The Latest Lies of Anti-Gay Churches

Somewhat incredibly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod have filed a joint amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, claiming that their opposition to same sex marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality (see my earlier post today about Christians being the biggest liars) despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  According to these "godly churches," their support for a ban on same-sex marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality nor any intent to discriminate against the gay community.  Think Progress looks at this incredible lie.  Here are excerpts:

[T]hese religious groups argue that support for a ban on same-sex marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality nor any intent to discriminate against the gay community.  They assert this claim over a dozen times throughout the brief. Here are some examples:

• “The accusation [of “ignorance or actual hostility”] is false and offensive. It is intended to suppress rational dialogue and civil conversation, to win by insult and intimidation rather than by persuasion, experience, and fact.”
• “Our support for the historic meaning of marriage arises from a positive vision of ‘the family’… and not from animosity toward anyone.”
• “Our teachings seldom focus on sexual orientation or homosexuality.”

They hope to persuade the court that there is a valid reason for the state’s ban on same-sex marriage that isn’t just about discriminating against same-sex couples.

Despite the claims in their briefs, these religious groups speak about homosexuality in conjunction with their views on marriage at every turn. The ERLC’s fall conference was called “The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage” and Biblical teachings on homosexuality were at the core of its marriage conversations. The Vatican’s recent Humanum conference about marriage specifically justified its positions by rejecting the nature of homosexuality and highlighting the voices of ex-gays. Mormon leaders worry that marriage equality will lead to more violations of God’s law requiring chastity for gay people, not to mention they had to specify to volunteers campaigning for California’s Proposition 8 that “the less we refer to homosexuality, the better.”

The brief also argues that man-woman couples are superior for raising children, citing multiple studies that did not even assess same-sex parenting. Despite the irrelevance of these studies, the brief openly claims that limiting marriage to a man and a woman will somehow protect children from broken homes.

The last time the Supreme Court considered a same-sex marriage case, the Howard University School of Law’s Civil Rights Clinic pointed out that the arguments against same-sex marriage are identical to the arguments that were made against interracial marriage. Arguments that people of the same race “complement each other” better, that same-race parents are superior for children, that same-race families are less comparable to broken homes, and that sexual activity with the same race is “socially optimal behavior” all sound racist today. The religious organizations’ focus on heterosexual relations as superior encounters the same problem of degrading same-sex relations by inference.

The religious organizations simultaneously try to build a case that they, in fact, are victims as a result of these accusations of bigotry.

As the largest Christian denominations in the country are taking what may be their final stands against marriage equality, it is now that much harder for them to convince judges that they aren’t simply trying to limit the rights of same-sex families.

The Danger of When Bishops Direct Medical Care

I frequently attack the effort of Christofascists who try to inject their religious views into the civil laws in open violation of the concept of the separation of church and state - generally trampling on the religious freedom rights of others.  It is always about the Christofascists having their way and to Hell with everyone else.  Into this category of Christofascists who seek to trample on the rights of others one must include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group that continually seeks to sabotage the provision of medical care to non-Catholics and/or Catholics who no longer subscribe to the bishops' sex obsession.  The main editorial in today's New York Times blasts the efforts of the Catholic bishops to dictate what medical care is to be allowable - an action that, in my view, ought to prompt the elimination of the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status.  Here are editorial highlights:

Beyond new state efforts to restrict women’s access to proper reproductive health care, another, if quieter, threat is posed by mergers between secular hospitals and Catholic hospitals operating under religious directives from the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops. These directives, which oppose abortions, inevitably collide with a hospital’s duty to provide care to pregnant women in medical distress. This tension lies at the heart of a federal lawsuit filed last week by the American Civil Liberties Union.   

The suit was brought on behalf of a Michigan woman, Tamesha Means, who says she was subjected to substandard care at a Catholic hospital — the only hospital in her county — after her water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors in such circumstances typically induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the woman’s chances of infection. But according to the complaint, doctors acting in accordance with the bishops’ directives did not inform Ms. Means that her fetus had virtually no chance of surviving or that terminating her pregnancy was the safest treatment option. 

Despite acute pain and bleeding, Ms. Means was sent home twice, and when she returned a third time with a fever from her untreated infection, she miscarried even as the paperwork was being prepared to discharge her again. The fetus died soon after. 

The case has gained attention because Ms. Means is not suing the hospital for medical negligence but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The A.C.L.U. is arguing, on her behalf, that having issued the mandates and made them conditions of hospital affiliation, the conference is responsible for “the unnecessary trauma and harm” that Ms. Means and “other pregnant women in similar situations have experienced at Catholic-sponsored hospitals.” 

Catholic hospitals account for about 15 percent of the nation’s hospital beds and, in many communities, are the only hospital facilities available. Allowing religious doctrine to prevail over the need for competent emergency care and a woman’s right to complete and accurate information about her condition and treatment choices violates medical ethics and existing law. 

The bishops are free to worship as they choose and advocate for their beliefs. But those beliefs should not shield the bishops from legal accountability when church-affiliated hospitals following their rules cause patients harm.

ACLU Sues Catholic Bishops Over Policies on Abortion at Hospitals

The U.S. Roman Catholic bishops enjoy trampling on the rights of others as they hide behind the false cloak of "religious freedom" to disguise their quest to impose their beliefs on all citizens.  Thus, it is rather sweet to see the hypocrisy filed bishops on the receiving end of a lawsuit challenging the bishops' efforts to thwart abortion and contraception services at Catholic hospitals that receive federal funding.  Leading the charge against the bishops' disingenuous claims of religious freedom is the ACLU.  The New York Times looks at the lawsuit filed against the bitter old men in dresses.  Here are article excerpts:

The American Civil Liberties Union announced on Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, arguing that their anti-abortion directives to Catholic hospitals hamper proper care of pregnant women in medical distress, leading to medical negligence.   

The suit was filed in federal court in Michigan on Friday on behalf of a woman who says she did not receive accurate information or care at a Catholic hospital there, exposing her to dangerous infections after her water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy. 

In an unusual step, she is not suing the hospital, Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, but rather the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its ethical and religious directives, the suit alleges, require Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.” 

The suit opens a new front in the clash over religious rights and medical care. The Catholic Church has fought against requiring all health plans to include coverage of contraception and is likely to call the new lawsuit an attack on its core religious principles.

Catholic hospitals account for about one in six of the country’s hospital beds and in many regions their influence is spreading as they forge alliances with non-Catholic medical groups. 

“This isn’t about religious freedom, it’s about medical care,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the civil liberties union, in a telephone news conference on Monday.

Tamesha Means, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, said that when she was 18 weeks pregnant her water broke and she rushed to Mercy Health, the only hospital in her county. 

Her fetus had virtually no chance of surviving, according to medical experts who reviewed the case, and in these circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection. 

But the doctors at Mercy Health, Ms. Means said, did not tell her that the fetus could n t survive or that continuing her pregnancy was risky and did not admit her for observation. She returned the next morning, bleeding and in pain, and was sent home again. That night she went a third time, feverish and writhing with pain; she miscarried at the hospital and the fetus died soon after. 

At the news conference Monday, Dr. Douglas W. Laube, an obstetrician at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, described the care Ms. Means received as “basic neglect.” He added, “It could have turned into a disaster, with both baby and mother dying.”

In 2010, the diocese of Phoenix stripped a hospital of its affiliation after doctors there said they performed an abortion to save a mother’s life. 

The bishops continue their fetus worship while not giving a damn about the lives of mothers.  It's but further proof that women are treated as inferior and disposable by the bitter old queens in dresses. 

Catholic Bishops Wanted Government Shutdown, Asked House Republicans To Hold Nation Hostage

America’s Catholic Bishops wrote a letter urging House Republicans to shut down the government, unless Obamacare denies birth control coverage to women. Photo of Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan from Wikipedia.

It is not just the evangelical Christians organizations mentioned in a post yesterday who have had a hand it forcing the federal government shutdown and pushing the nation towards a catastrophic debt default.   Other religious extremists have also been involved: the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops.  Pope Francis may want the Church to get over its obsession with gays, abortion, and contraception, but the message hasn't been received by the U.S. Catholic bishops, many of whom have sheltered and protected sexual predators while kicking abuse victims to the curb and hiding Church assets.  As reported here, the bishops have urged the GOP to shutdown the government:

When House Republicans shut down the government last Tuesday, they did so with the blessing of Catholic bishops. One week prior to the shutdown, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a letter to the GOP House. The letter asked them to hold America hostage until Democrats kill birth control rules set by the White House. The rules require insurance companies to include birth control coverage for all employees, regardless of the religious beliefs of employers.

This didn’t sit well with Catholic bishops and conservative Christians, who want the right to deny their female employees contraception. So as part of their ongoing temper tantrum over women having access to birth control, the bishops sent a letter  to House Republicans urging them to shut the government down until they get their way on contraception coverage.

“[W]e have already urged you to enact the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940/S. 1204), the letter declared. “As Congress considers a Continuing Resolution and debt ceiling bill in the days to come, we reaffirm the vital importance of incorporating the policy of this bill into such ‘must-pass’ legislation.”

The Conference of Catholic Bishops wants the government shutdown to continue, and for the US to default on its debt … Unless they get special treatment in regards to birth control access. To deny women contraception, they’re willing to deny families critical food assistance, take childcare away from working parents, and threaten the financial well-being of millions of Americans. It totally outrageous.

According to ThinkProgress,

“The “Health Care Conscience Rights Act” permits religious employers to exclude any “item or service to which [they have] a moral or religious objection” from the health insurance package offered to employees.”

If this piece of conservative legislation were to become law, any employer in America could deny female employees the contraception they need. All they have to do is claim that they have a religious objection. It means women will have less access to contraception. It also lets religious conservatives achieve their main goal to control women’s reproductive decisions.

This letter proves Catholic bishops played a role in the government shutdown. They cheered for House Republicans to pull the trigger and shoot America in the foot. They also want Republicans to shoot America in the head, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling … Unless Democrats allow religious employers to discriminate against women. The fact is, the contraception mandate applies to everyone. That’s why it’s constitutional. 

House Republicans are now not the only ones to blame for the government shutdown. Americans can now blame Catholic bishops as well. The bishops are clearly not interested in alleviating the suffering of those affected most by the government shutdown as they are in making sure they can have a say in what reproductive decisions women make.

As I have argued before, the Catholic Church needs to stay out of politics or lose its tax-exempt status.  Period.  These men participated in a world wide criminal conspiracy involving the sexual abuse of children and youths and now they want to destroy America's economy to further their sick, extremist goals.

 

U.S. Catholic Bishops Step Up Anti-Gay Efforts

While we continue to see sex abuse scandals exploding around the world - e.g., Australia and now Africa -  involving sexual predator priests and a Vatican orchestrated conspiracy to cover up crimes and protect child rapists what do the U. S. Catholic bishops focus their efforts on?  Stopping gay marriage and placing anti-gay propaganda in parish bulletins across the country.  One can only assume that the self-loathing closet cases in the bishopric across America are desperate to keep the sheeple in the pews distracted from the ongoing exposure of the moral cesspool that is the Church hierarchy.  A piece in The Bilerico Project looks at this latest effort to denigrate gays and send a message that gay marriage harms children.  Here are highlights:

With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 in June, and two new states enacting same-sex marriage legislation in the first few months of 2013 (with another potentially on the way), marriage equality in the United States is on the move.

While this is welcome news to equality-minded folks across the country, it's decidedly bad news for America's Catholic bishops, who are leading the crusade to exclude same-sex couples from legal civil marriage. It's a battle they're clearly losing, but as the bishops' struggle against the tide of history becomes ever more exhausting, they're taking a cue from their Anglican counterparts: their opposition is becoming increasingly hysterical. 

In their latest anti-equality attack, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has prepared an insert that Catholic parishes across the country will place in their bulletins in May and June. They warn that a pro-fairness Supreme Court ruling (a broad negative ruling," as they call it) could "redefine marriage in the law throughout the entire country, becoming the 'Roe v. Wade' of marriage." [emphasis theirs]

Also in the insert, the bishops predictably claim that allowing loving and committed same-sex couples to marry somehow harms children:

There are many ways to protect the basic human rights of all, but redefining marriage serves no one's rights, least of all those of children.

And:

Every child has a basic, natural right to come from and be raised in the loving marital union of his or her own father and mother.

As we know, there is literally no scientific basis for the claims the bishops are making, but why let science get in the way, right? Finally, Jeremy Hooper at Good As You discovered another USCCB document today called "One Man, One Woman, for Life: Lead Messages on Marriage Redefinition." It contains a whole host of anti-equality talking points for clergy, leaders, and lay Catholics, including these gems about so-called "same-sex attraction:"



If you're not familiar with Courage, it's a Catholic "ministry" which uses a 12-step program similar to Alcoholics Anonymous to encourage Catholics struggling with "same-sex attractions" to suppress their sexuality and live totally celibate lives. It's essentially a Catholic version of the widely-discredited "ex-gay" programs, just wrapped in a more subtly-colored bow.

In my view, by embracing in their fight against marriage equality the myth that sexual orientation can be changed or suppressed, the U.S. Catholic bishops are tipping their hand. The endgame here isn't just the exclusion of loving same-sex couples from legal civil marriage. No, the bishops' goal is to ensure that LGBT Americans are relegated to second-class status in every aspect of society.

Gay Couples Will not Be Included in Immigration Reform Bill

The initial draft of the Senate immigration reform bill is not expected to address the plight of bi-national married same sex couples who to date are barred because of DOMA from receiving the same treatment as heterosexual couples who seek to have the non-American spouse given residency in the U.S.A.  If this situation doesn't change, the only hope of these couples may be that DOMA is struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court when it hands down its ruling in United States v. Windsor in June.  The Washington Blade looks at the situation.  Here are some highlights:

Immigration Equality Executive Director Rachel Tiven on Monday said she does not expect same-sex couples will be included in the comprehensive immigration reform bill a bi-partisan group of senators could potentially introduce by the end of the week.

“We are not expecting LGBT families to be included in the Gang of 8 bill,” she told the Washington Blade during a conference call ahead of a rally in support of comprehensive immigration reform on Wednesday that is expected to draw tens of thousands of people to the U.S. Capitol. “That in our minds means that of course the bill is incomplete.”

Tiven’s comments come roughly three months after President Obama publicly unveiled an immigration reform proposal that includes bi-national gay couples. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in February told the Senate Judiciary Committee the White House supports a provision that would allow gays and lesbians to sponsor their foreign-born partners for immigration purposes.

Tiven said she remains hopeful members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will revisit the issue once they begin to debate the “Gang of 8” bill.

“We expect and we hope that senators on the committee will allow a full and open amendment process that provides an opportunity to fix the flaws in the base bill of which the exclusion of Uniting American Families Act is one,” she said.

Nadler took a similar tone as he expressed Leahy’s efforts to include UAFA as an amendment to the bill in committee before it reaches the Senate floor.

“I will fight like hell to ensure that LGBT-inclusive language remains in any House and Senate conference report,” Nadler told the Blade. “The ultimate goal is, of course, not how we pass LGBT-inclusive immigration reform, but that we make certain that such a bill lands on the president’s desk.”

 Among those opposing the inclusion of same sex couples are the child rapist protectors of the U. S. Catholic Bishops Conference.

Paul Ryan: Let's Reduce Poverty... By Slashing Poverty Programs

In one of his first policy speeches, Paul Ryan confirmed the reverse Robin Hood mindset that many have accused him of previously based on his GOP budget proposal.  Today Ryan said he and Mitt Romney would restore upward social mobility for the poor by dismantling anti-poverty programs.  They'd either pull themselves up by the bootstraps or perish.  Needless to say, the revenue savings resulting from leaving the poor and disadvantage to their own devices to either survive or die would likely go toward funding the large tax cuts for the wealthy that are so near and dear to Ryan's and Romney's ice cold hearts.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at Ryan's speech which ought to strike terror among those who are poor and disadvantaged and those who advocate on their behalf.   Here are some highlights:

In his first policy speech since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan said he and Mitt Romney will restore upward mobility and fight poverty in part by limiting the federal government's commitment to safety net programs.

"Upward mobility is the central promise of life in America," Ryan said. "But right now, America’s engines of upward mobility aren't working the way they should. Mitt Romney and I are running because we believe that Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency."

Ryan noted that Americans born into poor families are more likely to stay poor as adults than Americans born into wealthy families.

A Romney administration, Ryan said, would help restore mobility by turning the open-ended commitments of federal anti-poverty programs into "block grants" -- fixed chunks of money the federal government sends to states each year regardless of the amount of need. States, in turn, get more leeway to design their own programs.

As a congressman, Ryan has authored several proposals to slash spending on programs for poor people by turning them into block grants. According to an analysis by the centrist Urban Institute, Ryan's proposal to repeal health care reform and block grant Medicaid, which provides health insurance to people below near-poverty income levels, would reduce federal spending by $1.7 trillion and Medicaid enrollment by 50 percent, resulting in a loss of insurance for 35.7 million Americans.

Ryan also proposed dramatic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, in place of looming cuts to defense spending. 

Ryan also said government spending discourages people from giving to charity. "Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds out civil society by drawing resources away from private giving."

Economists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve found in 2009 that increased government spending can have a limited negative effect on charitable donations, but also that growth in charitable giving had paralleled growth in government spending over the past 40 years (PDF).

About the only thing that Ryan hasn't proposed is bring back debtors ' prisons.  It is little wonder that even the generally morally bankrupt Catholic Bishops have condemned Ryan's proposals as the antithesis of the Church's social gospel teachings.   How anyone this cold and callous towards others can claim to be a devote Catholic or Christian is mind boggling.  But such is the sick status of today's GOP.

Cardinal Dolan Approved Pay Offs to Predator Priests

UPDATED:  Irish Central has yet more details on the unbelievable sleaziness of Cardinal Timothy "Porky Pig" Dolan.  It seems the minutes discovered in the bankruptcy filing papers revealed these additional tidbits:

During the meeting, Dolan and Milwaukee auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba discussed using the Church’s funds to pay off known pedophiles with $20,000 to leave the priesthood, setting up “restorative justice” to prevent victims receiving compensation, and moving millions of dollars from the archdiocese into a new “trust” before the Archdiocese declared bankruptcy.

The man truly ought to be facing criminal prosecution and possible perjury charges.

Cardinal Dolan of New York has been outspoken in parading around the myth that "religious liberty" is under attack particularly by the advancement of gay rights and the Obama administration.  I've long believed that in addition to demanding special rights for the Catholic Church (much as is going on in Canada at present) Dolan has been motivated by a desire to shift the topic of conversation from the cesspool nature of the Church hierarchy and the worldwide sex abuse scandal that shows no likelihood of abating any time soon.  Now, as the New York Times is reporting, information is coming out that while he was Archbishop of Milwaukee, Dolan approved monetary pay offs to predator priests after it became untenable to continue protecting them and covering up their crimes against children and youth.  Note how Dolan lied about these payments in the past.  Dolan is a loud mouthed hypocrite and hopefully more on his moral bankruptcy will continue to be revealed.  Here are highlights from the New York Times:

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee.
 

Questioned at the time about the news that one particularly notorious pedophile cleric had been given a “payoff” to leave the priesthood, Cardinal Dolan, then the archbishop, responded that such an inference was “false, preposterous and unjust.” 

But a document unearthed during bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and made public by victims’ advocates reveals that the archdiocese did make such payments to multiple accused priests to encourage them to seek dismissal, thereby allowing the church to remove them from the payroll.  A spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed on Wednesday that payments of as much as $20,000 were made to “a handful” of accused priests “as a motivation” not to contest being defrocked. 

Cardinal Dolan, who is president of the national bishops’ conference and fast becoming the nation’s most high-profile Roman Catholic cleric, did not respond to several requests for comment. 

A victims advocacy group, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, sent a letter of protest to the current archbishop of Milwaukee on Wednesday asking, “In what other occupation, especially one working with families and operating schools and youth programs, is an employee given a cash bonus for raping and sexually assaulting children?” 

Experts in the Catholic Church’s response to sexual abuse say that payouts to dismissed priests are not uncommon. When a man becomes a priest, the church is expected to care for his needs for a lifetime.

The newly revealed document is the minutes of a meeting of the finance council of the Milwaukee archdiocese from March 7, 2003, which Cardinal Dolan attended. 

The minutes say that those at the meeting discussed a proposal to “offer $20,000 for laicization ($10,000 at the start and $10,000 at the completion the process).” Instead of salary, they would receive a $1,250 monthly pension benefit, and, until they found another job, health insurance. 

The first known payment in Milwaukee was to Franklyn Becker, a former priest with many victims.  .  .  .  .  According to church documents, Mr. Becker was accused of abusing at least 10 minors, and given a diagnosis of pedophilia in 1983.

Note that Becker was diagnosed as a pedophile in 1983 but it was 20 years later that he was finally being removed from the priesthood.  Yet again I ask, why does anyone listen to a word that comes out of Dolan's mouth?  The man is a sleaze bag at best.

Quote of the Day: Philadelphia Assistant DA Patrick Blessington

As noted a number of times during the prosecution's case in the Philadelphia Archdiocese sex abuse trial, the image of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is nothing short of horrific and a case of total moral bankruptcy.  As part of the prosecution's summation, Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington reportedly stated as follows according to the Philadelphia Inquirer: 

"It was all about the good of Mother Church," Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington said in arguments to the judge Thursday. "They cared about money, they cared about the business of the church, not the flock and not the parishioners."

Yet people continue to give deference and respect to these foul men and their institution.  It doesn't take much to conclude that the un-churched are likely far more moral and righteous than these protectors and enablers of child rapists and sexual predators.  The Inquirer also had this to report on the image drawn by the prosecution:

The images they painted were searing: a 13-year-old son of a Philadelphia police officer, clutching a penknife in terror and hiding in a cabin after being fondled all night on a camping trip with the Rev. Francis Trauger; another boy, waking up naked next to the Rev. Thomas Smith in a motel room after the priest stuffed ice cubes in his underwear and got him so drunk he passed out; a Bucks County teen forced to engage in oral sex with the Rev. David Sicoli after they drove to Veterans Stadium to buy Phillies playoff tickets in the early 1980s.

 The graphically detailed memos were often shared with Bevilacqua, Bishop Edward Cullen, or Joseph Cistone, assistant vicar for administration.

Meanwhile, rather than cleaning their own filthy house, the U.S. bishops have invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars to deprive LGBT individuals of their civil rights.  These men simply did not and do care about the lives of children and youths.  It was and is all about money, all about power, and all about the Church's unholy reputation.  When I see these reports, I count myself lucky to no longer be a Catholic. 

Catholic Bishops Attack Girl Scouts

The vicious ugliness of the Roman Catholic bishops when it comes to pushing a relentless anti-gay jihad seems to know few limits.  The latest target of the child rapist protecting monsters is the Girl Scouts of the USA.  The Girl Scouts it seems are not sufficiently homophobic and vicious towards LGBT individuals to satisfy the bishops' agenda of hate and bigotry.  It's probably no coincidence that a female related organization is in the bishops bulls eye since these bitter men in dresses cannot stand uppity females.  Just ask the American nuns.  Leading the charge is one of the minions of disgusting porcine Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York.  As is always the case, dealing with the moral filth within the priesthood and Church hierarchy that protected and enabled sexual predator priest isn't on the bishops' radar screen.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at the Catholic Bishops attack on the Girl Scouts.  Here are excerpts:

Long a lightning rod for conservative criticism, the Girl Scouts of the USA are now facing their highest-level challenge yet: An official inquiry by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

At issue are concerns about program materials that some Catholics find offensive, as well as assertions that the Scouts associate with other groups espousing stances that conflict with church teaching. The Scouts, who have numerous parish-sponsored troops, deny many of the claims and defend their alliances.

The inquiry coincides with the Scouts' 100th anniversary celebrations and follows a chain of other controversies.

Earlier this year, legislators in Indiana and Alaska publicly called the Scouts into question, and the organization was berated in a series aired by a Catholic broadcast network. Last year, the Scouts angered some conservatives by accepting into a Colorado troop a 7-year-old transgender child who was born a boy but was being raised as a girl.

Some of the concerns raised by Catholic critics are recycled complaints that have been denied by the Girl Scouts' head office repeatedly and categorically. It says it has no partnership with Planned Parenthood, and does not take positions on sexuality, birth control and abortion.

The new inquiry will be conducted by the bishops' Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. It will look into the Scouts' "possible problematic relationships with other organizations" and various "problematic" program materials, according to a letter sent by the committee chairman, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne, Ind., to his fellow bishops.

[T]here's frustration within the iconic youth organization – known for its inclusiveness and cookie sales – that it has become such an ideological target, with the girls sometimes caught in the political crossfire.
"I know we're a big part of the culture wars," said the Girl Scouts' spokeswoman, Michelle Tompkins. People use our good name to advance their own agenda."

One of the long-running concerns is the Girl Scouts' membership in the 145-nation World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts.  The association, known as WAGGGS, is on record as saying girls and young women "need an environment where they can freely and openly discuss issues of sex and sexuality." It also has called for increased access to condoms to protect against sexually transmitted diseases.  Some critics want the Girl Scouts of the USA to pull out of the world group; the scouts aren't budging.

The Girl Scouts have been entangled in the culture wars as far back as the 1970s, when some conservatives became irked by the prominence of feminists such as Betty Friedan in the organization's leadership.  In 1993, Christian conservatives were outraged when the Girl Scouts formalized a policy allowing girls to substitute another word for "God" – such as Allah or Buddha – in the Girl Scout promise that reads: "On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country."
 
Girl Scout controversies surfaced recently in two state legislatures.  In Indiana, Rep. Bob Morris wrote to his colleagues depicting the Girl Scouts as a radical group that promotes abortions and homosexuality. He later apologized for "reactionary and inflammatory" comments, but stood by his contention that the Scouts have links with Planned Parenthood.

In Alaska, Rep. Wes Keller – before deciding whether to support a resolution honoring the Girl Scouts – said he needed to investigate information "floating around the Internet" about the alleged Planned Parenthood link. Keller later said he was convinced the rumors were baseless; the resolution passed unanimously.

Catholic Bishops Say GOP Budget Fails Moral Test

In a move perhaps triggered by more and more Catholics revolting against them, the U.S. Catholic bishops have denounced the GOP budget proposal as failing to protect the poor, and said the GOP measure "fails to meet these moral criteria." Not that the bishops are pillars of morality by any measure themselves. Nonetheless, it's a strong rebuke to Rep. Paul Ryan who has disingenuously claimed his Catholic faith helped shape the budget proposal. It's also a rebuke to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who like to parade themselves as godly Catholics. I suspect the GOP thought the bishops had fallen in with the party line since the GOP is now defined by its bigotry against gays and opposition to contraception. Here are highlights from USA Today:

WASHINGTON – A week after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan claimed his Catholic faith inspired the Republicans' cost-cutting budget plan, the nation's Catholic bishops reiterated their demand that the federal budget protect the poor, and said the GOP measure "fails to meet these moral criteria." That and other strongly-worded judgments on the GOP budget proposal flew in a flurry of letters from leading bishops to the chairmen of key congressional committee.

The letters to Capitol Hill were highlighted in a Tuesday statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that came after Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and rising conservative hero, told an interviewer last week that his fiscal views were informed by Catholic social teaching.

The hierarchy's pushback comes after liberal Catholics in Congress and progressive activists challenged the bishops to resist the GOP budget proposals with the same vigor that they have challenged the Obama administration's contraception mandate and its perceived violations of religious freedom.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations, wrote to the bishops' president, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, saying that as a Catholic she felt the bishops should highlight the injustices she and others saw in the Republican plans.

"What I am asking for is a campaign for the poor, the hungry, the middle class, the people who are going to be eviscerated by the Ryan budget," DeLauro told Catholic News Service.

That same day, some 60 Catholic social justice leaders, theologians and clergy also released a statement saying that "this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good."

Tuesday's statement from the bishops came the same day as Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., called a proposed cut in benefits for children of immigrants "unjust and wrong." Blaire, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, also decried any cuts in food stamps while preserving federal subsidies for industrial farming enterprises.

"Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs." The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria."

Ouch!!

Catholic Bishops: ‘Religious Liberty’ Includes Right To Discriminate Against Gay People, Impose Values

If nothing else, the U. S. Roman Catholic bishops are becoming a little bit more honest: they are finally admitting that their goal is to impose their warped and unloving beliefs on all of us. And the vehicle being used to further this agenda is the false banner of "religious liberty." Religious liberty for the bishops and similar religious extremists and a loss of religious freedom for everyone else. Why do I say this? Because in a new statement the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has openly admitted that they believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs on all of society. Apparently, rather than address the still rampant problem of sexual predators among the ranks of the clergy, the bishops seek to ride rough shod over all of us - hoping it would seem that somehow the the laity will be duped into forgetting about the utter moral bankruptcy that permeates the Church hierarchy. Zack Ford at Think Progress looks at this development. Here are some highlights:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a new Statement on Religious Liberty, which complains that the Catholic Church should have a right to impose its values on fellow citizens “for the common good.” The long, wordy statement includes a list of “concrete examples” of how “religious liberty” has supposedly been compromised that includes when university campus groups are not allowed to discriminate against gay students and when Catholic Charities isn’t allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples. It then reiterates an oft-heard threat that the Catholic Church should be able to impose its public services however it pleases or it won’t at all:

Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day, both here at home and overseas.

The statement also has the gall to invoke Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” suggesting that any restrictions on the Church’s free reign over society are “unjust” laws. Claiming not to ask “for special treatment,” the statement nevertheless encourages Catholics to intentionally disobey any laws that prevent the Church from imposing its will. Given its will so often includes policies that discriminate against women and the LGBT community, this is a complete bastardization of King’s intent. . . . The Catholic hierarchy has repeatedly demonstrated that it only cares about its own dominance over society, a perspective anathema to addressing “injustice anywhere.”

If one really cares about religious liberty, one of the most important goals should be to end the political influence of the Catholic bishops and other religious leaders who market hate and intolerance against other citizens.

Federal Court Rules against Catholic HHS Contracts

We've hear a great deal of disingenuous whining from the Catholic bishops about contraception and theats to "religious liberty" of late. What the enablers and protectors of child rapists are actually peeved about is the refusal of the Obama administration to write specific religious beliefs into aspects of health care regulations. And the bishops are all about having special rights and deference to the detriment of those who hold differing religious views. In short, the bishops want it their way and to Hell with everyone else. In this mentality, they are of a like mind with the Protestant Christianists who likewise demand that their beliefs be written into the nations laws and regulations (in Virginia, a prime example are the "private" adoption agencies funded with state money who have been granted the right by the Virginia GOP to discriminate against would be adoptive parents based on the agencies' "religious beliefs"). Yesterday, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled against special rights for Catholic agencies since it would violate the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution. Here are highlights from Religion Dispatches:

Late yesterday a federal court in Massachusetts ruled [PDF] in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union in a challenge it brought against the Department of Health and Human Services over contracts with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. When the ACLU first brought the case in 2009, HHS permitted the USCCB to prohibit the referral of victims of sexual assault to be referred for contraception and abortion services. Although HHS did not renew the USCCB contract last year, the ACLU proceeded with the case "to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused to impose religious restrictions on vulnerable trafficking victims that receive U.S. aid," according to a statement.

Judge Richard Stearns agreed the case was not moot, and in holding that the policy permitting the Bishops to restrict trafficking victims' access to reproductive health services violated the Establishment Clause, noted, "[t]o insist that the government respect the separation of church and state is not to discriminate against religion; indeed, it promotes a respect for religion by refusing to single out any creed for official favor at the expense of all others."

Judge Stearns' decision shows that the Bishops were not, in fact, entitled to use taxpayer money to refuse to refer victims of sex trafficking and rape for a full range of reproductive health services. That, Judge Stearns held, amounted to an impermissible government endorsement of a particular religious view because, although "[b]eliefs about the morality of abortion and the use of contraceptives need not be based on a religious viewpoint," in this case "there is no reason to question the sincerity of the USCCB’s position that the restriction it imposed on its subcontractors on the use of TVPA funds for abortion and contraceptive services was motivated by deeply held religious beliefs." In other words, the Free Exercise Clause does, of course, protect one's expression of deeply held religious beliefs. But the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from favoring particular religious beliefs, no matter how deeply held they are.

Rest assured, we will be hearing shrieks and belly aching from Cardinal Dolan and various Christofascists that the "religious liberty" is under attack. But, again, it's really the rights of all others that are under attack by the Catholic bishops and Christianists

Catholics Continue to Reject Rick Santorum

In the wake of Mitt Romney's win in the GOP Illinois primary yesterday, one thing has become even more clear: Roman Catholics are fleeing from self styled Uber-Catholic Santorum. As noted before, Santorum has pledge obedience and fealty to the corrupt and morally bankrupt Church hierarchy no matter how egregious the malfeasance and insanity of the hierarchy. But rank and file Catholics don't share that fealty or respect for the dictates of the enablers and protectors of child rapists. A column in the New York Times focuses on this sharp break between Santorum and rational, thinking Catholics. Here are some column excerpts:

Rick Santorum doesn’t just wear his religion on his sleeve, he billboards it in neon. Still, for all the flash and sparks generated by an ostentatiously Catholic candidate’s crusade for the presidency, one thing has been missing from most discussions: the actual Catholic voter.

But with Tuesday’s primary results, we now have extensive exit polling from three major states in the Catholic belt across the Midwest. The verdict from Michigan, Ohio and now Illinois is consistent: a majority of Republican Catholic voters are giving a thumb’s down to Santorum.

In Illinois, where more than a third of Tuesday’s Republican electorate was Catholic according to the exit polls, Santorum lost the Catholic vote by a what-part-of-no-don’t-you-understand 23 points – a much bigger margin than with all voters.

If Romney has indeed finally sealed the deal after Tuesday, he will owe his nomination in large part to common-sense Catholics who rejected a less rational one of their own. Three other takeaway points:

Santorum’s far-right Catholicism will not put the Catholic vote in the Republican column in November. . . . Catholics, as with most of the population, are not buying into the dour 13th-century philosophy of Santorum regarding women, their bodies and reproductive practices. Even conservative Catholics — who make up nearly a third of the Republican electorate — are not buying it.

Santorum, to the disgust of many who follow St. Peter’s faith, said that Kennedy’s famous speech on the separation of church and state made him want to vomit. Anybody else feel that way? . . . The problem for him is that a majority of American Catholics don’t listen to their bishops, and they vote their conscience. The Jesuit-educated among them, you could argue, have been trained for independent thinking — precisely the kind of voter who finds Santorum lacking in reason, logic and a broad view of humanity.

Second, the fact that most Catholics would vote for a Mormon, while evangelical Protestants — Santorum’s true base — would not, says a lot about his followers. . . . . They’re religious bigots; there’s no other way to say it. . . . . More polling shows that a large percentage of Santorum Republicans continue to live in a fact-free bubble . . .

[J]ust a few days ago, in Louisiana, Santorum applauded a preacher, the Rev. Dennis Terry, who said “America was founded as a Christian nation,” and those who were not Christian should leave. . . . The majority of Catholic voters, bless ‘em, have rejected the crazies pooled behind Rick Santorum.

Ouch!! Unfortunately for Santorum but fortunately for the country, the writer's analysis seems 100% on point. Both Santorum and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops need to get the message that they are increasingly irrelevant to most Catholics who choose to ignore their hypocrisy and meanness.

Catholic Bishops Seek to Keep Contraception Debate Alive to Likely Detriment of GOP

In what ultimately cannot be good news for Republicans like Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum, the Catholic bishops are determined to keep the political debate alive over contraception under a bogus argument about "religious liberty" even though the real story line is about forcing the Church hierarchy's views on everyone. The bishops apparently are too busy protecting child rapists and have missed the news that a huge majority of voters - including the vast majority of Catholics - don't buy the bishops disingenuous posturing. I welcome the bishops' intransigence because it will continue to roil voters, especially women and drive them away from the GOP. Here in Virginia Governor Ultrasound and members of the Virginia GOP are taking a beating as noted by Blue Virginia:

For the past 24 hours or so, Virginia Republicans -- e.g., self-annointed women's health experts (particularly when it comes to "trans-vaginal" types of concerns) Sen. Ryan McDougle and Sen. Jeff McWaters -- have been deleting comments off their Facebook walls like mad (hundreds in the case of McDougle). Unfortunately for them, sometimes they're not fast enough . . .

It appears, in other words, that Virginia Republicans have knocked over a hornet's nest with their state-mandated ultrasound garbage, and are now being chased around (in social media, also on the steps of the Virginia Capitol in Richmond) by (justifiably) outraged "hive members." I'd almost feel sorry for them, if a) it weren't such a serious assault on women's rights; and b) if they hadn't brought it on themselves 100%.

Thus, contraception is not an issue that's going to be helpful to the GOP. But the Catholic bishops are not going to relent in their quest to take women back to the Middle Ages. Here are highlights from the Washington Post on the bitter old men in dresses' agenda:

Top U.S. Catholic bishops on Wednesday formally made their fight against a White House mandate for reproductive services the church’s top priority, saying “this struggle for religious freedom” demands their immediate attention.

The statement, issued by the leadership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, came at the end of a closed, two-day meeting and as some close to the bishops say the men are concerned that their campaign is faltering in the public square.

The statement represents an expanded public relations effort to oppose the mandate that most religious employers provide health-care coverage for employees, including contraception and sterilization, services forbidden by Catholic teaching.

A spokeswoman for the bishops said they had been trying to frame the religious freedom campaign broadly since last fall, but were forced by news events to focus on the health-care mandate and contraception.

[T]he bishops will launch their public religious freedom campaigns in the media, in efforts with lawmakers and in parishes with priests sermonizing. “It’s a full-court press,” she said.

It goes without saying that in the bizarre world of the bishops equal civil rights for LGBT Americans is also a threat to "religious liberty." Like the Christianists, the bishops want a free hand to force their Medieval views on all Americans.

Is the Republican Party is Cutting Its Own Throat on Birth Control?

I've noted a number of times how Virginia Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell has likely severely damaged himself by participating in the war against women and earning a second nickname of "Governor Ultrasound." But the problem extends on a much broader basis across the GOP which while endearing itself to the child rapist enablers and protectors in the Catholic Church hierarchy seem to have royally pissed off and alienated women in general other than those belonging to the Kool-Aid drinking evangelical set. A great column in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd looks at this problem which is confirmed by new poll results that show that 77% of voters don't want contraception included in the issues involved in the presidential contest. First some highlights from Bloomberg.com on the new poll results that suggest that the GOP has lost its mind by jumping into the contraception debate even though the Christofascist GOP base wants no abortions, no birth control and, of course, no gays:

Americans overwhelmingly regard the debate over President Barack Obama’s policy on employer-provided contraceptive coverage as a matter of women’s health, not religious freedom, rejecting Republicans’ rationale for opposing the rule. More than three-quarters say the topic shouldn’t even be a part of the U.S. political debate.

More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll -- including almost 70 percent of women -- say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11.

The results suggest the Republican candidates’ focus on contraception is out of sync with the U.S. public. Seventy-seven percent of poll respondents say birth control shouldn’t be a topic of the political debate, while 20 percent say it should.

“These candidates are talking to a relatively small subset even among Republicans,” said J. Ann Selzer, of Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & Co., who conducted the telephone poll of 1,002 respondents. “They may have the feeling, and their polls may be showing them, that this is a way in and this is a wedge issue within the party, but this does not dovetail with the views of the majority in the U.S.”

More than half of those interviewed also say radio host Rush Limbaugh, who called a female law student testifying publicly in favor of birth-control coverage a “slut” and “prostitute,” should be fired based solely on those comments.

Not exactly good news for the GOP, but sadly the result of staying inside the Christianist bubble and listening only to the echo chamber of voices such as Tony Perkins, James Dobson and a host of other extremists. Here are highlights from Maureen Dowd's column that underscores what many women are feeling:

Hillary Clinton has fought for women’s rights around the world. But who would have dreamed that she would have to fight for them at home?

“Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me,” she told an adoring crowd at the Women in the World Summit at Lincoln Center on Saturday. “But they all seem to. It doesn’t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress. They want to control how we act. They even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies.

The attempt by Republican men to wrestle American women back into chastity belts has not only breathed life into President Obama, it has roused and riled Hillary. And that could turn out to be the most dangerous thing the wildly self-destructive G.O.P. leaders have done.

In some kind of insane bout of mass misogyny, Republicans are hounding out the women voters — including Republicans and independents — who helped them gain control of the House in 2010.

Senator Olympia Snowe, who’s fed up and leaving Congress, told The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty that “it feels as if we are going back to another era,” warning that Republicans could drive women into Democratic arms.

The Republican assault on women does, though, provide a glide path to the White House both for Obama in 2012 and Hillary in 2016.

Women have watched a chilling cascade of efforts in Congress and a succession of states to turn women into chattel, to shame them about sex and curb their reproductive rights. They’ve seen the craven response of G.O.P. candidates after Limbaugh branded a law student wanting insurance coverage for birth control pills, commonplace for almost five decades, as a “prostitute” and “slut.”

American women have suddenly realized that their emancipation in the 21st century is not as secure as they had assumed. On “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican, had the gall to say this, justifying his support for a bill designed to humiliate women getting abortions by penetrating them with a wand to take a picture: “Every invasive procedure has an informed consent requirement.” What he really meant is that when abortion is an option, informed consent should require an invasive procedure.

Women who assumed that electing Obama would lift all minority boats are beginning to think: Maybe he’s not enough. If the desire of these conservative male leaders to yoke women is this close to the surface, if they are perversely driven to debase women even though it could lead to their own political demise, then women may require more than Obama. If women are so vulnerable, they may need one of their own. Is she inevitable?

There was a time when I never thought I'd like the prospect of Hillary Clinton as a presidential nominee. But the GOP extremists are certainly making a case for her candidacy. They are also making the case for any self-respecting woman who doesn't want middle aged Bubba's making their health care decisions to vote Democrat. The GOP and the child rapist enablers in the Catholic Church are racing head long back to the 11th century. Hopefully, many more Americans are pushing forward towards the future and will give GOP office holders their walking papers in November 2012 and in 2013 here in Virginia.

The Gurus of the Religious Right Who Wrecked the Republican Party

I've written about Frank Schaeffer before. His father was in many ways a founder of the far right Christianist movement that plagues the nation today and that seeks to merge far right religious belief with the civil laws in order to create a Christianist theocracy. Along the way Schaeffer recognized the danger and hypocrisy of the Christianist movement and now actively writes and speaks out to stop its agenda. But given his back ground, his insights and knowledge are most instructive. In a post on his blog he looks at the architects behind today's extremist controlled Republican Party. Here are some highlights:

Romney is a fake religious right "conservative." But the fact that he has to pretend to be to the right of the Pope on "social issues" tells us all we need to know about the intellectual climate inside today's Republican Party.

How did the Republicans get to be this way? Reading and watching media coverage of the 2012 elections you'd never learn the answer. That is because the media seem to have never heard of the intellectuals who fed the movement on far right religious hysteria.

When Rick Santorum - who is the real thing when it comes to authentic hate-driven misogynistic religious delusion -- talks about how the idea of the separation of church and state, as articulated by President Kennedy, made him want to "throw up," he was channeling the late Richard John Neuhaus. He even uses Neuhaus' pet catch phrase "the naked public square" to describe religion being "driven" from public life by "radical secularists" intent on using colleges to brainwash kids into pro-abortion, gay-hugging liberalism.

When Gingrich, Romney and Santorum defined President Obama's reasonable attempt to make insurance companies pay for women's access to contraception as being "anti-religious" and "anti-religious freedom" they were channeling Professor Robert George of Princeton University, Charles Colson, and my late father Francis Schaeffer

[R]eading media commentaries and watching the talking heads on TV you would never know that the radical right's takeover of the Republican Party has its roots in the work and writing of a few men and women who became the enablers of a radical religious ideology that they made respectable in far right circles. You'd also never know that places like Princeton University are providing intellectual "respectability" to radical far right theocrats like Robert George or that "mainstream" evangelicals like the editors of Christianity Today magazine regard far right homophobe Colson as a hero.

George's brainchild: the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was published in 2009 as an anti-Obama manifesto, and many Evangelical leaders signed on. It was written as a direct reaction to the Obama Presidency. It was a trap that launched a fishing expedition to find any issue that might gain traction with which to beat the President in 2012. That could have been gay rights, or stem cell research. It turned out to be contraception.

In case you've never heard of George, he's been a one-man "brain trust" for the Religious Right and the Far Right of the Republican Party as well as for the ultraconservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church.

George's trap for the President, the "Manhattan Declaration" was instantly signed by more than 150 American "mainstream" (mostly Evangelical) conservative religious leaders. They joined to "affirm support for traditional marriage" and to advocate civil disobedience against laws contradicting the signers' religious beliefs about marriage and/or the "life issues." The drafting committee included Evangelical Far Right leader Charles Colson.

There are a number of leading American extremist "conservative" Roman Catholics, like Professor George, who are part of a strange, informal, anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion alliance that Santorum has drawn his ideas from

The groups Kreeft, Colson and Neuhaus had in mind to "bring together" were alienated Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and conservative Roman Catholics, wallowing in their sense of victimhood, to which Kreeft added Muslims. Of course the ultra-conservative Kreeft and extremist Neuhaus were against contraception and equated it with abortion. Thus the logic of their argument was that of my fathers' too: the United States Government was enabling murder, was disparaged as a "regime" that needed to be overthrown.

To the extent that Santorum and the rest of the Republican field this year have alienated most Americans we can thank the "intellectual" enablers of off-the-wall right wing radicalism. Just how crazy are these people? How radical are they?

To plumb the depths of the tortured "reasoning" behind the Roman Catholic Bishop's anti-contraception movement, consider the writing of Roman Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. She's a heroine to today's leading conservative Roman Catholics including to Cardinal Dolan (who is close to Robert George and Colson) and the Vatican. She wrote passionately in defense of the papal prohibition of contraception: . . . intercourse within marriage is a graver offence against chastity than is straightforward fornication or adultery."

And now with Romney (the fake) Santorum (the true believer) and Gingrich (the inscrutably weird) doing all but quoting these religious leaders openly and verbatim, and with the ultra-conservative Roman Catholic bishops parroting their mentor Robert George in anti-Obama rhetoric and with Romney having to pretend that he agrees... the Republican Party is now firmly in the hands of people like George who believe that a madwoman like Anscombe was brave and right to describe contraception as: "contraceptive intercourse within marriage is a graver offence against chastity than is straightforward fornication or adultery." And George and Colson and company are still at it trying to keep the myth alive that President Obama is anti-religion.

Yes, what Schaeffer describes is insane and bizarre, but that is the true face of today's Republican Party and its Christianist/Tea Party base. We are not talking about normal or sane people.

The GOP and Catholic Bishops' Slow Contraception Suicide

With poll after poll showing majority support for the inclusion of contraception in prescription drug coverage, Republicans and the Catholic bishops continue on an offensive against Barack Obama - and ultimately women. In the House of Representatives hearings, the GOP set the stage to look hostile to women but totally tone deaf as well as no woman was allowed to even testify as a witness on the issue of the contraception coverage mandate. Witnesses were limited to out of touch men and a nasty Santorum supporter who defined the contempt toward women having control over their own bodies. One can only hope that we are watching a slow form of political suicide. Yes, the Kool-Aid drinkers of the Christianist set eat this stuff up, but for everyone else, it should be a lesson as to why the GOP needs to be removed from power. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

Tempers flared on Capitol Hill on Thursday as lawmakers waded into an increasingly heated debate over the mandated coverage of contraceptives under the nation’s new health-care law.

Several Democrats walked out of a House hearing on the provision, accusing Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) of blocking testimony from a female witness who supports the mandate.

The stormy hearing — and a comment from a key supporter of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum that quickly drew fury — provided further evidence of how the issue remains political dynamite despite the Obama administration’s efforts to reach a compromise.

Foster Friess, the Santorum backer, told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Thursday that he favors an “inexpensive” form of birth control — abstinence. “You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception,” he said. “The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”

Women’s groups denounced Friess’s remarks. “Birth control is basic health care and used almost universally by women,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. “It is not something to belittle on national TV.”

“The issue here is forcing the church to provide [contraceptives] directly or indirectly in contravention of the Church’s teachings,” said William E. Lori, who chairs the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’s Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. “That’s what we don't want to do. It’s one thing when tax dollars pay for it; it’s another when church dollars do.”

Of course, it's not "church dollars" that would be paying for coverage at Catholic hospitals and universities few of which are funded by the Church and all of which operate as businesses in competition with other universities and hospitals. Andrew Sullivan remains dumbfounded by the insanity of both the GOP and the Catholic bishops who are swimming against the will of the majority. Here are some highlights:

It's hard to believe that the GOP has become so isolated from the American mainstream that they could not find and would not allow a single woman to testify in the Issa hearings today on contraception and religious freedom for Catholic bishops and the small minority of American Catholics who don't agree with birth control on grounds of conscience. I know the GOP doesn't want the debate to be about birth control, even though it obviously is at least in part, but seriously. They couldn't even find a Catholic woman to make the case that this isn't about abortion? Or do any actually exist? And they excluded a Catholic woman representing the majority Catholic view that Obama's compromise was acceptable as a reasonable balance? Whatever else this is, it is not good p.r.

And then to hand the Democrats an opportunity for a walk-out that would only make the issue - especially in TV soundbites - more about contraception than religious liberty? It's political and p.r. malpractice. My view that this is the wedge issue that will finally hurt the GOP has not been disproven today, has it?

Added to Santorum's chief financial backer's simply staggering and disgustingly sexist recommendation that the only birth control a woman should have is crossing her legs - with the implication that straight men have no responsibility for the matter - and we have really returned to the 1950s, . . .

Hence in part, perhaps, Obama's growing popularity among single women, as Greg Sargent notes: After unmarried women dropped off for Dems in 2010 and were slow to return to the Dem fold in 2011, Obama is now approaching the 70 percent he won among them in 2008. He beats Romney now among single women by 65 -30. Only two months ago, it was 54 - 37. Now imagine what the margin would be if Santorum were the nominee.

I continue to hope that the Christianist base of the GOP is about to run the Party off a cliff.