Asshat of the Day - July 15, 2010

Today, it's a perennial favourite - the Catholic Church.

And why?

The Vatican today made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism.

So a priest who (for whatever reason) tries to ordinate a (presumably devout) woman into the priesthood gets the same punishment (ostensibly) as a priest who raped children. Or, at least, the punishment that such a priest should get.

Both the priest and the woman in this ceremony would be excommunicated. You know, the same punishment the Church visited on a nine year old who had an abortion after her stepfather raped her? And bear in mind that this punishment, in the Church's eyes, is condemnation for Hell, with no chance of parole. For trying to make a woman one of their magic chanty-people.

Asshats.

Asshat of the Day - June 26th, 2009

Samson Effect here. Been a while, hasn't it? Humblest apologies.

Today's AotD post comes by way of the Blogging Tories (when was the last time they won an Assie? I think it's been a while. But I digress.) and she of the fetus-centric all-caps, SUZANNE, over at Big Blue Wave.

Why? This is why.

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTO CONTAINED THEREIN. View at your own risk. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I'm actually somewhat surprised Nudger, the captain of this good ship, didn't take this one since he directed me to it, but he was hounding me for dereliction of duty and I suppose he was leaving it for me. So, what's wrong with this post, horrendous gore aside? Well, for one, she gets the story wrong; the photo was from the war in Iraq, not from Iran, nor did the Iranian government have anything to do with it. However, she has acknowledged that, mitigating my ire on that front.

Second, as you well know, SUZANNE is a pro-life catholic. This is not worthy of an AotD post per se, however, it is the underlying reason. The entirety of the post, the mother of the fetus was mentioned only once, as being the one who was shot. That's all the poor woman got in this article. No photo, or even mention of her condition at all, just a horribly grisly photo of the fetus. (Apparently no photo of the woman was available; this does not excuse the almost total absence of sympathy for said woman.)

Nudger himself got into the fray in the comments section of the article here, and said it likely better than I could have, but never underestimate the apparent stone-deafness of these folk, as evidenced by All-caps' meagre rebuttal:

Artful

I don't have the picture of the mother.

Is that a reason not to discuss the baby who was shot in the womb?

Why must the absence of the mother preclude discussing the baby?

Quite simply, it doesn't. You'd be hard-pressed to find a person, no matter what wing of the political ship they're on, who doesn't think that these are tragic circumstances. My question, however, is this: Why must the presence of the fetus preclude discussing the mother-to-be? And now the other shoe comes down, courtesy of JJ:

Artful - According to the story, which has since been pulled, the mother was killed.

But so what? She wasn't a fetus.

So here's the key point. Allcaps is getting all misty-eyed because a fetus ended up taking a bullet. Tragic turn of events, don't misunderstand. Here's what really gets my goat: Not a single breath spared for the dead mother. Didn't even bother looking into the mother's condition, I imagine, which in my mind is a woeful lack of due diligence, not to mention a Herculean slap in the face to anyone with a sense of decency. Suzanne's words in this post and the comments demonstrate quite clearly that she was being exactly what everyone has accused her of on a regular basis previously: A stark-raving fetus-centric lunatic.

May the dead rest peacefully; they didn't deserve this fate.

Asshat of the Day - March 18th, 2009

Samson Effect here, with another Asshat of the Day. Today, we have an asshat who a large number of people believe is beyond reproach; that his words from the pulpit are the divine word of God. Well, I am not one of those people, and so this Asshat of the Day title belongs to none other than His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI himself. Now, some of you on one side might say what I just said above, that his God speaks through him, and when he speaks about doctrine, he is infallible. On the other side, though, you might think that tabbing any of the higher-ups in the Catholic Church, up to and including the Pope, is just plain unsporting.

Anyways, I'm sure you're familiar with the Church's stance on birth control of any form, which, if you aren't, is 'no artificial birth control' and that abstinence is the way. Well, Benedict XVI is making his first papal visit to Africa, and a few days ago, in line with Catholic doctrine, has said that condoms are not the answer in fighting HIV/AIDS. In fact, he goes so far as to say that it can increase the problem.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: It's wrong. It's very wrong. It's woefully wrong. Condoms, when used properly, not only reduce the risk of pregnancy significantly, but they have a profound effect on the likelihood of contracting just about any sexually transmitted disease, HIV included. Want proof? A cursory search for stats on Google regarding the subject quickly shows that the pope is quite clearly, at least on the subject of condoms making things worse, talking out of his ass. And when it comes to transmission and prevention of diseases, I think the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention knows a little bit more than the Pope does. Still not sure about it? More from the CDC about the subject, and going beyond HIV and on to STDs in general. Not only does claiming that condoms exacerbate the problem show up to be flat-out false, it's contrary to the goal of just about every single AIDS relief organization in existence.

Right, now that the comment about condoms is thoroughly dusted, the other part that I have to talk about is the Pope stating his opinion (or doctrine) that 'sexual abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease'. Now, on its face, this much is true. If you don't have sex, you're much less likely to contract or spread diseases such as AIDS, syphillis, gonorrhea, and all those nasties. Two things: First, those are not the only way to spread or contract those diseases, and second, I really don't know how to put this any more succinctly, but he and his followers are eventually going to have to get it into their heads that the very vast majority of people REALLY like to have sex. You aren't going to change that without seriously damaging those people psychologically, not unlike that portion of the Catholic clergy you seem to hear about in the news an awful lot, or (although not Catholic himself) Ted Haggard. You CAN, however, teach people about sex and safety, and how and where the two intersect, and that will help stanch the flow of spreading STDs.

It took about four centuries for the Catholic Church to admit that Galileo was right, hopefully it won't take nearly as long for the Church to admit that the CDC is also right, and that claiming condoms make this problem worse is baseless, harmful misinformation. Pope Benedict XVI, you are the Asshat of the Day.