Tuesday, February 21, 2012

This. Is. Not. A. Uterus.





















Also, women's breasts are not cheeseburgers.

 Apparently there has been some confusion.

 Bishop Lori and the Parable of the Kosher Deli

Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport Connecticut testified before the US House Committee of Oversight and Government Reform on the matter of the HHS mandate and its calamitous consequences for religious liberty this morning and gave one of the most unique and incisive testimonies seen in Washington D.C. in a long time. Bishop Lori, instead of speaking outright on the matter of the state forcing Catholic institutions including Catholic colleges to cover sterilization procedures and contraceptives including abortfacients, told a parable about a kosher deli and a ham sandwich. Here’s Bishop Lori’s testimony as submitted to the Committee:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.” Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs. Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following. First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. 
... 


It goes on like that, and the Rude One has nicely shaved that hock into delicious, NSFW canapes here so I will only add this.

 First, I want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms how much I am in favor of the GOP running on a platform comparing a woman's uterus to a ham sandwich.

 Second -- and again, I want to make sure I am absolutely clear about this -- I want to underscore in bright, unambiguous language how completely awesome it would be for the GOP to continue to insist on  the  primacy of Bronze Age dietary restrictions and cosmology in all discussions about science generally and women's health specifically.

 Or as the late Steve Gilliard used to say, when your enemies are drowning

 throw them anvils.

10 comments:

John said...

The annoyance I have with Obama, of which I have fully burdened these threads, would be greatly diminished if he told, impeccably constitutionally, EVERY tax-exempt "religion" to: EAT SHIT.

John Puma

Roket said...

Firstly, if you don't eat you meat you can't have any pudding. Also secondly too, it would have been more appropriate for a Catholic to frame his analogous parable around the concept of abstaining from eating meat on Fridays. Missed opportunities. He could have called it The Porking Fridays Mandate or something.

Stephen A said...

Actually the Catholic Church requires parishioners celiac to eat hosts with gluten or pass up a sacrament:
http://www.livingwithout.com/news/gluten_free_communion_host-1891-1.html

Whereas Kosher law allows exemptions if a life is in grave danger (pikuach nefesh)

Hence the bread trumps the ham so to speak

Anonymous said...

DG, the problem with the GOP running on bronze age ideology supremacy is that so much of the population believes that premise to be true, *and* really has no idea what the fuck is in that book. I've had to explain "God Hates Shrimp!" to many people, and the Good Christians (R)(TM)(C)insist that no, that's really not in there. When we go to Leviticus, and, oh my!, their po' boy sandwich they had for dinner made God cry... Well, that's just superstition, and we really can't worry about things like that.

Now, if you *really* want to watch fundie cognitive dissonance at it finest, read them the parts of Leviticus about when you can and cannot get away with raping a woman. For extra fun, point out that it's handled entirely as a property matter, and not couched in moral language.

For most of them, their Biblical knowledge consists of a handful of inspirational parables (usually three, stoning the adulteress, the mustard seed, and the prodigal son, along with the two lines "For He so loved the world..." and "What you ask for an believe..."), a handful of rules that they can easily apply to themselves successfully to improve their self image, and a handful of rules to apply to others to feel superior.

We could get into a whole long discussion about this, and I'm sure your wife could easily double what we could bring.

The problem is, the base don't know *any* of this. The Bible and Christian theology as they know it would be shorter than a Cliff Notes version. Their entire understanding can be distilled to one line, "We are good and they are icky." So, when politicians play the Bible card, they know that the base doesn't hear anything nuanced or complex. The base hears a reinforcement of "We are good and they are icky," and nothing more.

Mike.K.

chrome agnomen said...

i'm not the first to mention this, but the easy way out for the sanctimonious ones is to stop feeding at the public trough! stop taking taxpayer money. or are the people whose money is being used to have no say in the matter? but, by all means, wingtards, let this be your mount suribachi. blessed are the cheesemakers.

blackdaug said...

Of course, having given up, I have long since ceased to be puzzled by the fact that large numbers of any "not white male protestant" group would vote republican...but women....really?
Santorum )and his ilk (Issa) don't represent some frothy fringe mixture (sorry) of outlying lunacy, they are just espousing what lurks beneath the increasingly reactionary surface.
That imaginary black and white "Pleasantville" world where women knew their place.
Out here in the sticks, there is some huckster (minister) running late night ads highlighting Obama's betrayal "mandate" to kill the unborn, complete with pictures of dead fetuses..feti? ect...
So it really is becoming black and white: like a scary episode of the "Twilight Zone".

McSalmon said...

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the hero of the piece commits a good act for one in need, while otherwise pious folk pass him by as not to be made impure. The Church is defying this very principle, by holding papal decree above the necessity of health care for a woman. The Church has no place to dictate what a non-member will do, and can only admonish its own faithful to not seek it.

Beyond that, what a weak parable! First off, it's not the customer seeking ham, it's the deli's employees - it is the people working for the church looking for insurance coverage. Thus, it is more like the government requiring the deli to provide a voucher for a meal. If they chose to use that voucher for a BLT at the government kiosk, why is the deli saying boo? Is the owner going to check their fridge at home for treyf?

And not once does the Church even offer the employee something in return - if you're going to remove something from the insurance plan, what will the Church be replacing it with? Nothing seems unfair, so I recommend that the Church pay out the cost of a pack of condoms per day into the employees check for compensation. I figure having to pay out around 1500 bucks a head should make the Church see reason.

Anonymous said...

Stephen A, that's not strictly true: Catholic doctrine says drinking the wine means you've had the sacrament of communion - lots of Catholics have either just wine or just bread. So the Catholic position is that there already is a gluten-free option. (There are lots of valid criticisms of the Catholic Church, don't get me wrong, this is just one place where their position gets badly misunderstood.)

In any case, the ham analogy is particularly weird since I'm pretty sure Jews aren't actually prohibited from providing non-kosher food to non-Jews at all.

14All said...

Of course, the one essential point that's left out of this parable (ham sandwiches aside) is that the delis in question ARE NOT RECEIVING GOVERNMENT MONEY.

If your kosher deli is receiving government money and you don't like the fact that they make you serve ham, stop takin' the dam' money.

blader said...

I don't think it is possible to say "compulsory transvaginal ultrasounds for the womenfolk" often enough.