Mike Smith, an Atheist, is Running for a Seat in the Georgia House of Representatives

May 28, 2012 By Kate Donovan Leave a Comment

Mike Smith lives in the Bible Belt. Which makes everything I’m about to tell you a bit of a shocker.

He is an out atheist, the president of LaGrange Humanists. Just a few days ago, he qualified as a Democratic candidate for the District 69 seat in the Georgia House of Representatives. He’s running on a campaign of marijuana legalization, campaign finance reform, and opposition to war (including the war on women, he specifies).

His opponent, Randy Nix, is the Republican incumbent, a Methodist pastor, and a former chaplain’s assistant. In his five years in office, Nix has voted to ban abortion after 20 weeks and require an ultrasound, to require English-only driver’s license exams, and to prohibit health care mandates. (You can see Nix’s full voting record here).  Needless to say, they’re polar opposites.

So does Mr. Smith have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this thing?

Recently, I had a a chance to ask him. (Links have been added by me for the sake of clarity.)

Mike Smith, out atheist and Georgia congressional candidate.

Tell me about yourself, in your own words, and why you decided to run.

I have always been an atheist. I graduated from high school here, joined the army, went to Vietnam, came home, and worked my way through college and law school. Meanwhile, I married and we had a son who now has a son of his own. In 2000, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, and I took her to all of her treatments. While she sat in the chemo chair, I would read about Buddhism because I had planned to take a class on Buddhist Psychology. I came to consider myself a secular Buddhist. In 2002, my wife of over 31 years died, and Buddhism helped me understand that I have no control over anything, especially death. I rode a motorcycle from here to Alaska and back in 2003 and it gave me a lot of time to think. In 2004, I married my second wife, and we have two daughters, ages 3 and 5. In 2006, I also had surgery for cancer, but that seems to be in remission.

9-11-2001 was important because it showed me the deadly side of what I had always considered a backward and hateful institution: supernatural religion. I read all of the New Atheist books and agreed with most of what I read. In 2008, like many Obama supporters, I was asked by the Obama campaign and by MoveOn.org to write letters-to-the-editor of my local paper to discuss issues suggested by those groups. When my letters were printed, there were many letters in response calling me a left-wing/fascist/liberal/Communist/atheist, and I soon realized that I could write my own letters about the things I cared about, mostly atheism.

Meanwhile, I was elected to the local Democratic party as a voting member and recruited others in an effort to strengthen the party. One of our goals has been to have as many Democrats as possible on the ballot. We now have about four local candidates, and I had planned to be one of them, possibly a county commissioner candidate.

This past winter, the Georgia general assembly went crazy, passing all kinds of oppressive laws designed to punish women, the poor, and union members. The Republicans also legislated their right to force the Ten Commandments into all public buildings. At that point, I decided to run for the legislature rather than the county commission. I also joined protests against actions of the legislature and helped form the Occupy LaGrange group in support of the Occupy movement.

As coincidences happen, the general manager of the newspaper is the wife of a preacher that asked the City of LaGrange for a $10,000 gift for a Jesus/Winshape summer camp. I wrote a letter to the city, and couple of days later, the city decided to decline the donation to the church. At about the same time, the editor of the newspaper retired, and the new editor seems to be under the influence the preacher’s wife/general manager because they stopped printing my letters. As a result, the political campaign will give me a new venue to express my atheism.

You’re an out atheist. How did you come to identify as such, and how do you feel it shapes you and your decisions?

I answered most of this above, but atheism is clearly the most reasonable way to view the world. By another name, it is Humanism, the philosophy of living with compassion and reason, but without gods. I am reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, who seems to argue that we are motivated by emotion more than by reason, but I can see that some emotions are fostered by reason. For example, I have strong emotions against being forced to do or believe things that do not make sense. That emotion is the sense of freedom.

What values of Georgians do you feel that you best represent?

Fairness and Freedom.

Georgia remains very conservative. How do you plan to convince traditionally conservative voters to support you?

Freedom may be the most conservative American ideal. To address atheism, I will have to emphasize freedom, freedom of religion, and the freedom of all Americans to not believe in supernatural things. Voters who understand that it is fair for atheists to be freed from religion should support me.

What do you see as the toughest battle of your campaign?

My toughest battle will be to convince those conservative voters to support me. It will be difficult to overcome their irrational prejudices.

First, I will have to win the Democratic primary on July 31st. I plan to do that by participating in as many Democratic events as I can find in the District. There are three county parties here: Troup, Heard, and Carroll. I talked to my Democratic opponent and he does not seem very motivated to participate in discussions or debates, although I think that would be a very good way to get the pubic engaged in the process. Since I have a disinterested opponent, the challenge will be to overcome the prejudice that many have against atheists.

One solution might be to not emphasize my worldview until after the primary. However, the largest city in the district is LaGrange and many people here already know I am an atheist because of my frequent letters to the editor about atheism over the past few years. So, the primary may be my only opportunity to make the voters aware of atheism.

What do you think your chances of election are? [Emphasis mine.]

A political consultant told me from the beginning that he expects the Republican incumbent to raise about $70,000, and that a Democrat might be able to raise about $40,000 but would be lucky to receive about 30% of the vote in this district. He said the benefit of running for the House was that I would receive enough exposure to possibly win a county school board seat the next time.

Another obstacle is the fact that I have decided to not accept contributions because I think money corrupts politics. We should make all political contributions illegal and publically finance all election campaigns. I have enough money to do basic campaigning, but I will not be wasting my funds. So, the financial odds are also be against me.

However, I think that elections should be about ideas, not about money. So, it may be more realistic to believe that my chances at winning depend on the level of voter excitement about the issues I have raised, including: ending legalized bribery of legislators by lobbyists, making the rich [pay] a fairer share of taxes so that we don’t have to keep closing our schools, and legalizing and taxing marijuana. If I am the candidate in November and there is interest in these issues, I think I have a reasonable chance.


Filed Under: General, Interviews, Politics Leave a Comment

Should Mitt Romney Play Down His Faith?

May 26, 2012 By Mark Turner 72 Comments

There is a long way to go until November but so far Mitt Romney has been adept at avoiding the Mormon question. Instead he has spoken of his faith in very lofty and vague ways, resisting any attempts to elicit full answers to what he actually believes. There is a growing consensus in the media and among members of both parties that not only should he answer these questions, but that failing to do so might cost him the presidency.

The reasons for this vary. Democrats see potential victory in drawing attention to the unusual and often controversial aspects of Romney’s faith. Convincing undecided voters that it’s a bad idea leaving the country in the hands of someone who believes hot drinks are evil, magic underwear can protect you, and Jesus visited America should be easy! If Democrats do this, and Romney refuses to engage in the discussion, the silence will be deafening.

Republicans desperately need to be reassured about Romney’s faith if they are going to fully back him. A Pew survey from way back in November, 2011 reported that half of evangelical Christians do not consider Mormonism to be Christian. When asked what word best described Mormonism, the most popular response from Evangelicals was “Cult.” Which is a bit rich given some of their own beliefs. The mistrust flows both ways. Only 18% of Mormons considered Evangelicals to be friendly towards them. (By comparison, only 22% said that atheists were NOT friendly towards them.)

Mitt Romney (via Politico)

So, imagine my surprise when I saw a dissenting view in The Atlantic on Thursday, featuring no less than Tony Blair. It is well known that Blair is a very religious man. Since leaving politics, he has set up his own foundation — The Tony Blair Faith Foundation — and given a decent account of himself when debating Christopher Hitchens in 2010. During the ten years he was Prime Minister, the often touted party line was “We don’t do God.” Yair Rosenberg, writing for The Atlantic, thinks Romney should follow Blair’s lead and leave his religious convictions to one side and focus on the issues.

I think this is a mistake. It just pushes the problem deeper away from public view — out of sight and out of mind.

While I will admit it was (on the whole) a nice ten years of religion-free politics, it only hides the problem from public scrutiny. If Romney really believes what he says he does, it will inform his entire decision-making process on the campaign trail and in the White House if he wins. Just because he refuses to talk about it publically doesn’t mean he won’t act on it privately.

In his autobiography, Blair’s press secretary, Alastair Campbell, revealed that Blair would often consult the Bible when making political decisions — including the decision to take Britain to war with Iraq. When seeking to persuade Bill Clinton to join the NATO intervention in Kosovo, he framed it as a battle between good and evil. It is possible Romney will face similar moments if he becomes President, and I’m not sure I’d want to have someone with such levels of cognitive dissonance, thumbing through the book of Mormon, with missile launch codes in his possession.

Ultimately, the fact that Evangelicals consider Mormonism a cult will not matter to the religious right because most of them are so anti-Obama that the GOP could put up the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard as the Republican nominee and they’d vote for him.

How to frame the Mormon question will be a problem for Democrats. It’s a question that needs to be asked, but in the right way. Too aggressive and it will only add to the victim-complex of Republicans who feel religion is under attack.

Does Romney’s Mormon faith bother you more or less than it would if he were Catholic or Evangelical? Do you think keeping religious convictions private is a price worth paying to reduce the role of religion in public politics?

Filed Under: General, Politics 72 Comments

What the Contraception Debate is Really About

May 26, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 49 Comments

Mike Luckovich of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution explains:



Filed Under: General, Humor, Politics 49 Comments

Missouri Right-to-Pray Amendment Has a (Literally) Hidden Purpose

May 26, 2012 By Paul Fidalgo 30 Comments

Let's dirty this up a bit, shall we?

Soon Missourians will take to the polls to decide the fate of a new amendment to the state’s constitution that would, at first blush, do nothing.

Surely I jest. Let’s look, with a little help from BallotPedia. The measure would ensure…

  • That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed;

Well, that’s already in the U.S. Constitution, it’s a basic right of all Americans, so no big deal there…

  • That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools;

While there’s a prohibition from prayers being coerced or directed by school officials and teachers and the like, no one can stop a student from praying or giving the Big Imaginary Guy a shout-out on their own, so once again, no harm no foul…

  • That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

Well, if they must. It’s a handy thing to have around, you know, for reference.

Good then! A pointless ballot measure intended merely to get some excited conservatives to the polls. Vote for it, don’t vote for it, whatever. It won’t matter.

But wait.

It can’t be a ploy to get the religious vote out to the polls on Election Day, because it’s going to be voted on August 7, not in November. But if it’s so benign, so redundant, and not intended to drive turnout, what’s the point?

You see, there’s more to this measure than meets the eye. And I mean that literally, because what will not meet the eye of the voters is the full description of what the rest of the proposed amendment would do.

For one (emphasis mine):

. . . the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies

This feels to me like a middle finger to groups like FFRF and American Atheists who regularly challenge this practice. I’m sure it already happens in Missouri all the time, but here they are trying to codify it in their constitution, though I would imagine that it’s still not going to square with the U.S. Constitution.

There’s more!

. . . this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

The ACLU declared back in 2011 that this section was an overt attempt to limit the free exercise of religion for prisoners, which I didn’t quite see at first, though I got that it’s at the very least unsettling in how it goes out of its way to single out the incarcerated as not being invited to enjoy these new-but-not-new rights. But of course, then you realize what’s really at the meat of this, and it all falls together (emphasis mine):

. . . that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;

Ah.

In other words, students may essentially opt out of their education if it contradicts the Bronze Age nonsense they’ve been told to believe at home and at church. A student could theoretically claim adherence to Genesis in biology class, and not suffer academically for turning their nose up the course’s assignments, lessons, and readings.

This is a great way to make sure your state is as irrelevant as possible in the information economy.

I’m also troubled by the first part of the quoted paragraph, not because I’m all about religious discrimination, but it sure smells fishy to me in that I expect this language is there to make sure that for a project on, say, geology, a student could insist that the Earth is 6000 years old, and not receive a failing grade because, hey, that’d be discrimination.

And now we can tie this all back to the prisoners. The authors of the amendment want to make sure that students can opt out of anything that conflicts with their religion, but they don’t want his language to be construed as offering this same right to those in prison. The last thing they want is for a Muslim (or an atheist, even) to be able to claim that something required of him while incarcerated is in conflict with his beliefs. That’s just for the Christians.

And just so we’re clear, none of this stuff — about the prisoners, the clergy at public meetings, or the students skirting science education — is going to appear in the summary on the ballot on which people will actually vote. Almost no one actually deciding this question will see any of this.

It’s telling that even the amendment’s supporters don’t really know how to explain it. Here’s Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke making an attempt:

I think what this does is it tries to protect those rights that are already secure but now that we have challenges over the decades and over 231 years in the courts challenging our religious freedom I think it’s better for the states if we do make it clear that you have these freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and that we spell it out.

There was a sentence in there somewhere, I’m sure.

(Thanks to Brian for the tip.)

Filed Under: Education, General, Politics, Science 30 Comments

Pastors in Columbus, Georgia Are Looking for a Lawsuit

May 25, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 44 Comments

Pastors in Georgia have a brilliant idea for fixing the school system in the city of Columbus: Ignore federal law and institute school prayer.

[Paul] Voorhees, a local business owner and chaplain says, “We are not asking them to do anything other than give us their blessing and get it on a state ballot, we would like the people of the state of Georgia to vote if they want bible study and prayer in our schools.”

Voorhees is leading what he and other pastors call a movement. “We are going to bring a proposal to the state of Georgia to put it on the ballot and allow local school districts to vote in favor of school prayer and study the Bible in our schools.”

They’re not even being subtle about this. They want it put to a vote because they live in a majority Christian community and they believe the majority should get whatever it wants — the rights of the minority be damned.

Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Atheists? Those students’ rights don’t matter.

The fact that Christian students can already pray (privately) in schools if they’d like? That’s not LOUD enough!

In the video, Voorhees — the host of “Ranger Joe’s God & Country Show” — also makes the case that, because they have Bible studies and prayer in jail, prisons are safer than schools.

Riiiiiight. I’m sure Christians everywhere can’t wait to enroll their kids behind bars. Anything but a science class.

Oh! And that’s not all! When Voorhees was explaining why this referendum would be *totally* legal, this was his reasoning:

“There’s no law that says we cannot,” Voorhees told councilors. “There’s some rulings that say it’s unconstitutional, but when that was done it was an all-white (Supreme Court). Now that we have some color (on the court), that would never pass.”

What the… I don’t even… huh?!

You make sense of that.

Mayor Teresa Tomlinson was probably just being courteous when she thanked him for his presentation. I hope that, in her head, she was just wondering why these people were wasting her time trying to implement a plan that would invite lawsuits from every civil liberties organization in the country.

Mayor Tomlinson, thinking, 'You're kidding me, right?' (via wsfa.com)

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

Filed Under: Education, General, Politics 44 Comments

The Christian Soldier Marches On

May 24, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 5 Comments

Marc Murphy of the Courier-Journal (Kentucky) says a lot with one image:

(Thanks to Aaron for the link!)

Filed Under: General, Humor, Politics 5 Comments

Religious People Don’t Need Helmets, Right?

May 24, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 89 Comments

Manitoba’s Healthy Living Minister Jim Rondeau just introduced some very sensible legislation. Bill 37 would make it illegal for children under the age of 18 to ride a bike (even as a passenger) without a helmet.

If you’re caught without a helmet, you could be fined for up to $50 (or face an alternative punishment to be decided later).

On the whole, though, it makes sense and there’s good reason for requiring it:

From 2005 to 2009, 374 children were hospitalized for cycling-related injuries in Manitoba, according to the province. Fifty-four were hospitalized for cycling-related head injuries.

The province, until now, has resisted calls for a mandatory bike helmet law. The NDP government has instead favoured educational programs that encourage helmet use. It also subsidized the cost of more than 73,000 helmets to Manitoba families through its Low Cost Bike Helmet Initiative.

“Unfortunately, recent studies show that many children and youth are still not wearing helmets,” Rondeau said in a press release today accompanying the legislation.

There’s a case to be made that the new law should also apply to adults (much like seat-belt legislation). And some are complaining the government is pushing itself into an area in which it doesn’t belong (“If I don’t want to wear a helmet, you can’t make me!”)… but there’s another problem with this bill that hasn’t gotten any significant pushback:

There will also be some exemptions to the new law, such as on religious grounds.

What?! Why? What difference does it make what your religion is when it comes to head injury?!

Presumably, this amendment to the bill is meant to accomodate the large local population of Sikhs (who wear turbans). But it still makes no sense. Sikhs are just as likely to crash and injure themselves as everyone else. And a turban won’t break their fall. Neither will god.

A Sikh man on a bike... just because. (via The Langer Hall)

There’s no reason to let them off the hook for a law that’s meant to save their lives.

Incidentally — as if it needed to be said — a group called the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute stated that turbans are not an effective substitute for helmets:

One Canadian test lab tested a Sikh turban for impact characteristics, and found that they probably would not provide much impact protection, certainly not enough to approach the performance of a helmet meeting any of the national or international bicycle helmet standards. Turbans may vary according to regional styles, and can differ considerably in size, shape, density and other characteristics, so it would be difficult to design a helmet to fit over or under them. A turban-shaped helmet is probably not a viable option even if it were acceptable to Sikhs, because the traditional Sikh turban is meticulously wound, and it would be difficult for a turban wearer to remove their turban, ride in the helmet, and rewind the turban after the ride. Winding a turban over a helmet would eliminate ventilation and result in a very large headgear, while still requiring that the normal turban be taken off to ride.

It’s possible the law could be passed without religious exemptions and just not be enforced on Sikhs (at least unofficially), but that would just defeat the purpose of the bill. It’s a bad idea, anyway. This law would be for their own good.

(Thanks to Dorothy for the link!)

Filed Under: Canada, General, Politics 89 Comments

Prominent Israeli Rabbi: Doctors Shouldn’t Treat Gentiles on the Sabbath

May 23, 2012 By Claudia 31 Comments

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is very concerned about doctors following proper procedures when dealing with patients. Unfortunately, instead of the Hippocratic Oath, Rabbi Yosef has decided to go with Exodus, which dates from the same approximate period but is much less compassionate and has not been updated ever since.

In fact, Yosef doesn’t want Jewish doctors treating non-Jews on the Sabbath:

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (via oztorah.com)

… the spiritual leader of Shas said that while doctors are expected to do everything in their power — even if it requires violating the Sabbath — in order to save Jews whose lives are in danger, the same does not apply for gentiles.

“If a gentile were to get injured in a car accident during Sabbath, and he is brought to the hospital — Israel must not treat him“…

Before you assume that Yosef is a raging bigot without a shred of compassion, rest assured he feels compassion for the “poor doctors” who are required by law to treat all patients that come to them despite a firm desire to let them die. Like the Kosher oven, the rabbi has come up with a legalistic way for doctors to still comply with the Iron Age rules: have another doctor physically attached!

The rabbi offered a halachic solution that follows a rule by which if a single person is doing the act, he is violating the Sabbath, while if two people are doing it together, they are exempt.

“The doctor who needs to operate will call on another doctor, or nurse, to hold the scalpel together and make the incision”…

Let’s play this out for a moment.

Your young daughter is running with a glass of water in her hands and she falls. The glass flies out of her hands and shatters. She lands on top of it. Shards of glass bury themselves in her eyes. Terrified, you haul the screaming child to the car and race her to the hospital. Once there your daughter is rushed into the operating room. The surgeon strides in, picks up her paperwork and glances at her name. He turns to the nurse and says, “We’ll both hold the scalpel” and then proceeds to try to take the glass out with millimetric accuracy without accidentally blinding her. Naturally enough, it’s much more likely that your daughter will be left blind in this situation. But then, it’s just a gentile child, so who really cares, right?

Ovadia Yosef is not some fevered crank of some tiny Westboro Baptist Church-like community. He is the founder and spiritual leader of Shas, the fourth largest political party in Israel and one that currently has its people in key positions in the Israeli government. That he thinks that this is in any way acceptable — and that it should be legal — is outrageous and worrisome. Obviously his ideas are not in any way universal (check out the comments in the article), but that such a person can actually lead a main party in a (partially) democratic state should worry all of us.

Filed Under: General, Politics Tagged With: , , 31 Comments

Norway Abolishes National Church

May 22, 2012 By jessica 57 Comments

In an unprecedented move this week, the Norwegian Parliament voted unanimously to abolish the national Church. Considering that 72% of the population (3.6 million people) are non-believers, it may not be a very surprising move, but it’s still noteworthy.

Norway!

Before the parade starts, though, it turns out that this isn’t a complete separation of the two entities as was initially reported.

The country used to financially support the church and participated in selecting certain church officials — this new step will remove the government from that process while retaining some funding to the church.

According to the Norwegian Humanist Association’s website, this is only the first step in complete church and state separation. Up until now, all citizens who were baptized in Norway were automatically members of the Church of Norway despite a staggeringly low regular church attendance rate of 2%.

This amendment  will start with the following steps:

  • The Lutheran Church of Norway will be renamed The People’s Church

  • Norway will no longer have an official national religion

  • The government will no longer participate in the appointment of bishops and deans

  • There will no longer be a requirement for parliamentary officials to be members of the Lutheran Church

The following things will not be changed:

  • The church tax will remain in place (although a small portion will be going to humanist organizations)

  • A church office will remain in the government, headed up by a minister

After reading through kirken.no (the former Church of Norway’s official site) it sounds like it was an amiable split. The fact that the state is still funding the church is justified as follows:

“… The Committee notes that the constitutional changes resulting from the settlement the church intends to clarify the Norwegian churches free position as religious communities. This means that the religious activities of the church will no longer be the state’s task. However, it is government’s task to support the church as a religious community, and to support other religious and philosophical alike. The Committee endorses the understanding that the changes represent a new basis for the development of the Norwegian Church as an independent religious communities. The Committee would also emphasize the importance of establishing security for the changes contribute to the preservation of the Norwegian Church’s mission to be an open, inclusive and democratic national church.”

So there is still some intermingling, but it sounds like they are off to a better start to a beautiful, secular future.

Filed Under: General, Politics 57 Comments

Catholic Organizations Sue Government Over Healthcare

May 22, 2012 By Mark Turner 72 Comments

On Monday, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C. joined other Catholic organizations to sue the U.S. Government over a new healthcare law mandating them to provide employees with access to contraception as part of their health insurance. The lawsuit cites the First Amendment guaranteeing protection of religion.

There are already provisions in the law which bend over backwards to accommodate religious organizations, but the plaintiffs argue that these provisions don’t go far enough. The argument hinges on what can and cannot be deemed a religious organization. The law states that any institution that’s main purpose is religious in nature, such as a church or religious counseling service is exempt. It’s a complicated exemption clause, but the basic rule is that if the institution does not hire ONLY members of that religion, then it is not considered by the law to be religious.

Everything else must obey the law. This includes institutions run by religious groups but whose main purpose is not religious. This is a little easier to define: Schools, hospitals, various types of charities, and social outreach programs all fall into this category.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington, thinks this is wrong.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl (via ncea.org)

For us, here in the District of Columbia, what would that mean? We operate schools. We’ve been operating schools decades and decades, caring for some of the neediest children in this community, and we’ve been very successful in educating them. The vast majority of these kids in our center city schools are not Catholic.

To be told we don’t count, they don’t count as religious, we don’t accept that. That’s why we’re going into court. Rather than have some sort of confusion as we move into the future, why don’t we get this settled in a very objective, dispassionate, non-political forum? The courts exist for that and that’s why Americans turn to the courts. We have always turned to our courts as citizens of this great country when there has been some confusion, some challenge, some attack on our constitutional rights, so that’s why we have joined institutions all across America in saying this is un-American and we need to get it cleaned up.

It would be good to get some kind of idea just how many people work for the institutions affected and ask them what they want in their insurance. There must be a decent proportion of employees who disagree with the Church’s stance on contraception. Hell, I bet a good chunk of those are Catholic. I think the Cardinal might just see how out of touch with society the church’s stance on contraception really is.

A Gallup poll published today only confirms these suspicions. The poll is across the population as a whole, and not just employees at Catholic institutions, but the numbers are remarkable.

90% of the population considers the use of birth control to be morally acceptable. When you consider only Catholics, the percentage drops… but only to 82%. In other words 82% of Catholics think their church is wrong on this issue.

(via gallup.com)

In the short term, actions such as this are damaging the lives of people across the country.  Sandra Fluke’s harrowing testimony to House Democrats in February offers a shocking glimpse of the suffering involved. In the long term, clinging to outdated dogma such as this is driving a wedge between the Catholic hierarchy and its followers — especially the younger generation. Clinging to it will only drive people away. Not that that’s a problem.

It’s difficult for me to really appreciate the ramifications of religiously mandated healthcare. My experience is very different from what you experience in the U.S.; I have access to free healthcare through the superb NHS (National Health Service). This also gets me amazing free treatment in countries with reciprocal agreements with the U.K. This includes anywhere in the European Union, as well as about 30 non-EU countries, including Russia, Australia, and New Zealand (an agreement I have had to call upon myself when in Australia). The state provides high-quality care, and I don’t have some crazy cult restricting my access to any of these services. In the U.K., objection to aspects of healthcare is a personal choice — don’t agree with contraception? Then don’t use it. Although given our high teenage pregnancy rates, it would be nice if people did…

In the U.K. press, any objection is often portrayed as the stuff of Tea Party rhetoric; Obama haters; or people stuck in the McCarthy era, terrified of communism.

It would be nice for me to get some kind of idea how popular or unpopular socialized healthcare is. Is there strong support for health care reform among left leaning voters? And if not, why not?

Filed Under: General, Lawsuits, Politics 72 Comments
« Older Posts