Bill Donohue, apologist for Irish clergy abuse

This was predictable, Bill Donohue coming to the defense of the Catholic Church over the Irish report on systemic abuse in Catholic institutions. Here’s the full text of his release [emphasis added]:

HYSTERIA OVER IRISH CLERGY ABUSE

May 20, 2009

After nine years of investigation, Ireland’s Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse has published its findings. More than 30,000 children, most of them delinquents, passed through one or more of Ireland’s Catholic-run institutions from the 1920s through the 1980s.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the report today:

Reuters is reporting that “Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,” yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. Four types of abuse are noted: physical, sexual, neglect and emotional. Physical abuse includes “being kicked”; neglect includes “inadequate heating”; and emotional abuse includes “lack of attachment and affection.” Not nice, to be sure, but hardly draconian, especially given the time line: fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970. As the New York Times noted, “many of them [are] now more than 70 years old.” And quite frankly, corporal punishment was not exactly unknown in many homes during these times, and this is doubly true when dealing with miscreants.

Regarding sexual abuse, “kissing,” and “non-contact including voyeurism” (e.g., what it labels as “inappropriate sexual talk”) make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved “inappropriate fondling and contact.” None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that “Irish Priests” were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).

The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape.

By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church.

Is there no crime so heinous that these people will not stand up for each other over?

[Edit: Here are just a couple articles that go into further detail, from vjack and PZ.]

Today’s Republicans

Apologists for torture; apologists for bigots, homophobes and hate criminals; apologists for global climate disaster; apologists for any and all forms of wrongdoing by religious officials; actively working to destroy public education and reduce America’s competitiveness.

My Thoughts on PoliticalCompass.org

To start off, I’m going to unapologetically tell you that I scored around -5 on the economic scale, which seems to indicate a pretty strong leaning toward the dreaded “communism”, and also -5 on the social scale, leaning towards what they call “libertarianism”.

Wow, I’m a libertarian communist. Never woulda known it. I just thought I was a liberal. Anyway, it turns out I’m actually in pretty good company, because my score was very close to Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.

In fact, I think everyone in North America is in for a surprise when they take this test. Whoever’s blog I learned about PoliticalCompass.org from was horrifed to find he ranked as a libertarian, like me. Most “conservatives” will probably be shocked to find themselves categorized as “neo-liberal authoritarians”.

I’m not criticizing or disagreeing with PoliticalCompass.org at all here, I see what they’re proposing and I think they’re exactly right. The point is, it allows all of us to re-evaluate ourselves more realistically.

Most world leaders that they’ve charted seem to fall close to a diagonal line from bottom left to top right, so if you look at the International Chart with your head tilted to the left, you get the traditional, simplistic left-right continuum, with Mandela, the Dalai Lama and me on the left, and George Bush, Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy on the right. The only exceptions, where the economic value is significantly different from the social value, are: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Abbas, Pope Benedict XVI and Milton Friedman. This would suggest that most people expect a fairly constant amount of goverment influence, the difference is to what extent we expect our government to control societal “values” or the economy.

Which brings me back to me. I can explain my results simply: I believe in the capitalist system, except where it needs to be regulated because I just don’t trust business to do the honest or ethical thing, or where it’s a service that shouldn’t be provided on a for-profit basis. I also wish government would operate more like a business, where costs are more tightly controlled. As for social freedom, I think people should have freedom to do and say as they wish, within the law, as long as they do not harm others.

Looking at that statement, you probably see that most people would agree in principle, it’s just a matter of where you draw the lines, so here’s how I differentiate myself from some other groups. The Christian Right would like to make their “family values” the law, and those who call themselves “libertarians” are really just pure capitalists. They’re the ones who own the corporations and therefore have the means to take care of themselves, so they’re dedicated only to the free market and small government because they don’t want their money going to the more vulnerable in society (which I think for most of them means black people).

I believe that abortion and homosexual marriage should be legal and that government has a responsibility to provide not only defense, education and infrastructure, but also health care, a social safety net and regulation over free enterprise to control greed and corruption.

Both sides on the family values debate accuse the other of fascism, by trying to force their views on others. I think the difference is the “family values” people have a narrow definition that they’re trying to enforce, the other side just wants freedom of religion and sexuality. The only thing they’re trying to enforce is tolerance.

Now, before you go calling me a baby killer, I have a few questions for the anti-abortion crowd:

1) If abortion were illegal what punishment would you suggest for a woman who has an abortion anyway? The same as a murderer, up to and including life imprisonment or the death sentence? Because the fact is that women were having abortions before it was legal, it’s just that many more of them were dying because of less-than-perfect conditions. If a woman really doesn’t want the baby, she’ll terminate the pregnancy, even at risk to herself.

2) I’ve read that the US Supreme Court has been dominated by Republicans continuously since Roe v. Wade. If they were going to repeal it, haven’t they had enough chance to do so? Are you really so blind that you can’t see that it’s a carrot that’s been dangled in front of you for over 35 years?

3) Can’t you see that nobody is “pro-abortion”, we would all like to see it never happen again, but the best way to stop it is to avoid the pregnancy in the first place? The best way to help Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin not to get pregnant again is sex education so they know how to keep it from happening. “Abstinence-only” does not work. At all.

I hope more and more people see the views of the “Religious Right” as I do: hypocritical, ignorant, bigoted, xenophobic and hateful.

And O’Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are just like the vile propaganda guy from the movie “V For Vendetta”. Don’t believe me? Compare how Bill O’Reilly reacted to Jamie Lynn Spears’ and Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.

Hint: When someone tells you that something is going to “destroy the fabric of America” or that someone is the “most dangerous person ever”, realize that you’re being manipulated by propaganda.

(A bit off topic from PoliticalCompass.org, but it’s my blog.)

Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer

This comes from The Young Turks (I’ve moved the disclaimer to the top, because nobody actually wants anyone to execute adulterers, it’s just to make a point!):

PS — In case anyone is a maniacal literalist, please do not actually attempt to execute any adulterers or anyone else. Check yourself into a mental hospital instead because the seven headed dragon in Revelations could be out to get you.

The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.

They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don’t mean a word of it. They don’t give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.

The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloth at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.

…

The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.

Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.

Here is a question no one can answer — and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask — why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? … How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.

I’ll tell you why. Because there are too many of them. Their followers are adulterers. They don’t make for good scapegoats. They are not an easy target to ostracize and focus your hatred on. Gays are perfect. They are a small enough percentage of the population and different enough from the rest of us to be able to get people to focus their negative, barbaric instincts on them. The Bible is only a tool for this tribal, ugly tactic.

But I am tired of hearing people saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible when they never quote the rest of the Bible (probably because a great majority of church goers have never independently read the Bible or they have built up a reservoir of excuses for the parts they find inconvenient). So, from now, I would like to tell the Rick Warrens of the world, you are perfectly allowed to say how much you would like to take gay people’s rights away from them based on the Bible so long as you agree to do one thing first — execute an adulterer.

If you can do that for me, then I’ll believe that you actually believe in the Bible literally and will accept your literal argument against homosexuality. Fair is fair. Step on up.

A (Short) History of Human Rights Reform

(Yes, from an Anglo-North American point of view…)

Centuries ago, it was perfectly acceptable to “own” slaves, women had no right to vote and marriage was permanent (“What God has put together, let no man put asunder”). There was no divorce in the Catholic church; widows and widowers could remarry, but otherwise, marriage was permanent. To this day, the Catholic church does not recognize divorce, but they accommodate by granting an annulment, i.e. pretending the marriage never existed.

During the 1500s, King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but the Pope wouldn’t give him one, so he established, and became the head of, the Church of England. Being king has its benefits, you get to write the rules.

It was still frowned upon even for a Catholic to marry a Protestant – a Christian marrying a Jew would have been almost unthinkable. Gradually, it became more acceptable for Catholics and Protestants to marry, and today, even marrying completely outside your religion doesn’t have the stigma it once did.

In 1776, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence began,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And of course, there was the struggle to end slavery. The American Civil War was literally fought over slavery. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address stressed that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not apply exclusively to the white race. But black people still did not have the right to vote, and “Jim Crow” laws would enforce segregation until 1965.

Similarly, women did not win the right to vote easily – it took until 1918 for women in Canada to achieve the right to vote in federal elections. In the US, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, while women in Switzerland had to wait until 1973. Even today, some countries do not allow women to vote, including Saudi Arabia and Vatican City. Saudi Arabia also doesn’t allow women to drive.

In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The civil rights movement in America gave finally black people full rights, but didn’t end the racism. It took over 40 years for Martin Luther King’s dream to be fulfilled by Barack Obama being elected President of the United States of America.

“Miscegenation laws” banning interracial marriage existed in America from colonial times until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, by the way, here’s an interesting quote I just found,

A 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democratic appointee, Byron White, voted against Roe v. Wade.

In fact, in every year since 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court has been controlled by a majority of Republican-appointed judges. There has not been a Democrat-appointed chief justice since 1953.

Currently, there are seven Republican appointees and two nominated by Democrats.

Obviously, if the Republican majority had wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade at any time since 1973, they had the votes to do so. Why haven’t they?

Or another, wondering if Roe v. Wade is the Republican Party’s carrot on a stick.

In 1978, Californians rejected Proposition 6, better known as the “Briggs Initiative”, which would have banned homosexuals form working as teachers.

Canada adopted its Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

“Civil union”, essentially gay marriage, was recognized in Denmark in 1989.

Apartheid ended in 1990.

In 2003, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in North America to recognize same-sex marriage. Today same-sex marriage is recognized in many countries.

In May 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex marriage was legal.

On November 5 2008, Proposition 8 passed in California (along with similar initiatives in other states), modifying the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Let me repeat, an existing right, that people want to remove. It is hateful, bigoted fearmongering to claim that gay marriage will destroy civilization and to use “that’s how it’s always been” as justification.

The struggle for human rights has been going on for centuries. This is just the next step we have to get over. Soon, places that don’t allow same sex marriage will be considered just as backwards as Saudi Arabia is today. And always remember who was the most vocal in supporting Proposition 8 – the “religious right”, the same people who resisted every advancement in human rights in history.

As a straight male, I think people even wonder why I’m so passionate about this. I’ve had all the same objections myself: “That’s how it’s always been”, to “Ok, but let’s not call it marriage”, to “Ok, fine, I guess”, to “Anything less is discrimination and is unacceptable”. I actually found it liberating to be free of that last vestige of bigotry, I now look at everyone as equal and I want all the same rights and privileges for everyone.

I know exactly one guy who’s in a gay relationship, and he’s such a great person that I can’t imagine denying him the same rights at everyone else. If he’s crazy enough to actually want to get married he should be allowed to (I live in Ontario, so technically, he is).

Meetup – With or Without God

Here’s a Meetup that I’m gonna try to attend, With or Without God, featuring Gretta Vosper, founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity.

It’s been quite a week in the atheosphere…

First, we have Pope Benedict XVI criticizing atheism (did you know that he was a member of the Hitler Youth? I didn’t. You may also remember when he expressed “sadness and repentance” for the Catholic Church’s insufficient resistance to Nazi ideology, meanwhile, wartime Pope Pius XII is on the path to sainthood.) I could go on and on and on about the Catholic Church, their pedophile priests and genocidal stance on condoms, but Greta Christina does a good job addressing this one.

Then irreligion.org found an old article about the Vatican astronomer who dismisses Creationism as “a form of superstitious paganism”.

The New York Times spoke out strongly against the Texas Education Agency , but who will ever forget how Barbara Forrest pwned them?

These are just 3 stories from the week, but I got particular pleasure in reading each of them, given that two of my biggest reasons for blogging are the absurd theist claim of morality, and the willful ignorance that is creationism/ID.

Reality Check

The universe functions according to the laws of nature. There’s no evidence for any supernatural phenomena, nor any need for supernatural phenomena to explain how the universe works.

Science can’t completely explain how the universe works, and maybe never will. But it’s only through science that we will get the real answers.

Earth is a small planet orbiting a typical star in an immensely large galaxy, which is part of an unimaginably huge universe. There are likely millions or billions of planets in the universe, the vast majority of which are completely incapable of supporting life. That still leaves an unknown, possibly huge number of planets capable of sustaining life. There is nothing special about Earth, besides having the perfect conditions for life to evolve (and of course, being where we live).

The only reason we exist at all is that we were extremely lucky to have evolved here.

Evolution is science, creationism is myth. There’s no real debate among scientists about the validity of evolution, only the details of how it works. The only ones who reject evolution are the creationists, and only because it conflicts with their religion. Just because you don’t understand science doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Creationism is willful ignorance. When you argue for teaching creationism in school, you are actively perpetuating your ignorance and misunderstanding of science on the next generation. (Denying the Holocaust or global warming, and 9/11 conspiracy theories are also willful ignorance.)

There’s nothing special about humans compared to other animals.

Humans have a built-in capacity for faith and morality. The fact that our brains can have religious experiences does not make them real.

We tend to believe what we’re taught by our parents, teachers, religious leaders and community. It becomes part of our world-view, and it’s difficult to change these beliefs. But that doesn’t mean these beliefs are true.

Most people belong to the religion they were raised in.

If you were born in a different place or time, it’s quite likely that you would believe in a different religion and god(s).

Most, if not all, cultures have had their own religion and god(s). In general, they are mutually exclusive, as in, they can’t all be right.

You may be totally convinced that your religion is the true one, but everyone else is just as convinced that theirs is true.

The majority of people alive today believe completely that your religion is false, whichever religion that may be.

There’s no supernatural credibility in ancient religions, which we now call “mythology”.

You may also agree with me that there’s no supernatural credibility in other world religions, or in their holy texts.

The Old Testament is nothing but a 2,000-year-old book of campfire stories from a bronze-age tribe of nomads living in the desert.

The New Testament is marketing material promoting a new leader (who may or may not have existed), plagiarized from many earlier deities.

The Bible reflects the culture and superstitions of the people who wrote it. They had no understanding of how the universe works, hence any science that they actually got right is purely coincidental.

There is some positive morality in the Bible, the rest of it is an abomination.

Like all other holy texts, the Bible has no credibility in any of its supernatural claims, including God, Jesus, heaven, angels, hell and Satan.

You can’t use the Bible to prove anything about the existence of supernatural phenomena.

There is no more supernatural credibility in Christianity than any other religion.

Religion was created by man to help answer “the big questions”. It’s a human institution, and as such, is capable of both good and evil.

Religion is tribal. If the Israelites had lost just one of the many genocidal battles documented in the Old Testament, their particular god would have perished with them and we would be worshipping an entirely different god (or gods).

Being tribal, religion is divisive and perpetuates an “us-versus-them” mentality. It helps you believe that everyone who doesn’t believe exactly as you do is going to hell.

Hell is an entirely unacceptable concept. It’s an invention of cruel, primitive, vindictive minds to enforce “correct” behaviour by fear and guilt.

If hell is the only thing keeping you from sinning, that makes you a morally weak person.

It’s absurd and insulting (to you) to claim that the Bible is the only source of morality.

The “ethic of reciprocity” (known in Christianity as the Golden Rule) can be considered the modern basis for right and wrong, especially when slightly re-phrased, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, if you were in their situation“. It’s found in most world religions.

You don’t need to be a member of any religion to live your life according to the Golden Rule.

Your particular “morality” is a combination of nature and nurture, just like everyone else who has ever lived. The fact that you can quote scripture to back up your opinion means nothing as the Bible is so famously ambiguous that you can use it to validate any position.

On the other hand, your religious beliefs and rituals basically amount to “culture”. They’re a product of your environment, they’re self-perpetuating when you pass them on to the next generation and they don’t rely on the actual existence of God, since faith is a virtue in itself.

Looking at religion as “culture” actually helps make some sense of the insanity. All the rules, superstitions, rituals, taboos, bigotry, hatred, closed-mindedness, oppression, genocide and anything else that you want to attribute to religion is really just part of being a member of a tribe in a competitive, brutal world.Like it or not, I think this is a pretty good summary of reality. I’m sure you’ll be tempted to turn it around and give me “your version of reality”, but remember it’s based on superstition, ignorance and a 2,000-year-old book of campfire stories.

The Wisdom of the Holy Bible in One Verse

A lot of criticism of the Holy Bible has been written by the people at Evil Bible, the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, Biblical Errancy and others. Not that I disagree with them, but I thought I’d look at it from a positive point of view – look for the timeless, universal and perhaps most importantly, understandable wisdom.

Here it is, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31, NIV)

Obviously this verse is known as the Golden Rule, and I think it gives you, in 11 words, a pretty good model for how to live your life. It applies just as well today as 2,000 years ago, and it should apply just as well or 2,000 years from now. It’s universal – it applies to white, black, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, heterosexual, homosexual, disabled and whatever other categories you care to put “others” in. And it’s easy to understand and easy to remember. No proverbs, no verses that can be interpreted to prove whatever you want to prove.

You can read more about what Wikipedia calls the “ethic of reciprocity“, as the “common principle for many religions”. They suggest appending “if you were them” as an attempt to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

If you can look at your life and say that you’ve treated everyone with the honesty, respect, tolerance and forgiveness that you think you deserve, then I think you’ve led a pretty decent life.