The 32-page instruction, titled "Dignitas Personae," or "The Dignity of the Person," was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog,

The irony of the organization the used to be called the Office of the Holy Inquisition declaring that human life is sacred and that it's dignity should be preserved was enough to make me laugh out loud. Thanks for giving my day a great start.

And Stephen Johnson, the controversial administration of Bush's Environmental Protection Agency, has said he's unwilling to separate religion from science, because as he sees it, there isn't a "clean-cut division."

The division is simple and couldn't be more clear:

If you can measure it, it's science. If you can't, it's religion or philosophy.

End of discussion,

Someone needs to issue a political cartoon of Pope Rat, wearing a spiked Kaiser helmet, and holding a copy of "Mein Dignitas Theologicae Tyrannum." The Charlie Chaplin mustache could be optional---but jackboots with little emblems of the Vatican on the heel should be prerequisite for this particular Ratzinger-esque Magnum Opus....

I see that once more you've decided to post a one-sided screed against religion. As a devout Catholic progressive, I am, once more, extremely disappointed.

I will no longer visit The Political Animal. There is simply no excuse for progressives whipping up bigotry.

Do the folks at FOX know that they have officially helped escalate their "War on Christmas" now that the Westboro Baptist Church has joined in?

"I see that once more you've decided to post a one-sided screed against religion."

Not so much religion, even less faith, but authoritarian "sex-addled" priests severely out of their depth? Certainly.
You might want to debate Garry Wills on the topic--"sex-addled" is his take on the RC heirarchy--or look up the details of the Vatican-approved rhythm method of birth-control. Even ignoring the fact that a thermometer poked into a vagina is at least as "artificial" as a condom draped over a penis, there's the unfortunate side effect of increased risk of birth defects using this method. Not many priests going around their parish helping out the parents of Down's kids with their challenge, are there? That's because most priests quietly tell their young marrieds that their parents are correct--the Holy See is full of shit on that particular issue.

SteveT: there were charts measuring partisan daily prayer amounts on the site a few days ago. Man was that scientific! ; )

dcprof: I would think an all-powerful, all seeing, all-knowing, ominpotent force can stand a bit of criticism on Political Animal. But then, I don't speak for God like others presume to do.

Washington's holiday display could grow to be quite the tourist attraction. Surely there's a sect out there that celebrates the Solstice with a live sex show or believes that Jesus was an alien.
I hope "Santa Claus will take you to Hell" is a song.

I'm sorry you did not include this article from Kentucky, where they insist on including God in their homeland security planning:

http://www.freep.com/article/20081202/NEWS07/81202074/

Could you please repost the one-sided screed against religion? I missed it.

Don't know what could be more one-sided, though, than an uncompromising declaration of God's will from His self-declared only representative on Earth, whether that's the Pope or Fred Phelps. (Let's not quibble about the College of Cardinals, which is run upon approximately the same lines as the Blagoyevitch administration.)

I do wonder, though, whether the copyright holders of "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" plan to sue Fred and his family. If you haven't done it yet, click on the link for Fred's full song -- hilarious! I can just see Jerry and his friends singing it around the Festivus pole.

ericfree: Where is this link?

nm -- you meant a link to the lyrics. I was hoping for an actual mp3 I could torment my neighbors with.

To help prevent theft of holiday displays, many houses of worship are embedding GPS devices in Baby Jesus, menorahs, and other figures.

The one-sidedness of the post is pretty irrefutable, and the promptly anti-religious (not to mention anti-Catholic) responses predictable. It goes like this:

"Those hoping the church would show a new tolerance..."

This assumes that there is no purpose or rationale for the church's approach to reproductive science BUT intolerance. By definition, that's one sided.

Consider this reasonably accurate statement of the Church's actual position: "The Vatican says these techniques violate the principles that every human life -- even an embryo -- is sacred, and that children should be conceived only through intercourse by a married couple."

People can legitimately disagree that an embryo is not a "human life", which is a question of fact as well as values, and of course "should" generally denotes a statement of values and not fact.

But the legitimacy of either of these disagreements is entirely excluded by "those hoping for... tolerance".

That's what one-sided means, no? Excluding one side of a legitimate disagreement?

Put it this way: it is neither medically nor ethically impossible that before too much longer, some knucklehead may be growing human clones for organ harvesting. (Supposing Kim Jong Il'd doctors tell him he will need a kidney in a few years? Or a pancreas?)

The Vatican takes the entirely religious view that human reproduction bears the mark of Divinity, as in "made in God's image, male and female...". So it is on purely religious grounds the Catholic Church objects to scientific work which erodes that Divine mark, much less seeks to replace it with made-to-order human beings, precisely because "every human life -- even an embryo -- is sacred..."

This doesn't say there is no scientific, medical or moral value to developing these technologies. It only says that every human life is sacred. There are some who disagree that an embryo is a human life. But the frightening truth is there are also some who don't care if it is or is not, because they do NOT believe that "every" human life is sacred. (For example, Kim Jong Il.) These are serious questions, which is why unserious people find it easier to feel their personal sexual morality is threatened by the Vatican's doctrinal arguments about certain technologies, and sneer at Catholicism rather than take on the moral difficulties of these technologies.

Many, perhaps most people would draw the line someplace else -- but there IS a line to be drawn: that is why objections to where the Vatican draws it -- because of the Inquisition's crimes of 500 years ago (compared to what standard of contemporaneous morality?), or the sexual preoccupations of Rome's celibate priesthood -- are one-sided, UNLESS the legitimacy of drawing the line is acknowledged and some other place to draw it proposed.

The moral and intellectual failure to be FOR something, preferring to just scoff at the Vatican's efforts, leads straight to the reflexive anti-Catholic bigotry seen here.

Or do you guys think "one-sided" denotes fair and honest?

Rob Schenck, you and your followers definitely ARE to blame for the state of Bush, and for that matter, the state of the country. You all need to be praying a LOT more, and listening to tongue wagging self-serving "religious" leaders LESS.

Given that many Catholics disregard the Vatican's edicts about contraception, I don't see any reason why anyone else should pay this nonsense the least bit of attention.

Anonymous (and I can see why): the intolerance is not in the "legitimate disagreement" (which, being a disagreement, is debatable, but that's a different argument) but in the conclusion that if you don't adhere to "my" beliefs, you can't be part of "my" church, and you're going to Hell. Why? Because "I" said so, and God is on "my" side.

The definition tolerance is a willingness to accept the sincerely held beliefs of others. Any religion that insists on a narrow and intolerant moral code from its followers isn't worth being a part of, no matter how old it is or what it calls itself. Fred Phelps is just a guy who wants to be his own Pope.

Does the Vatican at least allow the married couple to enjoy themselves while they are having intercourse?

Slight but important typo (actually two) in the last post. "Accept" in the final paragraph should read "respect:" "The definition of tolerance is a willingness to respect the sincerely held beliefs of others." You don't have to accept the sincerely held beliefs of others, but you should be willing to respect them. Shunning, bullying in the style of Phelps and his family, refusal to allow Communion or excommunication are all actions of intolerance.

Catholics should embrace cloning. They could double membership in one fell swoop.

@ anonymous

As a Catholic and someone who considers faith an important part of life, I dont' find these posts particularly offensive. No, what I find offensive are "christians" who leave their intellectual responsibilities at the door and lap up the drivel that so many hate filled "christian" leaders have to spew.

Cases in point:

Global warming. WTF? Please tell me where in the Bible (which I've read cover to cover) that God says "thou shalt have dominion over all the earth and destroy its atmosphere. Multiply and fill the earth, drive automobiles and build fossil fuel energy plants, that threaten the existence of every life form that I've created"???

Homophobia. Why must christians feel compelled to deny this fact; God MAKES homosexuals? Sexual preference is NOT a choice. It's a NATURALLY occurring condition that affects about 10% of the population. The same way that left-handedness occurs in about 10% of the population. I don't see church leaders harassing left-handed people because they made a "choice" to be left-handed. Of course, not so long ago, some communities considered left-handedness a sign of wickedness or witch-craft.

Christian churches don't need to change their belief in the sanctity of life or marriage. They need to evolve their understanding of their responsibilities to this earth and their fellow man.

My mother-in-law is a devout Catholic and very much against abortion, but even she began to pull away from the anti-abortion activism that is encouraged from the pulpit in her parish, partly because it began to feel so extreme to her, and mostly because she felt that other issues of life--war, for instance--were not being given equal weight. She has told us for years how her priests have spoken out stridently against abortion and how the parishes have organized bus trips to DC and other events to protest, yet never, in all this time, has she ever reported that anything has been said against fertility clinics, where embryos are routinely created with the full expectation that many of them will be destroyed. I never understood how the anti-abortionists can harangue poor women seeking birth control or abortions outside family planning clinics, yet never show so much as a hair of their heads outside fertility clinics.

And let's not even go into the general patriotic fervor expressed for years by many, many organized churches in support of the evil being committed in Iraq.

Religion needs to do some major soul-searching before trying to save the souls around it.

Anonymous and those like him/her are worth studying, because this is the fallback position for every religious bigot: If you are at all critical of my point of view, despite my refusal to accept anyone else's, then YOU are intolerant, a heelturn from bullying to victim status worthy of an Olympic athlete. I've seen this all my life, and it never ceases to revolt me.

My first conscious experience of religious bigotry occurred while I was growing up in a medium-size town in southern Oklahoma. The local Southern Baptist church would schedule Youth Nights on the same dates as the school dances, Homecoming, the Prom, everything, then read the names of the kids who didn't attend from the pulpit the following Sunday. This is a form of shaming whose next step is shunning, and its effect was to divide the entire town.

About ten years later I attended a boarding school for the children of military people (you may guess that the military played a large part in all of this); the base chaplains (Protestant) held a weekly Youth Group which I attended. They had two topics: chastity and smoking, for one and against the other. This was at the height of Vietnam when bodybags were flooding the country, and schools like ours were prime recruitment centers. The priests had nothing against the war, because it was being fought against a "godless" enemy; in fact, the Vietnamese had their own animist religions, in addition to the imported Buddhism and Christianity, and it's not hard to imagine that believers in all of them fought on each side. Even for a fifteen year-old it wasn't hard to see their problem wasn't with a lack of religion but a lack of thought control.

This was the beginning of my disillusionment with organized religion; since then I have found that intolerance and hypocrisy invariably walk hand in hand.

Tolerance is so difficult for so many people to master. I think we should all just be INTOLERANT of each other -- we could manage that I'm sure. Maybe we could just get thoroughly bitched out after a few months.

ericfree, yes! The shaming! Years later I'm still recovering from this horrible practice.

Recently an old pal of mine (and I'm talking O-L-D, since the first grade - 1960) visited from Northern California. Both of us schooled by evangelicunts, ended up on the West Coast, as far away from holy-rolling as possible.

Angry? You better believe it. The shaming and now the shunning we still endure from our friends and relatives back East is infuriating.

We're The Lost Girls of the Class of '73. And we are happy about it.

Our one sweet revenge: we both raised beautiful and sane atheist sons. :p~

MissMudd: I'm so sorry. I know it never goes away entirely; you can't go back but you can always go on, and that's a blessing. My wife and I are willing refugees from the same kind of treatment; we don't have much to do with the relatives back home either.

As you know, it is possible to make your own life, and make it the way you want it and as it should have been, with respect toward others but demanding the same from them. All peace and happiness to you, your friends and loved ones.

The Westboro Baptist Church is an example of what critics of religious extremism call "Poe's Law" - look it up, I forget the provenance.

Poe's Law (from Wikipedia, of course) states: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." (Wonder how Al's doing today?)

True enough, but if you've ever met any of the Westboro people, there's nothing funny about them. The true light of madness is in their eyes. Common enough in some fundies, but these people are something special, and their philosophy is reflected in their insane Christmas song. The God they worship is an angry, seemingly psychotic one, with a particular grudge against humans. Their philosophy is that we're all damned to violent eternal suffering, and the only way to avoid it is to loudly, violently oppose everything in the rest of the sinful world; it's really an ultimate dehumanization. I'm surprised they haven't come to a violent self-inflicted end by now, but it's really only a matter of time.

Phelps is a lunatic, but he should have as much right to post his message as do the other groups. I wonder if the Phelps group will be looked on much the way the (equally nutty but with a more 'broad spectrum' nuttiness) Jehovah's Witnesses are, as 'not nice' types who made major Constitutional law.

Yes, Phelps is a bigot, but we forget that when the cases were happening, the JWs were extremely, bigotedly anti-Catholic' and much of the controversy they caused came from their habit of playing anti-Catholic attacks as part of the sermons they would blast to the 'town square' on phonograph records.

In fact, most 'Bill of Rights' cases are not won by the 'persecuted progressives' or the 'wrongfully convicted innocents' but by 'not nice' people. Gideon, Mapp, Miranda, the Witnesses, that Minnesota newspaper that got 'freedom of the Press' included as a 14th Amendment 'fundamental liberty' that impinged on the states and not just the federal government -- none of these were 'good guys.' (And I'm sure that the case that eventually rules the death penalty out will involve someone guilty of the crime charged.)

That's the glory of the true 'civil libertarians,' that they know that rights go equally well to 'people you hate' and not just to those who are fighting for your own opinions.

One more time, since y'all missed it before: what made the post one-sided is the assumption that the ONLY reason for the Vatican's position is intolerance, viz, "those who hoped for tolerance" were disappointed when the Vatican reiterated its position.

What makes you guys bigots is how unreflectively you confirm the assumption. Recognizing that the Vatican has a position on what Catholic doctrine is, and taking the trouble to understand WHAT it is, doesn't mean anybody is forcing you to become a Catholic. Refusing to do either WHILE you disrespect those who do, makes you one-sided at best, from which is an easy slide to bigotry.

You don't actually engage the Vatican's position, nor its logic: you use words like "evangelicunts" that come out of your own experience, which you figure is universal and unassailably justified -- after all, you know your own experience which is all that's necessary to make it universal.

For some reason this sort of stuff gets the amen treatment here, while an observation of Benen's obviously one-sided treatment the Vatican's views is automatically suspect.

Like I said -- the Vatican's view is that 1) all human life is sacred, and 2) that embryos are human. The latter is a question of fact, the former of values. The Roman church argues both are true.

Since you don't engage EITHER proposition, but simply disrespect that the Vatican has a clearly articulated, well-thought out view that you're unwilling or unable to engage, well: that's what one-sided means.

Don't you know that? Hell, it's a textbook example of one-sided: no alternative considered, neither of fact nor ethics. This isn't complex. Consider the options:

It'd be legit to argue that the Vatican is right on both counts.

Or it'd be legit to argue that the Vatican is wrong on both counts -- that embryos aren't human, AND that human life is not sacred.

It could also be legit to argue (for example) that the Vatican is wrong that embryos aren't human, BUT that the Vatican is right that all human life is sacred.

But face it, folks, a reasonable person examining the question might easily conclude from the evidence that the reason you think "those who hoped for tolerance were disappointed" is because you believe the Vatican is right about embryos being human (what else are they, oak trees?), BUT.... and that's where you fail, cuz then it's too real for you.

That's it, you know -- two propositions, four possibilities: both wrong, both right, or two different ways that one is wrong and the other right.

Ain't any other rational ways to look at it -- though you can call nuns "evangelicunts" if that makes you more comfortable than thinking, or treating people who just might have a different view with respect.

But evidently you are more willing to say something ugly-sounding like "evangelicunts".

You'd be better off confronting the truly ugly belief (which a reasonable person could conclude you hold, by exclusion) that it doesn't matter if embryos are human because human life is not sacred. That IS one of the four possibilities -- and there are only four.

So if you don't believe that one, which one DO you believe?

The view summed up by saying "evangelicunts", I guess.

The Roman church has staked out one position (that is, that they're right on both counts). You guys haven't even considered it. So the evidence says the Vatican has moral and intellectual courage that you guys lack.

That's why it's NOT legit is to post AS IF it is fair, that the only motivation or logic to the Roman church's position is a failure of tolerance. You have no particular obligation to be fair, of course, but it's pretty dumb not to notice when you're not.

You can agree with Benen that the only possible reason for the church's position is intolerance, but without considering the possibility that the Vatican has a well-thought out view with which you disagree FOR REASONS YOU LACK THE GUTS TO CONFRONT, the idea that the Roman church can be motivated only by intolerance is a one-sided view.

"If you can measure it, it's science. If you can't, it's religion or philosophy."

So where does that leave String Theory? Is it a religion or a philosophy?

Silly anonymous, don't you know you can only prove your tolerance by agreeing with dogmatic liberal positions on everything?

"a "Santa Claus will take you to Hell" message ... would take its place alongside a Nativity scene, an atheist message, and three signs mocking the atheist message.

So instead of atheists 1/Christians 4 it would be atheists 1/Christians 5. Yeah, that seems more fair.

But it would also recruit a LOT more Santa-loving Americans to this wacko "church," not. So it would be a good thing?

Looks like the Jews wisely stayed out of this one.

As a Washingtonian who has found the dispute over the display in Olympia annoying and ridiculous, I have to say I think the "Santa Claus will take you to Hell" thing sounds completely appropriate and suitably over-the-top.

After all the bloviation and posturing about how heinous the relatively tame atheist display was, it's nice to have some "Christians" really harshing the holiday cheer.

My only question: would their proposed Santa (Satan) have horns?

Sorry, dcprof, but anyone who thinks a Pope is "infallible" has lost my respect completely.

Matter of fact, anyone who thinks a truly dead body can come to life after three days, or that a virgin can produce a male child (MAYBE a female child if cloned), doesn't deserve my respect either.

Maybe you should stick to religious websites if you don't want your silly "beliefs" ridiculed.

So where does that leave String Theory? Is it a religion or a philosophy?

Once you come to terms with the fact that it is both particle and wave...

The 32-page instruction, titled "Dignitas Personae," or "The Dignity of the Person," was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog, and carries the approval and the authority of Pope Benedict XVI. -- NYT

Of course it does! I wouldn't be surprised if he'd written it himself and just gave it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to sign; after all, he used to be the top watchdog of dogma conformity for John Paul... But, at least, they're consistent in their defense of the sanctity of the human sperm, what with their being against in vitro as well as abortion and stem cell research.
***************************
An addendum to an old TWIG story... Remember those "I Believe" license plates in South Carolina? The court has temporarily stopped their issuance, until further deliberations vis their legality (reported in yesterday's NYT)

I have to admit that I have given points to the RCs for being consistent about their "life begins at conception" hokum and opposing in vitro as well as abortion.

But that still doesn't make their initial stand -- that a four or eight cell blastocyst is more sacred than a toenail clipping -- any more reasonable.

Still, I wonder how many "Hail Marys" you have to say to rid yourself of the sin of abortion. You gotta like a religion that doesn't really hold you to anything bad you've done as long as you can receit enough prayers.

I also wonder how different the RC position on pre-birth "life" would be if even ONE of their authority figures could get pregnant.

BTW, what's that about praying to Mary and to Saints? Aren't the RCs really polytheistic?

Oops. "recite enough prayers" obviously.

Ano, once again you miss the point completely -- intolerance doesn't depend on what you believe, but on your willingness to respect the beliefs of others. Deliberate Misunderstanding is a classic propaganda technique. You waste our time (and yours) and reinforce your shoddiness.

But I think the Rev. Fred's Santa song is the best thing he's done. Hope it becomes a classice, on the order of "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer."

Thanks to Newsweek, more please! Perkins and Land are as entropic as their users guide.

The fact is that, despite the speeches by Bishops, Cardinals, and that infernal idiot Donohue, American Catholic laymen and priests have generally disregarded the 'official teachings' on sexual matters. The rate, not just of contraceptive use, but of abortions for Catholics is not substantially less than for the population as a whole.

This is not new. I remember conversations between my mothers over Claire's daughter's new marriage -- this was over 50 years ago and Claire was a devout Catholic who took me to weekly Mass every Sunday for years until her health and my growing disbelief made this impossible. Even then, Rosemary's priest had encouraged her to use contraception, and I remember a discussion about her having to have her kids in a public hospital because of her unwillingness to sign the then-required agreement that, in a case of having to choose between the life of the mother and that of the baby, the doctors would be required to choose the baby. And Claire was entirely in agreement with both of these positions, and thought the official position was idiotic.

I imagine there has been something of a conservative trend even among laymen, but not one that has actually made a difference in the way Catholics run their sex lives.

(Just a passing irrelevance, but it wasn't just American Catholics. John Gunther reported in the 30s that in Bolivia, a nominally Catholic Country, better than half the births were 'illegitimate.')

Steve Benen notes: "... Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church ... wants state officials to approve a 'Santa Claus will take you to Hell' message."

I've gotta admit, I like that one. But then I think Bad Santa is the best Christmas movie of all time.

Ericfree: it would probably be a good thing for you to start actually reading the thread. I said nothing about what is, and is not "tolerant".

I pointed out what "one-sided" means.

The Roman Catholic church is an authoritarian institution. That is a principal difference between it and many other expressions of religious faith. To be a Catholic, one has to believe certain things, and do other things (and refrain from doing still others), or else one is free to cease being a Catholic, or never to become one in the first place. I suppose one could argue that the Roman church is not a tolerant institution because it insists on its own authority over itself, but personally, I'd conclude that anybody making that argument was either stupid or a bigot or both.

Wouldn't you?

That's because as an authoritarian institution, the Catholic church gets to say through its heirarchy what Catholic doctrine IS -- and what it is not.

If you personally reject that, you're not a Catholic. (Likewise, if you use shit instead of shinola, you're not actually shining your shoes.)

And when you reject the authoritarianism that is so central to the Catholic faith beyond your personal preferences, you begin to approach what is generally understood to be intolerance. In the same way, if you rejected the Witness as an organizing principle for any faith, you'd approach anti-Islam advocacy.

See how it works?

That is, you are no longer simply saying that this isn't for you, you are saying that it is not legitimate for others. Worse, you accuse folks who even UNDERSTAND how doctrine works, of being intolerant... because you don't.

That's one-sided.

The idea that one doctrine is right, and another wrong, isn't unique to the Roman church. Essentially political or legal discussions about what policy ought to be regarding cloning, etc., can quickly degenerate into "evangelicunts" rhetoric.

I merely noted that you guys don't seem to recognize one-sided when it is unmistakeably clear: why is that?

Some questions have answers that are simply right or wrong -- 3.25 either is, or is not pi. It's not one-sided to note that 3.25 isn't pi -- all you have to do is check out the math. There's an alternative to be considered, which a rational person would reject: not one sided.

Some answers are not right or wrong in themselves, but only because of the effects they produce: there is nothing immoral about driving on the left side of the road IF that's the way people drive where you are. But if you choose to drive on the left when the law is on the right, you're wrong.

The Vatican -- staying precisely within its role as a religious organization setting Catholic doctrine -- says that 1) all human beings are sacred, and 2) embryos are human beings.

Do you REALLY think that it can ONLY be a lack of tolerance which motivates that doctrine?

Then it has evidently never occurred to you to test the alternatives, the way you'd check whether 3.25 is pi. I cited the four possibilities. You haven't.

For example, a Kim Jong Il could develop the technology and start growing clones in a lab, to replace his organs as they fail. Organ farms made up of, well, PEOPLE grown as spare parts might be a helluva business one day. (Philip Dick thought of this fifty years ago.) What's to stop somebody from making a buck? Hell, the Chinese already do it with prisoners.

Is there a principle? Lincoln was pretty clear about a similar example: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong."

Like Lincoln, the Vatican has staked out a clear, principled position that, as it is uniquely authorized to do, defines Catholic doctrine (and no, the Vatican has not stated that on this matter, it is infallible): 1) All human life is sacred, and 2) embryos are human.

You've decided that even understanding that position is proof of intolerance.

That's what one-sided looks like.

SteveT wrote: "The division is simple and couldn't be more clear: If you can measure it, it's science. If you can't, it's religion or philosophy."

fostert wrote: "So where does that leave String Theory? Is it a religion or a philosophy?"

I would substitute the more general "observe" for "measure" in SteveT's formulation, with the understanding that scientific observations are often, and preferably, quantitative, although not always so.

But certainly, the defining characteristic of scientific hypotheses or theories is that they must make predictions about the outcome of observations, which can in fact be tested by making the relevant actual, empirical observations.

With regard to the question about string theory, there are speculations, conjectures, notions, hypotheses and theories propounded by scientists, concerning topics that are within the accepted domain of scientific inquiry, which do not make any predictions that can actually be observed. Strictly speaking, such ideas may not quite be "scientific". I don't know enough about string theory to know if it falls into this category or not. Certain ideas about quantum physics, I think, do fall into this category, for example the "many worlds" interpretation or "hidden variable" theories, which include aspects and entities that are by definition, and in principle, not observable, and/or do not set forth any observations that can be made whose outcome would either verify or falsify any predictions.

On the other hand, some ideas that are normally considered to be in the domain of "religion or philosophy" are "scientific" in the sense of making predictions that can be tested by observation.

For example, the Buddha taught various practices of ethical conduct, mental discipline and spiritual development, which he asserted would lead to enhanced well-being and liberation from suffering. Throughout his 40 years of teaching, he consistently said that no one should take his teachings "on faith" but should practice his teachings for themselves to determine whether they produced the predicted results. And of course millions of people have done so and confirmed through empirical "experiment" that the practices taught by the Buddha are indeed efficacious.

Ano: Sorry, not going trolling today. What I said. Hope you don't hurt yourself. One-sided, convoluted reasoning (which is a symptom of intolerance) can do that.

But no, I'm not much of a fan of authoritarianism. I prefer that people make up their own minds, based on available evidence and their conscience. That and the hard-won knowledge that just about anybody who refuses to be contradicted is lying to you.

anonymous wrote:

"Like I said -- the Vatican's view is that 1) all human life is sacred, and 2) that embryos are human. The latter is a question of fact, the former of values. The Roman church argues both are true ...

"It'd be legit to argue that the Vatican is right on both counts.

"Or it'd be legit to argue that the Vatican is wrong on both counts -- that embryos aren't human, AND that human life is not sacred.

"It could also be legit to argue (for example) that the Vatican is wrong that embryos aren't human, BUT that the Vatican is right that all human life is sacred."

An option you don't mention is:

1. "Embryos are human": Sure, this is a statement of "fact". OK, human embryos are human, but so what? Who cares? Why care? Is that statement anything more than a tautology? Does it tell anything at all other than what sort of DNA an embryo has, something that we pretty much already know?

2. "Human life is sacred": Of course, this would be the answer to my question above, "so what?" The reason to care about the self-evident tautology that "human embryos are human" is the assertion that "human life is sacred".

As you say, this is an expression of a value rather than an assertion of fact. But again it is pretty much tautological: it says that we should care about the fact that "human embryos are human" because we do care.

But what about those who don't particularly care about that? What about those who don't find the concept of "sacred" meaningful -- those to whom the notion of "sacred" does not correlate with any value or basis for value? Or, what about those who believe that ALL life, human or otherwise, is "sacred"?

What about those whose compassion for living beings is based on their sentience, their capacity for subjective experience, and who observe that a human embryo in its early stages of development evidently lacks the physiological "equipment" that biology tells us is needed for even minimal sentience? What about those who are, on this basis, more concerned about the well-being or suffering of a chimpanzee, a parakeet or a rat -- animals with highly developed, highly sensitive nervous systems and cognitive capacities -- than of a human embryo consisting of a small clump of barely differentiated cells?

As you note, the Catholic Church is an "authoritarian" institution and is free to establish and proclaim whatever doctrines it wishes, and people are free to accept and obey those doctrines, and call themselves "Catholics" -- or not.

I guess I am among those who, first of all, have no interest in subjecting myself to such authoritarianism (and count myself "blessed" not to have been subjected to it, and wounded by it, like virtually every Catholic I have ever known) ... and second of all, find teachings that separate the human species out from the rest of the web of organic life on Earth as uniquely "sacred" to be inimical to the well-being of sentient beings (including humans).

Anonymous -- Ah, yes, the last redoubt of reason and tolerance -- the Catholic Church. As if this wasn't an authoritarian document telling people how to the intimate details of their lives.

Never said it wasn't -- merely observed that Benen's post, and the reaction of the thread, was precisely one-sided, inkadu.

Sorta like yours.

Ericfree writes that he prefers "people make up their own minds, based on available evidence and their conscience", yet he can't recognize a one-sided post.

So much for folks who 'can't be contradicted'. Apply your rule to your own self-deception there, dude.

SecularAnimist writes "What about those who are... more concerned about the well-being or suffering of a chimpanzee, a parakeet or a rat -- animals with highly developed, highly sensitive nervous systems and cognitive capacities -- than of a human embryo consisting of a small clump of barely differentiated cells?"

Are you really that foolish? Maybe you ARE .

I merely noted that Benen's post that "those who hoped for tolerance..." from the Vatican's restatement of its long-standing position is an excellent example of what "one-sided" means.

The Vatican's position is surely NOT a whole lot of stuff -- it isn't an aardvark, or a boltcutter, either, so I don't quite see why you find it meaningful that the Vatican saying 1) humans are sacred, and 2) embryos are human, isn't ALSO or INSTEAD an argument that a parakeet shouldn't be hurt.

A mite soliptistic that you even imagine that's much of an objection.

Look -- Ericfree, among others, has obviously never seen himself as any reasonable person WOULD see him: he can't make an argument, he doesn't even recognize one when it IS made, viz., that Benen's post meant that ONLY intolerance could motivate the Vatican's position is a textbook example of one-sided.

I showed how it was one-sided, showed what the other sides might be, and how leaving 'em out is what made the post one-sided. That's it.

It's remarkable how much you guys resist the obvious -- as if admitting that Benen's post didn't recognize that there is a reasonable moral and even scientific foundation for the Vatican's position (that is, something other than intolerance, unless of course you guys really INTEND to be anti-Catholic bigots) would make you guys out to be, well, the knuckleheads you've shown yourselves to be in this thread.

"Once you come to terms with the fact that it is both particle and wave..."

Oh come on, Feynman resolved that issue 50 years ago (it's a particle with phase properties).

And nice response, SecularAnimist. The issue with String Theory is that to test it's claims on gravity, you need a collider the diameter of Jupiter's orbit. Even in the extremely unlikely event that we could build such a device, turning it on would screw up the planets' orbits so bad that we won't live to get the answer. We need another solar system to do that experiment. That's why String Theory has been described as "not even wrong." Here's hoping that Lisa Randall is right. At least we can test her theories with the LHC. We'll at least know if she's wrong in our lifetime.

I can't be bothered reading all of the above thread, but it looks like most religious debates which quickly degenerates. I thought I'd just give my 2 cents worth.

In regards to the recent Roman Catholic church position, as a progressive/liberal and a catholic I am a little disappointed, but not surprised. But in defense of their position, it really is only a logical follow-up on their anti-abortion message. How can you be against abortion, and not find fault in allowing excess embryoes developed during invtro-fertilisation to be destroyed? I cannot say this practise doesn't cause me some qualms.

In my opinion, a much better method would be to loosen up the adoption laws, to allow couples who want a child to easily get one. Another practise I would support would be to stop any government subsidy of it if any exists for in vitro-fertilisation, (I think some might exist in Australia, not sure over here). If couples want a child, allow them to adopt quickly and easily. I don't think the state should subsidise an expensive alternative, when a cheaper and more viable option exists. Whilst I don't agree with removing the option of in vitro fertilisation altogether, I think payment should up to the couples who want it.

Religious discussions don't have to degenerate. Learned Hand nailed it 'the spirit of liberty is never too sure it is right'.

See where it is in this thread:

SecularAnimist’s view is that embryos aren’t human ENOUGH, which somehow he finds such an impressive insight that he expects y’all to applaud. And in fact, Fostert promptly started clapping.

Fair enough – take SecularAnimist's view for what it is, to demonstrate how NOT to be one-sided, and apply that to the Vatican’s “intolerant� position.

The Vatican’s view is that all human beings are sacred. SecularAnimist objects to this, partly because he doesn’t believe in “sacred�, but we don’t need to mess with words. Sacred just means it would be wrong to kill a human being, in this context, which is what SA disputes: "human embryos are human, but so what? Who cares?"

Since the Vatican also believes that embryos are human, they also conclude it is wrong to kill ‘em – and, the Roman church goes on, wrong to create ‘em in order to kill ‘em , e.g., for organ farming.

But in the Vatican’s view, it’s not necessary to go all the way to have an argument about organ harvesting, which is why they say 1) all humans are sacred, and 2) embryos are human. Nip the whole thing in the bud, so to speak -- an alarmingly apt phrase in this context.

Seems pretty simple, but Ericfree finds this sorta clarity “convoluted�. I suspect that’s a dodge – that he actually understands his own intolerance now, and won’t admit it by engaging in an actual argument: he’s more comfortable identifying with the “evangelicunt� sorta thing: says something about what he considers to be tolerance.

It’s not clear whether SecularAnimist thinks it’s okay to kill some humans who aren’t human enough (that is, he concedes an embryo is human, just not sufficiently so killing one would be wrong) because he rejects “sacred�, OR because he believes that there is a line somewhere (like “sentience�)) below which it’s okay to kill a human being, but above which it would be wrong: maybe we could call it the Parakeet Threshold. (Or the Auschwitz Option.)

It’d be one-sided if I reacted to SecularAnimist by observing that he’s a fucking monster who pretends to care more about the life of a pet than a baby.

Why would that be one-sided?

Among other reasons, because his ideas are more nuanced than that – he conceded that an embryo is human, and then made distinctions WITHIN what sorts of humans it is okay to kill, contrasting them with various critters.

I’d guess that he says this nonsense because he sympathizes with folks who are uninterested in the literally dogmatic views of the Vatican just because they ARE dogmatic, even as he offers equally dogmatic views (seriously: a parakeet?) in response.

But the point is simply that there are lots of good arguments for the Vatican position that cannot be fairly summed up as ONLY disappointing “those who hoped for tolerance�.

Benen’s post didn’t acknowledge ‘em. That’s one-sided.

I think a reasonable person would conclude that the Vatican’s approach – as the Catholic authority, they define Catholic doctrine – stands up pretty well against the ‘disappoint those hoping for tolerance’ attitude exemplified in this thread: folks who claim it is not one-sided to leave out any alternative to the accepted view, who react to arguments by insisting that everybody gets to make up their own mind (is 3.25 pi? is that really something everybody gets to make up their own mind about?) without actually engaging ‘em, who applaud “evangelicunts�, and who figure that it is legit to respond to an argument that humans are sacred with the observation that parakeets feel pain.

The problem ain't the subject matter. It's the one-sided consideration of it.

"And in fact, Fostert promptly started clapping."

Actually, I was only clapping about the science comments. I try to stay out of issues related to abortion. I subscribe to a Buddhist concept of life and death which isn't really part of the debate. Which is good, because it's a little too radical for most Westerners. Let's put it this way: life begins BEFORE conception, although 'begin' is a tricky word in Buddhism (everything is cyclical). The idea is that you start a new life by witnessing your parents having sex. Conception happens a day or two later. The weirdest thing is that you actually witness many couples having sex, and chose which couple will be your parents. Needless to say, I don't think such religious concepts should be part of our political debate.

Regardless -- like I've noted, it'd be one sided to say that you applauded SecularAnimist's idea that embryos aren't human ENOUGH. But he did say it -- and you did applaud.

To be even more fair to you, you didn't decide NOT to applaud someone who had said something so appalling. That is -- being scrupulously fair -- you could have decided that as much as you liked what he had to say about science, that he'd also said embryos are human, just not enough that it would be wrong to kill 'em, wasn't enough for you to conclude that maybe, this isn't something you'd like to applaud. Oh hell, let's be even more generous, that wasn't enough that you'd be unwilling to be SEEN as applauding.

After all, as you say whether or not to kill a human being is a religious concept, and shouldn't be part of our political debate. THAT is the view you're willing to be associated with -- and, as I've noted about the Vatican before, you get to say what you believe.

"I don't think such religious concepts should be part of our political debate."

Let me clarify. MY religious beliefs should not be part of the debate. And YOUR religious beliefs shouldn't be part of it, either. Find a scientific argument, or shut up. I chose to shut up. You won't hear my opinion on abortion or in-vitro fertilization. Ever.

"THAT is the view you're willing to be associated with"

The view I'm willing to be associated with is that political decisions should be left to science, not religion. The Vatican can say whatever it wants (and so can the Dalai Lama), but their opinions should count for nothing in the political realm. And SecularAnimist's opinions on abortion don't bother me because he and I have a completely different concept of life and death. Were not even talking about the same thing when we use the word "death." And the same goes for you. This is exactly why I avoid discussing these issues.

"political decisions should be left to science, not religion"

Hell, ya might as well leave 'em to LAWYERS as to scientists: and yet you'd happily exclude priests and rabbis?

Impressive the lack of thinking that passes for thought, and the distaste for democracy that folks confuse with tolerance.

[I thought that was you. Are you going to tell them who you are, or shall I? --Mod]

"But he did say it -- and you did applaud."

I was responding to a specific post that had nothing to do with his views on abortion. Are you saying that if I agree with someone on a single issue that I completely accept everything that person believes? I surely hope not. Look, I'm not a cookie-cutter person. I have opinions that are my own. I don't just sign up for a philosophy and accept everything it says without question. Apparently, you do. I'm capable of agreeing and disagreeing with the same person. You should try that some day.

Killing a subject with words is another well-recognized propaganda technique. For those without the patience, I'll digest Ano's argument:

The Catholic Church is authoritarian, so the opinions of its highest prelate are not to be questioned.

Being the world's sole authority, the prelate chooses to take such an extreme position that anyone who disagrees ipso facto supports mass murder, or at the least resembles Kim Jong Il (both a philosophical and aesthetic insult).

Anyone who dares to suggest another point of view or refuses to argue on Ano's preconceived terms is one-sided.

Sorry guy. There's a lot more world out there than the intellectual cell you're writing from. All Steve is asking for is a little breathing space. Defending a multiplicity of viewpoints is what this country is, or certainly should, be about.

"Hell, ya might as well leave 'em to LAWYERS as to scientists:"

Actually, lawyers should always be part of political debates. A little legal expertise always helps. And it's not like I'd really exclude priests and rabbis. As long as they keep their religions out of the discussion, they're welcome. But when you start a discussion with "The Bible says...", I immediately stop listening. To me, the Bible is no more of an authority than Penthouse magazine. Although Penthouse probably offers better sex advice. But the Bible has some good threesome's in it, so maybe not. Regardless, our political discussions should remain secular even when religious figures are part of it. And if you can't accept that, then let's have this discussion on neutral territory. If you want to bring religion in, then let's have this discussion relative to Islamic principles. How would you feel about that? I'm fine with it, I've got my Quran handy.

Wow, anonymous sure can type, must have powerful fingers. This is what happens when you resist the evil, murderous and hand-tiring act of masturbation.

"[I thought that was you. Are you going to tell them who you are, or shall I? --Mod]"

If I get a vote, keep "Anonymous" anonymous. I don't think anyone should be Outed.

"This is what happens when you resist the evil, murderous and hand-tiring act of masturbation."

That's silly, masturbation builds hand strength. It's cross-training for typing.

"I thought that was you. Are you going to tell them who you are, or shall I? --Mod'

Wow, I missed that (don't know how, in all the excess verbiage).

I vote for outing. I don't think anybody should hide behind anonymity. Is it Al? How about the strange guy who keeps complaining about the market reports? Nah, couldn't be either -- they're too concise. I'm with NPR, it's a frustrated would-be seminary student.

Could it be the Pope? Nah, he doesn't speak English that well. Kristol? He's Jewish. O'Reilly? He's not even that coherent. Hannity? Well, it does have that air of demented, self-certain illogic....

I know who Anonymous is, it's Osama bin Laden. Only someone hiding out in a cave in Central Asia could write that crap.

I'm Paul Donnelly. I used to post as "theAmericanist", until I decided this was a waste of my time.

Good to hear it. Welcome back. We're all Americanists here.

Now if the Republicans (and the Blue Dogs) could only figure that out....

No, you're not.

Ericfree -- you believe that everybody should weigh the evidence and make up their own minds; until somebody confronts you WITH evidence, when you bail.

SecularAminist thinks that parakeets ought to have more rights than some humans.

And our moderator figures that I don't get to say who I am online if I get out of line in threads.

The Americanist heresy (which is why I chose the monicker) denotes the idea that civics has a moral value in itself.

You guys sure act like you reject the idea. Civics only applies to you -- when people agree with you.

Fostert thinks that "science" should decide POLITICAL questions -- as if the best tax rate is a mathematical function, like pi.

Challenged, he mutters that he doesn't really want to exclude priests and rabbis from politics -- as long as HE (not they) get to decide what isn't proper for acting like citizens.

If a lawyer has an opinion about the reach of the law based on his (or her) life of experience, well: he's a lawyer -- of COURSE that should be part of politics.

But if a person of faith has a similar view, with a similar foundation: that MUST be excluded.

I'm not making this up, guys. I read what you say. What's more, I understand it -- which is more than I think most of you can prove.

Remember -- I only noted that Benen's idea that the Vatican's reiteration 'disappointed those who hoped for tolerance' was, by definition, one-sided.

I noted at least three other sides to the argument, AND cited SecularAnimist's Parakeet Threshold as an absurd distraction.

Yet not one of you has conceded the obvious -- that Benen's post WAS one-sided. It allowed for, not to mention considered no alternative: that's what one-sided means.

So the moderator is happy to make this personal -- but only for me.

Tolerant bunch, you guys.

If, as our dear friend Anonymous would have us believe, the Vatican's proposition that all human life is sacred is truly legitimate, that one might inquire as to why the RCC is not willing to take an equally-belligerent position against participation in---oh, a nice example, perhaps---"war." Until such time as the Vatican "sees fit" to employ its strong-armed tactics (denial of the Sacraments; covert threats of Excommunication; etc.) against RCC members (both laity and clergy) for participation in the armed forces of any national entity, then the argument presented By Anonymous against this particular discussion---or any other like it, in which the medieval rigidities of a monotheistic mystery cult bent on the control of the masses via the quasi-deification of a quixotic individual's meandering about within a paddock of philosophical bombasity, through fear of eternal damnation when subjected to even the slightest modicum of ridicule---borders upon a level of comedic blasphemy not experienced since the Great Crusades.

It should likewise be noted that the RCC, in its despicably helter-skelter interpretations and enforcements as regards Biblical canon, continues ad infinitum to restrain the depravities of its own priesthood against children; to enforce to the point of ordering system-wide sanctions against members who flaunt any of the other of God's Laws; to recognize the myriad teachings of a certain Nazarene who, if I am not mistaken, admonished the theological hierarchy of his day for pretty much the same things that the Vatican today embraces as irrefutable Holy Writ. If, as has been taught for millenia, one should "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," then at what point does the RCC even contemplate the farcical pretense of stepping into the political spectrum of any sovereign Nation beyond the borders of Vatican City and employing various Edicts and Judgments pertaining to what the Laws of that Nation may determine as allowable?

Taken to its logical conclusion, the mandates by Ratzinger that seek to enforce the particular interpretations of a single man---that man being Ratzinger himself---as being irrefutable Law, with the failure to embrace in their entirely those interpretations being representative of Gross Ungodliness---are nothing less than a political modernization of another antiquated RCC practice: The selling of Indulgences.

"Fostert thinks that "science" should decide POLITICAL questions -- as if the best tax rate is a mathematical function, like pi."

Umm, do honestly think that math shouldn't be part of determining tax rates? The fact is that there is such a concept of Econometrics, and it really is useful in determining tax rates. And there is the work of Arthur Laffer that certainly shouldn't be discounted. If mathematicians and economists are shouldn't determine tax rates, who should? Priests and dermatologists? Come on, economics is math. Get a grip. And by the way, pi is a scalar number, not a function. Yes, there is a Taylor series equation to calculate it, but it's still just a number.

"as long as HE (not they) get to decide what isn't proper for acting like citizens."

All I'm saying is that religious arguments are inappropriate for political discussion. The only time I ever bring in my Buddhism is to explain why it shouldn't be part of any political discussion (and nobody has ever disagreed). I wish you would do the same, but that's obviously asking too much. You aren't even willing to accept the neutral ground of Islam. So why the hell should I discuss anything on your religious ground of Christianity? Now if your or your priest want to inject your religion into my political discussion, fine. But once you go there, I will immediately reject what you say. This is not being intolerant, it is simply the realization that you are injecting unverifiable concepts into the discussion. Until you can scientifically prove that the Bible is correct, you can't use it in your defense. And I can prove that many portions of the Bible are scientifically incorrect. Given that, the book is highly suspect, at best. And here's an obvious one. Let's consider the story of Noah. He would have needed an Armada of arks just to save all the beetles of the world. Want to move on to moths? Didn't think so. Look, the Bible is a great book and offers many valuable lessons. I read it regularly (the stories of Joseph and Ruth are my favorites). But to assert that it should be used to determine policy is just plain silly. Use it to help your personal life, but don't force it on the rest of us. And if you want to use the Bible to make your personal voting decisions, fine. That's your choice. But when a Senator is using it for his Senate votes, then I've got a problem with that. It's his right, but it's my right to vote his ass out office. And that is exactly what I'll do.

By the way, Joseph (of technicolor dreamcoat fame, not Mary's husband) was the world's first Keynesian. But we don't really know if the story is true, do we? So we should accept the advice of Keynes over that of Joseph, even though they advocated the same things. And Keynes had the math to back it up. Joseph didn't, he just had a dream. I'll take math over dreams any day.

Wow, my grammar and spelling are so bad when I rant, I'm giving Matt Yglesias a run for his money. Maybe I need more whiskey. That must be the problem.

Not to feed the trolls, but the issue is very simple. The RCC is trying to inject itself into world politics yet again. If they wish to do so, they are more than welcome to, but they had better have a non-religious argument. Many, if not most, xtian sects, let alone other religions and those who are not religious don't share their particular interpretation of their "sacred" text. I don't believe in the xtian god, and you had better have a better reason than "the bible tells me so" if you want me to consider your opinion as valid.

If you want to talk about the pros and cons of various theologies, I suggest you take your discussion to the BeliefNet discussion boards.

And in case you're wondering Arthur Laffer's concepts are based on traditional Islamic economic theory. Look it up if you don't believe me. But that was in the days when Muslims were the intellectual force of the world and Christians were just believing a bunch of nonsense. The situation has since reversed, but I'm guessing it will reverse again. But it won't matter, the Hindus are the only people who seem to to be willing to embrace science. Buddhists will accept the results (unlike Christians and Muslims), but they won't do the work. Outside of Cognitive Neuroscience, of course. They've been doing the heavy lifting for centuries on that issue. But any religion can choose to accept science or not. To his credit, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that if science conflicts with Tibetan scriptures, those scriptures must be rewritten. And there is now an organized series of debates within the Tibetan community about how they should change. I know of no other religion that takes that approach. But at least Hinduism can simply ignore what is inconsistent with science. Christianity can't. They insist that the Bible supersedes science. Islam doesn't, but most of their leaders are as crazy as Pat Robertson. Even so, I think Islam has a chance of accepting science again. I hope so, at least. Christianity has little hope. Their followings are so strong that their leaders could tell them the sun rises in the west, and they'd believe it. Once you place faith over empirical knowledge, there's no hope for you. The good news is that there are Christian sects that do accept empirical knowledge. Sadly, they are in the minority.

"Many, if not most, xtian sects"

Is there something wrong with saying "Christian"? Is Christ's name somehow a bad word? I'm obviously not one to defend Christianity, but Jesus doesn't deserve an "X." And if you don't believe Jesus existed, think about this. About 4% of the male population of Israel at the time were named "Jesus." And archeology tells us that there were about 2,000 roaming preachers. From that, mathematics tells us that, of the roaming preachers, about 80 of them were named Jesus. So take your pick. At least a few of them would have resulted in the stories of the New testament. I'm guessing that the stories came from just one guy. But I can't tell you which Bethlehem he was born in (there were two). But I'm willing to accept that he might have lived in Nazareth at some time. There was a big Roman city nearby, and Nazareth was where the poor people lived. Not so implausible, is it? In fact, it's pretty much guaranteed.

I use xtian as a convenient shorthand. It has been used for centuries, as has xmas for Christmas. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary has this etymology: X (symbol for Christ, from the Greek letter chi (X), initial of Christos Christ) + -mas (in Christmas) Dating back to 1551.

It is only recently that the born-again types have taken offense to something that has been common practice among xtians and non-xtians for so long.

As for my personal belief, I think there probably was a noted spiritual leader named Jesus around that time and in that location. The stories/miracles attributed to him date back even more centuries, if not thousands of years, to other man-god deities (Osiris, for instance).

I give the Jesus stories no more credance than those about Osiris, Zeus, Shiva or Allah. I have much more respect for Buddhism and Taoist, as they are philosophies, and don't need or require belief in any deity.

"I give the Jesus stories no more credance than those about Osiris, Zeus, Shiva or Allah."

Hmm, well Allah is the God of Abraham, so I could see why you wouldn't buy into that. But Muhammed's existence is well documented. He may have been crazy, but he did exist. As for Shiva, I'm not buying it. But I won't say so when I'm in India. I'll steer the conversation to the Brahman, and talk about the Bhagavad Gita. We can talk freely in America, but in other countries, the situation is different. That is what makes America great. Sadly, there are people who don't like that aspect of America and want to force religion on us. And in classic irony, they are the ones who claim to be American. Whatever.

As for the "X" thing, I know it's an old shorthand, but is it really so hard to spell it out? I'm not a Christian, but I think it's offensive. Do you say Bism, Hism, or Tism? No you don't. Or should I say Xism, Xism and Xism? I don't particularly like Christians, but they do deserve better.

"I have much more respect for Buddhism and Taoist"

I've read the Tao Te Ching, but I'm not an expert on Taoism. Seems pretty cool, though. I love Lao Tsu's thoughts on the nature of government. Spot on. Buddhism's Wheel Turning Monarch concept isn't quite as good. As for Buddhism, it's the only religion I know of that explicitly offers a path of rationality. It also offers a path of faith in the Buddha. But the Buddha says that those two paths end in the same place. I can't accept faith, but I can accept rational thought. That's why I'm a Buddhist.

Let us not forget that Catholics learned centuries ago that Jesus was a man who married Mary Magdeline and his body as well as hers was secretly hidden to avoid exposing the truth about his so called divinity. Watching our "religious darlings" lie at will to huge congregations today just to sway public opinion tells me they have done so for centuries...the authors of the Bible didn't really write it, others did and put their names on it long after their deaths. The entire story is nearly an exact duplicate of the story of Horus the Egyptian God from earlier centuries.

Religion is the opium of the people but America came about so all could believe what they wanted as long as they didn't push it off on others. How dare these so called Christians force their religious beliefs off on others turning their religious concepts into laws that violate the civil rights of others. Many people marry for love...not to have children...so why aren't they forcing constitutional constraints on those pwople since they too violate their religious concepts of what marriage is supposed to be?

This Jesus had 12 men he loved dearly, slept with and kissed frequently. Notice how your sick minds don't draw conclusions from that arrangement yet you are so quick to dismiss the love of one man for another as some sort of perversion when you don't even know if they are having sex...they just love and kiss and sleep together for all you know.

Get it straight...the nature of God is love not righteousness. You ask a minority to justify being a minority and refuse to accept that it exist in nature, in all animal species as well as in man. It's a natural occurrence. They are born that way just as heterosexuals are born that way. It is shameful bigotry and if people like Perkins and Hagee, Robertson and Falwell are indicative of this Jesus you club people with then you make a mockery of the spirit of God and of the nature of God...which is love.

Try as you might this will always be a democracy and not a theocracy where power is given to religious fanatics to make the laws we are governed by. We shall never be ruled by faith through fear of punishment, using the minds we are born with to deal with the universe we are born into with the free will we struggle to maintain.

Religion was founded before science to explain with stories what we are now capable of explaining with facts. It does not discount a God but it reveals how we can better survive as a race on this planet. There is the brain...and then there is the mind...and the two are not incompatible. Homosexuality or being gay is natural for some as they are born that way and that is a fact. You're demonizing this minority as some how perverted and denying that they can celebrate their love with marriage is opinion... devoid of rationality. It is your smug judgment that is perverted and you have no right to force your opinion on this minority. Eventually you will lose for love will always win out.

The "X" thing is a moot point, as far as I am concerned. It didn't offend me when I was a xtian, oh, so many years ago. They invented the shortand, and it was as common as that obnoxious and ubiquitous fish symbol I see on so many cars and in so many ads today. As for your other examples, I'm not really aware of any written shorthand for them, outside of symbols.

I much prefer the COEXIST bumper sticker I've started to see popping up.

"I much prefer the COEXIST bumper sticker I've started to see popping up."

I love those, but it kind of seems redundant here in Boulder. We're already doing it.

"As for your other examples, I'm not really aware of any written shorthand for them, outside of symbols."

Well, that was the point. Why should Christianity be singled out for that treatment? There are valid reasons for choosing that religion. Hell, I chose it once myself. I couldn't stick with it because of the God thing, but Jesus was way cool (and yes, that is one of my most favorite songs). It's too bad Christians won't listen to Him. But I will, he was a great Bodhisattva.

Is this the fairness doctrine being instituted or what? One's opinion is suddenly "one sided" because he doesn't express other possible opinions?

Is this another Catholic feeling victimized by what they consider unjust attacks on their religious dictates. Most Catholics I know take what they consider good about their religion and leave the rest but then some are fundamentalists and marrying a divorced person will get you ex-communicated (but only if you tell them), etc.

The Vatican is entitled to its opinion and can set church law but most of us just ignore it and deal with stuff as it crops up or just forget about it. Interesting that statistics show that abortions go down under dem administrations and up under republican administrations. Obama made a point of adding a plank in the dem platform this election to make it legal safe and "rare" with all kinds of policies promoted to do just that, yet is demonized by "some" priests who would rather follow an administration who only bitches about it and deals with the issue by just saying "you shouldn't do it". Let's see...prevent 20 abortions or prevent none but get to scream about it...yeah, I'll take the screaming.

I'm for the one-sided "disappointment" as I was hoping for encouragement that this Pope would not have to be dragged into the 21st century finally making masturbation not a sin. Religious dogma determines the top dog I guess. Do good and do no harm but fill yourself with love. (Short version of the 10 commandments).

The Vatican's preoccupation with sex and reproduction has always been about making more Catholics in the world. Like all religions take what makes sense or works for you and leave the rest but usually religions are the last to accept change (the mass was still in Latin in the '50s). Thank God, spirituality has nothing to do with religion.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what any of us think of God or religion. Lots of wasted rage here. We can comprehend only an ill-defined is-ness. A super being who punishes or rewards confused and dying beings for feigned certainty is the definition of chaos.

It's pointless because you guys WANT to be one-sided, which evidently includes hallucinating that ignorance is wisdom, so I'll just note a couple simple points and be done.

1) No, Arthur Laffer's ideas weren't based on Islam. If you're gonna try to bring Muslim economics into this sorta discussion, it'd help if you actually learned something about it. A far better example than the stupid nostrums of supply-side economics would be the current Wall Street mess, particularly the mortgage crisis. (When the New Deal chose bank insurance, it was because they rejected the 'skin in the game' approach exemplified by the 8 ways you can get around the ban on ribbah in Islam. Many observers have noted that if we'd followed the Muslim example in the 30s, we'd have had neither the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s, nor the current mess, both of which are based on ribbah.)

2) I'm not interested in, and this thread had no particular need to be, an indulgence in 'all opinions are equal' pooling of ignorance about religion. Puh-leeze, the Dao De Zhing?

There isn't any need for it -- 3.25 is not pi. Political decisions in a democracy are made by everybody, for any damn reasons anybody wants to bring into it. It is as illegitimate to bar religious principles from democratic decisions as it would be to bar opinions about science or law. Insisting that ONLY religious ideas can be barred (since introducing 'em has to mean imposing 'em, yegodsandlittlefishes) because science and law rule, is bigotry cross-dressed as stupidity, on stilts. The Vatican's defense of human life is intolerant, but the science that created mustard gas is to be trusted?

3) I just noted that Benen's view of the Vatican's restatement of longstanding doctrine as an expression by "a church that has been accused of being out of step with the beliefs and needs of modern Catholics around the world.." was a perfect example of what one-sidedness looks like. It's as if he had blithely noted that some lab had failed to make progress toward the general consensus that 3.25 is just about pi, and took it for granted any further discussion would be, well -- like this thread.

Is there ANYBODY else who even recognized that, much less denied it? Nobody said I was wrong to the point -- 'oh, no, Benen's post acknowledged that the Church's "inflexible stand" is based precisely on the Vatican's authoritative role on leading the Roman Catholic Church, which is after all what makes it, er, the ROMAN Catholic Church...'

Why didn't anybody say anything like that? Cuz Benen didn't do it. He takes the literally anti-Catholic view that how Catholics act defines the Church, rather than what the Church teaches.

The Vatican's position on the sanctity of human life and their argument that an embryo is human aren't SUPPOSED to be "a step forward".

That was Benen's assumption -- and it is one-sided. I don't believe any honest person could dispute that, including him.

What else could he have done? For one thing, as the old advice goes, he could have afflicted the comfortable prejudices evident in this thread: the Vatican's position is a well-thought out, principled rejection of the idea that parakeets have more rights than the insufficiently human, f'r instance.

It is a kind of morbid fascination to me that you guys are so comfortable with a reflexive rejection of certain religions, even as you congratulate yourselves on your open-minded ignorance. When I was learning journalism, folks liked to suggest that writers CHALLENGE that sorta complacency, but I guess that's not how you play to the Washington Monthly's audience.

What's perhaps more interesting than parakeet philosophizing is that the Vatican takes the view that disconnecting "human" from "sacred" and accepting Ericfree's idea "so embryos are human? Who cares?" takes us MUCH closer to Kim Jong Il's clones being grown as human individuals to be mined for spare parts. That's what considering more than one side can show you about real questions.

It would be legit to say that goes too far, that creating extra embryos in vitro fertilization is nothing like organ farming.

It would be legit to say that there are OTHER places to draw the line -- SecularAnimist's Parakeet Threshold would be one, along with his idea that embryos are not ENOUGH human.

And, of course, science can be trusted to draw the line better than religion: another legit (if fucking nuts) point of view. (Wouldn't Kim Jong Il would be using scientists to grow organs he could harvest out of living individuals who looked just like him, only younger?)

So this is the end of it: BENEN DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE NOR EVEN RECOGNIZE ANY OF THOSE LEGIT POINTS OF VIEW. He took it for granted that if the Vatican moved away from its well-thought out, principled position against all these things, that would be "a step forward".

Toward organ farming? Toward "not human ENOUGH"?

Billions of people around the world believe that ain't forward: that's DOWN. Benen never thought of that, because (like you guys) he is waaay too comfortable in his own assumptions.

Which is why his post was one-sided.

Incredible, might almost say unbelievable. Some very good stuff in here, especially on comparative religion, if you wear your waders, but my favorite sentence has to be "None of you can prove what I understand," or words to that effect. Couldn't find it again, but it's in there somewhere. Didn't bail out of timidity, btw; it's called having a life. After reading some of this, I'm mightily glad I have one.

I like the "Coexist" bumper sticker, too, and gave one to my wife; she's a religious studies scholar. Here in the land of Jan Mikelson it's not always taken for granted and occasionally gets you a hell'n damnation tract on your windshield. We like it here anyway.

Very American (possibly Americanist?) on Xtian versus Christian. The X terminology, particularly in Xmas, began due to protests by Christians (but probably not Xtians) that the religious part of Christmas was being demeaned by secular references, and you shouldn't say Christ unless to referring to cradle or cross. Xmas endured until the "put the Christ back in Christmas" movement stood the question on its head; now the crusade of Bill O'Reilly and others to replace "Happy Holidays" (I think there are about seven holidays from different religions this time of year, but there could be more) with "Merry Christmas" completes the Escher circle.

Don't think the original proposition, that regret for a lack of tolerance is intolerant (or "one-sided") itself was ever satisfactorily answered, but of course it's unanswerable, in the way of all such questions. If you accept all the tenets of the Pope or a similar repressive religious figure, then freethinkers are intolerant; if you prefer freethinking, arguably the most important principle in America's founding although often the least observed, then those who conceive more narrowly are of course intolerant. I'm an existentialist personally (unlike my wife) so much of this strikes me as amusing. But, of course, respectfully so.

Oh what the hell, it's that time of year: One and all, even Ano the Americanist (unlike the rest of us unpatriotic sinners): Merry Xmas!

LOL -- indeed.

But as a writing tip, which also helps with thinking cuz "it maketh an exact man", when you find yourself crafting a thought expressed "Don't think the original proposition, that regret for a lack of tolerance is intolerant (or "one-sided") itself was ever satisfactorily answered, but of course it's unanswerable..." recast the sentence, cuz you're not actually thinking.

That one has no less than SIX negatives in it, which is a sign Ericfree hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

Put affirmatively, he thinks that the Vatican is intolerant because it is authoritative. No, d-uh.

This is what you figure a thought looks like? DIdn't you ever take a math class? Arithmetic instructors are remarkably intolerant of ideas like 2+2=3.

I merely noted that to assert that 'those who hoped for tolerance were disappointed' is a one-sided way to look at the Vatican's reiteration of its view that 1) human life is sacred, and 2) embryos are human.

Somebody FINALLY acknowledged (in passing) that I'm right about Benen's post: "One's opinion is suddenly "one sided" because he doesn't express other possible opinions?"

Not exactly. Benen's post was one-sided because his opinion doesn't ACKNOWLEDGE that there are other views. You guys are one-sided because it makes you comfortable.

For one thing, this is the most un-scientific way possible to think. The whole scientific method boils down to being open to the possibility that a beautiful theory (oh, those sentient parakeets) can be killed by a single ugly fact. That's why you guys are hallucinating when you imagine that you exalt science.

Your intellectual habits lead straight to the ignorance and actual foolishness seen here. Y'all are so afraid of being taken in through actually understanding a religious doctrine that you can't be taken out of your stupid prejudice against an institution with a 2,000 year history, billions of followers, and thousands of intensely thoughtful institutions: yeah, who could imagine they'd have a well-thought out and principled position on anything important, huh? "those who hoped for tolerance were disappointed..."

But, hey, that COEXIST bumpersticker is really thoughtful. It's so .... deep, that thin piece of glue and paper on the chrome.

Your habits of 'thinking' are simply negative (at least, when it isn't "evangelicunts") -- you pile one contradiction on another: as Ericfree says, nobody managed to refute the idea that it isn't something to contradict something else because that isn't intolerant.

It's generally more useful to challenge your own thinking with affirmative expressions: the Vatican argues that UNLESS you accept that all human life is sacred (which SecularAnimist, among others, rejects), THEN you are moving rapidly toward atrocities like organ farming*.

Maybe that's not true. But you guys have done nothing to stop it. You don't know how.

That's the one side you're on. You don't think so? Prove it.

Then -- and not until -- you'll have stopped being one-sided. Right now, you're on the side of the parakeets vs. the 'not enough human', and that distortion of Buddhism which imagines there is no injustice.

So a bit belatedly, Eid Mubarak.

* This is partly because through in vitro fertilization, several embryos are created that might grow up into lawyers and accountants, webthread bloviators and whatnot. The purpose of the process is to cull the healthiest ones, and choose the one(s) who are most likely to survive. The Vatican takes the view that this is not morally distinct in any essential from eugenics. But, hey, Benen evidently figures that kind of thinking is retrograde, when he was hoping for progress and tolerance. Then again, he inspires people who don't know a parakeet from a person.

While I reject Catholic doctrine about anything (being an atheist). I do have to say that Anonymous ran rings around all of his critics with reasonable, logical arguments that stuck to the point.

His critics, on the other hand, stooped to ad hominem and a lot of vague hand-waving as a substitute for actually engaging any of his points.

Oh, and one of the moderators tops the whole circus off by a cowardly, hypocritical threat to "out" anonymous. Hey cowardly anonymous moderator, why don't you out yourself first?