Mother Teresa demands you die suffering


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

MotherTeresa_094When Mother Teresa appeared on Firing Line in conversation with conservative pundit William F. Buckley Jr., she told the following story in response to Buckley’s question, “Why did God permit pain?”

“Once I met a lady who was in terrible, terrible pain of cancer and I told her, ‘This is but the kiss of Jesus, a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.’ And the lady, though she was in great pain, she joined her hands together and said, ‘Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.’”

Mother Teresa, the audience and Buckley all laughed at this story, reveling in the suffering that their God had inflicted on this woman. For Mother Teresa and her adoring followers, suffering is seen as a purifying gift. To them, the suffering of others has become fetishized, the pain filled deaths of our loved ones a spectacle through which God reveals himself.

Those who do not believe in a God that doles out the gift of soul cleansing suffering reject the terrible “mercies” of Mother Teresa, yet our rejection of her wisdom does little to deter her followers from imposing their views on our lives, dictating how we are expected to live our lives and die our deaths.

During last week’s House hearing on the Lila Manfield Sapinsley Compassionate Care Act, a bill that would allow those facing a terminal illness filled with suffering and loss of dignity to end their lives, opposition was almost entirely organized by the Catholic Church and Barth E. Bracy of RI Right to Life.

Bracy admitted to organizing the opposition to this bill when he said to the committee, “We’ve submitted written testimony from many of the people who have testified, we submitted 23 copies around four o’clock…” Some testifying against the bill also regularly testify with Bracy on reproductive rights issues.

Representative Arthur Corvese, a conservative Catholic social warrior famous for the Corvese amendment, an eleventh hour addendum to the now defunct “civil unions” bill that essentially allowed anyone to discriminate against couples who joined in civil unions based on their religious beliefs, was quick to tell Bracy, “I think it’s obvious, Barth, you and I go back a long way, that this bill and others like it across the country are basically nothing more than the philosophical outgrowth of the continuing culture of death that began in 1972. Where abortion kills the young these bills provide a rationale to kill off the old.”

Too often it seems as if Corvese sees his job, legislating in the General Assembly, as little more than a way to impose his Catholic theology upon the entire state. This is a Catholic theology that sees suffering as something to be embraced, not avoided.

Mother Teresa saw suffering as a way to bring the terminally ill closer to God. “It depends, sometimes, what is in their own hearts. If they pray, I think [suffering] is very easy to accept because the proof of prayer is always a clean heart. And a clean heart can see God…”

Father Christopher Mahar, Rector of the Seminary of Our Lady of Providence, seems to agree with Mother Teresa, saying that, “…at the end of life, there are many beautiful choices to make. Choices to reconcile with loved ones, choices to reconcile with God and prepare for eternal life, if one believes in that.”

Representative Robert Lancia was inspired by Mahar’s comments to ask about Pope John Paul II, who, at the end of his life, says Lancia, “could have chosen to end his life.” This is an odd claim, given that assisted suicide is legally forbidden in Italy and that the Catholic Church is against death with dignity legislation worldwide. Of course, Lancia was really seeking to give Mahar a chance to expound on Catholic theology in regards to assisted suicide.

Mahar brought up Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio. According to Mahar, John Paul II was “always a proponent of caring for people not just based on religious principles, but also upon reason.” This is a bit disingenuous, since what John Paul said is that reason, by itself, is incomplete without faith. In other words, reason by itself is not sufficient, religious faith is a requirement.

This is a religious idea, not shared by everyone. Even many of those who embrace the idea of the necessity of faith do not believe that it follows that suffering must be endured and death must always come naturally. This is not even the belief of all Catholics. 52 percent of Catholics polled in Colorado support death with dignity laws like the one under consideration in Rhode Island.

“I was just so impressed by Pope John Paul and how he ended his life,” said Representative Lancia, embracing the story of his Pope’s heroic ordeal, “It was such a positive. When he could have ended his life but didn’t, he went through the suffering and ended in a positive, dignified way.”

“If you come to our house here in Washington,” said Mother Teresa to William Buckley in 1989, “You would be surprised to see on the suffering faces the beautiful smiles. Through the terrible suffering they are content.”

Maybe for the believers, Mother Teresa’s words ring true.

But what of the rest of us?

 

Patreon

Rhode Island needs to repeal its RFRA


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

reject_rfraRhode Island needs to repeal its version of the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act). We need to do this because our state is the birthplace of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. We need to do this because it is integral to the very DNA of Rhode Island that we brook no persecution or privilege based on deeply held religious convictions.

And if these are not reasons enough, we need to do this for the economy.

When Governor Mike Pence signed Indiana’s version of the RFRA into law, opening the floodgates for potential discrimination against LGBTQ persons, public reaction was swift. An IndyStar headline reads, “Businesses fear costly backlash from new religious freedom law.” The NCAA, Salesforce, Angie’s List and the gaming convention Gen Con are all seriously reconsidering their business relationships with Indiana. George Takei has called for a boycott. And don’t expect Apple to be investing in Indiana anytime soon.

MattielloWhen Rhode Island Speaker Nicholas Mattiello promised to focus on “jobs and the economy” rather than social issues he presented a false dichotomy. The economy does not exist in a socially neutral vacuum. Companies interested in hiring talented people will avoid setting up shop in states with discriminatory laws and practices because social issues are economic issues, and vice versa.

Repealing Rhode Island’s RFRA in this climate makes good financial sense: Just as businesses respond negatively to discrimination and religious zealotry, businesses will respond well to a renewed commitment to equality, freedom and acceptance.

The differences between Rhode Island’s and Indiana’s RFRA laws are mostly cosmetic. We passed our version of RFRA in 1993, and it closely matches the federal law. Since RFRA was passed federally, versions of the law adopted by the states over the last 22 years have morphed from the goal of protecting the rights of religious minorities to allowing religious minorities the right to discriminate based on their beliefs. This is in keeping with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of RFRA, which depended on the law in deciding Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which granted the chain craft store the right to ignore federal mandates that they believed went against the religious convictions of the company’s stockholders.

When the federal RFRA was passed, it was a bipartisan attempt to strengthen First Amendment protections of religious liberty that the Supreme Court had undermined in Employment Division v. Smith. In that case a Seventh-Day Adventist was denied unemployment insurance by the government because she refused to work on Saturday. When the Supreme Court ruled for the government, there was a demand for greater protections for minority and mainstream religious practices.

Josh Blackman, assistant professor of law at the South Texas College of Law, analyzed the differences between the federal RFRA and Indiana’s and came to the conclusion that “Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA.”  The federal RFRA, Indiana’s RFRA and Rhode Island’s RFRA, though different in wording and passed at different times, are not so different in the ways in which they have been analyzed and applied.

Professor Marci Hamilton, “one of the United States’ leading church/state scholars,” has a website that tracks the history of the RFRA laws, and maintains that “RFRAs do not protect First Amendment freedoms. They are extreme, statutory versions of our constitutional rights.”

Rep. Doc Corvese is the Rhode Island poster child for conservatives who run as Democrats.
Rep Arthur Corvese

To the best of my research Rhode Island’s RFRA has not been cited in any RI Supreme Court cases. That isn’t to say that the law has had no effect. Elements of the RFRA can be found in the so-called “Corvese Amendment” attached to the 2011 Civil Union Bill, now invalidated since the passage of marriage equality. The Corvese Amendment was crafted to allow discrimination against couples in civil unions, just as Indiana’s RFRA is designed to allow people in that state to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

As long as we leave the state level RFRA on the books, it will taint Rhode Island’s legislature and judiciary. Rather than protect religious freedoms and freedom of conscience, Rhode Island’s RFRA creates a situation where our laws could too easily be interpreted as a “right to discriminate.” Repealing the law will send a signal to the world that Rhode Island is once again ready to be a leader in true religious liberty. We can show that we are a state of tolerance, diversity and acceptance.

Imagine Apple CEO Tim Cook tweeting about how great Rhode Island is, or Gen Con relocating its gaming convention here. You can’t buy that kind of publicity, but the General Assembly could get it free by simply acting in the best tradition of Rhode Island history and repealing the RFRA.

Patreon