The New Republic

First, let me stipulate that Bill Donahue is a total ass and only represents himself and his organization.

But, if she is the editor of On Faith she really ought to know that to take communion at a Catholic mass you have to be in "communion" with the Church. That means you shouldn't have any mortal sins, as defined by the Church, on your conscience and you should agree with a minimun set of the Church's tenants.  Frankly, I find this really naive and mushy: "I'm very pluralistic about religion, and I feel that everyone should respect everyone else's." If you want to "respect" the Church's religion then you shouldn't do something it finds highly unacceptable. I am a lapsed Catholic and if I go to mass for some reason I never go to communion.

- dabeffert

June 25, 2008 at 8:27pm

First, let me stipulate that Bill Donahue is a total ass and only represents himself and his organization.

But, if she is the editor of On Faith she really ought to know that to take communion at a Catholic mass you have to be in "communion" with the Church. That means you shouldn't have any mortal sins, as defined by the Church, on your conscience and you should agree with a minimun set of the Church's tenants.  Frankly, I find this really naive and mushy: "I'm very pluralistic about religion, and I feel that everyone should respect everyone else's." If you want to "respect" the Church's religion then you shouldn't do something it finds highly unacceptable. I am a lapsed Catholic and if I go to mass for some reason I never go to communion.

- dabeffert

June 25, 2008 at 8:27pm

I am first in line when it comes to criticizing priests and bishops who want to use communion as a political weapon, denying it to Kmiec or Kerry or anybody else who doesn't support the anti-abortionists' political agenda.  And I am no fan of Donahue.  But Quinn does come across as narcissistic, and no, I don't think Russert would have been charmed.  As far as I can tell, he was a serious Catholic.  So, instead, I think he might have said something like, "Sally, do you understand that when you are being offered communion at a Catholic mass you are being asked to affirm that you believe that the host does not merely represent, but actually is, the body of Christ?"  (That's why the priest says "this is the body of Christ" and the communicant says "amen.")  If you don't believe that (a perfectly reasonable position, embraced by millions of Protestants), then you really should decline.

- agentzero

June 25, 2008 at 8:33pm

Quinn thinks religion is about observable practice rather than devotional content.  Which makes me wonder when she's thinking about taking that trip to Mecca . . .

- ironyroad

June 25, 2008 at 8:59pm

yes, I agree with the top two posters. To be honest I wouldn't be offended if I were there and knew she weren't Catholic. It is her choice to do so and I would not judge her negatively, especially if it were done out of ignorance and what she says in remembrance, but there was absolutely no reason for her to write about it, especially as was noted above she is supposedly an expert on faith. She wrote it as though Catholics were engaged in some prehistoric pagan ritual and she were some enlightened being curious as to how the cavemen lived. I think Narcissitic does sum up her actions. When I lived in China and ever went into a Buddhist Temple I tried to behave with as much reverence and respect as I could (as did most foreigners there) though I don't share the faith. And if I knew that some action was meant to be done only by Buddhists I would never have done it. It is pathetic this woman has less respect than a simple tourist.

- blackton

June 25, 2008 at 9:23pm

As a devout and practicing Greek Orthodox Christian, I'm puzzled that someone who's not Catholic would be administered communion.  In the Orthodox faith, you must be a baptized and chrismated Orthodox to receive communion.  The priest usually announces this before administering communion.

I thought the same applies to the Catholic Church.  If Quinn knew a thing about Catholicism and had any respect for it she would not have taken communion.  I was at a Catholic funeral a few months ago and when communion was offered I knew better than to accept it even though the priest didn't say anything like they do in the Orthodox Church.  Apparently Quinn is a dolt and doesn't care.

She deserves all the derision and abuse she's getting.  If she doesn't "get it", then she needs to quit writing about religion.  Then again she might have been 'turned off' by the way we Orthodox receive communion: from a communal chalice containing the consecrated body (bread) and blood (wine) of Christ.  No wafers, no small cups.  Everyone receives the communion from a single spoon  from the chalice administered by the priest.

- tnmats

June 25, 2008 at 9:50pm

I'm a Presbyterian, but once I put on a tallit at a Yom Kippur service. I, however, didn't realize what I was doing (until informed by an amused/worried Jewish friend subsequently). All the other men were putting one on so I grabbed one too.

- ackyri

June 25, 2008 at 9:52pm

I'm an ex-Catholic. When I lost my faith I knew that I could never take communion again. To do so would not only be a lie, it would be an insult to the believers who were partaking in communion. Instead of getting huffy and telling others what she thinks Jesus would do, Quinn should ask a Catholic why it was wrong for her to take communion, listen carefully to the answer, and learn from the experience.

- dsimpson

June 25, 2008 at 10:48pm

A sign of progress: Five centuries ago, a perceived breach of communion protocol would have justified the slaughter of thousands and the laying to waste of entire countries. Today, it merely justifies public humiliation of an individual.

Some errors in thinking on the part of Quinn's critics, who by the way sound exactly like all the armchair blogger "experts" who told us that a tank couldn't possibly run down a dog last year:

(1) Assuming that a journalist who covers a topic is an "expert" in that topic. Rarely true. Knowledgeable about the topic, sure, but just as we don't expect the health reporter to be able to diagnose illnesses or perform surgeries, it's foolish to expect a religion reporter to be able to expound on the theological intricacies of denominational dogma.

(2) Finding too much fault in Quinn's navel-gazing. Narcissism? Perhaps. But condemning a writer as a narcissist is a bit like calling a candidate for office arrogant. To be a journalist is to brand oneself as more than usually self-regarding. Normal people do not go through their workday assuming that an audience of hundreds of thousands of strangers are interested in what they have to say; journalists do, and God bless 'em for it.

(3) Assuming ill motives on Quinn's part. Where is the Christian generosity of spirit here? The woman says she took the communion in good faith, intending only respect. Was she wrong? Perhaps. But if a person joins in a Christian sacrament in a time of spiritual crisis, how spiteful does one have to be to condemn her and call her names and attempt to humiliate and shame her for it?

I'm pretty sure I once read advice to the effect that in a situation like this, one should attend to the twig in one's one eye before pointing out the splinter in another's eye. If only I could remember who said that ...

Anyway, I was once in a similar situation as a very young man. I was asked to do a scripture reading -- Psalm 91 -- at a friend's funeral at a Catholic church. Because my mother was a member of the congregation, I think it was just assumed that I would take communion. Anyway, there came a time in the service where the few of us who did readings were called to take communion. I was surprised, but given that attention was on us, and because between the stagefright and being in the "exhausted shellshocked zombie wreck" stage of early grief I probably wasn't thinking straight, it seemed to me at the time that the least disruptive thing to do, the thing that would draw the least amount of unwarranted attention to myself, would be to take the wafer but not eat it. I palmed it discretely instead. After the service, I approached Father Tim to apologize and gave him the wafer back and he thanked me and said he could take care of it and complimented me on my reading and asked about my family and how was I holding up and, well, did all the things a good priest does instead of lecturing grief-stricken non-Catholics about their shocking breaches of church etiquette.

- rhubarbs

June 25, 2008 at 11:57pm

What an absolute twit.

The part that gets me is that in reacting to criticism, a supposed expert on religious matters says "I wasn't thinking politically at all." She doesn't even realize what the nature of her blunder is, that people are upset because she's trampled all over our theology, not our politics.

Ugh!

- emigdio

June 26, 2008 at 12:08am

And sorry, Rhubarbs, but this is not about "etiquette".

This is about one of the central - arguably THE central - aspect of catholic theology.

Taking communion is THE most important spiritual act a catholic can undertake, the moment of actual union between a believer and the divinity.

Sally Quinn took to a very public stage to announce she thought it was a neat chance for a moment of union with...Tim Russert!

I know everyone was real fond of Russert but lets retrace our sanity here.

- emigdio

June 26, 2008 at 12:16am

What dsimpson said, exactly.

I took my time as a Catholic seriously, and I take my current status as an ex-Catholic and agnostic just as seriously. I love and respect my devout Catholic friends too much to disrespect their practices by feigning participation when I do not qualify to do so.

Had Quinn even a cursory understanding of or interest in Catholic liturgy, she would have known that she was similarly disqualified. That she either failed to know, was incurious, failed to exercise self-discipline, or somehow felt herself qualified to trump Roman Catholicism's methods of worship reflects quite badly on both someone who is paid to know better, and on the newspaper doing the paying, in my opinion.

- williamyard

June 26, 2008 at 12:17am

If Sally Quinn is going to practice other people's religions and participate in their ceremonies, she ought to take the trouble to learn what she can and cannot properly do.

It figures that a media elite like S.Q. would be this clueless.

Christ!

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 12:30am

Rhubarbs, you wrote:

"...condemning a writer as a narcissist is a bit like calling a candidate for office arrogant. To be a journalist is to brand oneself as more than usually self-regarding. Normal people do not go through their workday assuming that an audience of hundreds of thousands of strangers are interested in what they have to say; journalists do, and God bless 'em for it."

I'm not so cynical, perhaps because I make a distinction between rank and file journalists and the MSM elites whose mugs and bylines are smeared across electronic and print channels like shit stains on an old man's briefs. Stunts like Quinn's, and her clueless reaction to the complaints, go a long way to explain why Americans are sick of the media, why the media are in large degree a failure.

You also wrote "...it's foolish to expect a religion reporter to be able to expound on the theological intricacies of denominational dogma."  The rules about the Eucharist are far from intricate, and are routinely and easily taught to children. A Post columnist doing her job should grasp them in about 5 minutes. I hate to differ with you on this one, buddy, 'cause you're one of the more level-headed commenters on this or any site but, as I follow your reasoning, a sports reporter covering the World Series shouldn't have to know what a double switch is, or why on-base percentage is important. How can that work? (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

The sad thing is that there is so much in the liturgy that is open to all people, Catholics or not. One can have a moving, soulful experience at Mass while following the rules and leaving the few esoteric Catholic-only parts to the Catholics. I have wept often at Mass when I was not a Catholic.

Quinn should have known better.

- williamyard

June 26, 2008 at 12:47am

I just love the "I've become a champion of pluralism and a spirit of inclusiveness" - that's just dandy, but the Catholics absolutely have not. I guess she doesn't see that as relevant. Because it's all about her, hence the narcissism charge.

It reminds me of this hippie chick I knew who had decided at some point, that the smaller "bubbles of personal space" that people had in other countries, these were not as uptight as the American standard bubble of personal space, so she was just going to stand right up next to you because she wasn't hung up on that personal space thing. And, like Quinn, she did this first, and explained only later. Of course!

- psantillana

June 26, 2008 at 1:03am

Also, Rhubarbs, doesn't it strike you as telling that you, as a kid, grieving, with tons of grown-ups staring at you, had the presence of mind to realize you shouldn't actually take communion, but Quinn, as a grown up who specializes in writing about faith, didn't?

- emigdio

June 26, 2008 at 2:03am

Actually, scripture gives us a pretty good idea of what Jesus would do. He had no patience with the corrupt, inbred, self-serving hierarchy of the religious establishment of His time and place. There's no reason to think He would have much use for today's religious establishment(s).

That said, if Quinn attended this service as a journalist - which she was, at least after the fact, by choosing to write about it for publication - then she should have limited herself to observing the ritual, whether or not she was a member of the church.

- cbustard

June 26, 2008 at 3:30am

Why do I find it odd that the writer of a column entitled "On Religion" is so clueless about one of the central tenets of a major world religion? Was it really Hussert who said, "this do in remembrance of me"?

As for Jesus, he breeched religious laws regularly, I'm sure he wouldn't have minded. The self-serving bewilderment at the offense given may have struck him as hypocritical though.

- neitwin

June 26, 2008 at 4:14am

Sally Quinn is infamously narcissistic, petty and mean. Her hilarious behavior doesn't surprise me at all: "here's how I got *my* needs met at Russerts funeral.'  You know Russert wouldn't be remotely surprised.

Now she can add "ignorant religion columnist" to her many virtues.  I'm no Catholic and rather a failure in the God department, but even I know that taking communion as a non-believer is deeply offensive to Catholics.  

I did it once out of utter ignorance myself, at the wedding of the sister of an Irish-Catholic college boyfriend - without even thinking, I just waltzed down the aisle next to him when called by the priest.  

His dear old granny in her white lace headscarf smiled at me warmly as I knelt next to her, she was so pleased to see that I was a Catholic (gulp).  The poor college boyfriend almost  had a heart attack and wouldn't dream of setting old granny straight.  It would have shocked and hurt her too much that I'd been so disrespectful.

- Wandreycer1

June 26, 2008 at 6:05am

cbustard. Yep. Yep and yep.

Room is made for our Doubting Thomas at the sup as a saving grace to all. For if not, then no one should dare. Even if fleeting and phantom cracks. But that is often how light gets in.

Sally's transgression is but that she is a shallow swimmer in deep waters. She might be better suited to bread and cracker recipes.

- boxofrox

June 26, 2008 at 7:36am

One of the most insipid writers in Washington, Quinn has always needed some off-color or irreverent or snarky detail to garner attention. Without it, her powers of observation and writing ability are of Kristol-quality, virtually worthless. The postings have captured it: she's a vain, rude, and coarse individual who commands far too much attention, another self-made feminist...made by her more famous husband.

- fougasseu

June 26, 2008 at 8:51am

I'm actually with Rhubarbs on this one.

So she took communion. And what happened? Did anyone keel over? Did a bolt of lightning strike her as she returned to her pew? Did the earth stop spinning on its axis? Certainly if this was an offense to God and his flock, wouldn't this have been the perfect opportunity to make an example of Sally Quinn?

What she did I might not have done, but then I don't have a journalist's passion to dig for the truth. To borrow from Freud, sometimes a wafer is nothing more than a wafer. This is a quaint ritual that has been handed down through centuries, but it's really nothing more than that. Until Bill Donohue or the Pope or any other true believer can actually prove that the wafer has powers beyond mere nourishment, I say she's under no obligation to respect their shared delusion. If she thought that this might bring her closer to her old friend Tim Russert or have delighted him, then so be it. Funerals are for the living anyway.

- BHLnyc

June 26, 2008 at 9:26am

Quinn was clearly pretty thoughtless about this.  Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Catholic church would have known better, and anyone with a minimum of respect for Russert would in this situation probably should have passed on the Eucharist.

But, I have no sympathy whatesoever for any outraged Catholic, Donahue included, on this.

You've got this bizarre ritual involving symbolic cannabilism that you make out as the centerpiece of your religion, which you dare to call Catholic (universal), and then you have a kinniption when one of the 4+ billion people who don't see matters of faith your way show up at a friends funeral and interpret it's importance and meaning differently than you do?   Get a life folks: your 20 centuries old mystical ritual means, like every other human ritual, exactly what it's celebrants put into it, and when you open the doors of your universal church to non-Catholics, you get them whole cloth, on their terms, not yours.  Quinn clearly intimates that she does not believe in transubstantiation, so she did not partake of the "body and blood", but rather downed a chunk of bread-like wafer in honor of her friend, in the designated place for honoring him.   And what happened: well, what BHLaye said.

- sdemuth

June 26, 2008 at 9:50am

BHL, if one doesn't agree with Catholics regarding the nature of Communion, one shouldn't participate in their ritual.  You and she and anyone else who views the theology and practice of the Catholic (or any other) church as delusional are free to mock those of us who don't.  But let's not affect wounded, "blind-sided" victomhood in the aftermath of a disrespectful and self-centered action like Quinn's, and her publication thereof.

- drdannyu

June 26, 2008 at 9:51am

Chan, the only thing more off-putting than Quinn's cluelessness is your attempt to shoehorn the term "elite" (and used ungrammatically too -- I guess anythng goes!) into the thread.  Give it a rest already!

It appears that the other "elite" members of her profession present had enough basic sense to avoid committing the same egregious error, so the basis for a group accusation seems slim, to say the least.

How about we leave it at the level of Quinn's personal responsibility?

- ironyroad

June 26, 2008 at 9:52am

I wish someone would explain to me why religious beliefs, unlike other beliefs, deserve "respect".  Tolerance, yes.  Respect, no.  This exaggerated respect for something that has no right to this special respect is why we are in the situation where people with nothing but ancient myths and writings think they have a special claim on legislation, ethics, and morality.  If you believe in transubstantiation, you are stupid.  That belief deserves no more respect than any non-religious empirical claim that is demonstrably absurd.  Bill Donahue is a huge hypocrite as he certainly would accord this exaggerated respect to lack of religious belief (or to non-catholic religious beliefs).  We live in a secular society with secular laws and if yo harbor religious foolishness, thgat is fine - you can't be fired from a job or discriminated against, but we don't have to pretend your beliefs have any merit.  And just because these beliefs are important to you doesn't mean we owe them special deference.  The good religious folks sure don't seem to feel they owe their secular countrymen any respect.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 10:02am

"but even I know that taking communion as a non-believer is deeply offensive to Catholics. "

So what? Catholics and other Christians are free to rant about secularists from their pulpits and on their church signs, to get on talk shows and accuse us of being so evil we deserve to burn in hell, accuse us of having no moral sense.  Why do they get respect that we don't.  Can I not visit my family on Christmas?   Catholics just took some pagan ritual and co-opted it for their mythology, so why can't we give it our own meaning.  I am sick to death of religious people getting all bent out of shape about offense.  We don't have a constitutional right to not be offended.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 10:06am

"...and then you have a kinniption when one of the 4+ billion people who don't see matters of faith your way show up at a friends funeral and interpret it's importance and meaning differently than you do?"

She is free to intepret the funeral however she likes. But just because the Catholic Church welcomes everyone to Mass doesn't mean it has to let everyone participate in every part of the rite. It is a pretty clear distinction and while she is free to go up and take communion, the Church and others--even the loathsome Donahue--are free, and to my mind right, to condemn her for it.  

- dabeffert

June 26, 2008 at 10:17am

jerb:

It's fine to disagree with other beliefs--and personally I don't think you have to "respect" them as such either. I think mormonism is the biggest load of hogwash imaginable (though not worse than scientology), but I would never go to a Mormon Temple and pretend to participate as a full member. That is simply decent. And if I did do it I would go and write about it and then proclaim that because i was tolerant Mormons had to let me participate in all of their rituals. Are you really that dense?

- dabeffert

June 26, 2008 at 10:24am

P.S. I guess the biggest distinction is that you don't have to "respect" the belief per se, tolerate yes, respect, no. But you ought to at a minimun respect the people who hold that belief simply because all people deserve respect. And insofar as religious people don't do that, well, shame on them, and  insofar as geeky militant athiests don't, well, shame on them too.

- dabeffert

June 26, 2008 at 10:31am

I think we're rather missing the point here. Her action were pretty bad, but not necessarily conniption worthy. Her description of her action (corpus russert...amen) and her subsequent blathering in response to the predictable outcry it provoked is what's truly vile. Screwing up on an unfamiliar religion's ritual is one thing...bragging about it in a very public setting is something else altogether.

- emigdio

June 26, 2008 at 10:47am

There's a reason the proverb is, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."  Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, or the transubstantiation of the bread and wine or not, basic courtesy requires that when you are in someone else's house, you follow *their* rules.  If you are not a Catholic communicant, accepting the wafer at a Catholic mass is no different than going to an acquaintances house, taking off your shoes, and putting your sock feet up on the host's coffee table.  (I except Rhubarbs, who figured out how to thread a camel through the eye of a needle.)  I say all of this as a communicating Episcopalian - and we generally regard the Catholics' insistence on Catholic-ness in communion as a little *provinicial* (but, y'know, it's their church...).

Also, in most Christian churches that do communion at the rail, you can go to the communion rail, cross your arms over your chest, and accept a blessing from the clergy instead of the communion elements.  This has the virtue of letting you participate in the rite without breaking the rules.

- dmorehous

June 26, 2008 at 10:50am

tnmats: members of any Orthodox church is permitted to receive Communion, no one in any Protestant sect is allowed to for Catholics. The great schism preceding the Reformation by hundreds of years and the essential unity of the Sacrament has a lot to do with it.

dabeffert: thanks. you stopped me from saying something far more nasty in return to Jerb. Let me just add, would he go to Japan, say the idea of not wearing shoes in a house is offensive and stupid, claim his shoes are clean, and then proceed to walk around the Japanese persons home. Honestly Jerb, could you be anymore classless?

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 10:58am

I sure could go for a saltine and some grape juice about now.

- mghogwild

June 26, 2008 at 11:03am

Well obviously the Pope's mini-me, Donohue, does.  But, Jesus, not so much for as he was wont to say:

"Do this in remembrance of me."  So, Sally's first mistake was that she was taking the eucharist in remembrance of Mr. Russert, whose death received much too much airtime and spilled ink.  After all he, like SQ, was a media god, so her second mistake was  participating in idolatry.  

I commend a book to SQ and all who visit others' houses of worship:  "How to Be a Perfect Stranger," a sort of Emily Post-like take on how one should act when in "Rome" whether that be a Buddhist temple or a Jewish synagogue.  

Finally, Jesus did not establish the Lord's Supper as a test of religiosity, the Catholic Church did.  As I remember it, even Christ's "betrayer" was present at Jesus' last meal.  And maybe even a whore, Mary Magdelene, dropped by.  

But Sally do remember that when in "Rome" or in any exclusive club, always follow the rules of initiation lest one offend the membership.

- Randyandy

June 26, 2008 at 11:06am

Blackton: Sorry, but your attempt to equate the taking of the wafer with the Japanese custom for bare-footed visitors simply doesn't hold water. There are legitimate and RATIONAL reasons for a host to ask that their visitors' shoes be removed. This is because the floors are covered with straw mats which need to be kept clean. There is no equivalent rationale for a non-believer to excuse themselves from the wafer ritual if they're inclined to take it, because its consumption is only rooted in mythology and fantasy, not reason.

- BHLnyc

June 26, 2008 at 11:27am

BHLnyc:

I hear there is some nice real estate opening up on the planet Vulcan. You should consider buying.

- dabeffert

June 26, 2008 at 11:45am

Where angels fear to tread ...

I grew up as a Baha'i.  You're supposed to learn about other religions, and even experience them (to fully understand them), before you make a decision about your own faith.  And Baha'i temples are open - the one in India has no walls or doors and open to all to visit and be at communion with God.  I don't know SQ and have not read her writings, and could not imagine what was going through her head when she took Communion, but I can see myself doing it, our of respect in fact, and our of a desire to understand.  I've been to mosques, I've even done the Muslim prayer (once, trying to understand Islam at the age of 14, I spent an entire night prayer.  My forehead was sore from all the kneeling and prostration ... and was no closer to Allah in the morning than I had been at the begining of the evening.).

I'm not Christian, and my affection for the Catholic Church is limited to the Vatican Museum, the Sistine Chapel and Popes Alexander VI and Julius II.  I think, though, if someone took the Communion in order to get a sense of what it means to be a believer, and what it means to be at communion with God/the Son, it is not done out of disrespect for the Faith.  Again, I don't mean this to commend or to support what Quinn did, but that it can be done without any insult intended.

And, of course, if if the Church is insulted, there is always the Interdiction, the Excommunication and the Stake.   The Fatwa is, by the way, also available for insults to Eissa bin Youssef of Beit-ol-lahm, a Koranic Prophet.

- icarusr

June 26, 2008 at 11:47am

I travel a lot, and I do agree that one is best served by observing the rituals and rules of one's host in all circumstances where that does not involve a violation of one's own conscience (and opt out gracefully when it does).  I thus think Quinn was wrong, and I certainly agree that having done the deed, broadcasting about it was in incredibly poor taste.

But that is an entirely different question from asking whether the host (or it's adherents) is right in taking umbrage when their rituals have not been observed.  I don't think they do, for the simple reason that tolerance is a two way street.  If the funeral were explicitly understood to be for Catholics only, then they have a right to enforce their rules.  It wasn't.  Russerts friends were invited, confession notwithstanding.  Just as good manners dictate that Quinn not take communion, good manners dictates that in an event to which non-adherents are welcomed, the host not take umbrage at their participate.

To put this more succinctly, tolerance is mostly about not taking YOURSELF and your own silly rules and selfish instincts too seriously.  Both Quinn and Donahue flunk this basic test.

- sdemuth

June 26, 2008 at 11:52am

Quinn can't be excommunicated...she wasn't communicated to begin with!

- emigdio

June 26, 2008 at 12:02pm

BHL, it's a matter of basic decency.  When I go to a synagogue, I don't wear a tallis because I am not a practicing Jew, but I do wear a yarmulke because that is the standard to which those present are held.  When I was in India, I didn't go into the parts of the temple that were marked for Hindus only, because I am not a Hindu and respect the right of those who are to have their worship unaffected by outsiders; that I do not believe in the divinity of the gods in question was beside the point.  Not unrelatedly, when I am in the home of people who have different political beliefs than I do, I make a point of not making fun of them, no matter how ill-informed I happen to think them.

Further, why would a person such as yourself or Ms. Quinn be inclined to take communion in the first place?  If you have such obvious contempt for the beliefs of Catholics, why involve yourself in their sacrament?  You needn't "respect" the belief, and can (and apparently do) hold it in open scorn.  Fine.  But to defy the beliefs of Catholics by disregarding the precepts of their worship DURING A WORSHIP SERVICE shows a marked lack of class.

- drdannyu

June 26, 2008 at 12:09pm

boxofrox:

Well-thought, and well-put.

- williamyard

June 26, 2008 at 12:19pm

It seems to me that Quinn's reasoning for taking communion was entirely sane, but she misunderstood the boundry between what is a private spiritual act, almost a meditation, that gives one spiritual meaning, and what is a public act of community that represents community with a creed or belief, that gives one spiritual meaning.  If, instead of being a devout Catholic, Russert instead went to a community gym on Saturday nights and shot freethrows for an hour by himself (something that I can personally attest to having an almost restorative and meditative quality), I don't doubt that Quinn would have gone to the gym instead, shot basketballs for an hour, and felt, in some way, closer to Russert.  The problem with that reasoning is that many Catholics don't see Communion as a private act akin to prayer or shooting free throws.  It is a public affirmation of belief and a collective communion with God.  Quinn distorts this by making Russert's public declaration of faith a private meditation.

- bigfish

June 26, 2008 at 12:27pm

dabeffert: well played. I love when people claim they are the ultimate arbiters of what is reason and what is fantasy, the arrogance is truly astounding. A little humility is all that is asked. Confucius once said, not understanding life, how can I claim to understand death. Religion confronts mankinds mortality, no one knows what happens afterwards, that is why it is called faith.

sdemuth, also great line: "I travel a lot, and I do agree that one is best served by observing the rituals and rules of one's host in all circumstances where that does not involve a violation of one's own conscience (and opt out gracefully when it does)."

I don't take umbrage at her participating, I take umbrage at her writing about it without the slightest hint of understanding or dignity, and then acting the victim when questioned. Her writing about her action constituted a mockery of the faith and the faithful, as do many people here do in the defense of her. Really, what the hell is so hard about showing a little sensitivity to the religion of others?

When I was a child camping in the poconos me and my friends used to mock the Hasidic children who attended some camps there. It was only as an adult that I came to respect their traditions, and came to realize how much of the mockery was tied into anti-Semitism (we didn't mock Amish people).

If Sally Quinn never wrote about it, and someone else said, hey she ain't Catholic, then whoever pointed it out is the idiot. 99% of Catholics would chalk it up to simple misunderstanding and leave it at that. So please, please, please stop saying it was her act that was the issue, it was expressed motivations which she saw fit to proclaim to the world that is.

In China it is also the custom to take off ones shoes before entering homes, there are no straw mats there.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 12:29pm

It's also custom to take ones shoes off before entering the house in Minnesota, but that has a lot to do with snowy dirtiness during the winter.  It has happened at numerous parties when, about three hours into the revelry, I realize that I, the native Texan, am the only one in the room with shoes on.

- bigfish

June 26, 2008 at 12:37pm

drdannyu: As I said in my original post, I wouldn't have been inclined to do it, but at the same time, I can't get all fire and brimestony on Sally Quinn for her willingness to. She wanted to somehow make a cosmic connection with her dear departed friend and she thought that she could do so by taking the wafer. That doesn't seem any crazier to me than a believer thinking that they're making a connection with Jesus Christ by doing the exact same thing. If the church's beliefs are so brittle and archaic that this simple effort to blunt a little of her grief was a violation of epic proportions (as judged by the tone of Donohue's scathing press release), it speaks volumes about the relevance of religion today.

- BHLnyc

June 26, 2008 at 12:38pm

drdanny, I agree completely. This seems a no brainer to me. But I think there are a few people here who are simply playing the devils advocate. I can see excusing a lack of class or attempting to understand it, but why bother to defend it? Everyone mocked Britney when she did her 12 hour marriage for kicks, gays, straight people, single, and married, pretty much everyone was offended by her action. She, at least as we now know, can be excused because she is a sadly troubled young woman. I am an advocate for gay marriage because I do take marriage seriously. It is a profound (and some say sacred) thing, not to be done lightly or mockingly. The same is true with communion, if you want to take communion, simply have faith and become a Catholic. It is open to everyone. (And, for that matter, Orthodox believers can partake of the sacrament as well.) In both cases I simply expect people to take the actions (marriage, communion) seriously and with respect.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 12:40pm

To look at it another way, with another sacrament, what would have happened if Quinn had gotten baptized to feel closer to Russert?  I'm not saying that The Catholic League isn't blowing this out of proportion, but to them, baptism without belief is probably analogous to communion without belief.

- bigfish

June 26, 2008 at 12:53pm

The difference, of course, is that the church sets itself up as a quasi-public institution (able to make lawas about marriage, put a priest or preacher in any public setting they can weasle into, etc.) - it wants to be public when it suits it and wants to be private when it suits it.  The religous want a seat for religion at every public table where they don't belong, but then want to complain when we secularize there observances.   I won't buy any of the "offended" arguments unless they respect that our society is secular.

geeky militant atheist.  Yeah, whatever.  Secularism is the DEFAULT posiiton and the law of the land.  Militant atheism is an oxymoron.  That is like being a militant a-UFOist or a militant a-ghostist.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 12:58pm

Of course, all you practicing Catholics also know that a Protestant can't take communion in a Catholic Church either witthout violating protocol.  But if Quinn were a Protestant, you'd all be defending her in the name of "religious tolerance" and accusing the Catholic of bigotry.

Doesn't anyone find it funny that in McCain's whole flap with the nut preachers he  has hung out with lately, nobody at all objects to their demonization of secularists and their insistance that the secular are damned, evil and worthy of hell.  But some preacher says something nasty about Catholics and then the Bill Donahue's come out and talk about being offended and call it bigotry.   If a nut preacher can say I am going to hell (and deserve it) and that is ok, why can't he say the same about a Catholic?  This, in a nutshell, is the crux of my argument - that religion gets exaggerated respect in ways that other beliefs, or lack of belief, cannot expect to get.  

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 1:06pm

"The same is true with communion, if you want to take communion, simply have faith and become a Catholic. "

Yeah, that is how "faith" works.  You just choose it.  So tomorrow I'll choose to have faith in UFO's.

It should be obvious why marriage is serious and communion is not.  The fact that the church equates one (a relationship between two people that involves a whole host of emotions and obligations to an actual person) with the other (a ritual co-opted from mystery cults that is simple sybolism of a mythological story and mythological drama) shows the problem with Chtistian morality (and why it isn't moral at all), because it can't see what moral virtues are important and which ones aren't.  What else do you expect from a moral worldview that apparently thinks, based on the equivalent punitary reactions of their prickly God, that masturbation, homosexuality, and unbelief are as bad as serial murder and rape.   And I thought it was atheists who allegedly have no moral compass.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 1:09pm

I'm a little bit with Rhubarbs on this. I think there are a few Catholics getting a bit twisted that she took Communion. What I find surprising is that Sally is a Religious column writer and doesn't have the forethought to understand the sensitivity of the religions she's writing about? I went to the Easter Mass at National Cathedral this year with my girlfriend and some of her family. They're all practicing Catholics. I am not Catholic but having studied under them and Jesuits I knew that I would be remiss if I had taken Communion having not been baptized or taken Catechism. Nor would I partake in any other religious ritual with which I wasn't familiar. I'll observe the service but that's all and when I do go to services it's usually to check out the space of worship (if it's architecturally relevant).

I think Sally's bigger mistake and other's noted it as well, was taking the Communion as a non-Catholic and publicizing that she did so and then made it worse by couching it under the guise of being religiously pluralistic. That she thought Russett would transmute inside her says more about her line of thinking as well.

- singlespeed

June 26, 2008 at 1:19pm

I'm really a little surprised by a few of the contributions above.  The issue is and was not about the scientific validity or evidentiary robustness of Catholic theological beliefs, but about understanding the difference between attending a service open to all and engaging in a particular ritual within the context of that service for which a given set of beliefs is a precondition.

Speaking as a thoroughly lapsed Catholic, I find it peculiar that Quinn didn't seem to get it, and paraded her failure to get it in her blog.  People sort of know these things, right?  We know that there's a point at which "do as the Romans do" takes second place to the courtesy that recognizes certain things as belonging to a particular community of which one is not a member.  She reminds me of those tourists who go to some place which is not entirely open to them and get all riled up because "they've paid good money" for whatever restricted entry/event they wanted to enjoy.

Which doesn't make Donohue any the less an unpleasant blowhard.

- ironyroad

June 26, 2008 at 1:21pm

I'm having trouble understand this post:

"Of course, all you practicing Catholics also know that a Protestant can't take communion in a Catholic Church either witthout violating protocol. [Yes, I understand that as a non-practicing Catholic] But if Quinn were a Protestant, you'd all be defending her in the name of "religious tolerance" and accusing the Catholic of bigotry. [What? I think she is probably some flavor of Prostestant if she is at all religious. Still, I don't get the point.]

- dabeffert

June 26, 2008 at 1:22pm

Bigfish you said "It has happened at numerous parties when, about three hours into the revelry, I realize that I, the native Texan, am the only one in the room with shoes on." Isn't that because Texans would rather be caught dead than not be without their shit-kickers on? And I'm betting, despite the trail of dirt you  left, your party hosts were glad to not have had the pleasure of seeing those sweat-stained tube socks instead!

Which reminds me...my snake skin Lama's need a resole.

- singlespeed

June 26, 2008 at 1:33pm

jerb, hah, funny. you don't have to take Communion seriously, you also don't have to take marriage seriously, I don't give a rats ass in either case. But you obviously haven't the slightest clue what communion means, or even the word Catholic. To be Catholic is to be part of a larger family than ones own. Yes, it is steeped in faith that Jesus is the savior, but you act as though that is a horror that we are all supposed to follow Christ's command to love and respect each other. The fact that people don't is proof to you that love and respect are for fools, that a life with do it yourself rules made up based soley on ones own experience is sufficient for everyone.

Of course faith works that way, if you don't choose it you can't have it. I mean, really, wtf? Faith is not magic, it is much more than that, it is not a light switch, but you sure as hell have to choose to have faith first. It is called free will. The contempt that you show is incredibly immature, you should realize that. You sound like a teenager pissed off at his parents for having a curfew.

"that religion gets exaggerated respect in ways that other beliefs, or lack of belief, cannot expect to get."  That is utter horseshit and you know it. Americanism is treated far more seriously, b.s. displays of patriotism is far more necessary. Nobody give a rats ass if you go to church or temple on Sunday or not, but try to stay seated at a ballpark when the National anthem is sung and see what happens. Burn a bible and most people will shrug, they are trying to make a Constitutional amendment against burning a flag. You are so far off base on this you aren't even in the ballpark anymore.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 1:34pm

For the record, Jerb, I'm an active member of the Episcopal Church, which I love, and have been a faithful Christian since early childhood.  For a variety of reasons, every so often I have been in Catholic services, and I don't take communion when I am there.  Do I agree with Catholic theology regarding communion?  No, I don't.  But when I'm in their church, I play by their rules.  

- drdannyu

June 26, 2008 at 1:41pm

singlespeed, Irony, completely reasonable points.

I am an agnostic, but am all for leaving people alone to worship or not as they choose. Leave church and state separate. I don't care what any candidates religion is. I only ask that they treat others people beliefs with the same respect they want their own to be treated. Leave the contempt and the vitriol behind. Nobody has any clue what the ultimate truth is and anyone who expresses absolute surety in either case for or against any belief is a liar or a fool. And I also realize I can be wrong because I also have no idea if anyone does possess the ultimate truth. If they did though I doubt they would be posting here.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 1:42pm

The Catholic church considers Protestants outside communion just as sure as an atheist is.  But the reactions would be quite reversed if a Protestant took communion at a Catholic quasi-public ceremony.    Quinn is reportedly an atheist.

I am not arguing that what she did wasn't impolite.  I am objecting to the babyish, childish emotiveness that gets "offended" by things like this and equates not taking a person's beliefs seriously with bigotry or hate (despite the fact that these hallowed beliefs exist largely as a negation of what others believe, which is apparently fine so long as it is religious).   We atheists are told to "get over it" and "not be such whiners" when religion sticks its nose into every nook and cranny of secular life (that is, government and the public sphere) - and, incidentally, being "offended" is never my objection to these interpolations - but don't take some religious trifle seriously and you are a bigot.   For all the arguments I hear about how faith gives people strength and is somehow a marker of character, fitness for office, etc., it seems to me faith just makes people thin-skinned an paranoid.  So what if some non-Catholic took communion for reasons of her own.  Am I not going to be allowed to get married either since religious folks have insist that this to is a religious sacrament that can have its particulars dictated by religious concerns?  

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 1:54pm

"Yes, it is steeped in faith that Jesus is the savior, but you act as though that is a horror that we are all supposed to follow Christ's command to love and respect each other. The fact that people don't is proof to you that love and respect are for fools, that a life with do it yourself rules made up based soley on ones own experience is sufficient for everyone."

Who said love and respect are for fools?  My whole point is that Christianity teaches neither.  Telling me what "Jesus taught" is in the same ballpark as telling me what Hercules taught.  You must be a Catholic because you seem utterly unfamiliar with the Bible.  It isn't a coherent unified work.  

My whole point that there are sound reasons one can have to take marriage seriously that don't rely on religion, but no sound reasons to take communion seriously (just like you don't take the hajj or praying to Mecca seriously).  

"Of course faith works that way, if you don't choose it you can't have it. I mean, really, wtf?"

You don't choose what you believe.  People only talk this way about religion, not other beliefs.  If I asked you to choose to believ ein unicorns, could you choose to?  The evidence is not compelling and the coutner-evidence overwhelming for both unicorns and religion.  This is the origin of belief in anything - a measure of evidence and coutner-evidence.

"that a life with do it yourself rules made up based soley on ones own experience is sufficient for everyone."

My contempt is enflamed by half-baked thoughts like this one you hear from religious people - that either we believe in ancient revelations to ancient people (despite how easily one can see them as mythology and syncretic religious thought) or we believe in made up rules.  How hard is it to se3e that all Christians believe in made up rules too - they pick and choose what parts of the Bible are "true" and what parts are "historically contingent" based on some criteria that is surely extra-biblical.   The Bible is an incoherent mess for moral instruction (or for instruction regarding the character of Jesus).  

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 2:02pm

Irony, the media, which have unfortunately emerged as an elite in recent decades, are frequently clueless about religious matters, and since they have the power to broadcast that ignorance widely, I have a right to bring it up as an issue of annoyance.  And often an egregious one.

As to the grammar, perhaps I ought to have to have characterized Quinn as a "member of the media elite" as opposed to "a media elite".

Although I share your preference for proper English grammar over the poor and careless kind, I'm not sure this particular sin merits criticism in this forum where typos, misspellings, and some minor grammatical lapses are the fruit of fast typing and no proofreading.

There is a general unhappiness in this nation, which I share, with both academia and the media which constitute, not only elite and somewhat protected groups, but also lean inordinately and disproportionately Left, as honest members  of both groups admit, and surveys prove.

While nancy Pelos is reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" as pertains to radio, then let's institute a "Fairness Doctrine" for newspapers, television networks, and university faculties.

My attribution of religious cluelessness, as well as other varieties, to various "elites" is perfectly well founded, Irony.  Sorry if it bothers you.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 2:06pm

jerb, the respect that is deserved and must be observed, is for the right of believers to practice their religion in their own places of worship according to their traditions, practices, and policies.

Nobody is proscribed from criticizing another's religious practices or, if you wish, disrespecting same in speech or writing.  

But, you don't have the right to invade the sanctity of a church and violate that sanctity.  This nation is partly founded on the principle of both tolerance and respect for all religious practices and sanctuaries.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 2:12pm

Jerb, I don't believe a Protestant would normally be allowed to take Catholic Communion.  Quinn's atheism wasn't the issue, it was the fact that she did not belong to the Catholic Church yet had the temerity to intrude upon its Communion.

You have a right to be disinterested in or hostile to religion.  So just stay the hell out of it and away from churches and other places of worship.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 2:15pm

The Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church is only supposed to be for ROMAN CATHOLICS who are  "in communion" with the Church. Unlike other Christian denominations, the Eucharist is not to be shared by those who are not baptized (and preferably active) Catholics. I am an EM and lector at my church. During Mass our priests invite those not receiving the Eucharist to come forward with their arms crossed over their chests, in a sign of humility among the ancient Christian peoples, to receive a blessing from one of the priests, deacons, or EMs distrubuting the body and precious blood. Quite a few people take advantage of the opportunity and we EMs feel blessed to be in a position to offer that to them. That is what Quinn should have done to "bond" with Russert. She had no business doing what she did. It's kind of creepy and offensive; and if she's gonna try and fake her way into receiving Catholic sacraments, maybe she needs to go to Reconciliation now to atone for taking the Eucharist when she shouldn't have:-)

- nikkiwhite

June 26, 2008 at 2:26pm

jerb. If I'm not mistaken you are every bit as smart as those you think you accuse.

Umm. The Bible is coherent. You just may not know how to read it. Much in the way as those that you think you are accusing.  

- boxofrox

June 26, 2008 at 2:36pm

"But, you don't have the right to invade the sanctity of a church and violate that sanctity."

And when the church stops invading the sanctity of public institutions, I will take that complaint seriously.  But when they have a double standard of who is allowed to take offense and why, I am not going to shed too many tears over harmless disrespect.  Maybe if religion were disrespected more, it wouldn't have this haughty insistance on the right to evidenceless beliefs and morality based on nonsense.

"to be Catholic is to be part of a larger family than ones own. Yes, it is steeped in faith that Jesus is the savior, but you act as though that is a horror that we are all supposed to follow Christ's command to love and respect each other."

No, being a Catholic means believing in Catholic doctrine, not some warm fuzzy "jesus as love hippie" doctrine you have compiled out of the buffet table that is the bible.  .  Do you believe in hell?  Do you believe gays, unbelievers, and other sorts will be tormented there forever and deserve that rotment?  If not, you are not a Catholic.  Do you really believe that there was a dude named Jesus and god could come up with no other way to "save" us from the inevitable necessity of killing us for eternity for sins he created us to commit than a rough parody of a pagan savior God cycle - killing himself (while he clearly prayed to himself during the process)?  If not, you aren't a Catholic.  One needn't be religious to believe in being "part of a larger family" but one must be religious to believe this stuff.  I find it funny it s the attheist accused of being shrill when it it is the Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, etc.) who get bent out of shape and offended so quickly.  The chick ate some flatbread and drank some wine.  So what.   I am sure you will give me theological reasons for why you dismiss the nasty parts and emphasize (and take out of co ntext) the lovely bits, but they all just clearly amount to the necessity of squaring modern morality with the need to believe.  

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 2:41pm

blackton....last post I agree with very much.

As an agnostic myself, I had the fortune to ask a few of my Jesuit instructors serious questions  regarding Catholic and Christian theology coupled with the fact that the Jesuit school also taught evolution was refreshing as well. I think this gave me an opportunity to fully answer questions of what faith versus myth were that I had as a young adult. I've never felt fully comfortable going to church per se. The act of group prayer is not my cup of tea. While I also take great pains to respect others beliefs I have found myself on the opposite end of questions as to why I don't believe in a God (a confusing the differences between Agnostics and Atheists that many of the religious persuasion make) or why I "believe" in evolution. I do my best to answer their questions. But I also find that for a nation in which I am the minority when it comes to faith, religious practice, or spirituality the tolerance I'm expected to give is far greater than the tolerance I'm expected to receive. I will say this though, Catholics and Episcopalians tend to be more open to agnostic positions of thought than the more religiously vigilant.

My affinity for churches and temples stems from my architectural proclivities. My curiosity about religion, mythology, theology and philosophy stems from my ongoing desire to understand why people have these beliefs and to also confirm or reaffirm my own agnosticism.

As one Jesuit priest told me "The difference between religion and mythology is that people stopped believing in the mythology."

- singlespeed

June 26, 2008 at 2:44pm

"I am not arguing that what she did wasn't impolite." That is all you had to say, nobody here cares about Donohue. If you disrespect someones beliefs, be it about religion, culture, family, etc. in the most inflammatory way, expect to be pounded on. You admit she was rude, so why defend her rudeness based on the fact that she might be an atheist and not a protestant? (and I don't care in either case)

I think a flag burning amendment would be horrendous, but I also believe that flag burning itself is horrendous. I agree that people shouldn't overreact to her provocation, but honestly, who is? People have called her narcissistic, rude, and foolish, nobody is advocating anything be done to her.

I take it you are against the Flag burning amendment, are you thus in favor of flag burning? Will you defend someone who does it just because they want to know what it is like and who then writes about the feeling they had, and then express shock that anyone could possibly be offended at her actions?

You are twisting this whole argument into a "I get to bash religion" type thing, but that isn't what it is about as much as her rudeness, narcissism, and idiocy being flaunted in a mainstream publication.

I live in Mexico but am American. When they play the Mexican national anthem I stand up out of respect but don't put my hand over my heart. To put my hand on my heart, sing the song, doing it while believing in none of it and then write about it in a Mexican newspaper about the funny feeling it gave me would rightly piss off most Mexicans. this has nothing to do with Religion but it is the same principle.

The same is true when the Canadian National anthem is played in American ballparks, everyone stands but only the Canadians (who are there) sing it.

Now you can mock Canada, mock their anthem all you want, just don't expect many people to agree with you.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 2:46pm

"Umm. The Bible is coherent. You just may not know how to read it. Much in the way as those that you think you are accusing. "

Not coherent at all.  Not even the Gospels.  Try reading them and tell me if they have coherent images of Jesus, what he did, and what he was for.  Should we digress into a NT seminar here?  The Gospels are clearly not reporting history.  Go get a good introductory book on the New testament by a scholar (not a preacher) and maye you'll learn something.  I recommend The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman.  See, not only did I grow up going to church (a Protestant, albeit one of those milquetoasty liberal ones who declares the bad stuff "historically contingent" but the good stuff "divinely inspired" - convenient way of straddling the fence) but I also have a bit of formal study of the matter.  Since it takes pages of discussion to disabuse the pious of their received catechistic dogmas, it is just easier to recommend books instead.

www.amazon.com/.../0195154622  

I respect Christian belief as much as liberal Christians respect the beliefs of Hindus or UFO-cultists.  Wouldn't fire them from a job, wouldn't discriminate against them in any way, but also wouldn't lett their beliefs provide the basis for law and will readily express amazement that they can believe such foolishness.  if we can argue about politics, science and other things without incurring the lable of "bigot" why not religion?  How much respect does the Mormon belief that Joseph Smith dug up gold plates in New York deserve?  If that belief informed a legislative goal, is it legitimate to oppose it?

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 2:49pm

jerb, marriage is originally a religious institution created to formalize and sanctify the relationship for the good of the children of a coupling and protecting societies interest in having couples take responsibility for said children.

the state moved in on this authority and this institution, not vice-versa.

If you have a bitch with churches involving themselves in the public sphere, let me know if that objection includes Martin Luther King and other churchmen and their churches in the Civil Rights movement.  Which highly active involvement has always been lauded.

your resentment of churches and people with strong religious principles involving themselves in the public sphere is way over the top.

You might take note that the Declaration of Independence invokes God in the first few paragraphs and claims that our most essential rights as human beings come from God.  If you resent that, then you resent the American Revolution itself.

Further, if you read the speeches of Lincoln or listen to recordings of some Franklin Roosevelt speeches, as well as that of other presidents, many sound indistinguishable from a sermon and invoke God, His mercy, and His protection of the nation frequently.

We have no official religion-- quite the opposite.  but, the concept of God and religious concepts in general  are woven deeply into our government and its institutions.  You might want to look at your coins.

the United States is not a strictly secular nation either by law or by custom.  But, it is four-square against a particular state religion being imposed, as it was in our mother country, England and in most of the nations of Europe.

Your extreme hostility reveals an ignorance of our history, customs, and practices.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 2:56pm

"She was a disaster at television and wrote a book about the debacle. But, failing upwards, she was about to be hired by the New York Times when Ben Bradlee, the storied executive editor of the Washington Post, lured her to his new Style section.

At the time Bradlee was married but separated; Quinn was living with journalist Warren Hoge, who would later work for the Times. Quinn and Bradlee became an item, Bradlee's marriage failed, the two were married in 1978 -- and Sally Quinn's career took off."

Surprise, surprise, she married the big boss.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 2:58pm

"Now you can mock Canada, mock their anthem all you want, just don't expect many people to agree with you."

As far as I know, the Candian government doesn't condemn folks to hell or discriminate against gays and secularists.  Hardly the same thing for obvious reasons.  Would I respect the Iranian national anthem, or the North Korean one?  Probably not.  My argument is that the Catholic Church can make all sorts of barbaric pronouncements about gays and other sinners and that is just fine - nobody accuses the priests of narcissism and they are shown deference and respect.  Yet have a non-catholic take communion and it is the most disrespectful thing in the world. But Catholic rudeness isn't interpreted as rudeness because it is a religious belief, and thus beyond criticism for what it teaches.

"rudeness, narcissism, and idiocy being flaunted in a mainstream publication."

My argument is that it is only because she transgressed religion that it is interpreted as narcissism. If she had disrespcted someone's belief in free trade, global warming, or anything else, it wouldn't be considered as such - if I went to a gun show with an anti-gun shirt on, would I be narcissistic?   My comments come in light of religion trying to religiosize secular institutions and thinking it has the right to.  What next, can I not celebrate Christmas with my family just because I don't believe.  It is already the case that the church thinks they own marriage and can dictate who can get married based on a 2000 year old book.   They want to have it every way - they want to say religion is a private matter with personal significance, but then get bent out of shape when people define these religious things for themselves.   So if religion can keep its mitts out of civil institutions, I would feel alot worse about their precious feeling being hurt. Does anyone use the language you used above to describe religious people pontificating about marriage?  

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 3:00pm

"jerb, marriage is originally a religious institution created to formalize and sanctify the relationship for the good of the children of a coupling and protecting societies interest in having couples take responsibility for said children."

So you are saying that pre-Chrisitan societies didn't have marriage? Greeks?  Persians? Romans?   Man, Christians really think the entire moral workd just popped into existence about 2 millenia ago - that before that everyone believe in murder and didn't have any families or any other institutional hallmarks of civilization.

"But, the concept of God and religious concepts in general  are woven deeply into our government and its institutions."

Deism.  Not revealed religion.  I think you need to study up on Jefferson, Washington, and Adams and see if they believed in revealed religion.  

"You might want to look at your coins."

Uh, I do believe "In God We Trust" was put on money in the 50's as a backlash against the perceived godlessness of communism.  this argument is like saying that the Confederacy is an important part of Georgia's heritage - just look at the flag (nevermind all the black folks in Georgia).  A bunch of agenda driven ideologues altered it to make a point.

"Your extreme hostility reveals an ignorance of our history, customs, and practices."

Your religious chavanism reveals an ignorance of the founders actual beliefs.  We live in a secular country.  "God says so" is not sufficent for laws here.  If you want that, move to Iran.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 3:06pm

jerb, your insistence that no religious concept has any place in our law or civil life is absurd, immature, and ahistorical.

Many, if not all, of our concepts of morality have a religious basis.  Most of the Ten Commandments are codified into our legal statutes, though some, like the laws against adultery, have been removed.

Not to mention that what constitutes a crime has been affected by religious principles.  The Romans routinely left newborn children to the elements to die.  A crude, but legal and acceptable form of birth control to that civilization.  And mirroring the now accepted practice of abortion in our society.

But, monotheists found the Roman practice abhorrent, and eventually infanticide was thus made illegal in Western civilizations.  the general Christian objection to abortion follows this same moral principle.  It was also once legally codified.  

As our society has become more secular, abortion came not to be seen by the state as immoral.  We will see if that does not change yet again.

The point, jerb, is religious morality is going to have a rightful place in our civil morality and its codification into law.  Just as secular morality, or lack of same, is a crosscurrent.

It is simply silly of you to resent the existence of religious based morality and to demand it somehow be excised from the public argument.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 3:10pm

channy, I think he is now just out to be provocative.

"but also wouldn't let their beliefs provide the basis for law" yeah, lets just pretend the last 2000 years when Christianity held sway over Europe and the US didn't happen, and which have greatly influenced not just laws but customs and traditions.

At the very least, Christianity demands humility (something I agree many don't possess) submitting oneself to something beyond ones own well being and gratification is supposed to. I readily express amazement that anyone can be so foolish as to claim to know that God doesn't exist, when logic dictates it is absolutely impossible to prove such a negative. An atheist is just a really pissed off and confused Agnostic.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 3:15pm

"if I went to a gun show with an anti-gun shirt on, would I be narcissistic?"

Perhaps not, but you'd be pretty damn foolish.  And you'd be the recepient of some very less-than-respectful feedback.

"What next, can I not celebrate Christmas with my family just because I don't believe."

Sure you can.  But you can't (or shouldn't) come into my house and make fun of my creche.

- drdannyu

June 26, 2008 at 3:17pm

Jerb:  Well, I moved out of Iran precisely because I was tired of "God says so"; or rather, (because I grew up in a devout non-Muslin household), "Our God says so".  I wonder what all the people here who are complaining about Quinn's little article said when the Muslim Caricature scandal broke.  Where they all so concerned about the insult to Islam and to the faiths of a billion Muslims, or did they talk about freedom of speech and of religion?

Incidentally, it is not an answer to say Quinn went to a Catholic Church while the caricatures were published generally, openly - to a Muslim, the entire world is God's creation and God's abode; to insult Him and His Prophets anywhere would be an offence not just against Islam but against God and punishable as such.

So which is it?  Does one take offence legitimately or does one tolerate and understand?

Channie: "It is simply silly of you to resent the existence of religious based morality and to demand it somehow be excised from the public argument." I don't the sense of any resentment out of Jerb's posts.  I have lived in a Theocracy proper and even then I did not "resent" the existence of religious-based morality; I feared it, but that is a different sentiment entirely.  "Religious-based morality", which I gather you mean Judeo-Christian morality, is actually itself based on something else; read the Code of Hammurabi, for beginners.  To ascribe all morality, marriage, and so on to the force of Judeo-Chrisitianity is not only historicall inaccurate, it is the height of arrogance and religious bigotry.

By the way, the next time you talk about "religious-based morality", let have some discussion of the finer rules of Leviticus, or what Kings teaches about filial responsibility, loyalty and so on.

- icarusr

June 26, 2008 at 3:22pm

"jerb, your insistence that no religious concept has any place in our law or civil life is absurd, immature, and ahistorical."

The only thing that makes something a "religious" concept is one that requires belief in God to hold it.  One need not believ eon God to find many things objectionable.

"But, monotheists found the Roman practice abhorrent, and eventually infanticide was thus made illegal in Western civilizations.  the general Christian objection to abortion follows this same moral principle.  It was also once legally codified."

Was this before or after Christians were buring people to death for various religious offenses?

Early-term abortion is not infanticide.  A thing is not alive without a brain.   This is how muddled religious thinking gets in that it has a metaphysical, rather than physical, definition of life because it is poilluted with the silly notion of souls.  Only a religious person could have such a screwed up morality that they think the death of a brainless zygote is as bad as the death of a child.  But they don't really believe that or they would certainly sanction killing abortion doctors.  You know in your heart a lump of cells is not a person, potentialities aside.  Who has the moral problem here when the religious view is that the value of life has nothing to do with the infliction of pain (which, of course requires a brain).  

"Most of the Ten Commandments are codified into our legal statutes, though some, like the laws against adultery, have been removed."

So, to paraphrase Hitchens, you think that most societies thought murder and theft were ok until God told them to?  Including, presumably, Abraham, since he pre-existed the Ten Commandments in the biblical chronology.  Prohibitions against killing and theft are not religious - one need not believe in God to find them compelling.  One does need to believe in a capricious God, however, to find homosexuality or masturbation worthy of eternal punishment.

You religious folks accuse us atheists of having no basis for morality without religion, but then how did you decide that slavery, child marriage, polygamy, women trated as property etc. was not ok when the Bible clearly sanctions it?   I know you will come back with some reading of the gospels through modern eyes (that leaves out what is inconvenient or chalks up to "historical contingency" what is unpleasant - if Paul was wrong about women and slaves, why do we reackon him right about dying and rising gods?  Did God not see fit to correct this false impression of his?)  Talking to me about Martin Luther King says nothing about religion because, again, one need not be religous to oppose segregation and slavery and you should of cours e note, that King's antagoists were also Christian - I will guarantee there were more atheists who sympathized with King than sympathized with Wallace.  And we of course forget about the secularists who led the Civil Rights movement - Bayard Rustin and A Philip Randolph to name a few.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 3:24pm

jeea Jerb, Laws regarding marriage, crime and punishment, etc. of course allow for peoples value systems to be included. How else can people talk about the Death penalty without some recognition that, you know, death is involved, and morality.

You can't expect people to divorce their own code of morality from issues of how we should conduct civil society. That is just fascistic on your part. Everyone must act as though they are atheist when it comes to laws? Who do you think you are? Everyone has a place at the table.

channy, again this has to be simple provocation. No rational atheist would write such things, so he is probably just allowing you to demolish his straw men. It is too easy.

You know something got to be wrong when I start to agree with you about anything.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 3:26pm

"It is simply silly of you to resent the existence of religious based morality and to demand it somehow be excised from the public argument."

Let's see if I can put this another way.  If you found out for sure that there was no God and people were just biological creatures without souls, which moral beliefs would you still have?   If you say you would have none, you are either a liar or religion is even worse than I thought (since its believer are really only following orders out of fear of punishement).  I would argue you would still be able to defend some of your beliefs without recourse to religion but might have trouble defending others.  Those that are indefensable without recourse to God are the sorts of beliefs that have no place in government and law.    You might even still be able to articulate an anti- early-term abortion argument without recourse to metaphysics, but I think it would be harder.  You certainly wouldn't be able to articulate a reasonable argument against gay marriage or  birth control, though.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 3:29pm

jerb, have you studied any history?  All of the civilizations you listed were religiously based. Not Christian, but, in the case of Rome and Greece, polytheistic.

The state built temples to Jupiter and the other Gods.  They are still to be seen in Rome and Greece.  Their laws, including the ones pertaining to marriage, were based on their religion.  And, in the Roman era, religions were sometimes tolerated, sometimes persecuted.  

But, there was most definitely a state religion.  Which is why is was a very big deal when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, make that religion the religion of the Roman Empire by the end of the 4th Century A.D.  (A.D., by the way, means Anno Domini, "Year of our Lord".  You just can't get away from it, man.)

You are entitled to your opinions, jerb.  But, you aren't entitled to your ignorance.  Kindly do a little reading about the civilization to which you (tenuously) belong.  Then come back and join an intelligent conversation.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 3:34pm

"You can't expect people to divorce their own code of morality from issues of how we should conduct civil society. That is just fascistic on your part. Everyone must act as though they are atheist when it comes to laws? Who do you think you are? Everyone has a place at the table."

Not what I said at all.  I said a morality based on religiion (not one retroactively justified by religion, which is probably what alot of "religious" morality is).  That is, beliefs based on "God says so." as a rationale.  If your reason for believing something is "God says so", but proof of this God and his desires are not forthcoming (or is as flimsy as the Bible, Torah, or Koran) then we aren't going to trobule ourselves much with your opinion.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 3:38pm

jerb. Let me only suggest that mayhaps you might consider throwing away much of what you think you're looking for as points of construction. Thus not repeating the mistake you assume others are making.

Other than that I have nothing more to say on the matter.

- boxofrox

June 26, 2008 at 3:49pm

jerb, until very recently, black slavery was not considered immoral, either.  On the justification that blacks, though they were human beings with all your requirements, such as a fully developed brain, were not so fully human that they couldn't be owned, or even in some instances killed, by their masters.

It was largely a Christian movement in the United States called abolition that lead to the elimination of slavery here.  And another Christian motivated movement in England that led earlier to the end of the slave trade.

I didn't say you could not have morality without Christianity or without religion.  And, obviously, no Christian society has been immune to many deprivations.  (Although the answer to your question is the persecution of Christians under the Romans predated the burning of heretics and witches 1000 years later by other Christian based societies.)

I am a cultural Christian, but not a particularly observant one.  So my belief that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is as much a child as a born baby, is probably more a moral belief in my case then a religious.  And, in fact, my putative church, the Episcopal one, is not as strictly in opposition to abortion as the Catholics.  Nor, for that matter agreed upon newer issues such as homosexual marriage.

There can be morality without religion, morality derived from religion, and religion with beliefs others may find abhorrent or immoral.

My argument to you is that it is simply silly to resent or to seek to eliminate, moral beliefs that derive from religion and which may find their way into the law now, as they have since laws first came to exist.  The Ten Commandments being one basis of law.  Roman Law being another basis of law, and as I pointed out previously, Rome was a religious based state, first Pagan, then Christian.

you are demanding a world that never existed in the West.  And although there are trends moving towards devout Orthodox Secularism such as you are pushing for, there are also counter-trends both in America (Judeo-Christian) and in Europe (Judeo-Christian and Islamic) mitigating against it.

Ironically, in England, a nation that has largely abandoned the state religion that still exists, an Anglican Bishop is arguing for the inclusion of islamic laws in British legal practice.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 3:49pm

jerb, and so laws should be based on "because I said so"? Mao built a whole country based on what he said, and 50 million people died. So then it should be because the majority says so? So more makes right? Ok, then lets make it all about reason like we are Vulcans.

Confucius tried to do so, there is much to admire about those values, li (propriety) being chief, however it is a strictly hierarchy, not very egalitarian.

And whence do people base their judgments on crime and punishment? Surety in Atheism is no more a guarantor of wisdom then surety in God. Humility at the outset and a seat at the table for everyone seems most likely to achieve a reasonable end. Pissing off every believer won't solve anything.

As to the morality practiced by Taoists, I see nothing whatsoever to be exercised about that.  Why do you view everything through such a narrow lens for?

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 3:50pm

I wrote "deprivations" above when I meant "depravations".

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 3:50pm

jerrb writes, "...Only a religious person could have such a screwed up morality that they think the death of a brainless zygote is as bad as the death of a child."

Well, what kind of rational person believes that a "fetus" of eight plus months still in the womb can b e aborted, yet that same fetus, the moment removed from the womb, is an infant human being, with all the protections of its life afforded to a human under civilized laws.

Andy decision of when life begins will be seen by someone as arbitrary.  Whether three months, six months, or even at birth.  As I pointed out to you, and you ignored, the Romans, who were highly civilized even by modern standards, did not consider an infant's life as inviable.  You could legally leave an infant by the road to die.

I'll have to do some research to see at what age an infant achieved its right to life under Roman law.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 4:00pm

"jerb, have you studied any history?  All of the civilizations you listed were religiously based. Not Christian, but, in the case of Rome and Greece, polytheistic. "

Have you studied history or religion?  Pagan  religons were not characterized by Gods being moral lawgivers, they were characterized by proper ritual.  The Greeks and Romans did not hae moral laws based on what Zeus or Hera said they should do.  These Gods, of course, exhibited all sorts of "immoral" behaviors.  Pagan Gods were't in the busines of punishing sin.  they were in the business of rewarding worship and sacrifice (like yahweh, they liked the smell of roasted cows and such).

"so laws should be based on "because I said so"?

Yeah, that follows from what I said.  It should be based on making moral arguments that have nothing to do with imaginary Gods.  Communism had all the hallmarks of religion (that is, moral authority from on high rather from reasoned argument).  I don't think it was a surfeit or reason that characterizes communist tyrannies.

"And whence do people base their judgments on crime and punishment? Surety in Atheism is no more a guarantor of wisdom then surety in God."

Surety in atheism?  What on earth does that mean?  It isn't like we have two points of view that have a roughly similar weight of evidence behind them.   I don't assume something fantastical exists unless there is evidence for it.  the existence of tons of counter-evidence only hurts matters.  I don't really understand why I should be more generous on this score to God than I am to any other unfounded belief (especially when I can see the history of that belief, how it rose, how it develioped, and what needs it served - all this amounts ot a counterproof to me).  

"And whence do people base their judgments on crime and punishment?"

And where do religious people, since only fools still believe what popes preached in the 13th century?  

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 4:06pm

"Well, what kind of rational person believes that a "fetus" of eight plus months still in the womb can b e aborted, yet that same fetus, the moment removed from the womb, is an infant human being, with all the protections of its life afforded to a human under civilized laws."

I agree with you.  And I don't think one needs recourse to metaphysics to make this argument.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 4:45pm

"It was largely a Christian movement in the United States called abolition that lead to the elimination of slavery here. "

And it was totally a Christian movement that argued for the perpetuation of slavery.

- jerb

June 26, 2008 at 4:49pm

surety in Atheism means surety that no God exists, but of course that is impossible. Only an idiot can declare definitely that no God exists since it is impossible to prove the negative. As to the existence of God there is certainly far more proof that one exists then not, any child can see that. Do you suppose the Universe one day got bored and decided to create itself? Logic, and the laws of the Universe, dictate that you can get nothing from nothing. Now the existence of the Universe is not proof that God exists certainly, but at most one on the non belief side is that it goes way above our pay grade and is an unanswerable question since it is unlikely we will ever understand what precipitated the big bang and the creation of our Universe. Now you might not consider the big bang to be a fantastical event, but if you don't you have zero understanding or appreciation of physics.

Atheism always founders on the rocks of the prime mover, but atheists refuse to acknowledge this, instead talk about their hurt feelings that God hasn't chosen them out for private communication.

In fact, I don't even believe you exist. 200 years ago you didn't exist, 200 years from now you won't, how can I divide a few score years into eternity of nothingness. I can't so logically you don't exist.

Atheism is ridiculously easy to destroy as a logical construct since it doesn't use logic at all.

Better to say Agnostic and leave the objections about the existence of God to the side.

Morality is based on a concept of right and wrong, without God there is no right and wrong, only what is most practical.  

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 5:16pm

"especially when I can see the history of that belief, how it rose, how it develioped, and what needs it served - all this amounts ot a counterproof to me." That truly is funny. That is like arguing against atoms because of the development of the Atomic bomb. Such a narrow lens you look through, so distorted by bitterness. Can you not open your mind to the far bigger picture and thus have more humility? Our Universe is 15 billion years old, there exists the possibility of an infinite amount of Universes. Mankind is but shadows of shadows of shadows in our comprehension. It is like an 8 year old crying: "oh my puppy died, how could God do that to me." so limiting and childish. And to view God through the reflected mirror of your own personality or the actions of other flawed limited humanity is the definition of adolescent narcissism.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 5:24pm

Irony alert: singlespeed wrote, "I went to the Easter Mass at National Cathedral this year with my girlfriend and some of her family. They're all practicing Catholics. I am not Catholic but ... I knew that I would be remiss if I had taken Communion having not been baptized or taken Catechism."

National Cathedral is an Episcopal, not a Catholic, church. If singlespeed's girlfriend and her family took communion, they might have committed the very sin Quinn did. Well, not quite exactly the same, in that Episcopalians welcome all baptized Christians to the Eucharist. But I'm not sure that Catholics recognize an Episcopal priest's ability to perform the Eucharist, and the Anglican Communion does not insist on carnal transubstantiation. I have Catholic relatives who would never take communion at an Episcopal service for exactly the same reasons that they would not be baptized at a Methodist church either.

- rhubarbs

June 26, 2008 at 5:28pm

jerb, if you're going to be punk rock and stick it to those crazy Catholics by waltzing into their church and gobbling the wafer because you've decided that in the CHurch of You, eating the wafer is the best way to honor your dead Catholic friend, then, uh, fine.

But to be "bewildered" by the response is not punk rock at all, it's just stupid. She wasn't trying to be punk rock, which is what you are being in your defense of her, she was being an idiot.

- psantillana

June 26, 2008 at 5:39pm

Blackie: Agnostics are atheists who are afraid of God.

Is it not possible to deny the divinity of Yahweh, without denying the possibility of God - some sort of Creator?

I agree that it is impossible to disprove God - but then, I believe it impossible to prove God.  I have enough humility as a human being to accept that my finite mind cannot, by definition, understand the infinite; and that the specks of dust that we are in the vast universe, God, or god, or the Creator, or whatever, has better things to do than to send contradictory instructions through the medium of something as fallible as another man and language, failing to follow which would result in "eternal damnation".

As for history - Channie, that the Catholic Church is based on Roman, rather than Christian, principles and practices is surely beyond doubt.  That the New Testament and the Apocrypha are the work of editors and not of Christ, are as equally without doubt.  The same goes for the collection of bedtime stories that Muslims call the Koran and the wonderful novel (if Bloom is to be believed) written by an Egyptian princess that invented Yhwh ... all of this means, at a minimum, a somewhat skeptical look at the continued relevance of the "morality" preached in these books.  That is, if there is any morality as such - I mean, the First Commandment is not "Thou Shalt not Kill", but an injunction against taking a second God ... this is more of a lover's commandment rather than a moral one, what?

- icarusr

June 26, 2008 at 5:51pm

jerb, you are the abolutist at the table here.  We have none of us said that morality can only derive from a laws or principles perceived by believers to have been laid down by the word of God.

We have said that historically the laws of the last few thousand years in the West and in other civilizations, have a strong basis in Jewish or Christian moral teachings.

I am sure that all basic laws derive from very practical needs, whether we're talking about laws against murder and theft, or laws establishing marriage and the responsibility for children.

I don't think any of the Ten Commandments are arbitrary or bizarre.  

Further, the belief that human life is sacred from the moment of conception is subject to argument, but is hardly irrational.  

It is not only moral, in the sense of a pure and Platonic goodness, but it is practical and self-interested.  Who knows how many Lincolns, Enisteins, Ghandis, Clemmens, and Marilyn Monroes have been flushed down the toilet with 35 million abortions or more in thirty years?

If you prefer moral laws derived from self-interest, common interest, or pure reason, fine.  I've got no beef with it.  But, if others attribute their moral opinions to a higher authority, why do you care?  We all reach our opinions by different roads, anyway.

In the end, whether you are for or against a given morally driven law is going usually to be based on your sense or right and wrong, however you come to it.  

What is strangest in your argument, jerb, though not so unusual, is your immense hostility to any moral idea that is derived from a religious concept.  Why is such an origin invalidate the concept?

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 5:59pm

jerb writes, "...And it was totally a Christian movement that argued for the perpetuation of slavery."

Not really true.  There were those in the Confederacy, when arguing for slavery, found what they considered Biblical support of same.  

But, that was a rationalization, and hardly a movement in the way that Abolition clearly was.

In any event, both sides in the Civil War, as Lincoln pointed out, were praying to the same God for aid.

But, so what, jerb, this is all so sophomoric.  Does the foolishness or vanity of mortals discredit God?  You need only read the writing of the last pope to find great intellectual power in the grasp of a believer.  And he has many predecessors.

We all debate each other here regularly without thinking the other a fool just because he comes to a different conclusion than we have.  

Why your arguments are coming off as naive and childish is that you seem unable to concede that good minds can come to another conclusion than yours without being superstitious idiots.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 6:12pm

"Irony, the media, which have unfortunately emerged as an elite in recent decades, are frequently clueless about religious matters, and since they have the power to broadcast that ignorance widely, I have a right to bring it up as an issue of annoyance."

Chan, you indeed have a right to bring it up.  But it sometimes seems as if you can't resist a dig leftwards even in a context where such digs would seem to be completely out of place.  You must have noticed that this thread has, unusally, seen people who are normally ideologically close coming down on opposing sides of the argument?  And in respect of the issue at hand, surely you believe in the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions rather than palming them off onto some behavioral collectivity, no?  Most members of the media "elite" (wherever they find themselves on the political spectrum) seem not to have behaved with Quinn's particular mixture of myopia and narcissism, and therefore I questioned the relevance of your remark.

I definitely agree about typos, syntactical errors, and the like.  But "elite" used as a singular noun describing a single individual is simply an ugly neologism (or pre-neologism).  I thought you'd agree, deep down.  I find "she's really a phenomena" irritating enough, but if I start hearing "he's just an elite" all the time . . .

- ironyroad

June 26, 2008 at 6:12pm

psantillana: I think she was just being very New Age-y; is she from California?

My Ex decided one day to become a Sufi, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or something or another Eastern.  She asked me about Sufism - bred in the bone where we come from - and so I told her a bit about it.  She likes some things, and not other things; there were aspects of her own Catholicism that she liked a great deal, even though her orientation was mostly Canadian United Church ... in any event, we got into a fight because I did not think that religion was a Buffet that you could pick and choose at random; that there were systems, principles and rituals that inconnected one with the other - I mean, you can't be a Sufi and believe in hell, or alternatively, deny the possibility of God, that sort of thing.  Any way, in her world, trying to "find oneself" and "be at one with nature" and so on, meant that you could.

Ms. Quinn thought she could have the Communion without the Pope thingy, just as sometimes I want to go to Confession without the absolution and prayer thing.  The woman is possibly a flake, but she does not deserve the flak.

- icarusr

June 26, 2008 at 6:13pm

icarusr: "but then, I believe it impossible to prove God." Not rue, if he exists he can certainly prove it anytime.

that is a good, funny line with some truth to it, but I am, like you, not limiting the possibility to a narrowly defined JudeoChristian deity. Mark Twin speculated with one of his stories that the character himself was God, simply dreaming life and told him (via an angel) to dream better dreams. Buddhists believe a radically different construct of the Universe, etc. Western Atheists are so boring because they are so predictable. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to achieve nothingness. No frolicking among the clouds for them.

Channy, stop writing things I agree with or my head will explode. I am so used to fighting with you over immigration that you are disconcerting me.

- blackton

June 26, 2008 at 6:20pm

Rhubarbs...

The Easter service at National Cathedral was done in a very non-denominational way albeit with an Episcopalian flavor to it. Contrived perhaps in that I think everyone had a chance to speak. The communion was done in such a way that anyone could partake and if you didn't want communion you could cross your arms and just accept the blessing.

Being agnostic and theologically neutral in the Easter service scheme of things, I didn't even partake of the blessing either. I was watching a young alterboy try to untangle his streamers from the chandelier in the transept before leading the clergy back down the nave. My GF and her family commented on how similar the service was to their Catholic services at home and the wafers a little crispier and the wine was a bit stale (kidding). I shrugged and commented that at least there was no kneeling because I was wearing freshly laundered trousers. Needless to say we soon ducked out before services were complete to beat the traffic out of the parking garage. Oh those Louisiana Catholics! Thinking ahead to the Easter brunch and mimosas.

- singlespeed

June 26, 2008 at 6:23pm

"Not true, if he exists he can certainly prove it anytime."  Funny.  The thing is, how can He prove it, and prove at the same time that there is no other God above him?  We fall into the proving the negative thing, even with God.

"I'm God." "Oh yeah, prove it." "I'll unmake the whole thing." "Oh yeah, and what if there someone else who'll unmake you." "There isn't." "There is." "There isn't, I'm telling you." "There is, and I don't believe you." "There isn't, and I'll make you change your mind to see the truth." "Cheater. [pause] There isn't." "See, told you."

- icarusr

June 26, 2008 at 6:49pm

irony, I agree with you on the grammar point, and I, too, dislike ugly new constructions.  (Would people please stop using "email" in the plural.)  He's "a creative" used in some media businesses, drives me up a wall.

I will concede that the disdain for Ms. Quinn was nearly universal here and transcended ideology.  Whether that holds true for her fellow media pashas, we don't know.

If i can resist an attack on the Left, especially the Left n this context-- especially the Left which is embedded so deeply in most of the media-- it is because the hostility to religion is so ubiquitous and unrelenting in same.

It's not really like I'm coming out of left field (no pun) to attack Leftist media with a hammer during a truce.  Although, I understand why you see it that way, and the source of your irritation.

As for me, I can't turn on the tv whether news or entertainment, or read most newspapers, or go to a movie, without constantly being irritated, annoyed, our outright incensed at the propaganda from the Left which is constantly slipped in.

You only have Fox Cable and talk radio to avoid, and the bulk of that is clearly opinion and so labeled.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 7:48pm

blackie, of course we agree on this one.  What could be more fundamentally American than freedom of  religion and freedom to discuss religion, even in a political-- or sometimes especially in a political-- context?

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 7:50pm

singlespeed -- I regularly take my Catholic mother to holiday services at National Cathedral when she comes to visit. They do a good job there of presenting a middle-of-the-road ecumenical-seeming service. But it's still an Episcopal church and an Episcopal service officiated by Episcopal clergy.

I think your GF's willingness to take communion at a congregation in open rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church speaks well of her. But the doctrinal grounds that justify condemning Quinn in this case would also justify condemnation of your GF for taking communion in what the Vatican officially terms a "defective" church. I think that reveals how silly, and probably anti-Christian, is the condemnation of Quinn. One can explain how one believes Quinn to have been in error without questioning the sincerity of her motives, condemning her character, or participating in her public humiliation. Of all the Catholic priests I have known, I can't imagine that any of them would have spoken in the manner of the Catholic League's press release. So most of Quinn's accusers are literally being more Catholic than the pope.

- rhubarbs

June 26, 2008 at 8:58pm

Chan, ok, faire en oeuf.

But please, have some mercy on blackton's exploding head.  Say that kind of stuff to him!

- ironyroad

June 26, 2008 at 9:23pm

icarusr, when I used the phrase, "religious based morality" I wasn't referring only to the Judeo Christian variety.  Although obviously, in a young nation like  the United States, founded by people who saw God and Judeo Christian beliefs as one of the natural reference points in their political philosophy, those sources would come to mind first."

We are all float on a river of civilization which has been fed by many rivers.  But, there are distinctive traits to Western civilization and the way it has evolved that are different than mother civilizations, and more amenable to individual freedom.

So, I'm glad to be the beneficiary.  If Hammurabi and other such worthies contributed to a morality which makes all our lives more humane, I'll drink to him, too, icarusr.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 11:27pm

Rhubarbs, I don't think Ms. Quinn's transgression was so much as the improper taking of Communion as her ostentatious, self-regarding column on the event.  And I say this at second hand, not having personally read the column, but accepting the description of it here.

I think you're point that someone Christian in spirit would not be offended unduly by her taking of Communion, and might well embrace the basic spirit of her act.

But, just as charity proferred anonymously is more virtuous then the kiind that gets your name lupbig on the side of the hospital wing you endowed, so would Quinn's act have been best kept between herself, her God, and maybe Tim Russert, if he were in a position to be aware of it.

- ChanRobt

June 26, 2008 at 11:40pm

Channie - fair enough, let's drink to all the rivers that have fed Judeo-Christian civilisation.  But - and I think this is the point Jerb was making and I was trying to make - once you include every faith structure in the rubric of "religion" and every deity-worshing as the basis of modern morality, then the definition becomes simply too broad to be meaningful.  At that point, we are coming back to the notion that all human societies share some basic interdictions and taboos; that from time to time different structures have been used to enforce these evolving taboos; that since the rise of Moses and the Hebraic prophets influenced heavily by Zoroastrian monotheism and duality, a certain type of structure has been ascendant in the West (including the Middle East); that nothing a priori determines whether this three thousand year tradition is somehow better by virture of its organisation than other three thousand year traditions extant, or indeed the structures that prevailed before; and that the roots of human morality are to be found in humans and the needs of human society rather than the creations of human imagination (among which, Yahweh).

- icarusr

June 27, 2008 at 9:31am

From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (from memory, so don't hold me to it):

"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."  "But," says Man, "the Babel Fish (aside: a small fish that, when stuck in your ear, instantly translates any language you hear so you can understand it, something so remarkably useful that it couldn't have evolved purely by chance) is a dead giveaway, isn't it?  It proves you exist: therefore you don't, Q.E.D."  "Oh my dear!" says God.  "I hadn't thought of that-" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

- bigfish

June 27, 2008 at 10:35am

"from memory"

Show-off.

- icarusr

June 27, 2008 at 11:07am

icarusr. I have no problems with accepting the full measure of responsibility attributed to humankind. Let's consign 'the devil made me do it' to hell. I suppose the biggest issue I have with your view on such things is your vantage point of 'ever thus'. That imaginative renderings are static and therefor of relative value.

This seems to me to be presumptuous with a degree of conceit. As if the efforting to consciousness has always had the same starting point, therefor trajectory is meaningless. It is easy to see how this can be mishandled. It is difficult to imagine there was ever anything else but 'what you see is what you get'. I submit that this is a highly unlikely state of affairs simply by personal observation of personal stages and growth and awareness. Dismissing imaginations as irrelevant and somehow divorced from applicable evolution is wanting to have it as you like. Not as it is.

I do agree that the seat of our collective chronicles is universal. I disagree that the temporal quality of imaginative iterations are rendered relative by virtue of their relatedness. As well it is not my intention to wrestle the word 'imaginations' into subjugating to my will and presume ownership of full import. That is hubris and conceit.

- boxofrox

June 27, 2008 at 11:21am

I allow as to being a bit of a buttinsky. (or is that with ie?) Please forgive if offended as this was not my intention.

That said, you guys are having a good conversation reflecting the best of what I enjoy about these pages.

- boxofrox

June 27, 2008 at 12:48pm

icarusr, I would return to Jefferson's words, that human beings are "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Belief in a Creator may not be strictly Judeo-Christian, but it is monotheistic.  And, most importantly, it points to a Power outside of mankind as the source of certain basic and essential divine rights.

Being as the Western style of individual freedom and responsibility did not evolve elsewhere on the planet, at least not on a scale that benefited people by the many millions, I throw my hat in the ring with Judeo-Christian civilization, gladly give the classic Greco-Roman civilization from which we evolved a large measure of credit for our freedoms as wll.

And, I would remind you that Rome itself embraced Christianity rather early, in the 4th Century.  And I see Christianity as essentially Jews, who evolved separately from Judaism only because they believed they had found the promised Messiah.

So, if Hammurabi and the rest had something to do with good in the world, that's swell.  But, American Civilization, and Western European Civilization can directly attribute their liberties to a belief in God and a belief in our relationship with God that was intimate enough to gain us alll the blessings of liberty.

To deny that is really an attempt to delete recent history, as well as attitudes that extended unquestioningly from 1776 until, oh, about the time in the '60s when the noisy Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued against the common practice of generic prayer in the schools.

Her challenge was certainly technically correct.  But, whether it has been a benefit to the United States of America, I'm not so sure.

The new relgion of "diversity" is a prescription for our eventual devolvement as a nation and our ultimate breakup and Balkanization.  We have been very successful with a common language, a common fealty to the broad tenets of Western Civilization, and a common acceptance of Judeo-Christian moral principles.  (With tolerance being a principle cemented as an American belief and part of our law.)

Removing God from our public square would be a great folly.  The belief in unalienable rights derived from God has been one of the great shields for our liberty.  I would put little trust in a government that depended solely on the goodness of men.

- ChanRobt

June 27, 2008 at 12:57pm