Will the Church Take On Our Sins … and Our Punishments?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERASouth Carolina has introduced a bill that, amongst other things, will make faith groups liable for any crimes committed by the refugees they sponsor. The idea is to legislate against terrorism but the law is too narrow in its definition.

I contend that, since religion has defined itself as the creator and manager of morality, and since committing crimes is a violation of that morality and of the public trust, all faith organizations should be held accountable for the actions of those they sponsor, and this includes their own members.

Continue reading

Casuistry: From Ayesha to Ted Cruz

imagesWe all run across words when we’re reading that are familiar enough to accept unconsciously whatever vague idea we have of what they actually mean … and keep on reading without hardly a pause. Now we have digital books and if a word pops up that we are curious about, a couple of quick taps and the dictionary definition is in an adjunct window. If we are still curious (or befuddled), another tap takes us to the internet withe the word in question already discovered in many many websites.

The other day I ran into this passage while reading H. Rider Haggard’s She:

I felt it was hopeless to argue against casuistry of this nature, which, if it were carried to its logical conclusion, would absolutely destroy all morality, as we understand it.

Continue reading

Bodily Functions

I’m confused. If referencing or even looking in on those bodily functions that are considered “dirty”—those that have no special characteristics suggesting humans are anything other than just another animal—then it stands to reason that actually taking part in any of those activities involving those same bodily functions must be an even higher form of sin. After all, if you are expected to confess that you looked at a naked woman, then being a naked woman must be doubly bad. If saying “shit” is naughty, think how evil taking a shit must be!

If clothing is the Gardol protective shield for morality, then a simple blue smock is more powerful than a stone wall. But why are women’s traditional clothes—dresses—designed so that they can be flipped up at the convenience of the man? Is morality actually a god thing or does it more reflect man’s insistence on controlling women and assuring a traceable bloodline to perpetuate the family greed and not spread the bounty around the hoi poloi of the kingdom?