The Hypocrisy of Piety

To hear officials of the The Catholic Church express their outrage at a rule that would require their hospitals and schools to afford birth control to its workers you would think that their institutions were bastions of morality and ethics. The Catholic Church has always presented itself as the keeper of the sacred scriptures and arbitrator of all things moral. While it sanctimoniously claimed that any rule that spoke of contraception was morally reprehensible, dioceses had to be dragged into court to protect the innocent children who were being abused by those who had taken sacred vows to minister to the congregations. The outrageous hypocrisy of these “saintly” folks defies reason.
First and foremost in all matters related to the health care of an individual, it is between the patient and doctor. No one can supersede that bond. For a bunch of old men to declare what a woman's right should be is as ludicrous as some of the actions taken to protect the guilty pedophiles who haunted the sacristies looking for victims. To be quite frank, any moral high ground these so called church leaders once had was eroded by their own fulsome acts of protecting the perpetrators in their ranks.
Second, the leadership of the Catholic Church has a long history of displaying an abysmal showing of 13th Century thought. While birth control could do wonders for the developing world under the See, the papacy and its band of bishops, have continued to subject many third world nations to continuing poverty while spreading dogma no longer relevant in the 21st century. The history of the church is replete with example after example of adherence to standards and practices clearly tied to the dark ages. Lest we forget the obstacles placed in front of Galileo, and the more disturbing example of its actions during the years of the inquisition. Let's remember, Luther's protest was based on a corruption so deep and pervasive as to subvert the very teachings of Christ. Isn't it ironic that today anyone would look to the church for any matter related to science or health?
It is sheer chicanery to separate practice from pronouncements. The old adage practice what you preach applies. Rather than getting all bent out of shape over a rule concerning a woman's health, the church and all its ministers should be focused on helping the victims of their neglect. Then maybe the church can regain some semblance of respect. The hypocrisy of talking about a moral issue related to health while ignoring the damaging effects of years of abuse at the hands of its priests is outrageous.
All this mumble jumble coming from the right about the separation of church and state is another example of how this country is slowly becoming an intolerant society. What is so different about Sharia law and bishops dictating what health care a woman can receive? I contend the same disturbing trend of intolerance guided by ignorance that conservatives like to point to when discussing their enemies is exactly when is occurring in this country. All this talk of rights and religious freedom is but a smoke screen that bigots use to defend their stupidity against science and logic.
Morality and ethics are only relevant when they are back by meaningful actions. To claim a right to intervene in the doctor patient relationship based on a moral position is pure hypocrisy. While I wish the church would drag itself at least into the 19th century, I fear that it will remain cloistered in its ignorance. Perhaps, the single most damaging impediment to the ability of the church to move forward in its thinking and actions is its singularly male dominated hierarchy. Not only is it time for women (if there are any so inclined) to become priests, what the church needs is a woman pope. Perhaps then it can metamorphose into a a force for good.

Mitt the Shit

Mitt the Shit

OK, the pundits will sit around their tables all with sagacious interpretations to describe the recent embarrassment of Romney. It seems this guy can't get over 51% of any primary race. He is whipped by crazies like Newt and Rick. The only fools not able to capitalize on their “Not Romney” tactic are the three idiots who possessed a severe case of hoof and mouth disease. It seems Mitt who had sold his soul to the neanderthals who now control the Republican party is finding himself the chameleon splayed on the table with a scalpel hanging over him like the sword of Damocles. “What Shall It Profit A Man To Gain The Whole World And Lose His Soul.” Well, it seems we need to dig into both myth and the bible to understand what is happening to this caricature of himself.
The Republican party is a haven for scoundrels and crooks. It wasn't too long ago Haley Barber was being portrayed as presidential timber. Well, he is an example of the outrageous crap parading as conservatism. Here is a man who was a leader of the party selling pardons like some street corner dealer who doesn't give a wit for the consequences of his criminal acts. Fact is the Republican Party has been taken control of by a group of thugs and criminals with a throng of no nothings filling the ranks. Karl Rove, a spokesperson for conservatives, was directly involved in breaking the law. Sure a president can pardon a criminal but that doesn't undue the crime. And the slick vermin of the party having reduced politics to single silly issues, like gay marriage or patriotism or deficits (without owning up to their part in it) are now reaping the fruits of their labor.
Santorum and Gingrich can spout the craziest shit imaginable. Like Newt talking about the sanctity of religion while violating every commandment. Santorum can talk of Christian values while ignoring the key tenets of Jesus, Charity and Forgiveness. Against this backdrop of craziness, Mitt, not being a dullard, realized that he had to move a 180 degrees from his previous positions to attract enough nuts to support him in his presidential bid. Unfortunately, trying to please a nut can only be accomplished by those who understand the crazed machinations of the insane. One can say one needs to be an accomplished nut with no moral underpinnings.
The Republicans beginning with Atwater gave up its ethics and morals and reduced American politics to a sham attracting in the process the conservatives of the south who longed for the days of Jim Crow laws. One mustn't forget that harvesting this segment of the American electorate one needed to stand in the foot prints of George Wallace and other of his ilk. It seems to me that the chickens have indeed come home to roost and the Republicans and their allusions to the golden era of Reagan (which wasn't so golden)have painted their candidates into the corner of intolerance and bigotry and ignorance. The candidates must appeal to the lowest of low. They must seek to preach separation while alluding to sheer poppycock, like solving the debt by attacking the liberal agenda, which most can't even explain what it is they believe save with trite cliches pumped into them by men who have not an iota of conscious. Poor Romney once a man of principle must now appear as a no nothing, with simplistic solutions to complex problems set forward by men who sought only to gain the throne so they can pilfer the treasury. Indeed, what does it gain a man . . . .”