Social hygiene

"But we can still be friends, right?"

That link leads to a lovely little riff on the various forms of belief and unbelief from the Real Live Preacher, which includes this gem:

Or is yours that kind of arrogant faith that says, “Everyone else must be a complete idiot not to have faith and believe what I believe.” I hope not, because you seem so nice. Plus, I probably don't believe what you believe, so now I'm stupid and how are we going to have a decent conversation once that's established?

- - - - - - - - -

Jiglu: Tags that don't work

Something called "Jiglu," I was told, would help readers navigate this site by automatically tagging posts and providing a running index for the various tags.

This turned out to be very cool except for two things: 1) Jiglu doesn't work, at all; and 2) the people in charge of Jiglu don't respond to e-mail, at all.

- - - - - - - - -

"Charity girls"

Via Do Cretins Take Over Every Time There's a War? The Answer: Yes," which in turn led to this, "In a Teenager's Plight, the Forgotten History of the 'Charity Girls'":

In what has remained a little-known episode in American history, close to 20,000 women, most of them infected with venereal diseases, were rounded up during and immediately after World War I and confined to prisons and reformatories without being formally charged with a crime.

Caught in periodic roundups of dance halls and wooded areas outside soldiers’ camps, some were prostitutes, others simply teenage girls attracted to the glamour of soldiers going off to war, or “charity girls” who had sex in exchange for meals or entertainment.

They were sometimes confined for a year or more, surrounded by barbed wire and guards. Often barred from contact with outsiders, the women were forced to undergo humiliating medical procedures.

This month [Michael] Lowenthal’s book, "Charity Girl," based on material he uncovered in government reports and social work journals, was published by Houghton Mifflin.

Lowenthal's own site provides more background on the history of these "detention houses and reformatories that received assistance from the United States government in caring for civilian persons whose detention, isolation, quarantine or commitment was found necessary for the protection of the military and naval forces of the United States against venereal diseases."

- - - - - - - - -

Democrats "find" religion. Again.

Here's an annoying headline: "Clinton, Dems find religion.

It seems that Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spoke at an evangelical church. As always, this must be treated as unprecedented. Why? Because that's the trope; that's the template. Maintaining this template requires a very short memory -- like Guy Pearce in Memento short. You have to forget about not just William Jennings Bryan and Jimmy Carter, but also about every other religious appearance or speech by Clinton and Obama.

In Clinton's case, this has been comical. She's been giving widely reported speeches on religious themes and in religious settings for more than 15 years and every time -- every single time -- it's treated as something brand new and the result of some recent, cynically tactical calculus. Obama splashed onto the national stage with a 2004 speech in which he paraphrased a Rich Mullins praise chorus, yet his appearance at an evangelical church in 2007 is treated as some kind of startling novelty.

Both senators are, of course, running for president, so you can be sure of two things: 1) Over the next few months each of them will -- repeatedly -- speak on religious themes to religious groups; and 2) Each time they do it will -- repeatedly -- be reported on as unprecedented and indicative of some new political strategy.

- - - - - - - -

I ended up with a broken fiddle --
And a broken laugh, and a thousand memories.
And not a single regret.

The Spoon River Anthology online.

Like the book itself, it invites random sampling. Click anywhere, enjoy.

Comments

[daniel]

A wise man once said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven

I'm sure the author (of the sfgate article) thought she was being terribly clever, but she missed it by a mile. It's kingdom of God, not "getting into heaven".

[Jeff]

I don't fit anywhere on RLP's scale. I'm closest to "Not a Faith" person: In your mind the evidence would have to be pretty strong to push you away from your default position of unbelief.

BUT: I believe in magic, in song and dance and jokes. It's not frightened, it's not desperate and I hope it's not arrogant. It's not the default, and it's surely not rigorous.

One outlier, possibly (probably?) of many.

[A-Diz]

Both senators are, of course, running for president, so you can be sure of two things: 1) Over the next few months each of them will -- repeatedly -- speak on religious themes to religious groups...

It's that first bit I always find so intriguing about American politics. I'm sure Canadian leaders speak to church groups, and God knows certain parties love to play the rural/religious-moral-value-salt-of-the-earth card (over and over) but I can't say I actually know what the religious views of any of the party leaders in Canada are. (I knew our last PM was a Catholic though, so. Bonus points?)

Presumably they are not (declared) atheists, or someone would be making a bigger stink. But other than that...? Nada.

What about the rest of you international Salcktivites? Is this sort of thing as Big Deal where you are?

[Ecks]

Chretien was catholic? Didn't know that.
In England it *might* matter, in that the C of E is the official state religion, although I doubt anyone cares much about it this century. In Iran, you bet your petuny behind it would be important.

It's funny, you get American conservatives who say that America is a religious country, because it was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. But the bit they always forget is that the people persecuting America's forefathers were OTHER RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. When you set the state up as an explicitly religious thing, then the tendency is for one denomination or another to gather influence, and start trying to crack down on all the people who do the WRONG religious things (after all, this is an XYZ country, we need to protect its XYZness). That's why America's founders were very explicit as setting the state up as NON religious, so that everyone could get on with their own personal religion in peace.

[A-Diz]

Chretien was catholic? Didn't know that.

Paul Martin. He's easy to forget.

(I have now revealed myself to be one of those people who just refreshes the comment windows here over and over. The shame!)

[Jesurgislac]

I know there's been at least one Prime Minister this century who was an atheist, because the rules about selecting Archbishops got changed for him, and never changed back, but I can't remember who. James Callaghan?
Margaret Thatcher: Not a scoobie. Possibly Church of England as a default.
John Major: Probably Church of England, but I don't think it ever came up.
Tony Blair: Episcopalian, wanted to be Catholic. Will probably convert now he can.
Gordon Brown: probably Presbyterian, in a default kind of way at least, but I have actually no idea.

[Ecks]

Paul Martin. He's easy to forget.

DOH! How could I forget Mr. Dithers!

(I have now revealed myself to be one of those people who just refreshes the comment windows here over and over. The shame!)

Hur hur... what sort of person does that. <eyeballs the ceiling. Whistles innocently>

[Spherical Time]

I wish that in response to an article like the "Hilary, Dems Find God" one above, someone in the mainstream media would be absolutely shocked that several of the major Republican candidates don't attend regular church services.

[MikeJ]

But spherical, if a republican doesn't go to god's house the media will simply assume god comes over to his.

[Spherical Time]

That's for sure.

[Jeff]

I know there's been at least one Prime Minister this century who was an atheist

I don't see one on either Wiki's List of atheists or List of agnostics.

Of Callaghan, Wiki says "He married Audrey Elizabeth Moulton, whom he had met when they both worked as Sunday School teachers at the local Baptist church". I can't find anything which suggests he was anything other than Baptist.

[not someone else]

Scared, jackass, insistent, or nonexistent? Other.

Definitely other.

[Seminarian]

"Dems" find God? When did we lose him, and to whom?

[Matt McIrvin]

This reminds me of the "Science increasingly turns to religious explanations" article, a mainstay of newspaper science sections for as long as I can remember. You can always find some pop-sci bestsellers that mention God in the title and some scientists who are personally religious (as of course some always are), mix in some confusing statements about quantum physics and the anthropic principle, and blow it up into a trend. There's always a brief historical section that name-drops Einstein.

One of the revolving quotes on PZ Myers' blog is Bertrand Russell complaining about these articles sometime in, I think, the 1920s.

[Tonio]

It's funny, you get American conservatives who say that America is a religious country, because it was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. But the bit they always forget is that the people persecuting America's forefathers were OTHER RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.

True. Certainly Maryland was founded by Catholics fleeing Anglican persecution. But the Pilgrims had already found a haven in Holland, and they left that country because they didn't want to assimilate. They and the Puritans didn't care about religious freedom for the individual.

Good column about Huckabee in today's Washington Post:

It is absurd that Romney feels compelled to deliver a speech defending his beliefs and that Huckabee does not have to explain how, in this day and age, he does not believe in evolution. But it is singularly appropriate that Romney's speech be delivered at the Bush library. For it is the 41st president's underachieving son who put such emphasis on religious belief -- and has shown us all, with his appalling record, that faith is no substitute for thought. A mind honed on the whetstone of doubt might have kept us out of Iraq.

The Republican presidential field has some feeble minds and some dangerous ones as well, but none has done as much damage as Huckabee has. Religion does not belong in the political arena. It does not lend itself to compromise. It is about belief, not reason, and is ordinarily immutable.

[Vermic]

When you set the state up as an explicitly religious thing, then the tendency is for one denomination or another to gather influence, and start trying to crack down on all the people who do the WRONG religious things (after all, this is an XYZ country, we need to protect its XYZness).

The trouble is, to some people, tolerance toward other faiths is equivalent to admitting that those other faiths could be right and their own could be wrong. That's unacceptable, therefore tolerance is unacceptable too. There's a lot wrong with that line of reasoning, but some folks live by it anyway.

For it is the 41st president's underachieving son who put such emphasis on religious belief --

Heh. You know, it's not every person who can ascend to the office of President of the United States of America, serve two terms, and still rate the adjective "underachieving" -- but doggone it, GWB manages it somehow.

[Salamanda]

Seminarian: "Dems" find God? When did we lose him, and to whom?

One of my favorite bumper stickers says: "I found Jesus! He was behind the sofa the whole time!"

[Ecks]

He was behind the sofa the whole time!

... along with 2000 years of spare change. What's the exchange rate on Shekels and Dukets these days anyway?

[Lurker]

You might want to consider the idea that the United States was a consolidation of 13 very different states. Making the United States a non-religious confederation did not mean overall religious freedom. It meant that the subject of religion was part of the sovereignity of several states. Many states did indeed have established churches or constitutional clauses requiring e.g. "protestant" religion of state legislators. Only the 14th amendment changed the situation, requiring the several states to grant their citizens the same rights in their several jurisdictions as the United States grants to its citizens in her jurisdiction.

We have a similar situation in Europe. The European Union only has the duty to enforce the human rights in its own jurisdiction. The member states are bound to enforce the human rights in their jurisdiction, but the courts of the Union cannot void the decisions of member state authorities on the basis of their being in conflict with the Union human rights charter. (They may do this, if the member state is acting in conflict of Union legislation, based on the competencies of the Union. Only if this is the case, the Union-level human rights guarantees enter the stage.)

The human rights are, though, internationally protected through the (non-Union) European Covenant on Human Rights, which establishes the European human rights court, capable of ordering the state to pay reparations.

[Ecks]

Lurker, that's fascinating. I read what you wrote as follows:

"While the original US federal union was non-religious, several of the original 13 states discriminated quite heavily on a religious basis, which state of affairs persisted until the 14th amendment. This is similar to the European Union, where one must insert via slot B cantilever R, except where dowel Q is flush with surface G. In this case one must return to step 6, excepting charter 27's provision that besmirchings are nonrefundible, in which case loop step 3 to 18, press play twice, stop once, record 14 times, and under no circumstances press the 'button' labeled 'sausage chopping orifice'. In the case of slot B overrunning any type of smudge exemption, move to Delicious Cookie 6, and lie to the pursuant dis-authorities that you are in fact a beta-spatulon."

Was I close?

[Lurker]

Ecks,

as a matter of fact, you are! :-D Legalese is truly horrible, especially if it comes from a system different from your own.

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: Of Callaghan, Wiki says "He married Audrey Elizabeth Moulton, whom he had met when they both worked as Sunday School teachers at the local Baptist church". I can't find anything which suggests he was anything other than Baptist.

I was going by memory - this was in response to A-Diz's comment What about the rest of you international Slacktivites? Is this sort of thing as Big Deal where you are? In short, no, PM's don't make a big deal about what religion they are**, and I know that one of them fairly recently* was an atheist, because I remember about the Archbishop selection being changed for him.

*Since WWII? That's fairly recent.
**Though I think they are expected to show up at official national type religious services*** and make nice, no matter what religion they are.
***Either Church of England or Church of Scotland, depending where you are.

[Iorwerth Thomas]

Margaret Thatcher: Not a scoobie. Possibly Church of England as a default.

She was raised Methodist, I think. Not sure if she kept with it in anything other than name only.

[Mark]

If they were a non-Protestant it would cause a bit of ho-ha, because, you know, we killed a king once because he wasn't a Protestant, but it wouldn't stop them being elected, or really making a difference. If the next king decided he wanted to not be a Protestant, then that would cause a storm I'm sure. Not sure how that would go down because, you know, he's the king. He doesn't really get to pick what he does, he kinda has to be a king and that kinda means he has to be Protestant (and what with people looking for any reason for him to pass the crown straight over to William, that might be enough to he to choose to abdicate).

[Tonio]

Many states did indeed have established churches or constitutional clauses requiring e.g. "protestant" religion of state legislators. Only the 14th amendment changed the situation, requiring the several states to grant their citizens the same rights in their several jurisdictions as the United States grants to its citizens in her jurisdiction.

And that was for the better. It's inherently dangerous for any government to have that type of endorsement of a particular religion. I even object in principle to the concept of the Church of England. In practice, however, I recognize that English politics seems to do a much better job than American politics at keeping religion out of the discussion. Why is that the case?

[Jesurgislac]

Mark: If the next king decided he wanted to not be a Protestant, then that would cause a storm I'm sure.

Under the Act of Settlement, he would then be automatically ineligible to inherit.

That is (1701 legal-speak): "all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm".

The reason why it's problematic for the Prime Minister to be Catholic is because since 1701, the powers of "the Crown and government of this realm" have passed to the Prime Minister. In practice, were any attempt made under the Act of Settlement to unseat a Prime Minister for being Catholic, that probably would result in the abolition of the Act: one reason it's lasted since 1701 and even though it's directly against the Human Rights Act, is that it affects quite literally only a tiny handful of people, all belonging to one family, and the only way in which it affects them is that they can't become monarch or be the heir to the throne if they convert to Catholicism or marry a Catholic. Charles would still be an immensely wealthy and powerful man if he converted to Catholicism: he just wouldn't ever be King. I am not sure that any court would agree that being King is a basic human right which the son of a reigning monarch is being unjustly denied.

Tonio: In practice, however, I recognize that English politics seems to do a much better job than American politics at keeping religion out of the discussion. Why is that the case?

The good influence of the Scots. ;-)

[Jesurgislac]

Follow-up: Of course, under the Act of Settlement, there would be no problem with Charles converting to any religion not-a-Protestant except Catholicism: he could become a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jain, a Sikh...

[Lurker]

Tonio,

I think it depends on your view on federalism. One can make a cogent argument that the several states should be solely responsible for deciding which religion, if any, they wish to establish. After all, until the 14th amendment, the states had the power to institute slavery and until the 19th amendment, the several states could grant franchise on the basis of sex. Even if you grant that none of these practices is correct, you can, in principle, say that it should be solely up to the states themselves whether they wish to be slave-owner republics or modern democracies. For example, you might argue that a decision like that is too important for the federal government to make.

For example, we have in Finland a very moderate official church-state relationship and even if I wished to abolish it, I would forcefully oppose any European-level proposal for disestablishment. After all, if the Union can disestablish, it might even establish churches.

[Jeff]

I was going by memory... I know that one of them fairly recently* was an atheist, because I remember about the Archbishop selection being changed for him.

Fair enough. I'll keep Googling -- maybe the right search will find him.

[Jesurgislac]

For newcomers who wonder about the above: it's all in the upholstery.

[Jake]

All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again, right? The universe is an endless cycle of Fred posting sensible things and Scott misinterpreting and going off the deep end.

[Jos]

What about the rest of you international Slacktivites? Is this sort of thing as Big Deal where you are?

Nope. I only know... well, I think I know the religions of members of parties like CDA, CU and SGP (Protestant, Protestant and Protestant) but only because they are parties based on religion.

But if you were to ask me about the religion of anyone else, I wouldn't have a clue. I guess Geert Wilders is Catholic and Jan Marijnissen is an atheist, but only because Wilders comes from Limburg and Marijnissen is a hardcore socialist.

Oh, no wait, the head of the PvD was a... Sunday Adventist or something. But once that secret came out the rest of the party booted her for being a member of one of the more batshit Protestant denominations.

So no. When it comes to campaigning, only the fringe religious parties bother with churches. If they bother with churches at all, because the kind of churches they would campaign at are usually bound to vote for them anyway.

[Jesurgislac]

Jake: All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again, right? The universe is an endless cycle of Fred posting sensible things and Scott misinterpreting and going off the deep end.

Yes. No one knows why Scott does it, or what he gets out of it, but the story posted on Right Behind is certainly as likely an explanation as any.

[Lurker]

In Finland, there is a Christian democratic party, with a few seats in the parliament. However, in main stream politics, one's religion is not asked or told. When the former president Martti Ahtisaari ended some public speeches with "God bless you", this was widely condemned as Americanism, regardless of the party. His predecessor, Mauno Koivisto, had in the 1980s some rather heavy rows with the bishop of Helsinki. In public view, this was interpreted stemming from Koivisto's socialist ideology. After his retirement, Koivisto revealed that he actually believes in Christian God but leans more toward congregationalism than the episcopal structure of Finnish Lutheran church. During his term, he did not, however, state anything about his personal beliefs, not wishing to give Christianity the backing of his official position.

Our current president, Tarja Halonen, is not a member of the national Lutheran church or any other congregation. However, she has worked extensively in a major Christian social work organization before her term. Halonen has stated that her reason to leave the church in 1970s was disagreement on female priests, whom the church did not ordain then. Now that the church ordains women, she has no personal reason not to return to the church, but she refrains from doing, so as not to send a political signal.

You might say that in Finland, it is OK to be a Christian politician as long as you don't show it. :-) As the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is heavy on its social doctrine, the right-wing parties don't like it at all.

[Jesurgislac]

Once again, folks: this is a tale of woe. Send Scott your hugs, not your comments!

[ako]

Ooh, the (TM)s are back! Those are my favorite(TM) part of a Scott post! I'm still waiting(TM) for him to ironically trademark the word 'the'.

[Geds]

Oh, man. I think I just forgot how to breathe.

Keeping up that stifled laugh necessary when cracking up but at work kind of hurts.

[kodiak]

Er, I didn't realize that Martin was Catholic, but it was kinda hard to avoid learning that Harper is Evangelical (in the US mould) during the same-sex marriage debate. He spoke to a number of religious organizations out West (ya, I'm from ONT) managing to thoroughly mis-represent what would be coming down the pike (ministers aren't forced *now* to marry people they don't want to, why would they be when the legislation passed?)

[kodiak]

Hey Jesu, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a liberal opposing abortion bans but supporting socialized medicine isn't violating "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Wow, that makes no sense at all! I mean isn't the standard tagline for those who oppose banning abortion that it should be "available, safe, and rare"? It's hard to make it available and safe if it's a banned procedure, and how better to make it available and safe than to have the procedure available to all who need it regardless of their economic status? And if that isn't a fairly good description of socialized medicine I don't know what is.

There is no disconnect outside of scott's head. Carry on.

[Geds]

make it available and safe than to have the procedure available to all who need it regardless of their economic status? And if that isn't a fairly good description of socialized medicine I don't know what is.

Thank you.

I was trying to figure out how to say exactly that. I just couldn't get it succintly enough to want to try.

[Gravity]

Wow. I had never even heard of The Spoon River Anthology. It's so hauntingly beautiful. I know what I'm asking for for Generic Winter Holiday.

[Geds]

Generic Winter Holiday

Where we all gather around the shrubbery decorated with pictures of a non-offensive nature and lustily sing the old Chrismahanakwanzica carols we fondly remember from childhood?

[twig]

I don't fit anywhere on RLP's scale.

Gosh, Jeff, you're so special. Maybe if I'm lucky I can be as special as you someday.

[Angelika]

Vermic The trouble is, to some people, tolerance toward other faiths is equivalent to admitting that those other faiths could be right and their own could be wrong. That's unacceptable, therefore tolerance is unacceptable too. There's a lot wrong with that line of reasoning, but some folks live by it anyway.

Well, sometimes believers are asked in the name of tolerance to do or claim things, which actually do contradict their faith. E.g. I had people asking me in the name of tolerance to admit that there is no Truth. Now, I'm happy to admit, that I don't personally own the Truth and might very well be mistaken about my religious and philosophical assumptions - however, to claim that there no Truth exists, simply because we humans can't agree on what it might be, would make me very uncomfortable because it would imply that God wouldn't know it either... Similarly, I can accept, if other people choose to pray to other deities (or none at all), and be friends with these people, however being asked to participate in a service addressing one of these other deities or pretending that all these deities were in fact the same, goes well beyond my comfort level.

[Anonymousy]

I've always been a lurker before, but I wanted to point out the correct URL for a broken link above: "Do Cretins Take Over Every Time There's a War? The Answer: Yes" should lead to http://frostokovich.livejournal.com/14884.html

(Note: I am entirely unrelated to frostokovich; I just happen to have seen the link to his LiveJournal post recently enough to remember it.)

[MikhailBorg]

Where we all gather around the shrubbery decorated with pictures of a non-offensive nature and lustily sing the old Chrismahanakwanzica carols we fondly remember from childhood?

I'm mildly surprised to realize that Xmas is heading in that direction for me. From a childhood of firewood chopping, carol singing, cookie baking, giant tree decorating, and eager awaiting of Santa, the holiday's evolved into a basic, really good excuse to socialize with people I wish I could spend more time around. We're even keeping the gift-giving simple and sweet this year.

[scottbot_off_course]

Scottbot is confused - does socialized medicine mean forced abortions on demand? Or womyn getting special priority, even though alphabetically, they are behind men, women, AND children? Or is this just further proof that there is no way for a robotic life form to scale the heights so easily mastered by the Original Programmer(TM)?

Scottbot will need to fire its turbothrusting boosters in emergency overdrive to regain balance. While striking an appropriately heroic pose, of course. Because womyn can't resist Scottbot's magnetic attraction coupling technology, when in full heroic pose mode.

[Ecks]

supporting socialized medicine isn't violating "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Lets see, if I were really sick, what would I want others to do to me? Oh, that's right, I'd want them to cure me. Even if I couldn't afford it. I'd like them to gather the means together across everybody to make it possible.
Now if Scott gets sick? Hmmm, I'd still like him to be cured free of charge, with the cost spread across everybody, even if I'm part of that everybody. And if Jes gets sick? Yep, same thing. Especially given that we all get sick sometimes, so what goes around comes around, we all get the benefit sooner or later.

Yep, pretty sure Jesus would be cool with that. Not that the big J's stance matters much to me personally, being an atheist.

[MikhailBorg]

Not that the big J's stance matters much to me personally, being an atheist.

I don't think one has to be a theist to accept that some of the teachings attributed to Jesus are pretty good ideas. I'm prepared to offer credit where it's due; just as I would to Mohammed, Buddha, Malaclypse the Younger, or Valentine Michael Smith.

[A-Diz]

...it was kinda hard to avoid learning that Harper is Evangelical (in the US mould) during the same-sex marriage debate.

Ah, yeah. I always assumed that, but I never read anything that said it for sure. I think that probably has something to do with the paper I was reading at the time (Calgary Sun - don't judge! It wasn't my subscription!). They liked to write stories that went something like...

"Omg the Pope doesn't want gay marriage. Hey, Paul Martin, ur Catholic. The pope is Catholic. Why you vote for gays?"

(I want to be joking more about their sentence structure. I do.)

But yeah, I don't remember reading much about Harper. I suppose in some ways we aren't all that far off the American model here. I do assume most hard line reformers at least make a token effort to play to the fundamentalist base. Such as it is here.