The Dangers of Newspeak Are Very Real Thanks to Trump and His Fake and Fraudulent Persona

In the political world, this year has been a torturous one since DJ Trump became president, because it's a constant assault on our senses. It's like a case of a deranged person or a ludicrous ogre that you normally would dismiss and not bother with him. The evidence is so overwhelming of who he is that you want to stop paying attention, except in this case you can't because he is in the highest office of the land.

How many times are you going to bother with someone advancing the flat earth theory, or insult your decency? You can't reason with such person. I find that I want to forget his bad behavior and insulate myself. I'm a progressive liberal and I couldn't possibly support a Republican, but this is beyond strict partisanship--it's about the incompetency of the person who occupies the White House.

We have reached a point where we're losing common ground with reality. We have to have shared facts in order to have a conversation and a debate. We also have to have shared trust in the institutions that bind our society, from the judiciary, to the media, to the electoral process, to the scientific methodology, and everything in between. [Here's a piece in the New Yorker. The Distrust Trump Relies Upon]  Unfortunately tribalism is eroding such trust. The tribal leaders message is the only true one, whereas the rest is "fake news." 

Losing this common ground makes it easier for the fake news originators to put out their garbage. Curbing fake news isn't easy though if many people don't care (due to tribalism) or don't know how to evaluate a news item. Accuracy and quality are necessary in reporting the news, because it gives us the necessary common ground to have discussions and make decisions.

Having freedom of speech has its price, and fake new is one such cost. The same goes for democracy and all sorts of freedoms. They have to be exercised prudently, or at least there has to be a big majority of the population that has the ability to evaluate the news and the messenger. Otherwise, it's a recipe for authoritarianism. Our democracy depends on shared facts and a consensus on the legitimacy of our institutions.

 Here's how John Oliver [in his latest show of 2017] summarizes what Trump has been doing. One is being an expert troll, another is "what about-ism" which is deflection, and the other is whatever he doesn't like is fake news. He's not held to any standard, from the meaning of words, to statements, to actions. There is a constant assault on reason and truth. This is, again, not about politics or ideology, but about a person who is not qualified and trolled his way to the highest office. Many dictators rode to power on popular support. We have to keep fighting this trolling, this assault on reason and truth. 

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver CLIP November 12, 2017: Trump's First Year

Trump supporters like how he behaves but this is toxic to our society. It's prudent to always be inquisitive and to question established knowledge, but there's a specific process to do it. You can't dismiss anything on the basis of unsubstantiated opinion. Sadly, we see too many people who believe patently falsehoods or ridiculous conspiracies, like a flat Earth belief. [yes, this moronic belief is coming back and this is possible in a universe that nothing can be trusted]

This from a 12/23/2017 NYT editorial also summarizes Trump's persona:

As president, Trump employs the same charlatan’s gibberish that served him well as the owner of a failed casino and a fraudulent “university.” He says “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “incredible” to describe a routine meeting, or someone he just met. His favorite words for those who cross him are “loser,” “moron” and “lightweight.” As he explained last year, “I know words — I have the best words.”

Of late, Trump is down to a single best word to describe himself — “I.” He puts it in quotes, just like that. From a tweet in which he was trying to make down into up, on the loss he suffered with the Alabama Senate race, Trump wrote: ‘I also predicted “I” would win.’ Oh, I, me, mine!

“Liar,” as applied to Trump, is something that can be quantifiably proven. A mere 4 percent of the president’s public statements — 4 in 100! — have been rated true by PolitiFact.


Trump may be the greatest, most terrific, incredible fake person who coned his way to the top.

The Clash Between Science & Religion has Great Implications for the Quality of Our Lives

Humanity has been making technological, cultural and all sorts of other progress for millennia, but around the 18th century, with the culmination of the Englightenment and modern science leading the way, we've made huge leaps forward compared to the past.

In the last 100 years alone, we've doubled the average life expectancy. Our knowledge increased tremedously and with the improvement in the quality of life and education humanity changed the ways it organizes the society.  Progress, however, hasn't been linear, nor at steady pace, so the question is Why?

Good change, innovation, new ideas may occur whenever, as they were normally in the past, but the conditions/environment plays a great role. Who are more likely to produce technological advances? Who are more likely to be progressive or conservative? What are the obstacles to progress? Here are some:

• ignorance (includes lack of education)
• poverty
• prejudice
• religion

Why is it that a woman in an advanced liberal democracy fares so much better than the worst place in the world to be a woman, in Afghanistan? [beheadings for showing ..ancle]. Yes, the conditions are different, obviously, but the conditions within people's minds is what counts the most in the outcome!

Science versus religion

Where do the Taliban, the Ayatollahs, the suicide bombers, and the everywhere zealots who believe they must make all of us follow their lunacy get their ideas from? Do I need to give you the answer?... 

No, you can't say every group has its crazies. This may be true, but it's the doctrine of "we know the mind of god and you must oblige too under the penalty of death"... that is the root of evil. It's teaching the children and the gallible adults not to think, not to question, no to offer skepticism, not to know, because everything there's is to know is has been given to us by the Almighty.

In a safe, open & tolerant, and well-to-do society it's easier for people to be more relaxed, have the confidence, and the education to be able to evaluate and accept progressive change.

Why do people believe what they believe? Much is through repetition, culture, and religion. It would be much more ..natural to have the wrong ideas in an environment of ignorance where good information is hard to come by or is prohibited by the regime. But, why do people in the US reject evolution in favor of creation or so-called intelligent design? Why do they believe that a fertilized egg is a human being entitled to full rights as a born person? Why don't they know, for example, that most fertilized eggs don't make it to the uterus. Does this make couples who are trying to conceive ..serial killers?

Why do such people and their political leaderss have the regressive views of women and advocate policies that favor a xtian sharia law on American women? It's amazing that a major political party in the US spreads so much ignorance, superstition and fights against education, civil rights, egalitarian society, and the scientific method.

It's religious ideas that dictate people believe all sorts of stupid stuff. It's religion that makes a person believe and do anything! It's this virus of the mind that in transmitted openly, with the encouragement of the state, and it's considered a virtue to shun reason, empiricism, and skepticism. And, it has a "fail safe" mechanism: if challenged, it must be the devil who wants to destroy you!

Bill Nye (the science guy) has a good argument in that creationism is not good for children! I'd say infecting youngminds with a virus is a form of child abuse. At least, if an adult wants to be wilfully infected so be it.

Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon because of the scientific method and the the US's interest in beating the Soviets in the space, and weapons race. We have a strange situation here in the US regarding science. We have a long luminous history of research and scientific breakthroughs, and many brilliant minds emigrating to the US to pursue such, but at the same time we have an incredible high level of scientific illiteracy among our people. 

The space exploration, for example, was made possible because of public education, public funds for R & D, NASA, etc. This must continue. Military calculations, wars, and national security concerns made leaders spend on R&D,  but how do we convince the non-scientificly inclided public that science is the best tool we've got to materially improve our lives?  The Cold War is over, there are huge budget deficits while a presidential candidate and his party want to make our society poorer, brutish, fearful, and ignorant. 

We have to ask, who benefits from people being ignorant, fearful (real and imagined threats), and prejudiced?  In a democracy, the people vote and the public sentiment has to be taken into account. However, we seem to indulge ourselves more on trivia than substance, and superfluous impressions than understanding of the issues. 

I just saw a poll that shows too many voters are seriously considering Romney instead of sending him and the GOP into one of the worst defeats (in hopes of shedding the lunacy) ever. The people who smashed the car and are still advocating the same insane driving practice may be given the keys to the car again this November! Amazing! Actually, it's stupefying.

This blog has been criticizing this president for governing like a wuss but we can't expect him to deliver a spiffy, fast, unblemished, like-new vehicle in such a short time, especially when he has to get Congress to agree to buy the parts needed for repairs.

Other than that Mrs Lincoln how did you like the play?....

An Abbreviated History (part 2). The Power of Myths & Ideas

Why Do People Believe Crazy Stuff?

[continued from an earlier post, Abbreviated History]


Are you ready to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"? No? Well, it's all right, but Colonel Qaddafi, like the Pope, rely on lots of people to buy his message.The Soviet Union had a brutal regime, yet it had lots of sympathizers, many in the West! Another brutal regime in theocratic Iran relies on violence & suppression and on a large mass of Iranians who see modernity and the liberal democracies as evil.

Any benevolent supreme ruler would tell you that his people don't know what's in their best interest so he decides for them. Any ruthless leader would also use threats and violence to make people behave. Do as I say or I you'll experience hell--in this life or ..later. Sounds familiar? Both types of leaders don't trust their flock. They establish a system whereas sheepish behavior and obedience is encouraged.

But how do people get certain ideas? Well, it varies. Parents, at first, schools, and society at large imbue everyone with ideas and concepts. Many ideas become part of a person's identity and they are not revisited, never to be changed. Obviously, some ideas are good some are bad. Some are useful some are against the individual's own interest and against the interest of the majority of society. Yet, they persist!

Culture provides society with a value system, a way of doing things, stability of custom, and, guess what, notions of preserving the status quo. The masses used to be rather ignorant and in the absence of education, open dialogue, and freedom, they followed the "tried & true." Conservatism is no accident. It's a disposition based on perceptions deeply implanted in the human mind. The power of ideas, of myths, of belief systems, is immense. More so, if you don't have the means to critically evaluate them. Besides, it takes effort to blaze your own trails. Fear of the unknown or the incomprehensible is unsettling. Uncertainty is for the brave. Responsibility is for the strong. Inquiry for the curious. Reality is for those who can handle the truth.

Imagine that you believe you'll be super-rich tomorrow. Or, that you'll die of an evil spell cast on you. Or, that by strapping explosives on your body and detonating them in a crowded place, you're actually doing God's work. Or, that those who have another faith, nationality, color, whatever, are not worth anything but the worst treatment. You get the picture. Your actions will be based on those beliefs.

History can be seen as a clash of civilizations and ideas (belief systems). Humankind has raised hell on earth because of the power of myths that reached a critical mass of people who accepted them. There's always an excuse for embarking on a destruction of another civilization, culture, peoples. And, it doesn't have to make lot of sense. The key is to accept the first premise.

For example, you may accept the premise that you exist in a lovely building that was made for the chosen ones. The first step is crucial. Once a "foundation" belief is embedded in your brain, then the rest of assumptions and actions can be reasonable. Sure, you can imagine such a building needing several rooms for specific purposes, beautiful furnishings, and ambient music! You can argue that a sun room should face south--a good choice! Then you can argue that all the residents must please the landlord of this building so he won't throw you out of punish you--a rational choice; no one wants to be evicted, right?

Another interesting fact is that the human brain is capable of holding several contradictory ideas at the same time. Logical inconsistencies exist in all of us. The difference is what do you do when you discover one? Can you amend your views? Or, like in US politics, you can never appear as someone who admits he was wrong and changed his mind? Consistency at the expense of accuracy! Also--and this is important--can you question something that millions of people for thousands of years believe as true? Suppose such a belief is given to you as part of your identity. What do you do, how do you approach this?.. Can you even touch the subject with a critical mind?

Without singling our Catholics, why do many believe the Pope is infallible in matters of dogma? Why do they follow his edicts? Over the millennia, Popes have reversed their predecessors. What does this imply? Why there wasn't much of criticism when the current Pope declared that even AIDS (and other sexually-transmitted diseases) is bad, condoms are worse! Seriously, people will die because of such a stupid statement--translated into policy. Has anyone pointed out this contradiction: Thou shall not kill, one Commandment instructs us. But, married men who have AIDS can transmit a death sentence to their wives because condoms are not to be used under any circumstances!

Do you remember the Bill Moyers-Joseph Campbell series on the Power of Myth back in the 1980s? That got me interested in the power of ideas and how peoples' behavior is based on their ideologies. [By the way, Moyers has a great resource on Faith & Reason on the PBS site] What I find discouraging is that in this 21st century, at least in the so-called advanced countries, there should be lots fewer ignorant people. I wouldn't be surprised if Qaddafi still commands a majority support from Libyans, for the latter don't know any better and can't entertain any alternatives to the former. But, in the US there shouldn't be so many kooks, charlatans, con artists, and b.s. dispensers. They would all be irrelevant if there was no critical mass supporting them.

How come the largest Catholic country, Brazil, didn't rise in disgust to the latest official stance of the Catholic Church (in Brazil and the Vatican) when a man who raped his 9 year old step daughter and got her pregnant didn't earn excommunication but her mother and the doctor who performed the abortion did?.. It's the same scenario where a critical mass of people support genital mutilation, keeping women as chattel [term derived from cattle], and silencing any free expression.

Our political discourse would have been much better. The current health reform "debate" would've been more reasonable. But, how do you communicate with someone who doesn't want reform because he doesn't like Obama turning this country into a socialist/communist one?! In a democracy the people have to be convinced to vote against their own interests.... especially those who could afford it the least!

....

PS>You may want to click on the first picture to get it to open bigger so you can read about the norms of the American society of our parents. I can't vouch for the content authenticity, but I can tell you it's accurate in its essense. I'm old enough to have met people who were adults in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, and even women accepted those traditional roles. I'm glad there's been progress but not as fast as I'd like. Yet, even in the last 15-20 years, there's been serious change. There's support for repealing the "don't ask, don't tell policy"; several states are legalizing same-sex marriage; we elected a black man to the presidency; and we may do away with a conservative party fit for the Dark Ages. For an advanced industrialized country it's a shame that we have so much violence, so many people in prisons, so much religiocity, no universal health care, and such a huge gap of wealth between the elites and the rest of society.

The President-elect is Stuffing his Santa Bag with Goodies & Coal

As we progressives look at the president-elect's choices for his cabinet, it's a mixed bag of goodies & baddies. This election was about change, and Obama has promised to usher a new era of healing and true progress--a progress in science & technology, civil rights & liberties, and caring for the world & our fellow humans. That is a very tall order, but, as I've maintained here, it is imperative that the new president steers the USS America in the correct direction. The speed on which we travel remains to be determined.

One of the most important powers the president has is the power to convince. He is the center of attention, so his choices set the national agenda. Impressions also matter as they set the tone. Take for example his choice for Energy Secretary, Dr. Chu. As a energy-hungry nation we need to make the right choices today and this a nice way to start by having someone who knows lots about this subject.

Now, on the other hand, what the heck was BO thinking when he chose Rev. Rick Warren to deliver some voodoo during the innauguration? Yes, I said, it's voodoo, because it's prejudicial, superstitious, and does not reflect a truly enlightened society. Obviously, Mr. Warren thinks he's praying to a god that wants the gays, Jews and Muslims to burn in hell, women not to have reproductive choice, and all sorts of other nonsense, like the soul existing in a petri dish--hence, the religious nuts opposing stem cell research.

I understand that this country is religious, but it wasn't necessary for BO to pick anyone like this backward-looking "reverend." There are plenty of much better choices out there that have more progressive views. If the new president wants a godly approach, he should pick people whose gods are more humanistic. After all, if BO is intent upon carrying out his social, pro-"main street" policies, he shouldn't be so accepting of people (like Warren) who call such approach marxist!

"Like every candidate, Obama must appeal to millions of voters who believe that without religion, most of us would spend our days raping and killing our neighbors and stealing their pornography. Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark--which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality--are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever. It is, of course, good to know that people like Reverend Wright occasionally do help the poor, feed the hungry, and care for the sick. But wouldn't it be better to do these things for reasons that are not manifestly delusional? Can we care for one another without believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is now listening to our thoughts?

Yes we can"

Sam Harris, What Barack Obama Could Not Say.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Person of Conscience Who Stood Against Tyranny, Dead at 89.

A Giant by the power of his pen

One of the books I read in my later teen years that stayed with me for a long time was One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. I had nightmares because of it. I was already interested in politics and I was forming my ideological preferences, so I was reading all sorts of stuff, but I wasn't prepared for a detailed description of a totalitarian state employing unimaginable brutish means in an attempt to dehumanize someone who it considered a dissenter! It didn't take much to believe that freedom of speech and freedom of conscience are fundamental rights and no one should even attempt to take them away.

It's hard to believe this nowadays, but before the end of the Soviet Union, such regime was an option for some! Actually I have lived in Europe--on the western side of the "iron curtain"-- and I experienced this first hand. The soviet-style system had many supporters and Stalinism was even considered preferable to the capitalist system by millions of Communists and other leftists in the West. The Communist parties of Spain, Italy, France and Greece, to name a few, were ideological fraternities of the Soviet regime! What was striking was that these parties and their sympathizers were enjoying the freedoms of liberal democracy while saying that if they got to govern they'd abolish all those bourgeois freedoms and rule like the communists in the USSR and eastern Europe!

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) had been a patriot who did what any good patriot should do: speak up when his country does the wrong thing! He paid for his dissent, by imprisonment, exile, and eventually thrown out of the country. The Gulag Archipelago was a 3-part tome that documented the brutality of the soviets and helped bring to light their atrocities. It helped de-mystify the aura of superiority of the "workers' paradise" and brought attention to the issue.

In Europe and elsewhere outside the US, the definition of a leftist didn't necessarily mean a progressive person, who was in favor of liberal democracy and its individual freedoms! I've have many debates while in Europe and in grad school with people who were sympathetic to the Soviet regime. Most refused to believe what Solzhenitsyn and others were saying about the brutality as a method of control and political power used by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. It was much like today's fundamentalists who don't want to even entertain any challenging view to their own absolute convictions.

It is human nature to defend something that you've been guarding as dear, no matter what the contradicting evidence shows. The greater the investment the harder for someone to change their mind. And, if this becomes part of the person's identity, then it's almost impossible to amend. I also believe that the less secure & confident the individual is, the more the need for the absolute. Dogma solves lots of problems in areas that you're weak. If you can't be a skeptic, you don't need be dialectical about an issue. Case in point, some of us are fine with the "I don't know" option, but others are not! They want an answer, any answer that feels good! It's what Steven Colbert says, thuthiness, and a gut feeling.

Solzhenitsyn was born a year after the Bolshevik revolution (actually a coup d'etat that put an end to a very young experiment of democracy in Russia), but managed to survive and outlive this brutal regime. I felt sad about his death, even though his time had passed. Nevertheless, he was a human being who did the right thing regardless of the risks involved. That's admirable. Humanity progresses when people act to make a difference because they care!

Dying for Love.... Victims of Barbaric Customs [an update]

This is the update on the earlier (May 12, 2008) post here, Dying for Love.. There's a new tragic development.

The mother who defied the killers of her 17-year old daughter is herself murdered.

According to The Guardian: Five weeks ago Leila Hussein told The Observer the chilling story of how her husband had killed their 17-year-old daughter over her friendship with a British soldier in Basra. Now Leila, who had been in hiding, has been murdered - gunned down in cold blood. [click on the links for more info].

Dying for Love in a Country "Liberated" by the US. Exporting Democracy Hits Another Snag!

How to best promote not just democracy, but liberal democracy.

..It was her first youthful infatuation and it would be her last. She died on 16 March after her father discovered she had been seen in public talking to Paul, considered to be the enemy, the invader and a Christian. Though her horrified mother, Leila Hussein, called Rand's two brothers, Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, to restrain Abdel-Qader as he choked her with his foot on her throat, they joined in... Her shrouded corpse was then tossed into a makeshift grave without ceremony as her uncles spat on it in disgust...

Exporting democracy can be a very difficult task unless the local conditions permit such a regime to exist. Condi Rice Ph.D., should have known this much at least when she was advising the president on Iraq! But she wasn't hired by Dubya to contradict the neocons and she didn't have the personal integrity to utter what she probably had learned in grad school.

Anyway, what the US should try to do is to export the ideas of humanism and constitutional liberalism, because it is through these values a society can function democratically--as we understand a liberal democracy to be.

Non-liberal governments often have come to power via the ballot box after "open & fair" elections. We've seen this too many times; that democratically-elected parties pursue totalitarian policies. It might even be the will of the people to brutally enforce conformity and exterminate all those dissenters who "give comfort to the enemy" by criticizing the government or challenging the popular wisdom.

Perhaps some of us in the west don't realize that many societies that may pay lip service to democracy don't view favorably things like religious tolerance (and a separation of church-state), privacy, individual rights, free expression that includes satire and offensive speech, etc.

The only countries that give true meaning to freedom are liberal democracies. They're not perfect--as we know from our own experience, especially under the BushCo government--but as long as we control our domestic Taliban, falling in love is not a death sentence for women.

The following story is from Iraq. A 17-year old girl was murdered by her father because she fell in love with the wrong man. Exchanging glances and an occasional greeting with an unrelated male can mean death for a woman in that part of the world. This "honor" killings are an acceptable norm. The law--based on some religious absurdity and primitive myths--supports this kind of behavior. The police that arrested Abdel-Qared actually congratulated him upon his release for doing the right thing by killing his virgin daughter.

'I don't have a daughter now, and I prefer to say that I never had one. That girl humiliated me in front of my family and friends. Speaking with a foreign soldier, she lost what is the most precious thing for any woman. 'People from western countries might be shocked, but our girls are not like their daughters that can sleep with any man they want and sometimes even get pregnant without marrying. Our girls should respect their religion, their family and their bodies.

'I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,' he said, his voice swelling with pride. 'My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.'

Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British soldier in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death.

Homosexuality is punishable by death, a sentence Abdel-Qader approves of with a passion. 'I have alerted my two sons. They will have the same end [as Rand] if they become contaminated with any gay relationship. These crimes deserve death - death in the name of God," he said, and he added that his daughter's bad genes were passed on by her mother...

It takes a very long time and a good deal of education for people to change their views or gain enough confidence to examine long-held beliefs that have become part of their identity. Political scientists concern themselves with the question of change, which includes progress towards more freedom; there's a wealth of writings views on change, and the kind of desirable change. Yes, change can be slow coming as societies often move like molasses. Or, change can be imposed from above with the force of either the state or an external source. Let's not look far, civil rights in our own country were enforced by federal troops not so long ago.

Unfortunately, a bunch of ideological idiots and incompetent bureaucrats were in charge of the occupation of Iraq. Instead of bringing change, they unleashed all the evils present in a ill-concocted country like Iraq--where religious factions, tribalism, thuggery, and old unsettled scores got a chance to surface because of the US invasion produced a failed state.

When Germany and Japan were occupied after WW2, they were cohesive nations, but nevertheless, there was enough military occupying power to dictate how the new politics, and to a great extend the legal system, were to proceed. This situation produced stable democratic countries that are our allies today.

The best thing the US should be doing is to promote the ideals of freedom and lead by example. The age of the military empires is gone so the imposition of freedom from above or from the outside isn't possible any longer--not that the former imperialist empires had freedom on their minds or in their practice...

People in unfree countries have to see the benefits and the quality of life enjoyed by those who do have liberty. Modernity can be threatening to traditional societies and there'll always be reactionary movements, but modernity coupled with liberal freedoms can be attractive too. The US should encourage this kind of progress. One way to influence countries is by offering help--which is cheaper, and dare say, more effective than the militaristic approach favored by the neocons. For example, eliminating malaria in Africa for $12 billion is a bargain, and the benefit many-fold, measured in human lives and good will towards the US.

We need smart people in positions of leadership who can re-evaluate the strategy and long-term interests of the US. Without giving in to those who want to impose ideas and political systems unfit for modern humans, we have to think big, outside the sophomoronic approach of: I can punch you really hard...

The more peace, health, education & prosperity spreads, the more likely to have stable conditions for a liberal democracy to flourish. The more of those democracies, the better for all us the world will be. Now, that's a great progressive culture of life!

Six Years after 9-11-01. Liberty Still Under Attack from Fear & Absolutism

Bush Vetoes Science, Again. [A Crude Lesson in Human Sexuality & Reproduction Courtesy of Ignorance]

You may be excused if you didn't know any better, but today?... Applied ignorance is deadly!

I believe in order to make sure the sun rises, we have to open a human chest cavity and extract the heart; we have to do this every day, on some days multiple times! That's my belief. And, you have to respect that, because it's my religious belief! *

Now, if I convince enough people to go along with this, we'll ensure that stupid claims can claim human lives and worsen the lives of those left behind! Isn't what president Bush is actually doing with his latest veto of the stem cell funding bill?

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," said Bush after he vetoed the Congressional bill passed with big bi-partisan support. Yet, our Congress still has many more scientifically-illiterate people to sustain Bush's veto. Don't you see the connection between the people and those we elect? Many Republican presidential candidates openly say they don't believe in evolution--one of our strongest scientific theories we've got! These politicians appeal to their base, or, in other words, they reflect the public sentiment of their base!

Why do these people believe that a collection of a few cells constitutes human life? Well, they don't know, but it's their religious belief! Even though 2/3 of Americans favor stem cell research, this president is putting ideology (read: religion, or, how to keep the loons' support of his shrinking base) above science.

What's science? Well, in short, it's the collective body of empirical evidence, research & inquiry, the ability to amend, the theories that have given us answers about many marvels of the universe, etc.. Oh, science has also made possible the doubling of human life expectancy in the last 100 years! Not bad, heh? If a few people have no idea--nor do they care to know--how the human body works, should they be in charge of giving us moral imperatives on how to conduct science?

When, for example, was it that a fertilized human ovum became a human being? Is sperm too? Both sexes expel these naturally. Who was the headmaster of religious interpretation that decreed stem cells are humans beings? Is it written in any ancient holy book? Or, is it because the "authorities" tell us that they have a direct connection to a supreme being and, thus, divine knowledge?

At first it might sound unrelated, but this fits nicely with a religious view towards sex, whereas sex should be only for procreation and under strict rules in order to satisfy the deity... and, to a lesser extend male dominance. That's why
we condemn AIDS but condoms even more! That's why we (the US) allow the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the advanced world, because sex ed and birth control are deemed worse! That's why we allow for a system that puts obstacles to women's reproductive choices, forcing unwanted pregnancies, but promptly abandon the newborns and their mothers. Er, I meant, we do build more jails to institutionalize those who come from broken households and enter a life of crime. That's not so smart I reckon.

"These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said of the children in the audience. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells." Bush, 43rd president of the USA

I wonder how the world would've been today if papa George Bush had destroyed a human life, some 62 years ago, by masturbating?... Or, that the elder Barbara Bush had her fertilized egg gone down the tubes soon after, as it naturally happens to many women... We'll never know. If we were to follow Bush's credo, those women who try in-vitro fertilization--whereas many eggs are fertilized in the process--are potential criminals, if they are not implanted with all the eggs. This incredible claim is even more absurd if you consider that Bush won't support scientific research that harvests those unused stem cells (taken from unused fertilized eggs) to try to cure dreadful diseases, like Alzheimer's....

Yes, it's true, the combination of sperm & ovum have the potential or turning into a human being--most don't however. Keep in mind that even if a bunch of cells do turn into a person, there are no guarantees that this born individual will indeed exercise his/her mind instead of preferring dogma & ignorance over enlightenment!

Please, don't tell me that elections don' have consequences and that all politicians are the same....


Editor's note: Sketch by XKCD [click on it to make it larger]

* An Aztec practice. Fortunately, as the current (and by dogma, infallible) Pope said, Christianity "purified the indigenous people."

Public Myths & Ideology: Creating the Easter Bunny, Chocolate Eggs, and a Personal Jesus!

One of the best things in our country is the First Amendment--Freedom of Expression.

Obviously there's something that makes people all over the world devote so much time, energy, money, all sorts of resources to specific rituals that represent certain ideals. Religion provides this vehicle to having a purpose in life. People like to feel special and be part of a special group. Also, they need to have something that makes sense of it all, you know, explain the reason for all things that exist. Well, the particular activity doesn't have to make sense in itself as long as it provides a path to an ideal and reinforces the cultural norms of the group. Most people may not even know the origins of what's traditional. Myths have changed over the generations and have been exchanged among the various groups of people. It doesn't really matter when a myth appeared or where it came from [i.e., Pagan practices incorporated into Christianity] as long as it serves a purpose. I believe that myths have played and continue to play a very important and necessary role in human societies. I also believe that they're all man-made [emphasis on man].

There was--still is--a belief that the whole universe has somehow a divine order. Likewise, human societies are governed by this natural, divine order. Under the Old Regime*, there was a very hierarchical and rigid pyramid of society, and, for most of human history, people did not question their station in life.

I don't think a myth has to have a supernatural origin to be enjoyed--I'm a living proof of this. Most people enjoy rituals--formal or informal--without much thought or good knowledge of such practices. Likewise, secular rituals, like those in politics and sports, have the goal of reinforcing norms, promote certain ideals, a communal sense, and a collective purpose. And, that's OK. As long as things work out for the most part, people are content.

My choices don't have to be the choices of others, and vice-versa. I'm OK with this. Personally, I do want to know the purpose of my actions, especially when I'm told, "don't worry, do as I say, because it's best for you, trust me"! I'm not religious--in case you're haven't figured this out yet--but, in my efforts to understand the human condition and behaviour, I've studied religion and want to know more about it. Both of my parents, especially my mother, were religious persons, but they couldn't provide me with answers to my many questions. Most religious people I meet can't do that either. That's fine. What works for them and what makes them happy, it's fine by me. On the other hand, I wish more people learned more about their faiths. [PBS' Frontline is a good way to start, at least about Jesus] I still find it very intrigueging that most don't care to investigate something that governs their lives. Therefore, I've concluded that faith plays an entirely different role than I had originally expected. It gives people comfort.

So, when people wish me "Happy Easter", "Merry Christmas", "Hope you find lots eggs in your Easter basket", "Happy(?!) Halloween", "Kiss me I'm Irish"... whatever it is, I like it! If I think it's sincere. After all, everyone makes his own universe in a way. The perceived is often more important than the actual. Isn't it? I don't see a problem with Atheists For Jesus, for example. Jesus is something personal, like all gods. My personal Jesus is a liberal! I don’t see why I can’t have a personal Jesus like the faithful do. Oh, yeah! A few others agree with the Jesus is a Liberal idea. He was in favor of uplifting the poor & the underprivileged, against social injustice, against violence; he was for generosity & sharing, compassion, and he had no problem associating with prostitutes. I don’t think this Jesus would agree with the American ..fundies who recently told us that his father brought death & destruction to New York City, New Orleans because, and elsewhere, because there were too many people like his friend, Mary Magdalene--practicing hedonism and non-sanctioned love! Here, I do find a problem when the faithful that follow the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do get up and leave those coots after such statements.

..I gather that Jesus was a very calculating guy. He didn’t do things by accident. He had a plan! A divine plan. I think he still does. That’s why I don’t pray to Jesus. I don’t want to impose. I mean, who am I to show up one day and pray for something that may not be part of the divine plan? If things are to happen, they will, regardless of my begging or the bargaining I offer. That’s simple logic to me. [George Carlin thinks along these lines].

Anyway, speaking of planning to invent Easter. Did you hear about the discovery of the Gospel of Judas**? Fascinating stuff, I tell you. It seems (just as I had suspected 30 years ago) that Jesus had a plan, so, he told Judas to betray him to the authorities. I mean, we couldn't have much of a Christian faith without the resurrection of Jesus, would we? Judas complied and the rest is history as they say.

A year ago, I wrote about this [I'm borrowing excerpts from ..myself above] and I argued that the environment we happen to be born in and the prevailing conditions around us shape our character and much of our world view. Very few people manage to see themselves and their original group from the outside. The less secure a person feels, the stronger the need for an identity that's provided by the group, and the stronger the fear & rejection of the "others". Where do you fall in this?

* The Old Regime denotes ascribed status and religious conformity--this was the order of human societies, until a new radical ideology, that of liberalism replaced it a couple centuries ago.

**There have been many Gospels. But the Church decided (sometimes by committee) which ones should be part of the official canon.

The Totally Worthless Currency of The American Taliban

It's a dangerous thing to be making medical diagnoses by looking at an edited video, by reading a holy text and determining that a person has no right to exit in a manner of his/her choosing. It's also a crime to lie and accuse someone of physically abusing and eventually killing his former wife. And, I guess, it's utter stupidity and a disservice to the American people and the truth when the mainstream media gives a forum to charlatans to claim that a dead-brain patient can fully recover, and/or she can communicate with us via a ..seance!

Would those people, who are exposed today as frauds, liars, agitators, entertainers of the lowest denominator, peddlers of the supernatural & the superstitious, feel any shame or the need to apologize? No, not at all. The Terri Schiavo autopsy revealed more than what her doctors, the 20 judges, and her husband had been saying about her being brain dead. It revealed that her case was more about a religious debate raised by the fundamentalists and exploited by the far right and charlatans of all stripes, some of which, like majority leader Frist, unfortunately, hold leadership positions in our government.

The Schiavo issue wasn't about a "culture of life" but whether a person has the right to choose his medical treatment at the end of his life. The Republicans had circulated a secret memo in the Senate saying that this case would be "a great political issue." President Bush got on the bandwagon too. He conveniently forgot that, as the Texas governor, he had signed a law giving the spouse & the patient's doctors the final say in matters of life and death. Bush also had signed a law that the state could turn off life-support when a patient like Terri Schiavo didn't have insurance to pay for such extended care! And, it had happened with babies in Texas!

Science told us that Schiavo's brain had atrophied by 50%, much of it replaced by spinal fluid--an irreversible condition, known as PVS (persistent vegetative state). She was also blind and not responsive to external stimuli. No thoughts, no self-awareness. No PVS patient has ever recovered. This is different than a coma. It's insane that we spent so much time, energy and money preventing a person from exercising her oft-stated wishes in a terminal situation, while those who supposedly propose a culture of life also oppose universal health care available to every single American! We lost some 3,000 people on 9-11-01. That was tragic indeed. Since, we've spent thousands of lives and several hundred billion dollars with more to come in Iraq. Yet, every month, thousands of Americans die because they don't have health insurance and no access to healthcare! Aren't these Americans "innocent?" Our indifference can be deadlier than a few fanatics blowing up a building.

I'm in favor of the culture of life, because life should be protected, enhanced with quality and individual choice! All this when it clearly matters, which includes the period from birth and throughout our existence in this physical world! Liberals believe in freedom of choice, especially when it involves our own self. But, having the freedom without any real choices it's pointless. And, more and more choices are being taken away, not by our foreign enemies, but by our own government. I'm not just talking about civil rights, important as they are, but about limiting our ability to move up the socio-economic pyramid. Even if I'm free to vote & speak up, if I can't feed and shelter myself, or if the quality of my life diminishes because of lack of health care, then obviously there is something wrong here.

As the Schiavo case proved, the American Taliban and the neo-cons are not interested in the truth--which is discarded if it's unpleasant or doesn't fit within their own narrow & distorted world. If it weren't so, then I'd expect anyone who "made a mistake" in the Schiavo case to come out and apologize today. After all, the autopsy totally confirmed what the doctors had been telling us in the last 15 years. But, don't hold your breath. No one, not a single person from the irrational side, will come out and admit his error. Reason is not their currency; superstition and fear are!

Benedictus Catholicus: A Pope for the 21st Century?

I've been debating with myself whether to post an essay about the election of the new pope, but, in the end, I couldn't resist. No other church has such a world-wide identifiable figure at its leadership like the Catholic Church while having a big influence in people's lives. The last pope arguably was the most identifiable person on the planet. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is not as famous but he is a known quality. If the past is a guide for the future, he will be a very conservative pope.
But, what does this mean? Should the church change because of the times, or just because its members don't follow all of its doctrines? Is religious dogma true for ever and ever? How about the infallibility of the pope? There are many questions that we get to ask on this historic occasion. I think any authoritarian institution has little room to wiggle on the basic tenets, but the pope's own views and sensibilities can shape the Catholic Church's policies. These policies are the result of Vatican Councils, papal edicts, tradition and the pope's own interpretations.
For example, why is the use of condoms or birth control against Catholic dogma? Is in written in the holy book somewhere? My answer is that the church is still uptight about human sexuality. While condoms have been proven to prevent deadly diseases, why is the church against them? And, it's against them even within the confines of marriage! In Africa, the most dangerous act a woman can do is to get married! Most HIV-infected African women are married and the culprits are their husbands! Yet, the Catholic Church and the Bush administration are against condom distribution, any sex education that mentions birth control and HIV-AIDS.

Amidst the litany of praise for the new pope, it's worth taking a closer look at Cardinal Ratzinger's views and actions. Once the church wants to play a role in our political discourse, we have every right to engage it in critical discussion. Remember last summer when many church leaders came out against John Kerry and every Democrat who supported a woman's right to choose? In 2004, the Vatican's guardian of theology, Cardinal Ratzinger, ordered bishops to refuse communion to politicians who supported abortion rights. In a letter that was obtained by the Italian magazine L'Espresso, Ratzinger wrote that abortion supporters "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present themselves for holy communion." I wouldn't care as much if this were kept strictly within church membership, but when the issue became about not voting for anyone who favored a woman's choice then it became a whole different matter. Anyone can believe in the devil and that Kerry was Satan's pupil, but a religious view can't be imposed on the rest of us. Not that the argument about "cooperating with evil" was particularly convincing if I may say so. Zeus, for one, told me otherwise! Now, back off because my religious claim is just as valid as yours!

Something that was way too obvious to me since John Paul II fell into his death bed was the absence of women in the whole process--in the funeral, the religious ceremonies and the eventual selection of the new pontiff. Not even ..altar girls were allowed. Well, I did see lots of nuns in St. Peter's Square, but like women elsewhere they were just observers. Women have been kept subservient, second class if you like, and out of leadership positions in the Catholic church. Don't expect this to change soon. Ratzinger has written a letter to bishops worldwide decrying a sort of feminism that makes women "adversaries" of men! I wonder if he's in favor of any other sort of feminism? I doubt it.
The new pope is a very convinced man for he believes in the absolute truth; a truth that apparently has been discovered by his church. On Monday, in what was essentially a keynote address for the conclave, he delivered his last homily as a cardinal, attacking "the dictatorship of relativism," which he said denies absolute truth. He took a shot at critics who regard views like his own as out of the mainstream. "To have a clear faith according to the church's creed is today often labeled fundamentalism," he said. I suppose that he's even more certain now since his stance was confirmed, no doubt by divine intervention, when he donned the cloak of papal infallibility! That's another resounding "no" to liberation theology. Dissent won't be encouraged, and the take-it-or-leave-it will be the order of the day during his pontificate.

OK, we agree, Ratzinger is not a modern guy. This brings me back to sex! The Catholic Church forbids priests from getting married. I know that this is not written in the holy book. Originally, this had nothing to do with celibacy--though celibacy was added as a reason later--but it had to do with land rights and inheritance. You see, the early church was losing property and wealth when its married priests died. Get it?
Of course the biggest hang-up is about recreational sex, you know, sex for pleasure. It might be the self-indulgence aspect of it that bothers the church, though supposedly a person can be celibate but gorge himself in all sorts of indulgent excesses not explicitly forbidden by the dogma! So, recreational sex is no good, hence the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control and to proper sex education by the way. Not only you're not supposed to do it, but you shouldn't be exposed to the proper academic/scientific knowledge of human sexuality. President Bush agrees on this one. No wonder why teenage pregnacies and abortions have been steadily increasing under his tutelage! Oh, yeah, you've guessed it, the rates are higher in the so-called red states and the Bible-drenched South.
Ratzinger has called homosexuality a tendency toward "intrinsic moral evil." I wonder if active homosexuality is considered grounds for excommunication? Probably not! Getting divorced or having an abortion are. The latter are considered greater evils than the sins of Catholic priests (all male remember?) who sexually molested thousands of young boys! I haven't heard that anyone of those perverts being excommunicated. Have you? Hold your breath, not because it'll happen soon, but because it stinks!
As the Vatican kept in the limelight the disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law (read the earlier post, Cardinal Sin) it reminded the American Catholics that their recent most painful experience barely registered in the Holy See. Would you guess that Cardinal Ratzinger played a role in this? Three years ago, when the clergy sex abuse scandal erupted in the United States, he blamed the resulting uproar on a media conspiracy! "I am personally convinced," he told reporters in Murcia, Spain, in 2002, "that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the U.S., is a planned campaign." Ratzinger's Vatican office was in charge of reviewing cases of priests charged with sex abuse. I wonder if he's changed his mind since. Just the other day, the Vatican claimed "statehood" to escape culpability in a sex abuse lawsuit and urged Condi Rice to intervene on its behalf.

I understand that many people feel uncomfortable or turn hostile when their faith or church are being criticized, but once their beliefs and their organized religious institutions become part in the shaping of public policy, then I believe it's fair game. Why is it OK to debate and ask for proof,use reason to reach a conclusion in other matters, but when a religious argument is put forth the treatment should change? When they say that abortion should be illegal--even if it only leads to millions of unsafe abortions (especially in South America and the developing countries)-- then we do have a fight in our hands.
When they say that homosexuals are evil doers and shouldn't have equal civil rights, then we liberals have to object. If a woman is being excommunicated from the church for having an abortion it's one thing, but we have to object to the church's drive to influence public policy on this issue and restrict a woman's right to reproductive choice.

Take for example what happened in Argentina recently. Bishop Antonio Baseotto suggested in March that a high Argentine government official should be subjected to the biblical punishment of being "cast into the sea" for suggesting abortion be legalized. In response, Argentina's president, Nestor Kirchner, refused to recognize the bishop, prompting the Vatican to make the odd and unexplained charge that Buenos Aires was restricting religious freedom! The issue, while mollified slightly in recent days, challenged relations between Buenos Aires and Rome and reopened the abortion debate there. Activists and organizations have been making public appeals for legalization, while dozens of pro-choice supporters ran ads in major Argentine papers calling for legalization of abortion.

In Brazil, the world's largest Catholic country, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has come under fire from the church for proposals to lighten restrictions on abortion. In an interview published in early April, Rio de Janeiro Cardinal Eusebio Scheid charged at the left-leaning president, saying "a real Catholic cannot be in favor of abortion." Lula has defended his faith while refusing to back down. Pope John Paul II himself fell at odds with Lula's government and many Brazilians on issues such as contraception, abortion and "Marxist liberation theology."
Actually, there is a study done by Catholics For A Free Choice regarding the views of people in Latin America regarding traditional church doctrine. It's an eye-opener! Well, maybe not for Pope Benedict's Vatican, but for those who realize that the times are leaving the Catholic Church behind.

There was a time when the church was the sole authority, it explained the universe, but that was then. Now there has to be a debate within its fold about the direction and the role the church should play in the 21st century. In Europe, very few people attend religious services any more and church membership is rapidly shrinking. In the U.S. the Protestants and Catholics are losing to the more fundamentalist versions of Christianity. The Vatican is hoping that the Third World will bolster the ranks of the faithful. Yet, Ratzinger thinks it's a good idea to have mass in the Latin language! [no, Latin Americans don't speak Latin as the former VP Danny Boy Quale once told us!] It seems to me that the church has to think hard about its conservatism. Too much change within a closed, authoritarian system can result in everything falling apart, I do realize this. As a matter of fact, closed systems that are more rigid and offer a more absolute truth seem to have been attracting new converts, the "born-again" and the rapture right in this country! Perhaps an accommodation can be reached without undermining the foundations. After all, what's good about a foundation when it stands supporting something with no one in it?

I don't understand, for example, why Cardinal Ratzinger insisted that communion must involve wheat (gluten) and therefore, in essence, denying communion to a person with celiac disease! The new pope probably subscribes to the slippery slope theory--once you allow a revision, god knows where it'll stop. Yet, it was Jesus who challenged society and whose gospel message was radical. Has everything been settled since? Have the Catholic Church and Benedict XVI found the only path to heaven? You may choose to believe so, but I prefer a more humane and flexible church, because the church does provide comfort and moral guidance to those who need it or can't find it elsewhere.
On the other hand, this doesn't mean that life should be viewed only as a catharsis stage before a person enters heaven. The church has to be a bit more practical and try a bit harder to enhance the quality of life for the most underprivileged persons here and now. There has been a symbiotic relationship between the lay people and the hierarchy because both needed each other in order to survive. But, the equation is changing, so the question for the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict is: which is the needier party today? One of the two apparently has more choices than the other.

Andrew Sullivan, who's a devout Catholic, conservative, and openly gay, is been following the deeds of Cardinal Ratzinger for the last 10 years. He writes along the same lines of this blog on the issues, but has some additional "gems" regarding the views and policies of Ratzi, a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI.
4/26/05: I watched Wide Angle on PBS tonight titled White Smoke on the selection of the new pope. I urge you to read the articles on PBS's web site, especially the interview of James Caroll. He is also a devout Catholic advocating progressive change in the church. For those who feel threatened or insulted by a secular person like myself when I ask questions and offer criticisism, it may be easier to hear views from people who have accepted the basic doctrine but also think that some changes are necessary if not overdue already.

Cardinal Sin

The Vatican Doesn't Get It, Or, It Has Adopted a Page from Bush's Playbook
I don't claim to fully understand religion, but the concept of forgiveness is well within my grasp. However, it seems that the Vatican has borrowed a page from G.W. Bush's playbook of in-your-face politics. You know, the concept of rewarding failure, appointing unqualified persons to high office, not taking responsibility for mistakes, distorting the truth, lying, and ..forgiving oneself for past (and why not, future) sins!
Thus, the Vatican is sticking to these Bush principles while talking about moral values from one side of its mouth. Over the weekend, I've heard several religious figures, some speaking on behalf of the Vatican, who told us that forgiveness is a good thing to dispense. I agree. Forgiveness is necessary sometimes but should not be given blindly; not to repeat offenders and the unrepentant. Some people deserve a second chance, some people simply deserve shame & punishment.
What infuriates me is the way those "pious" people talk about forgiveness. Excuse me, but it is up to the victim to forgive! It is not up to the perpetrator to invoke forgiveness and move on! Let's apply this concept in the case of the former Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law who resigned due to the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, particularly in Massachusetts.
To put it bluntly--as we should, to make the harsh point--many priests, in many districts, for many decades raped many boys and sexually harassed god-knows how many thousands of children. Cardinal Law resigned, not out of shame or self-critique, but only after a judge decided to unseal court records that included a letter from the cardinal commending priests even though he knew there was so much evidence of them being child molesters! Law stubbornly refused to resign for a year, until he was pushed out by public outrage and pressure from ..below, including his parishioners!
Similar sex crimes took place in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and I'd bet in every other state. What did the Church do? First, it tried to deny and hide it. Finally, it admitted that its priests sexually abused the children of its faithful, and it is now paying millions of dollars to the victims. The amazing thing was that, although the church hierarchy knew about the abuses, it did nothing to protect the children! For the most part, it just shuffled the perps around when the rumors got out of hand in the local parish. So, the wolves got to chew on some fresh meat elsewhere. And, they did, because those sick persons couldn't stop, and the church didn't stop them.
Which brings us to the big brother, the pope John Paul II and his cohorts at the Vatican. Instead of acting quickly, like God striking down a sinner (as if this ever happens!) they remained publicly silent. Actually in private, many cardinals expressed their dismay at those Americans who blow things out of ..proportion and have the "audacity to sue their own Church!"
Like Bush, the Catholic Church doesn't punish anyone, no matter what their crime, as long as they pledge allegiance to the chief and follow the official line. Not only they don't punish the failures or, at the very least, shoo them away, but instead they reward them!
After Cardinal Law resigned in 2003, he was given a spacious apartment and a prestigious post in the Vatican! His pompous title? Get this: Archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major! Wow! Well done brother Bernard! Bring your expertise to Rome now! Oh, and since you're here, why don't you take a high-visibility role in the pope's funeral? Good boy. You're the kind of image we want to project to the world, especially to those Americans back home. We might confuse them a bit more...
As the New York Times observed, by permitting Cardinal Law to take the limelight in Rome just when the church is mourning the death of John Paul, the cardinals have reminded American Catholics that their most painful recent chapter barely registered in the Vatican!

By conservative estimates, like the John Jay study, there have been at least 10,000 sexually abused persons within the Catholic Church since the 1950s. The number of incidents is many times higher that that since many children were abused repeatedly for several years. Many parishes and other church officials refused to participate in the study. The Catholic Church in the U.S. has paid anywhere between $600 million to over a billion dollars to the victims. Sexual abuse should be dealt as one strike and you're out! Unfortunately, too many Church leaders,like Cardinal B. Law, failed to exercise their authority to correct the problem. They, instead, revealed a vacancy in the moral department.

The Pope Has to Be Catholic. But the Times Have Changed

With the passing of Pope John Paul II, we take the opportunity to peer into the legacy of this extraordinary man. Obviously, there are varying evaluations of his pontificate for the things he tried to change and for those things he wouldn't. Much of the talk centers around this pope leading the Catholic Church into the new millennium, the "new springtime of Christianity," as he called it. That he did. But, a church is not a very flexible institution. Actually, its positions are dogmatic since they represent values and ideas inspired by God and are not relevant to space and time. Or are they? At least that's the concept behind a system of beliefs that are based on divine revelation; it's a take it or leave it proposition.
I do not hold such view, I confess. I do not believe that truth is found by divine revelation. It is rather found by research, examination, rationality, science, and it's based on human experience. It allows for the possibility of revision once something better comes along. Errors in judgment should be corrected. It's a Catholic tenet that the pope is infallible, at least when it comes to interpreting religious doctrines, but this applies only to those who choose to believe it.
I'm not going to go into a dissertation on the basis of human morality and human behavior--especially the need for religious dogma and institutions. There will be other opportunities for such. This is about John Paul II, and one thing certain about him is that he acted on principle. He, like any other pope, had to fight secularism and, to some extend, modernity. Granted, the church isn't there to explain the physical universe any longer, but it has to draw upon its tradition and centuries-old authority to maintain its leadership among the faithful. Arguably, closed systems must remain authoritarian to survive, otherwise revisionistic tendencies usually bring the demise of them.
For example, Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost didn't improve the communist system but brought about its collapse. China will follow too. [its economic reforms are not matched by political reforms so it's more stable right now, but inevitably it will have to surrender some political control to continue its economic growth; plus the Chinese are getting more educated, more in touch with the rest of the world, and having increasing expectations]

When Karol Wojtyla was elected pope in 1978, many, especially American priests ordained in the 1960s, hoped that he would break with tradition and bring some change in the Catholic Church. He didn't. On the contrary, he embodied religious conservatism. Under his leadership, there was no elevation of the position of women in the church--ordination of women wasn't seriously discussed, if at all--and he locked in the church for many years to come by appointing almost all of the cardinals and by his actions as the pontiff.
The question is how much a pope or any church can change religious doctrine to accommodate for cultural changes. The pope has to Catholic, in other words, he must adhere to long-established principles and religious traditions. However, there is some room to wiggle. In my opinion, John Paul II had his best years earlier on, when he pressed for change in the communist eastern Europe and even in countries with right-wing dictatorships. I think he played an important and positive role in transforming some of those cruel societies. His church benefited from that change, but a change from oppressing regimes was good nevertheless.
Later, he wrote and spoke about the harsh face of capitalism, and tried to illuminate the role of Jesus and his efforts to elevate human dignity, promote social justice for the society's less fortunate. He was against the death penalty, opposed the war in Iraq and condemned the human rights abuses at the Abu Graib prison. He was critical of the crude materialism exhibited by the U.S. and our lack of a social net for the underprivileged and the sick.

Yet, he remained largely silent about the huge scandals in America regarding the sexual abuse of thousands of children by Catholic priests. This abuse most likely has been going in other parishes all over Europe and the rest of the world, but only in America we make such a big stink over it, and we sue too! This view has been the unofficial reaction in the Vatican, something that most certainly has put any American cardinal out of contention for the papacy. The American Catholics are considered "too liberal" in the eyes of the Holy See.
Sex is a big taboo with organized religion. This pope wasn't much different in his approach. He insisted on a strictly male and celibate priesthood. He opposed abortion (the right of a woman to choose), and birth control.
When dogma doesn't allow room for reality, then we have a problem. If you think that sex is not to be used for pleasure, but only for procreation, then you have a big problem. Most Catholics want birth control. Even within the confines of marriage, Catholic women want options, including abortion and, if all else fails, a divorce.
The issue of contraception is a big one, especially when considering the HIV-AIDS pandemic that has been killing millions, many of whom in Catholic Africa where the Church is gaining most of its new converts.
The stubbornness against the use of condoms in preventing the spread of this horrible and incurable disease is almost criminal. This is a clear case when religious dogma--as expressed by an "infallible" pope--is allowing millions of people to die because they either don't get the proper sex education or are denied access to condoms. Today in Africa, the most dangerous thing a woman can do is to get married! The vast majority of women with HIV-AIDS in Africa are married, infected by their husbands! In Mother Teresa's Calcutta (one of the many cities in Asia where prostitution flourishes) teenage girls are being infected by killer diseases because condoms are not available and sexually active persons are not aware of disease-prevention methods.

John Paul II's pontificate obviously has many meanings. As a non-Catholic, I can only evaluate him from the outside. There are big philosophical differences between the secular humanists and organized religion, almost as many as among the various religious doctrines and their followers. Perhaps we can find common ground in the respect and enhancement of human life which should be examined and fully enjoyed. As a liberal, I would like all religions to be more humanistic, more in touch with real-life issues of the common folk. To do whatever possible to help people here and now. To alleviate fear, disease, poverty, and to help people avoid life-wasting predicaments. To elevate human dignity of both sexes, and, frankly, to make the world a better place to be.