are unaware, there is a Canadian sitcom known as Little Mosque on the Prairie, which is where the title of today’s column comes from. As with almost all other Canadian entertainment, it’s not that good.

I can’t say I’m entirely surprised that there has been a highly negative reaction to a mosque being planned for construction two blocks away from Ground Zero. It’s easy to become biased against all members of a perpetrator’s race or religion or any other bona fide characteristic, especially when you haven’t had much experience with other members of it. For the National Republican Trust PAC, it’s easier than most, according to their rejected TV ad:

On Sept. 11, they declared war against us. And to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans, they want to build a monstrous 13-story mosque at Ground Zero.

Sheesh. Where to begin? 1. “They” are al-Qaeda. There is no indication that al-Qaeda has anything to do with this mosque, and I doubt they’d be that stupid. 2. How is it a “celebration” of a horrific terrorist attack to practice a religion that the terrorists happened to share? You’d say the same if it were a church and the country was up in arms over the religiously-motivated deaths of 3,000 abortion providers. 3. It’s two blocks away. It’s not far, but it’s not that close, either. Considering the real estate market in Manhattan, perhaps this is the best they could do. Just saying.

Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) had to stick her nose into it, which may be why so many Americans have started to pay attention. Her tweet: ”Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing.” At least she acknowledges the existence of peace-seeking Muslims. Nonetheless, she is playing on what may be a reflexive reaction to similar efforts using the grief of the families of 9/11 victims. This is less than reasonable.

I would never be so vindictive as to say anything along the lines of ”Shut up and get over it.” However, should any of the aforementioned families feel the way that Palin describes, I would urge you not to let your grief get in the way of the basic principle of fairness. Muslims in New York have just as much right to their own religious and recreational space as anyone else. They should not be shunned in this way because of the wrongdoings of their worst specimens.

Should Mayor Michael Bloomberg look into the group’s funding, as gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio (R-NY) wants? Yes, just to calm people down.

The separation of church and everything else

“[V]itriolic anti-gay protestors who picket the funerals of US soldiers” are at the centre of the current Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps. Yes, that Phelps, the Grand Poobah of Vitriolic Anti-Gay Protesters Who Picket the Funerals of U.S. Soldiers. AFP writes about them as if they exist in more than one manifestation than the Westboro Baptist Church. (If they do, please send me that other manifestation’s address so I might send them all copies of Brokeback Mountain.)

This road to the Supreme Court goes basically like this: 1. A Marine named Matthew Snyder is killed in Iraq. 2. The Westboro Craptist Church puts on their act, which needs no description (and if it does, where the hell have you been?) 1,000 feet away from the funeral. 3. Snyder’s father, Albert, sues the church for intrusion and emotional distress. 4. He wins five million dollars. 5. An appeals court overturns the verdict for constitutional reasons.

Let’s get one thing clear. Anyone who willingly participates in a WBC event or supports what they do is an illogical, soulless, completely hateworthy scumbag. Normally I don’t like it when newspapers editorialize on the front page, but when one of our dailies posted “LOWLIFES ARRIVE” as a headline when they came to Winnipeg, I could have kissed whoever came up with that. Sadly, though, the appeals court may have a point.

Unless the Supreme Court rules that a certain amount of space surrounding a funeral procession at any given time can be considered, temporarily, private property, the Westboro Craptists may continue to get their way, legally speaking. But as we Winnipeggers have demonstrated, citizens with all their marbles are capable of stopping them on their own – even when they manage to slip past our border patrol.

When they decided to come here following a highly publicized murder of Tim McLean, a young carnival employee, we knew almost right away. It made headlines up until the day of the funeral, on which a significant number of people formed a human wall around the funeral home. According to a friend who was there, those people were carrying broken brooms, hockey sticks, and who knows what else. (My friend claimed to have his nunchucks with him, but I’m not so sure about that one.) But the Craptists never showed up. It was disappointing.

Luckily for the entire continent, their picket schedule is available for anyone to see, so you can repeat our strategy and get them out of your town before they can lift a sign.

This is what a faith-based initiative looks like

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre), generally considered one of Parliament’s biggest loudmouths and, by my dad, an “idiot.” Martin appears very upset with the idea of spending federal money on a centre for disadvantaged youth that has been expected to receive funding from both the municipal and federal levels of government, assuming the city ponies up its share, which it will vote on later. His problem with the centre is that it will be run by Youth For Christ.

YFC Canada states that it “exists to impact every young person in Canada with the person, work and teachings of Jesus Christ and discipling them into the Church.” That does smack of the “fundamentalism” that Martin is afraid of, but it’s hardly as if they’re clubbing anyone over the head and dragging them into their facilities. And I hate to say it, but based on the odds, it’s unlikely that any of the teens who would use this centre are Jewish or Hindu.

There are legitimate concerns with the project, mostly regarding government discussion and funding. Several city councillors have complained that there should have been a bidding process for the land where the YFC centre would sit. I agree. They also claim they haven’t been given enough information. That ought to be rectified if they are demonstrably unaware of everything the project entails. Martin has brought those up as well, but he has been most vocal about the religious aspect.

This is where the building would go. See that building shaped like a bird? That’s Thunderbird House, a “gathering place” where Aboriginal religious activities have been known to take place, including sweat lodges, medicine wheel ceremonies, and consultation with elders. It has also received significant funding from the city. My expectation is that it gives less non-religious help to young people than the YFC centre would, as the latter is expected to include a job training centre and athletic space.

The staff at YFC may attempt to convert its young visitors, but that doesn’t mean their words will take. They will use the services they want and no more. Martin obviously doesn’t have as much trust in their stubbornness as the rest of us.

Something worth being skeptical about

Something my mother always taught me – and that your mother probably taught you once – is that it’s in poor taste to discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. Of course, my family discusses the latter all the time, after I bring it up out of boredom. But as for the former, it might be best for all of us if religious discussion stayed at the dinner table (and in the church, obvs), instead of out in the open. Because that’s when things get tasteless.

In the latest example of how defenders of political correctness can turn people against it, the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, WI, is pursuing a court order that will stop “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance from being engraved in D.C.’s Capitol Visitor Center. In their view, these engravings would be “an unconstitutional endorsement of religion,” therefore taxpayers should not be made to shell out the $100,000 to have them made.

Perhaps they should be posthumously suing President Eisenhower for approving to make “In God We Trust” the official U.S. motto. And while they’re at it, they can sue Louis A. Bowman for having the idea to add “under God” to the Pledge. The fault – or credit, depending on how you look at it – should go to those two. Modern U.S. governments are bound by decades of history not to remove references to God in official documents or statements such as the Pledge. For them to change the game now would be politically disastrous at best, unless skeptics become the majority.

But it must be said that the main reason these words are appearing in the Visitor Center is the influence of this group’s equal and opposite reaction: “The resolution came in response to critics who complained Congress spent $621 million on the . . . center without paying respect to the nation’s religious heritage.” Am I the only one who finds that just as dubious as the atheists’ group’s talking points? It would be a bit silly to create a visitor center in the nation’s capital without the motto and the Pledge, but the aforementioned “critics” are basing their argument on purely religious grounds. Did they think before that Congress was endorsing atheism by leaving them out?

I am an agnostic myself, but I have given up on feeling annoyed by the systematic assumption that I am a Christian, or a believer in general. If you’re secure in your belief that the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, or your belief that they were not, who cares if anyone else is? Here’s an idea for both sides: Accept U.S. history as it is and keep your beliefs to yourself.

Are you there, God? It’s me, Sally

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Sally Kern (R-OK). I understand that not a lot of people have a good grasp of what caused the recession, including some elected officials who can’t explain the actions taken to resolve it. (Although, soon-to-be-not-Governor Palin, I have to thank you for that; that’s how I learned to impersonate you.) But instead of taking some time to learn basic economics, Kern has found an easier scapegoat: sinners!

Don’t laugh. It’s true. Almost the entire first page out of the two-page “Oklahoma Citizens’ Proclamation for Morality” consists of quotes from notable figures in American history, all discussing the importance of religion to the country. The remainder accuses President Obama, women who have abortions, viewers of pornography, gay people, sex traffickers, divorced people, single mothers, and child abusers of pissing off God so much that He decided to punish the economy for it. Evidence? None, natch. (Yes, sex traffickers and child abusers are the scum of the Earth, but they’re not that influential.)

This isn’t new for Kern. She has called homosexuals “the biggest threat our nation has,” and she has attempted to ensure that high-school-age Young Earth creationists are not penalized by their science teachers for rejecting science. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is a similar case of this worrying fusion of religion and politics: as a school board member in Stillwater, she and other members accused the movie Aladdin of promoting witchcraft, and she has accused GLBT members of suffering from “sexual identity disorders.” How do people like this get elected? Do their constituents fear God and gay people that much?

Again, I have no issue with religion as a whole, but this kind of behaviour from politicians gives a bad name to rank-and-file. You might ask, “Jess, what qualifies you to say that? You’re not a Christian.” No, I’m not. But my boyfriend is, and he was quick to roll his eyes at Kern when I told him about this. Apparently he doesn’t think that belief in God and knowledge of the economy are mutually exclusive.

I don’t need to explain the ridiculousness here. But for those who ask why I only targeted Republican women today, it’s because they’re the only examples I have of this. If you have others, let’s hear ‘em.