Catholic fundamentalism and homophobia

Bill Donohue, and his group the Catholic League, go to some extreme lengths to try and absolve the Catholic Church of blame for the multitude of horrific sexual abuse scandals which have been revealed over recent years. See here for some of their ludicrous claims, all of which seem to play towards some misplaced “meme” that fundamentalist Catholics like Donohue like to perpetuate.

http://gawker.com/5508277/stuff-catholics-have-so-far-blamed-for-the-churchs-pedophilia-scandal

For instance, the absurd myth that Catholics and the Catholic Church are somehow a persecuted and oppressed group who are currently having their religious rights and privileges threatened. Ignoring of course the reality that they are represented everywhere with a massive, vocal presence all over the world. And the fact that in the US, other secular non-profit organisations have to pay their tax returns and get audited and have to meet strict government standards for childcare, for instance – which is something that religious charities can simply avoid. I suggest you read some of Sean Faircloth's excellent writings like “Attack of the Theocrats...” if you want to learn more about this.

The fact that Donohue has held his position as President of The Catholic League for 20 years should be reason enough in itself to suggest he is behind the times, but of course in these ridiculous religious circles, this type of myopic conservatism is seen as an advantage.

Moving on to the main claims from Donohue, he says of the Catholic sex abuse crisis “it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent (1). While homosexuality does not cause predatory behaviour (2), and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay (3)”.

(1) He is very much mistaken. Since most of the young people that the priests have been coming into regular contact with have been male (the stereotypical “Altar boys”), and of a certain age, those statistics are hardly surprising. Instead, what I believe we see is that the extreme sexual repression caused by the dangerous, enforced celibacy rules in the Catholic church is a strong risk factor for sexual abuse. And that is just those priests who may have become abusers after becoming priests, not established abusers who may have seen the priesthood as a means to easy access to plenty of young boys. And I don't see what pubescence has to do with any of this. They are children under the legal age of consent. Oh, and Bill seems to have forgotten about the abusive Nuns as well. They weren't being “homosexual” when they abused many young boys in their convents around the world.

(2) Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence to those “homosexuals” Bill. Spoiler: that's about as good as it gets.

 

(3) I question how many “gay” priests there actually are – I suspect less than some fundamentalist Catholics would have us believe. Religion itself is hardly a welcoming place for gay people. I wouldn't want to be a priest who had “come out” as gay, let me say that much. I've seen enough to confirm my suspicions that they would not be well liked in the upper tiers of the Church. So that's hardly an incentive. And I'd like to know how Donohue knows that most of the molesters are gay. Doesn't he realise that paedophilia is completely distinct from gay and heterosexual orientations? It is a psychiatric disorder, whereas being gay is a completely natural sexual orientation. The research shows that many paedophiles are only attracted to children so don't conform to our normal orientation axis. And as the priests aren't allowed to express their sexuality due to celibacy, how can Donohue even tell if they're gay? Were they gay before they became priests, or actually more likely to be straight (as in the proportions of sexual orientation prevalent in normal society)? Neither possibility leaves the Catholic Church looking very good at all. Either they're wrong and are being homophobic (is in the latter case – more likely) or (according to their twisted logic) they recruited gay priests all the while, knowing they were “more likely” to be sexual abusers.

The Catholic Church can't escape its culpability in these horrendous sexual abuse scandals. They claim that the rates of sexual abuse in the Church are similar to other parts of society, but actually it's worse than that. In other occupations or areas of society, any known paedophiles are stopped, exposed and made subject to the justice of the law. But in the Catholic church they were protected, and allowed to continue by simply being moved around to different areas when suspicion was raised. The senior members and officials of the Church had a moral duty to report any wrongdoings of their priests to the authorities, but they monumentally failed to do this.

In my view the homophobia institutionalised so deeply into the Catholic church stems in part from the fact that gay people typically wouldn't have children, who would also follow on into the Catholic tradition. And the Church is not really interested in people who aren't going to do their part to guarantee them their future congregations. That's not how they've “got where they are today” as Reggie Perrin would say.

But look where the Catholic Church is today. In a right old state, that's where. And it's going to take a sea change in attitudes amongst religious leaders to change this.

We can see another example here of just how much trust we should put in a certain Catholic fundamentalist's logic.

The JVS Show on BBC Three Counties Radio 07 June 2013

Check BBC iPlayer if you want to listen to this.

 

 

So we have that ol' genius Mike Buchanan spouting his anti-feminist nonsense again in his unique, shambolic manner . In opposition, Ruby Mcgregor-Smith and Caroline Criado-Perez talking more sensibly about how we need more women in leadership roles in the workplace. Mike Buchanan likes to state lots of statistics about how women are less represented in business, then jumps to the conclusion that this is the way things should be, regardless of how it may happen through systems of privilege, or the fact that injustice and harm may be caused. No, Mike. That just explains that we are in this position. It says nothing about what we should do about it.

He often completely defeats his own argument. One example is when he quoted “5 longitudinal studies” which apparently showed that substituting women into positions on the corporate boards of private companies led to a decline in corporate performance. Right, OK. He then goes on to say that this is because the women are less experienced in “corporate affairs”. So, that wasn't really a fair “substitution” then was it – not like for like. It's like changing a 5 for a 3 in my example below then wondering why you might be better off with the 5. Try again Mike.

He trots out the old canard that women need to prove that they can truly succeed in the corporate boardroom. But you can't get evidence of something without opportunity to generate that evidence in a real-world situation. The opportunities are extremely difficult to get in male-dominated professions. Hence the need for quotas / gender balancing (although I admit from a practical perspective, these are not always handled in the best way).

So I hope you'll not vote for Mike's party Justice for Men and Boys which is based in Bedfordshire. Almost ANY other candidate would be preferable in my eyes.

And as for the argument “women can achieve anything in this day and age if they put their mind to it”. Firstly, doesn't it almost scream “so why do we need feminism” as a second line? Secondly, what a truism that former quote is . So what? They same is the case for many other types of people, some of whom are underprivileged: men, ethnic minorities, gay people. That only shows that the position has improved slightly from the base value, not that it's where it needs to be. Thirdly, it says nothing of how easy it is for different people who can achieve those same goals to actually achieve them – the point being that women experience a much tougher ride to get to the same place in a career than men, in general.

So I think that there should be more women in leadership positions in big business, and also the public sector. There are several strong arguments to support this, not to mention the equality angle.

Improvement in overall standards. Due to 80% of board members currently being men, there is naturally going to be some kind of gradient in their ability to perform this job. The boards will be made up of excellent (5), good (4) and average (3) men, for example. I would argue that the best women, those most suited for corporate roles, would be better qualified than at least the average men, if not the good ones, depending on their level of experience – they may even be the equals of the “excellent” men. This is taking into account the “experience” characteristic touted by Mike Buchanan. So including the best women in corporate business by naturally replacing the “average” men (replacing a 3 with a 4 or5) will surely improve overall standards. A Skepchick article showed this really well.

Opportunities to balance (Corporate) ethics. From what I've read on this matter, the impression I get is that more women running the corporate world could help more ethical business decisions be made. They may be less likely to be slaves to profits and shareholders and more concerned about the impact of their business decisions on other people's lives. This is an alternate reason why the “5 longitudinal studies” he mentions above may be flawed. I would like to point out to Mike Buchanan that the “Corporate World” has a lot to answer for, and profits aren't the only indicator of a company's value – those which conduct their business in an ethical way are more likely to earn greater consumer respect and build a stronger consumer base long-term. Take British Petroleum (BP) for instance and their Corporate role in the huge scandal and environmental disaster that was the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Studies showing discrimination against women in STEM occupations: need to be aware of and to correct this. I linked to a study in a previous post which showed that both male and female recruiters were biased towards men and against women taking jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields.

Where the EDL and those who tried to bomb them are all mistaken

Six jailed over plot to bomb EDL rally
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22841573



Six men, rightly outraged at the EDL's incessant racism and intolerance, went (several) step(s) too far and hatched a rather hare-brained scheme to visit an EDL rally in Dewsbury in June 2012. They brought knives, sawn-off shotguns and amazingly, a home-made pipe bomb. However, two amazing things here - firstly, they turned up late and were unable to do any harm. Secondly, the reason they turned up late was that the rally ended early, because the EDL couldn't find enough speakers. Big surprise that, seeing as espousing their ideology makes you sound like an idiotic bigot! On the plotters' return, one of their vehicles was stopped by police and found to have no insurance - I think this was also when some of the weapons were discovered- it was only in the subsequent investigation of where they had come from and where they were headed that their intent was revealed. They've been jailed for a long time actually, over 18 years. I think this punishment is pretty harsh enough.

The moral of the story - yes, the EDL and their political arm the BNP are an insufferable and largely unacceptable part of society. I despise their ideas. But intent to cause violence usually does not end well, even for the side carrying out the violence. And also, always get your car insured!

As an atheist, the part that really gets me is the courtroom drama. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. First we have the odious Tommy Robinson in the public gallery (what the hell was he even doing there, who let him in?) shouting out as the sentences were announced "God save the Queen!". Then you have the supporters of the jailed men chanting "Allahu Akhbar" i.e. "God is great" in Arabic.

Wow. This God fellow is certainly called on a lot, isn't he/she? (I'm tempted to call Him/Her "It", such is my disdain for this particularly despicable character, who in all likelihood, is entirely fictional.) Do both sides actually realise that they are calling to the same entity? Only one of them can be right (at most, even more likely is that they're both wrong). Although Robinson and militant Muslims (Islamists) come from opposite ideological extremes, to me they are both equally wrong. God is one of those few areas of common ground for those of opposing theological view, over which so little understanding is formed, and so much conflict wrought.

"God save the Queen" Must He? I find that the Queen herself, or her legions of support staff, are pretty capable of saving her. This tendency to attach external agency to any act that is not immediately attributable to a more worldly explanation, seems to me to be somewhat puzzling.

"God is great" Is He now? So the guy who allows bone cancer in children or allows tens of thousands of people to die each year all over the world in famines, floods, storms, tsunamis and earthquakes, he's great? The guy who appeals to the majority of the world's population and thinks it's more important to tell them to oppose, fight, kill, rape and oppress each other rather than try and build a future together, he's great? That guy, who is used as a justification for the vast majority of the most terrible, murderous crimes the human race has ever bore witness to, he's great? And that guy, who has never in 2000 years shown any documented or recorded interaction with the physical world outside people's own minds, he's great? If you really think that he is, you seriously need to go away and work on your definition of great.

Adrian Briggs sums this up well. It's something along the lines of (forgive me for paraphrasing) *with delicious irony* "For 2000 years, God has appeared in the minds of his followers. It's almost as if that's the only place he exists".

While we're "God-bashing", you've got to check out Richard Dawkins' incredible long anti-God diatribe, from his book "The God Delusion" with so many adjectives to describe The Mighty One that I just get lost every time I hear it.
You can buy The God Delusion here:http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/055277331X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370893235&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+delusion

But the thing is, it's actually right. "Trigger warning" for blasphemy, as it were.


"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous, and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, philicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".

The EDL blame the Muslims. The Muslims blame the EDL.

Both call the name of God in their defence. But make no mistake, the notion of this God figure is clearly enabling both sides.

I blame God, and the hatred and demonisation He facilitates.

　

　

　

　

　

Why I am pro-choice and not “pro-life”

“We need to protect the rights of the unborn child” is a phrase I often hear from opponents of abortion.

There seems to be a problem with the way a “child” is defined.

Dictionary definitions of a child:

1. A person between birth and full growth

4. A human fetus

Aren't these 2 definitions mutually exclusive?

I reject definition 4. I wonder how long it has been part of the dictionary? My understanding is that you can't have an “unborn child”. A “child” has already been born. What they mean is an unborn fetus.

Actually, I may be wrong about the definition 4. It may actually be old. So old in fact it is completely out-of-date, from the time when pregnant women were deemed to be “with child”.

Using terms like “the unborn child” are overly emotive ways of playing with people's perceptions and trying to cement the notion that fetuses are in fact independent people with their own particular exclusive rights not tied to someone else's, and not just a collection of cells at a certain stage of advancement, incapable of survival in a self-sufficient fashion, or sentience, or action with meaningful outcomes (I don't count “kicking”).

In my humble opinion it is more important to protect people already in existence than fetuses that may or may not come to term. I would remind “pro-lifers” that disallowing abortions doesn't guarantee a fetus's successful transition into the world (or a mother's survival). It is a dreadful truth that many, many babies die very early in their lives. Even with the wonders of modern medicine the figures are around 0.5% for infant mortality rates in the UK/US for children under one year old.

We should focus on improving this. One of the best ways is to ensure that every born child is desperately wanted and loved by their parents.

Even most live animals are, I think, more important to protect than human fetuses (as I will discuss later). And I mean ethically, not just because of biodiversity.

The desire of religious people to be “pro-lifers” I think comes from a purely ideological angle. The idea that abortion is “murder” is a hateful tool employed by “pro-lifers” to beat down on women contemplating abortion who don't have much option considering their circumstances. It is also highly hypocritical, seeing as the self same people are often anti-contraception, which is a position which only leads to even more unwanted pregnancies.

This idea of punitively punishing an action, but encouraging that action to occur with your other policies, is something we have become familiar with from the religious right.

And the definition of murder is basically: unlawful, premeditated killing of another human being. So we are in foggy terrain at best with abortion conforming to this definition. Whether an unborn fetus counts in full as a human being (with all the other connotations that this definition also provides, as I described above for example, or the requisite being that the person is an individual: well as they're still inside the mother and connected via umbilical that's not clear to me) is pretty debatable. The chief point however, is that if the killing is not unlawful it can't be murder. As abortion is not unlawful within certain timeframes (e.g. 24 weeks into pregnancy), there is the answer.

Women provide their own strong arguments for the basic rights of bodily autonomy, which can't be ignored. One such argument I've heard is that statistically, abortion is safer than childbirth for women to undergo.

Maternal Mortality Rates (MMR)

As far as how often women die giving birth, the UK and US are not shining examples – with maternal mortality rates of 8 per 100000 live births in the UK and double that (16 per 100000) in the US. In certain countries, rates are as high as 1000, effectively meaning that women have a 1% chance of dying when they have a baby. What other activity do people routinely participate in with this massive risk involved? Only those extreme sports restricted to the real risk-takers is society. Not to mention the 9 months of pregnancy itself, you are guaranteed hours of unbearable pain, probable scarring or long term disfigurement, and a 1 in 100 chance of not making it through at all. But this is what we expect of women whenever they become pregnant.

As long as this is the case, the argument of “pro-lifer” will always be heavily impaired. From a risk-based approach (which is how we consciously and sub-consciously manage a lot of our important life decisions) the argument for the free availability of abortion services is extremely strong. Women are putting their lives on the line when they undergo childbirth and they should have every right to pull out of that commitment on a case-by-case basis.

Knowing that foetuses can't feel pain is the final nail in the coffin for the “pro-lifers”. From a moral, and ethical perspective, the case against free availability of abortion services for women is very weak. In fact, I can't see why abortion is not less ethically problematic than testing cosmetics on animals, which definitely can feel pain.

My next blog post will probably tackle an issue of Catholic fundamentalism and their outrageous claims in trying to blame “gay priests” for the woes in their church.