On Saturday's Religion page in The Washington Post, they highlighted the typical secular liberal reporter in his natural habitat -- tremendously skeptical of letting religious people play a role in public policy. In a box highlighting the "On Faith" Internet feature of The Washington Post and Newsweek, the magazine's Christopher Dickey was visibly disturbed in answering the question "Do you think the world's biggest problems -- poverty, disease, homelessness -- can be cured by well-intentioned religious believers?" The Post featured this grab:
“Well-intentioned religious believers”? That phrase, I confess, makes me deeply uneasy. In practice the selflessness of such people can be awe inspiring. In horrible conditions, their powerful faith gives them the strength to endure, to comfort, to heal. But at a policy level when they see practical problems through the narrow prism of dogma the results can be shocking.
The example of the Catholic Church, with its vast human resources and intense convictions, is particularly striking. It is committed to honor and preserve life. But how best to do that? General principles are easy enough to pronounce, but specific cases are the source of enormous anger and misunderstanding, both inside and outside the church, and none has been more contentious than Vatican opposition to the use of condoms to fight AIDS.
What follows is less argumentative. Dickey then ventured through a fairly straightforward examination of the Catholic debate over condoms and AIDS, but he's concerned with the idea that Catholic teaching is morally obtuse:
The church preaches abstinence as the best prevention. Many within church organizations contend that condoms give a false sense of security while encouraging dangerous promiscuity. But non-Catholic health workers often regard that position as unconscionable, and see the debate as one in which the theoretical possibility of preventing life with condoms has to be weighed against the statistical probability of losing millions of lives without them.
He adds how UN workers find the male latex condom is the single most effective technology to prevent the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. The implication is that the Church has its head in the clouds while millions die. (The cruder version, accusing Catholic leaders of letting "innocent people die," comes from the "Banning Condoms Kill" campaign from the fraudulent leftist group Catholics For a Free Choice.)
But as might be expected when you let a secular reporter explore his secular perspective in a "Faith" page, there is no real consideration of how the sexual act transmits sin, which for "well-intentioned religious believers," is not merely a question for this world, but for the next. Dickey sees only "practical problems" in need of solutions, and moral judgment has no role to play. In general, the liberal view of AIDS is bureaucratic, institutional, and wholly without a scintilla of expectation of individual moral responsibility.
Religious believers see not only bureaucracy or technology, but start instead with the commandment not to commit adultery. That places the sexual act as acceptable only within a marital context. Catholic teaching is stricter than evangelical teaching on the use of artificial contraception. But as a matter of bureaucracy and technology and "practical problems," is there any doubt that the rise of artificial contraception and the rise of messy sexual "liberation" are related societal trends?
Dickey consulted Thomas Williams, also a favorite expert of NBC News, who is a fairly reliable guide to Catholic teaching and not a Catholic In Name Only expert. But his attempts to explain things to the secular reporter did go awry:
“One fundamental question is whether this is something that is always wrong or not -- what in church lingo we would describe as ‘intrinsically’ evil,” said Williams. “It’s almost counterintuitive, because the church sees no ‘added’ evil with the use of condoms in cases of prostitution, or casual relationships with multiple partners or homosexual relationships. Even though the church would never say this in principle, on a pastoral level anybody would say if you are going to a prostitute, it’s already a moral evil, but use a condom.”
While Father Williams is correct on the academic question, it's highly questionable that "anybody" would say "on a pastoral level" that if you're going whoring, use a condom. Should the sinner in this exercise really feel he's "sinning with a clearer conscience"?
But the crucial point here is than the Catholic Church is mostly involved on the AIDS issue not through lobbying the government to do something, but by actually doing something -- healing or helping the sick. What Dickey's blog post suggests is that he's not only uncomfortable with religious believers solving problems inside government, but outside government as well.
(Hat tip: Dan Gainor, "working at home" on a Saturday.)
UPDATE: See Dickey's recent blog "Give Me That Old Time Secularism," where he complains about "medieval nonsense" in our politics. He also cited this "Line of the Day" from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd:
"The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Compare that with
December 15, 2007 - 17:14 ET by rbosqueCompare that with “Well-intentioned secular humanists” who have in the last century caused more death and misery than in all of human history.
none has been more
December 15, 2007 - 17:26 ET by motherbeltnone has been more contentious than Vatican opposition to the use of condoms to fight AIDS.
The Catholic Church opposes condom use because it is artificial contraception. The fact that they prevent the spread of AIDS is beside the point. The Church also forbids fornication. Why should she then say, well, if you're going to fornicate, use a condom. The admonition is "don't fornicate!"
Would the Church say "if you're going to beat your wife, have someone standing by so that you don't kill her?
Re the Update:
"The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the
Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes
trial." Maureen Dowd
Wow, Mo.....deep.
Condom me oh Condom me
December 15, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Lame CherryNewsbusters just posted a few weeks ago a clinical study which showed young black females were getting STD's USING CONDOMS.
So it appears the virus are learning to be better latex pore swimmers and condoms just as people with intelligence have said all along that condoms are no protection at all. The virus by nature are learning and doing what virus do in learning to survive to protect the human specie from interbreeding and children scattered all over the place destroying societal order.
Why this Dickey (another sexpert living up to his name) chooses to focus on the Catholics is bizarre as all religious dogma has a practice of sexual controls. The ancient codes of ALL peoples all were secular and based on God's natural laws. The fact is the 10 Commandments are a microcosm as Jesus stated for PEACE. They were and are laws designed to promote a societal order so a new generation can continue the generation.
The first Commandments teach one to honor God and the people who are chosen to lead. The next produce and order of worship keeping society together and honoring family.
That keeps the entire nation in order of laws and punishment.
The following commandments all deal with societal wealth, safety and the all important one of not lying about other people to advance.
Dickey should just look at the disaster his secular sexual malady has cost America. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS are being wasted now on bastards, sodomites and diseases. All of which is one huge drain on any society.
The people who behave which are moral being taught in normal codes of right and wrong and obeying cost society absolutely nothing. They produce, they advance it and they leave a surplus to make their children's live a better place.
Dickey has now bankrupted the United States in his secularism.
God indeed is order and any physcist worth their mathematics knows this and can prove it. God's laws promote peace. If Dickey cares to be reminded Iraq was won easily when Bush asked Americans to pray for victory.........Iraq only became a problem when Americans took the credit for it.
God help Dickey in Jesus Name. Amen, but he is corrupt and incapable of Wisdom or any Spiritual relationship in finding the miracles of God's Truth. It is all so obvious and all he can do is blame morality and looks for ways to sex himself to death.
That is insane.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Morality and hubris
December 15, 2007 - 19:07 ET by KC MulvilleGreat post, Tim. Dickey plainly believes that religious values hamper practical solutions to problems. We could solve a lot of problems, and all the big ones, if only we ignored any moral considerations. When it comes to big problems like AIDS and poverty, that makes it all the more easy to wave aside any petty “morality” based on any “dogma.”
By the same logic, I can solve all political problems: all I need to do is kill everyone who doesn’t agree with me. Once that’s accomplished, we won’t have any more of those pesky “disagreements.”
In the real world, we aren’t all absolutists about every moral concern. We do, in fact, trade off smaller moral concerns to pursue larger moral concerns. In war, we allow killing people for the larger purpose of addressing injustice or self defense. It’s a question of balance.
What’s insulting about Dickey’s argument is his dismissal of the moral concerns of Catholics, simply because they’re based on religious convictions.
One last item. The Catholic doctrine about artificial contraception was promulgated by Paul VI in 1968, but one of the chief developers of the final encyclical was Karol Wotyla, who went on to become John Paul II. Whether you agree with it or not, JPII left quite an extensive series of arguments about the importance of leaving nature alone, especially when it came to sex and family.
Let it be clear, his opposition wasn’t a knee-jerk medievalism. JPII was a thoroughly modern man, but he adamantly rejected the hubris of human beings thinking they can solve all problems, especially through technology.
John Kennedy once declared that since all our greatest problems were man made, man can solve them. JPII answered that such changes come only through a conversion of heart, not through any clever ideas and especially not through technology.
Who's approach is smarter?
December 15, 2007 - 19:40 ET by nkviking75Funny thing is, if one lives by Catholic teachings, namely limiting sexual activity to the confines of a monogamous marriage, and abstaining from illegal drug use, one can almost be certain that he or she will not get AIDS. The only possible ways to get it in that scenario are the unlikely events of a breakdown in proper medical procedures or a criminal assault by an AIDS patient. Condoms wouldn't help either of those situations
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
If people would live by the
December 15, 2007 - 19:58 ET by taterIf people would live by the Catholic teachings on human sexuality not only would AIDS be non-existant but the majority of STDs, out of wedlock pregnancies, and rapes would be as well. Divorces and adulterous affairs would be too.
I'm not naive though...we all have those feelings, God made those feelings a part of us and some people will succumb to them. If these feelings are put into proper context, then guess what you don't have anything to worry about.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
And it is "in the nature of
December 15, 2007 - 20:35 ET by motherbeltAnd it is "in the nature of the beast" to want to be protected from the consequences of ill-advised actions.
That doesn't mean that the Church has to sanction those "protections."
Gads! I can't stand this woman!
December 15, 2007 - 19:44 ET by drillanwr"The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial."
Ya know ... MoDo, go get your nails done ... Better yet, get yourself an over-priced high colonic ...
So Typical Of The Living Dead
December 15, 2007 - 21:01 ET by sentforth5I notice that the first reason Dickey jumps on as a reason religion should not be in politics is Catholicism producing AIDS. Forget about just scales, treating all others as you wished to be treated, the Royal Law of Liberty, calling good 'good' and evil 'evil', self responsibility, morals, ethics, etcetera...no..just Catholics giving HIV a helping hand. Well...it's all going in the Book, Mr. Dickey.I tell you, children, it's bad now, but this is just the beginning!
It's strange, when I hear a
December 15, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Chris NormanIt's strange, when I hear a person is a devout Christian, I think that it's a positive thing - even though I would hardly call myself devout. When someone, like this guy, looks at a devout Christian, viewed through their own liberal prism, they assume only bad things about that person. Things that make them "uneasy". I think that says a lot more about the viewer than the viewee.
Ever since Bush defeated
December 15, 2007 - 21:55 ET by fitzfongEver since Bush defeated Kerry in 2004...with the electoral difference being Ohio, the Democrats and the left-wing media have been desperately grasping at straws to figure out why Kerry lost. They settled on singling out religious conservatives in the South as the difference because it never occurred to them that the Democrats ran an inferior snob as their Presidential candidate. This way, they could turn their focus outward instead of inward and pour scorn on a "monolithic" group they had no interest in understanding. That smug, bitter hag Maureen Dowd could lick her wounds and comfort herself with the belief that "shepherds" Karl Rove and James Dobson led a bunch of racist, intolerant sheep into the voting booth fueled by their "hatred" of homosexuals. Couple that with the fact that Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" had been such a huge hit that year and that secular liberal conspiracy theory was complete.
But an honest analysis of the election would suggest that this theory is nothing but secular liberal self-delusion. A heavy proportion of the audience for the Mel Gibson film was composed of religious African-Americans...hardly a Republican monolith. Was the media bothered by the uneasy marriage of politics and religion when the likes of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter poisoned the Coretta Scott King Memorial? How about when Hillary Clinton adopted a phony dialect in front of an African-American religious audience? No and no. Does the media get too bothered about a "separation of church and state" when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton throw their support to Democrat candidates...thus "delivering" an implied monolith to the voting booth? No. Does the media see Roger Mahoney's cynical finger wagging over illegal immigration as an unwelcome moment when Church steps on the toes of State? Hell, no! In fact, they ignore the fact that he's using the issue to give himself cover for his shameful handling of the Archdiocesan sex scandal. Does the media decry the intrusion of Church and State when Keith Ellison wants to be sworn into office using the Koran? What do you think? How about when a bunch of taxi drivers want to have Muslim foot baths installed in a public airport? Separation of Church and State? What separation of Church and State?
If they are to recapture any of their lost credibility, the media need to give an honest analysis of the election. They need to realize that if the Republican candidate wins the Presidential election in 2008, it cannot simply be reduced to the vengeance of the angry white male or the "mind-numbed" redneck Bible thumper surrendering his will to a charlatan svengali. It will be because most of the country believes the Republican candidate would do a better job than the Democrat...just like in 2004
"...the media need to give
December 15, 2007 - 21:59 ET by Chris Norman"...the media need to give an honest analysis of the election."
But, you're not banking on that, are you? I think the media has decided they are "credible" to their fellow liberals, and for them, that's good enough.
If credibility from
December 15, 2007 - 22:07 ET by fitzfongIf credibility from liberals is all they're looking for, they'll certainly get it. But if they delude themselves after a loss next year like they've deluded themselves over 2004, they'll continue to miss the point and lay the foundation for repeated defeats. If you don't learn from your mistakes, you'll continue to make them.
I'm pretty sure that most in
December 15, 2007 - 22:26 ET by Chris NormanI'm pretty sure that most in the main stream media are much more comfortable being identified with liberals. They are uncomfortable around conservatives, as if we are of a different species. They have relegated all conservatives to the crazed neanderthal category. They see no need to take our views into account because they don't consider them reasonable or legitimate. It would be like almost like asking Hillary Clinton to balance our ideas with her liberal views. I'm afraid we are looking at a sort of an arpartheid situation when it comes to news coverage, where conservatives will have to have our own separate media for, at least, the near future. I just can't envision a scenario where, one bright day, Brian Williams, David Gregory, Harry Smith, et al, say, "You're right. We are liberally biased. We will cover conservative views with the same respect and time as we cover liberals". It just ain't gonna happen. The best we can do is to continue to try to convince more people that they are getting a distorted view of reality by relying on the MSM for their news - much like in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
Agreed. But I think that's
December 15, 2007 - 22:47 ET by fitzfongAgreed. But I think that's happening. While the newspapers are hemorrhaging money, the network newscasts are losing viewers and FNC is clobbering CNN and MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh is getting an audience of about 22 million. If I remember correctly, it only took about 35 million voters to win the last Presidential election...which means close to 2/3 of the voters necessary to win a Presidential election are tuning in to Rush Limbaugh's show. In other words, people are shedding the traditional media and going to "alternative" sources. The overall influence of the traditional media in shaping public opinion is not what it used to be.
Yeah, now if the GOP would
December 15, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Chris NormanYeah, now if the GOP would limit the way they allow the old media to frame the campaign and campaign issues. That would drop the relevancy of the MSM down a few more notches.
Or, more simply, if Beltway
December 15, 2007 - 23:44 ET by fitzfongOr, more simply, if Beltway Republicans just become less Beltway and more Republican.
Dickey is a moron who gets
December 15, 2007 - 22:50 ET by kgDickey is a moron who gets his religious information from some progressive
wackos. He should learn about religion prior to bashing or even opening up his
mouth.
"Vatican opposition to the use of condoms to fight AIDS." Darn, I thought it
was for birth control.
"The church preaches abstinence as the best prevention." Even a moron can see
that if you don't do it, then you won't catch it.
"church organizations contend that condoms give a false sense of security"
Condoms are 97% effective against pregnancy. What do you tell the other 3%?
"statistical probability of losing millions of lives without them." No. The
best way is to take responsibility (unknown to liberals). If you have the
disease then you keep your pants on and abstain from spreading it! If you do not
have the disease then you abstain until you KNOW your partner is
uninfected.
"Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial" No again!
Conservatives do not want Darwin's theory rammed down their throats. They prefer
to make their own decisions. This is just another "consensus" like global
warming.
Believing Christians
December 16, 2007 - 07:33 ET by jonathanandersonUpstanding Christians are the hope and light of the world ... how can anyone be "deeply uneasy" about that?
People Who Believe In Souls Don't Make Me Uneasy
December 16, 2007 - 09:48 ET by V the KIt's the people who belive human beings are soul-less hunks of meat who should make you uneasy. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were the greatest mas murderers in history. They were also atheists.
People like Dickey reject
December 16, 2007 - 10:15 ET by rimskyPeople like Dickey reject the concept of any absolute authority, as in God. But God is the ultimate authority, and we still survive as a nation because there is still a remnant of believers in this country who live, pray and worship by way of His doctrines.
uneasy with Christianity
December 16, 2007 - 10:17 ET by WR JonasIt is no more complicated than asking who puts these words and thoughts in his (Christopher Dickeys) mind . What master does he serve?
Of course he believes he is a free independent thinker. But the suspicion he fosters and the lies he slyly spreads are the creation of some one we know as the Master Deceiver. He has been plying his trade since the beginning of time and his evil is well known to the one who is the Truth.
It's a pit that all atheists fall into
December 16, 2007 - 11:31 ET by c5thenThe belief that the mortal life we experience for a fleeting instant in this "reality" is THE most important aspect of our being. The atheist cannot imagine that to act and believe correctly while losing ones life is the propper thing to do for the long term.
It's as if the atheists are advocating the way a person should behave on a commuter train for 15 minutes while they are on the way to the airport to travel far away for a new job/life.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
But they are okay with the
December 16, 2007 - 12:40 ET by RackieBut they are okay with the dogma of radical enviromentalism, communism, socialism, and every other iron fisted, soul crushing, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic "ism" that blackflushes out of the sewer that is the Left.
Just so we understand their position.