Task at Hand: Negotiating Faith

There's plenty of good things to blog about today. Plenty of Blago talk and plenty of health care talk. Today is blog against sexism day which would probably give me ins to lambaste either of a pair of destinctly sexist Illinois Review pieces. There's plenty of other good stuff out there.

As I'm realizing, while I could go after the issues on this stuff (which I will continue to do without fail) the underlying issue here is how people of various levels of faith negotiate those beliefs against political views and ideas. Perhaps that's a much deeper topic than any blogger ought be pursuing, but all things considered being a quasi-theologian (at the very least on how his/her own faith interacts with his/her opinions) should be something we should all be doing as political tinkerers.

All too often, I'm pretty quick to dismiss the 'faithful', often time lumping those with strong benign religious beliefs as enablers to a very tiny group of holy rollers. Throwing those folks out on the rail is probably the wrong tact for people like me who would genuinely like to see the Big Tent be a peaceful place and not a barroom brawl. As a result of casting this stuff back and forth (of which, we are all guilty), we often have a tendancy to miss how the multiple perspectives on faith work.

Case and point and ultimately what brings this up: Illinois Family Institute's David Smith blogs why he's against state wide health care:

It infringes on religious liberty. Citizens will be legally required to subsidize health policies that pay for any treatment the government decides should be covered -- abortion, "morning after" pills, sexually transmitted diseases, in vitro fertilization, drug abuse, alcoholism -- regardless of their moral convictions and practices.

I had to ask. I just can't keep myself under control when I read something so ridiculous. I wanted to get this guy on the record saying that "since he's against sex outside of marriage, he sees providing statewide healthcare for sexually transmitted diseases as infringing on his religious liberty". So I asked. And he did:

STD's, alcoholism, and drug abuse are symptoms (health consequences) related to lifestyle choices -- and therefore completely avoidable through behavior modification, unlike appendicitis, broken bones and leukemia.

As for in-vitro fertilization, it requires the creation, the implantation and the destruction of (often dozens) of human embryos. The average success rate for IVF is only about 25%.

If you're saying to yourself "Wow, this guy is completely disconnected from the human condition", you'd be absolutely, positively correct. Behavior modification? We shouldn't fund infertile women's the opportunity to make the family omelette because we might ummm....break a few eggs?

Maybe without the ridiculous costs of health care and with accurate and functional treatment of drug and alcohol abuse maybe more families would have an easier time staying together. And this guy's response to how to deal with wide ranging public health concerns: BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION?. Granted, I can't decide if he's referring to the Burgessian "behavioral modification therapy" ala Clockwork Orange, or if he seriously thinks he's going to head for Uptown, climb up on a milk crate, and tell crack heads and street winos that they should just modify their behavior, but either way: Beam me up Scotty, so much for the 'pro-family' organization.

This guy is so deeply entrenched in exporting his perverted quasi-Christian world view it probably doesn't even boggle his mind that he's arguing that his religious virtue would be deeply offended if some poor infertile couple were to fulfill the dream of raising a family of their own at the expense of a couple of eggs that would otherwise have the societal value of an ameba. Seriously, by politically opposing providing much needed health care under the guise of 'god's view on families', I'm pretty sure that when Smith's number gets called, Peter is going to be waiting at the Gates with a pair of nun-chucks.

The underlying issue at the core of this, are those with an astounding lack of ability to critically apply what is clearly good for society vs. those that have managed to negotiate their faith into determining a good course of action. The stridently faithful have always had difficulties managing their religious virtue against social progress.

Now I would address this to Smith, Porno Peter Labarbera, or some of the others - but unfortunately, they're assholes. Plain and simple. Real people have real discussions about real things. These are not real people. Smith, for whatever tiny morally bankrupt portion of the population he represents, isn't really equipped with the social skills to engage in such a discussion.

Consider it a question of the day. If you're socially liberal - do you consider yourself religious? If so, how do you personally frame your religious values against some political views that might not be lock step? If you're socially conservative, do you believe that there's no discussion to be had on this stuff? If so, why? Ask yourself about greater goods.

Fair warning: for anybody who's popping up a "intersection of church and state" comment that agrees with Smith's line of crap - you know you're wrong, we know you're wrong, so save the keystrokes, ey?