The Freedom From Religion Foundation took out a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday that seems to generally represent the position of certain advocates of the contraception mandate, advocates whose encyclopedic ignorance of Catholic Christianity startles. Written as an “open letter to ‘liberal and ‘nominal’ Catholics,” the letter begins:
In light of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops’ declaration of war against women’s right to contraception. . . . why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly engaged in a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization, to deny the right of all women everywhere, Catholic or not, to decide whether and when to become mothers? The Church that hasn’t persuaded you to shun contraception now wants to use the force of secular law to deny birth control to non-Catholics.
The group reduces the complexities of the mandate to the question, “Will it be reproductive rights, or back to the Dark Ages?” If this false dichotomy represents the sort of absurd reasoning that serious, thinking religious people must deal with today, I’ll take the Dark Ages.
March 12th, 2012 | 3:15 pm
Stay away from the Dark Ages. Very bad dentistry then.
I scold myself for my ready conclusion that those who don’t state my views as I would state them are doing so either out of willfullness or stupidity. I try and take a deep breath and remind myself that thoughts uncongenial to our own we will never handle quite fairly – and that this applies to our opponents as well.
But really, when the example is this bad – when the clear intent is to inflame and insult, trying to sell a social argument as a moral one – how can we not attribute bad faith to them?
March 12th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
A. V. Idiot. Exactly. And certainly we should not, as the OP does, dignify their screed with the appellation “reasoning.”
March 12th, 2012 | 3:59 pm
I wonder, though, how a learned, well documented, tightly reasoned ad in the Times urging Catholics to quite the Church would have been received. Certainly there are many people right here on First Things who do not find Catholicism credible. Which is worse, an ignorant attack, or a very intelligent one?
I have to say, wicked person though I am, that I found the ad somewhat shocking not (merely) because of its crudity, but because it urged people to leave the Church. And yet I don’t suppose I would find a document shocking that tried to persuade Catholics to convert to another faith, which would also involve leaving the Church. I guess deep down there’s something in me that believes a “false” religion is better than no religion at all.
Is it ever acceptable simply to attempt to persuade a person to abandon his or her religion, rather than convert to some other religion?
March 12th, 2012 | 4:02 pm
Including the Dark Ages techniques for dealing with heresy?
March 12th, 2012 | 4:12 pm
@David: A learned, tightly reasoned attack would be much worse. It is in Catholicism’s favor that the ad is as ignorant and crude as it is. The ad reeks of a lack of respect for the beliefs and traditions of even the “liberal” and “nominal” Catholics it is trying to persuade.
“Is it ever acceptable simply to attempt to persuade a person to abandon his or her religion, rather than convert to some other religion?”
I don’t really see a difference between the two. In either case you are trying to persuade someone to to abandon their worldview in favor of yours.
In any persuasive argument, you are not going to win any new supporters if you are unable to actually respect, understand, and adequately represent your opposition. All you will succeed in doing is riling up those who already agree with you. That’s the problem with all Pathos and no Ethos. We can argue about how much Logos is present in the ad’s arguments some other time!
March 12th, 2012 | 4:16 pm
Catholics are the new smokers. Clearly, this is an Alinsky tactic, marginalize then destroy.
These people are without exception Obama supporters…I feel certain the White House is heavily engaged in this trashing of Catholics. I am 63 years old and don’t recognize this country anymore.
Went to 8:30 Mass yesterday, the church was 1/3 full and the priest droned on about the ten commandants.
Catholics and other Christians are waiting for a clarion call to action. I can’t understand why the Bishops are not striking back hard on establishment clause grounds. This is the greatest abridgement of the Constitution since Japanese-Americans were locked up in ’42.
They are coming for us…but not in the sense that we’ll be put in camps…we’ll just be driven to the margins of society…Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” applies here.
March 12th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
What is the difference between this sort of attack on Catholicism and the rest of the Times? That this was paid for by an external organization seems to be only difference.
FFRA hates RFRA, of course, and they’ll be upset when the mandate is shot down under RFRA.
March 12th, 2012 | 4:50 pm
I can only imagine the howls of furious outrage that would have resulted among the Times’ readers had this type of viciously stereotyped ad been targeted toward Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists. Not that I would disagree with such outrage.
March 12th, 2012 | 4:55 pm
“If this false dichotomy represents the sort of absurd reasoning that serious, thinking religious people must deal with today…”
Actually, it’s the sort of false dichotomy that completely dominates political-related discourse in the country today. Look at what happens when the EPA wants to lower emissions on, say, mercury–the choice is NEVER described as one between today’s level and tomorrow’s proposed lower level, no sir. The choice is between the safe new level and lifting all regulations and returning to the way things were back in the 1950s when rivers caught on fire and every single bird on the planet was dead, before Rachel Carson saved us all!
As for this ad, on the one hand it’s easy to say that it’s so over-the-top that it can just be laughed off–I mean, come on, Christopher Hitchens would tell these guys to lighten up a little bit. But it’s deadly serious that the New York Times, still considered a respectable institution in a few corners of society, basically is perfectly happy to publish a screed of the quality that you’d have seen coming from the KKK a century ago.
March 12th, 2012 | 4:56 pm
An honest question: even if the characterization above is crude, doesn’t the church really want people to stop using contraception, sterilization, and abortion? I mean, isn’t a lot of the polemics here on First Thoughts, even, opposed to those things? Hasn’t the Church pushed for legal restrictions on all of this in the past? Crude maybe, but how is it ignorant?
March 12th, 2012 | 5:04 pm
Catholics are the new smokers.
VoteOutIncumbents,
Good news. Smoking is making a comeback among high school students.
Catholics were leaving the Church in large numbers well before Obama was elected in 2008 (with a Catholic as his vice president). There are six Catholics on the Supreme Court, one of them put there by Obama. I understand those who are upset about the “contraceptive mandate,” but I am bewildered by those who see a vast conspiracy to marginalize Catholics. Catholics have never been a more accepted, integral part of the United States as today. Where is the anti-Catholic sentiment against Santorum? When Kennedy ran for president, he had conservative Protestants working against him. Santorum has conservative Protestants working for him.
I think many people who allege anti-Catholicism today don’t realize how vicious real anti-Catholicism was in the middle of the 19th century until the middle of the 20th.
No doubt there are real conflicts currently that didn’t exist in the past, but they almost all have to do with sex and reproductive issues, and the conflict is more between the “official” Church and the government than between ordinary Catholics and the government, since Catholics are much more accepting of things like contraception and same-sex marriage than the American bishops.
I am rather fascinated by the criticism by Santorum and others of the 1960 Kennedy speech on church and state. It raises the question again whether a conservative/faithful Catholic president can be a good Catholic and a good American president, too. I mean that in the sense that American government and politics is founded on classical liberalism, and conservative/faithful Catholics have “issues” with classical liberalism.
March 12th, 2012 | 5:17 pm
Eric, as far as I know there is no widespread desire for a legal ban on contraceptives among Catholics or anyone else. Few Catholics take the Church’s prohibition on it seriously, much less expend any energy trying to force it on the rest of society. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and I don’t think I ever heard contraception mentioned. During my wedding preparation I received a small pamphlet on natural family planning but again the priest never mentioned contraception. The situation appears to be similar across the country, at least as far as I can tell.
So, no, the idea that Catholics want a legal ban on contraception appears to be utter nonsense, a totally fabricated paranoid delusion of the left. Of course, as a Catholic I’m in on the conspiracy to enslave women, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
March 12th, 2012 | 5:34 pm
Expecting to be irritated by it, I checked out the ad and found it amusing. I have always found absurdity propounded with all seriousness to be very funny.
Anybody who actually feels compelled to leave the Catholic Church after reading that ad never really belonged to it in the first place. It would be very healthy for the Church to have such people leave instead of living under the delusion that they are Catholics when they aren’t at all. If they left it would help the world to see that the Catholic Church is dynamic, Spirit-filled and willing to stand by the truth when things get tough – and to see that it is smaller than they thought. But that’s OK. A smaller group of Catholics witnessing to the same truths will be much more effective than a larger group that includes “Catholics” who create endless confusion about Catholic teaching. There are a few of these the Church should excommunicate now instead of waiting for them to leave in huff.
March 12th, 2012 | 6:27 pm
The NY Times ad comes across either as an excuse to spew bigoted hate speech and ridicule towards the Catholic Church, or as a sign of desperation and instability in FFRF:
Parody translation of the FFRF ad at:
http://sytereitz.com/2012/03/translation-of-ffrf-quit-the-catholic-church-nytimes-ad-or-its-not-easy-being-free-from-religion/
March 12th, 2012 | 10:02 pm
I don’t suppose there’s a freedom from freedom from religion group yet?
March 12th, 2012 | 10:54 pm
“I can only imagine the howls of furious outrage that would have resulted among the Times’ readers had this type of viciously stereotyped ad been targeted toward Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists. Not that I would disagree with such outrage.”
Haven’t heard much…maybe the ads were more to the point.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/on-billboards-a-bilingual-call-to-nonbelievers/
and of course, my favorite:
http://freeinquiryforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/20090601-gun.jpg
March 12th, 2012 | 11:39 pm
“I wonder, though, how a learned, well documented, tightly reasoned ad in the Times urging Catholics to quite the Church would have been received. Certainly there are many people right here on First Things who do not find Catholicism credible. ”
A couple of those engaged in research might just become Catholic. It happens.
March 13th, 2012 | 12:01 am
Harry,
Post V2 thinking is very much rooted in personalism.
I think this a good opportunity for us to engage in dialogue with those liberal Catholics willing to listen.
Invite them to move over the 60s and come join in the conversation.
http://www.thepersonalistproject.org/about_us
March 13th, 2012 | 12:32 am
God has a sense of humour. The Archdiocese of New York is set to welcome 1,470 new Catholics this Easter.
http://www.cny.org/stories/Archdiocese-Welcomes-1470-Entering-Church-at-Easter-Vigil-,7115
March 13th, 2012 | 12:36 am
“the conflict is more between the “official” Church and the government than between ordinary Catholics and the government”
I wouldn’t underestimate the opposition. Seriously 102 cities have already signed up for the ReligiousFreedomMarch against the Mandate coming up in two weeks.
March 13th, 2012 | 10:02 am
I think it was Schiller who said that with stupidity even the gods struggle in vain.
March 13th, 2012 | 10:05 am
Bear in mind that it’s literally impossible for anyone to take an ad out about atheism without being offensive.
No, really. Justin Vacula, in Pennsylvania, tried to take out a bus ad that just said “Atheists.” and the names and websites of a couple local atheist groups. It was rejected. Apparently the word ‘atheist’ is inherently offensive?
That being said, the FFRF ad isn’t particularly well-argued. But when prominent Catholic presidential candidate Rick Santorum is very specifically in favor of states outlawing contraception and arguing against the right to privacy it’s hard to say it’s entirely baseless, no?
March 13th, 2012 | 10:23 am
Ray: “Rick Santorum is very specifically in favor of states outlawing contraception”
Um, you realize that the link you provide very specifically does not in fact say that, right? In fact, although Rick Santorum has very consistently been shockingly foolish in how much time he wastes talking about this issue, rather than say the fact that the government is still breaking deficit records in our time of alleged wonderful economic recovery, I’ve still never seen one single quote where he actually says that. So, can you actually provide a link to a documented case of Rick Santorum actually saying that states SHOULD ban contraception? (Again, that’s not in fact what he says in your link. It’s not even ambiguous. It’s crystal clear what he’s saying, and it’s not that.)
March 13th, 2012 | 10:42 am
Brian,
Here’s the problem I have with Santorum. He has vehemently and crudely criticized JFK’s 1960 speech about separation of church and state. I have heard Santorum saying he has voted any number of times to fund contraception. But when he states his own personal views against contraception (or any of his other conservative religious views), I wonder to myself exactly which of he personal religious views he would feel obliged to try to implement as law, and which he would not. We thought Kennedy answered the question once and for all, and if Santorum weren’t critical of Kennedy, then I suppose it might be considered anti-Catholic to question how Santorum’s conservative Catholic views would influence his presidency. But since Santorum has renounced JFK’s speech, the questions are legitimate.
March 13th, 2012 | 10:55 am
David: I have tons of problems with Santorum, and I have my own problems with the legacy of Kennedy’s speech (Catholic politicians opposed to abortion for faith reasons–NOT OK. Catholic politicians in support of higher taxes, against the death penalty, against preemptive war, for faith reasons–OK! Gosh, it’s almost like it’s OK to use religion to push “liberal” causes but NOT for “conservative” causes! Almost like there’s a teeny-tiny double standard and no one actually takes the alleged message of the Kennedy speech seriously or consistently at all!) but that’s not what I’m talking about right now at all. There’s this story out there that Santorum and others want to ban birth control, and I have NEVER seen anything to support that assertion. As far as I am aware, it is nothing but a lie. A pathetic, craven, manipulative, unserious, election-year lie.
March 13th, 2012 | 10:57 am
Bear in mind that it’s literally impossible for anyone to take an ad out about atheism without being offensive.
Yeah, since atheism is nothing more than the negation of other peoples’ beliefs, there is no way to put out a billboard that isn’t going to sound like they have nothing to say except to negate other peoples’ beliefs.
Atheism is not a positive thing, it’s a negative thing. It’s saying “I think you’re wrong.” That is why atheists do much better politically when they identify as humanists – with what they do believe, positively, rather than what they believe to be wrong.
Imagine if Christianity were about nothing more than the belief that secularism is wrong, misguided, and/or evil. The atheists would absolutely have a fit if they were on the receiving end of entire groups with nothing to do except go on about how wrong they are.
March 13th, 2012 | 11:32 am
Blake –
Of course, being ‘politically effective’ isn’t the same as being right.
March 13th, 2012 | 11:53 am
Blake:
You are right in one thing: Atheism is not a belief, nor a belief system. Atheism is simply the refusal to aknowledge the existence of God(s), which can turn into many different possible worldviews. It is religious people (and some foolish atheists) who pretend atheism per se is a belief system, as a way to equate it with a religion. It is not.
On the other side, most form of theisms involve a denial of other belief systems. Christians deny that all other forms of theism are true. Moneteistic religion consider all gods of polytheistic religions to be false, and so many of their beliefs. Is no surprise that initially for romans, christians were considered atheists.
March 13th, 2012 | 11:56 am
Brian, you know what? You’re right. Santorum has even said explicitly “Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.”
So I was wrong.
I will say that it’s not clear to me how states can have a right to ban contraception but not have the right to enact, say, same-sex marriage, though. I think I’m a victim of assuming Santorum’s actually consistent.
March 13th, 2012 | 12:06 pm
From what I understand Santorum was asked the hypothetical question “could a state outlaw contraceptive devices”.He answered yes, theoretically. When Romney was asked essentially the same question he, wisely,refused to answer.
I am not sure if Santorum was right but he was not saying that he thought states should.
The uproar over his comments about Kennedy’s speech is curious since it was deemed necessary,politically, due to what could only be called the anti-Catholic bias of the times. It was the political equivalent of no I am not still beating my wife.
As far as I am aware there has never been an equivalent speech given by any American politician of stature. It was also disengenuous, although given his apparent attentuated Catholicism maybe not, for it took the utterly hateful strawmen of his enemies beliefs about Catholicism, gave them credibility and assured them that he was not that kind of Catholic.
Unless we are to assume that the people he addressed in Houston needed assurance that, as they would expect of any President, Kennedy would leave any preconceived moral vision at the door of the Whitehouse.
Though politcally it seemed to work would it be wise to require all candidates for high office to take some kind of oath to forswear their beliefs in order to assuage any free floating anxiety that might be out there that our President most assuredly would never use his beliefs to inform his policies.
March 13th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
@Ray, How about, the state don’t have a “right” to do either but can vote either in as is happening in a few states with SSM. Democracy doesn’t mean we’re right, just that we’re less likely to be wrong. Which is what is so troubling by those who want these things done around the corner. To paraphrase Moses, let my people vote.
March 13th, 2012 | 1:52 pm
@Sergio, “Christians deny that all other forms of theism are true.” Odd. That’s not what I was taught. No doubt there are Christians who believe that and, undoubtedly, heresy has been a big enough deal in the past for the government to apply capital punishment. But look it up on Wikipedia and you get a circular definition: heresy is what the Church says is heresy. Heresy, is a more technical term. It’s about claiming to be what you are not. With that bit of preemption, allow me to talk to what I was taught.
God is written in all our hearts. We reach for Him, perhaps only in our ideas, or more directly through reaching for enlightenment, submitting to his distant omniscience, or developing a personal relationship to Him through his Son, to name a few paths. It’s not that one has the Truth and others do not, but rather, the one I choose to believe has the “fullness” of Truth. Not “all” of the Truth, that belongs to God alone. Put in the vernacular, the religion I believe in comes closest to the bulls eye on the target of Truth. I sincerely hope that others who choose a different belief think the same of their faith. Although, I wonder, if you don’t think that of your faith, then why do you believe in it?
I’ve heard the atheist argument that they only reject one more god than I do. But it’s not correct. I see the n-thousand gods they like to talk about as strong evidence of the search for God, of His presence among us. We are not Gods, let alone “like” the gods. We are limited and see through a glass darkly. And we choose. Some choose to believe. Others to reject.
March 13th, 2012 | 5:07 pm
Sergio, those are superficial understandings or both atheism and theism. They are fairly common understandings, but not very precise.
Atheists claim that their belief system is not an actual religion, and we do get into matters of broad versus precise definitions of “religion,” “belief system,” and “motivating philosophy” that can tie us up all day. I take the view that “Gee, you seem to be sacrificing at at some altars, we just naturally figured there was some religion in there somewhere.”
As for theists believing that other faiths are 100% wrong, I recommend the works of CS Lewis.
March 13th, 2012 | 9:56 pm
As for theists believing that other faiths are 100% wrong, I recommend the works of CS Lewis.
Actually it’s just going to be a fact that if you believe anything, you’re going to believe that people who believe opposing things are “wrong”.
Something about a law of non-contradiction.
March 13th, 2012 | 9:58 pm
I will say that it’s not clear to me how states can have a right to ban contraception but not have the right to enact, say, same-sex marriage, though. I think I’m a victim of assuming Santorum’s actually consistent.
Yeah, if Santorum is willing to concede that humanists have the right to coexist alongside Christians, then obviously he ought to also concede that humanists have the right to make their beliefs the law of the land, right down to forcing us all to embrace their beliefs on marriage, family, sexuality, responsibility, morality, and obligation – so that they can redefine core institutions according to their own values, and expect everyone else to share both the new definitions and the values upon which their interpretation is based.
March 13th, 2012 | 9:59 pm
Of course, being ‘politically effective’ isn’t the same as being right.
Since whether there is a God is inherently neither provable nor disprovable, whether you are “right” is unknowable and largely IMO irrelevant.
March 13th, 2012 | 10:02 pm
On the other side, most form of theisms involve a denial of other belief systems. Christians deny that all other forms of theism are true.
Yes, but if a group formed that had no positive beliefs – and existed solely for the purpose of expressing rejection of and negating another group’s belief – they’d look like rather like a hate group, wouldn’t they?
March 15th, 2012 | 10:00 am
Blake:
Atheists do not have positives beliefs for “the puprose of of expresing rejection”. Repeating a lie doesn´t make it true, you know?
March 15th, 2012 | 11:30 am
Blake –
For God(s) that have no consequences, sure. Are you saying all potential gods fall into that category?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact