News-Record.com

I agree with your criticism that Pitts isn't giving religious groups credit for the good things they are doing -- though I think there's some argument to be made that there's very nearly as much bad as good being done in the name of religion.

That argument was strengthened for me when a doctor friend of mine recently returned from doing relief work in Africa and told me that one of the great frustrations of doctors there was dealing with Catholic missionaries and relief workers.

"Why?" I said. "You're a doctor AND you're religious. They're on your side."

"No," she said. "Priests and lay Catholics who tell poor people who are dying of hunger and preventable disease that condoms and birth control will give you AIDS are not on my side."

But that's a long argument and there's good and bad in just about every group.

My thing is: can't you believe that groups of people are both capable of doing many good things and also have ridiculous belief systems and practices?

Like the Shriners?

I agree with your criticism that Pitts isn't giving religious groups credit for the good things they are doing -- though I think there's some argument to be made that there's very nearly as much bad as good being done in the name of religion.

That argument was strengthened for me when a doctor friend of mine recently returned from doing relief work in Africa and told me that one of the great frustrations of doctors there was dealing with Catholic missionaries and relief workers.

"Why?" I said. "You're a doctor AND you're religious. They're on your side."

"No," she said. "Priests and lay Catholics who tell poor people who are dying of hunger and preventable disease that condoms and birth control will give you AIDS are not on my side."

But that's a long argument and there's good and bad in just about every group.

My thing is: can't you believe that groups of people are both capable of doing many good things and also have ridiculous belief systems and practices?

Like the Shriners?

Joe,
While living in Tanzania I was quite surprised by religious groups' reactions to the HIV/AIDS and how much the clergy in Tanzania differed from missionaries and their denominations elsewhere. For example, while the Catholic Church is usually very conservative about condoms, in Tanzania the Catholic clergy tend to be much more open about them and will even, usually quietly, encourage condom use. I taught at a Catholic school and the students were taught about condoms. The priests and nuns I knew seemed to understand this was a life and death issue and there was no room for the moralistic posturing of the Catholic hierarchy on the ground. The did remain conservative on most social issues, but they certainly were not on this. The Anglican and Lutheran clergy, denominations that are thought of as less conservative in this country were the ones who often spread the crazy ideas about condoms containing the virus and said that their use was a horrible sin, even if used within marriage. The Islamic clergy in Tanzania also often preached against condom use.

I remember one exchange at a conference about HIV prevention and treatment. A small group of us were lamenting the sad fact that so many religious leaders make the AIDS crisis worse through their preaching against condoms. One woman, a Catholic who was HIV positive, turned to my fellow teacher and good friend, a Muslim, and pointed her finger in his face saying, "it's you Muslims going around and telling these boys these crazy lies about condoms!" He quickly retorted, "oh yeah, what's the Pope's position on condoms?" There's sadly plenty of blame to go around.

Leonard Pitts is a one-trick pony - he seldom writes about anything that is not racial in one way or another -

Andrew:

A terrific amount of blame to go around, certainly.

I'm glad to hear you had some interactions with Catholic workers that balanced out my friend's. I was raised Catholic and for some reason surpassing understanding it's still heartening to know there are reasonable people doing good work in the church.

I regard Pitts as an outstanding writer and commentator who is far from a one-trick pony.

I just think he has prejudicial attitudes against people of faith and, on those subjects, writes from a very limited knowledge base.

Joe, I agree that good and ill can be done in the name of religion. Andrew outlined some of the currents he witnessed that caution against generalizations of all kinds.

Where Pitts erred was in ridiculing people strictly on the basis of belief. What harm does it do anyone if people believe the biblical story of creation is literally true? It doesn't harm me or my interpretation of the Bible. I don't think the creation story should be taught in public schools, but that's another issue.

The Shriners are a good illustration of this whole discussion. They wear silly hats. Their various rites (I have no idea what they are) may be odd. They're easy to make fun of.

But their children's hospitals?

http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Main/

I say God bless the Shriners.

I agree that it doesn't harm anyone for religious people to hold religious beliefs. But I don't know any strongly religious people who will say that their religion doesn't guide their decision making, what they value, how they prioritize. There are certainly very few American politicians who would say that out loud.

And that's where I think Pitts and many other Americans get uncomfortable about Sarah Palin. Her simplistic political beliefs aren't DANGEROUS unless she uses them to guide her as she makes decisions for the nation -- and she's stated publicly and often that that's how she sees the world through the lens of her religion and it does affect those things.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect their politicians to make decisions based on rational concerns and not whether they think that what they do is the will of their God. When you're faced with politicians who loudly, proudly tell you that their religion does lead them to consider the will of God paramount then yes, I think you have a problem and those people should not be shielded from ridicule.

Not that I particularly understand the argument that peoples' religious beliefs should be especially immune to ridicule. If you told me that your astrological chart guided your decision making process and were running for president, few people would argue I shouldn't ridicule you for it. Religion gets a pass why, exactly?

Someone made a comment to me a while ago having to do with astrology and I returned some smug remark. Then I saw I'd hurt her feelings and felt like a jerk. If I feel superior to someone because she takes astrology seriously, plain decency and good manners should compel me to keep my mouth shut. Her belief doesn't affect me one way or another.

It's different if that person holds public office and makes policy decisions according to the alignment of the stars. Then I do have a right to criticize.

Precisely.

Given that sentiment, doesn't it make you nervous to think of politicians making policy decisions based on their personal cosmologies, however common?

Yes!

The Shriners are a good illustration of this whole discussion. They wear silly hats. Their various rites (I have no idea what they are) may be odd. They're easy to make fun of.

But their children's hospitals?

http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Main/

I say God bless the Shriners.* Doug

You meant to say " May the Great Architect or Goat be with you" You really don't want to know about their religious rites Doug. You would make a poor Pagan Goat to ride on?

So Mote it be!