Belated Update (hell–it’s Saturday; I actually pretended to have a life): There seems a pretty good case to be made (as was, by several commenters, that I simply missed obvious sarcasm on Ed Kilgore’s part. Apologies to him and to those more attuned to the nuances than I. I’ve had a humorectomy recently, and it seems to have taken: I just don’t find our religious freedom-loving friends on the far side of the political divide anything but terrifying, and hence am slow to pick up what seems more likely ridicule of same than not.
Tomorrow is another day….
_________________
Ed Kilgore’s been doing a fine job as Steve Benen’s successor at the Washington Monthly. He’s smart, he’s got a good bullshit detector, and he understands that the modern GOP is doing its best impression of a bunch of Kamikaze pilots taking the helm of the Queen Mary 2.
But even the good ones swing and miss some times, as here, in this take on the rise in foreclosures on churches:
Do you perhaps think the closure of churches in the midst of a Great Recession might be as much a threat to the free exercrise of religious expression as, say, a requirement that church-affiliated institutions allow their insurance companies to provide contraception coverage for their employees?
I mean, I think I get what he’s after here, as he writes in the last line of his post.
Bankers wanting their payments are apparently off-limits to criticism, unlike a president trying to ensure something within shouting distance of equality in access to health care.
I’m fine with the idea that there is something fundamentally cocked up about our banking system and the foreclosure industry. If Ed’s point was that church leaders should imitating Christ in seeking mortgage fairness for all, I’d be happy to join an amen chorus.
But a religious freedom argument? This is one of the silliest things I’ve read in a month of Sundays. To gloss the comment I posted over at Ed’s place:
The threat to religious freedom in the contraceptive battle is comes with what others’ fundamentalisms do to my religious beliefs and ethical commitments.*
Requiring institutions operating under the color of faith to meet their obligations, freely entered into? Not so much.
In fact, if we were to do what Ed implies, and give some folks a free pass on their mortgages just because they say they talk to gods in the company of like-minded souls, that would be one more step in the horrendous theocratic power grab we see happening around us.
Hell, if all it took to avoid paying off my mortgage would be to incorporate as the Eleventh Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Reformed), sign me up. But the notion that a group or corporate body would claim immunity from basic life-crap like paying off the loan you signed up for just because you kneel in the right direction? Oy.
IOW — this is just reflexive backward-collar genufluxion. You own a piece of real estate; you borrow on it; you are subject to the same consequences that the rest of us face.
Again: if Ed were to argue that the steep rise in church foreclosure is another sign that our lending system has gone awry, and that there should be a review of how to rescue underwater property owners of all stripes, that would be another matter. But giving churches a break just because they are churches? Dumb, dumb, dumb — and a sign that the first amendment really is hard for even smart people to grasp.
*More generally and formally, to allow one sect’s claim of religious authority to trump both other faiths and secular commitment to a public sphere is a bitter inversion of what it means to have liberty of faith and conscience in a anti-establishmentarian polity.
Image: Amal Khurram, Shah Jehan with Angel musicians, mid 1600s.
Anoniminous
Oh, goodies. Let’s decide tax and fiscal policy by people listening to voices in their heads.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
scav
I read exactly that article in the ChiTrib. Want to know what the immediate next paragraph is?
aimai
I don’t really like Ed Kilgore–I’m sick already of hearing about his Catholic activities and I’m really tired of the fact that that job goes from Kevin Drum to Steve Benen (of blessed memory) to Ed Kilgore–what? there are literally zero female bloggers with the chops to do that job? I’m so sick of the view from that particular corner.
But I took his point about the foreclosures to be a more clumsy and less offensive version of this:
Why do so called “faith groups” waste their time worrying about other people’s vaginas and not trying to keep the churches open?
Since the answer is, obviously, the category “people of faith” means nothing–its as pointless as “hispanic” when that is meant to cover Cubans and Dominicans and Mexicans in one glorious mantle. Instead as soon as you realize that American Churches are nothing more than mini conversion ponzi schemes, each competing with each other for a shrinking pool of rubes and suckers, then you will understand that lots of churches are probably rejoicing in the closing down of their neighboring storefront church.
There are many baptist denomenations where every few years, when they get in a new preacher, he insists that all the flock get rebaptized because their previous baptism was not serious enough, or not done the right way, or wore off or something. Does Ed Kilgore really think that these guys aren’t in competition with each other and invested in each closing as much, or more, than they are interested in protesting them?
aimai
scav
I must have have some charity slipped into my morning coffee, I’m hoping he just forgot to engage the sarcasm font properly.
Redshift
I admit I didn’t really read the post, I just skimmed it, but I took the point to be not that foreclosing on a church was actually a violation of religious freedom, but to highlight how phony wingnuts’ invocations of religious freedom are by pointing out how it is easily trumped by their devotion to Mammon.
That is, not so much that being a church should get you out of foreclosure, but that if they were really concerned about churches, this would be a much more important issue to fight than contraception.
Brachiator
Nope.
Death Panel Truck
Not only should churches not get a free pass on their mortgages, but I think the gubmint should also…
“Tax the churches!”
“Tax the businesses owned by the churches!”
–Frank Zappa
kerFuFFler
A couple of weeks ago I used essentially that argument with a libertarian who was supporting the rights of the religious institutions over the religious rights of the individuals. He was dumbfounded and naturally resorted to a nasty attack on me. He also was predicting that the Democrats were going to lose a lot of support for not “protecting religious freedom.” Heh heh, dumb-ass….
eemom
[whimper]
its its its its its
Good heavens, man, you are a PROFESSOR, are you not?
[headdesk]
muddy
@Death Panel Truck: indeed. Maybe they would be more able to make their payments if they were not directing efforts and funds towards oppressing others.
muddy
@eemom: Jeezum. I do that all the time, not that I don’t know the difference, it’s just a typing tic. If I get it wrong it is always using an extra apostrophe, not leaving one out.
scav
@eemom: do you have a desk left after attempting to chase all typos on the internet? !
Origuy
There’s a proposal in San Francisco to enforce parking meters on Sunday everywhere in the city, not just Fisherman’s Wharf. Naturally, the churches, many of which have no parking lots, are objecting. I have no problem with that, they are representing their interests and those of their members. But they are casting this as an attack on freedom of religion. Already, many churches use the middle of the street for double-parking on Sunday, something other organizations and businesses don’t get to do.
eemom
@muddy:
You and vast hordes of others who post on the innertubz. I don’t know how many purport to “know the difference,” but it drives me fucking crazy, because it’s just fucking WRONG.
eemom
@scav:
I don’t care about typos, and I don’t chase shit.
It’s just that that particular cavalier bastardization of written language is SO common, and SO ignorant, that it has become personal for me.
Yevgraf
OT -Good god almighty, I just came across my first ever sighting of a Royal Ranger. The guy was rocking a George Custer beard and had more shit and doodads on his uniform than a Bolivian admiral.
The whole mien came off hated than hell, but not in the good way.
dmsilev
Heretic splitter!
Yutsano
I adore Persian art.
The argument is extremely stupid on its face. Bankstahs have no soul. Therefore a church is just another deadbeat to them. Nothing religious involved at all.
aimai
@efgoldman:
It was a joke. Actually, I couldn’t stand Steve’s pose of constant astonishment. But he was prolific and I did read him several times a day.
aimai
The Ancient Randonneur
Until September 19th is a national holiday my religious freedoms are being abridged and I will refuse to stop talking like a pirate at city council and school board meetings!
rrrrrRRRrrrrrrrrrrr!
MonkeyBoy
I can’t see why Ed Kilgore is often mentioning the he himself is religious. It seems to offer nothing to what he is reporting on.
MikeJ
I think too many churches have watched The Bells of St. Mary’s too often and they expect Mr. Bogardus to just give them the building.
scav
@eemom: You’re just going to breitbart out if you’re not careful. On the interwebs, there’s not the repeated passes through the little blue pencils of death and even under those circumstances there are things being caught at the very bitter end. I’ve helped shepard things to press, there is inevitably one that only shows up on the proofs, at some bloody point, the question is, is it important enough to stop production? Does it harm the actual point being made or is it innane pedantry and perfection chasing? And at some point, it ain’t worth it. I haven’t opened a bound copy of a professionally published book where we didn’t yell up and down between the cubes about the typos we still found (and we looked hard — only had to call back trucks delivering bound copies to stores once). Especially as this is the realm of colloquial text/speak where common practice is to put up with all sorts of looseness that wouldn’t fly in an academic formal presentation. Nobody writes in all the ummm, and uhs, we use in everyday speech in a formal paper. Or, should be be following all the Strunk and White and APA guidelines in all comments?
Tom Levenson
@eemom: Fixt. Happy now?
(FWIW — its just a typing-in-haste tic of mine; it’s habit of appearing where it can irritate the copy-editors amongst us is just a bonus.
Heh.
scav
@Tom Levenson: ahem. you bad bad man.
J. Michael Neal
I think a lot of people here, starting with Mr. Levenson, missed the sarcasm. I seriously doubt that Kilgore misses the complete ridiculousness of his claim. It’s meant to show that the claim is just as ridiculous when used in regards to contraception. I disagree with Brachiator in #6. The answer is “Yep,” with the follow up is, “and they’re both fundamentally unpersuasive.”
Robert Sneddon
@scav: Oh God, please, don’t pull the “deliberate spelling typos” schtick. “shepard”, “innane”… urgh. It’s like that fake mouthbreathing hick Republican/Xristian routine some folks here insist on writing in comments. Not funny, not educational, not wanted here.
Donut
@aimai:
I can’t comment on what Kilgore says about religion. I’m not reading him as much as I did Benen, mostly because I followed Benen over to the Maddow blog. But your point about lack of diversity at the WM site is well taken. Thanks for pointing it out. ETA – I hadn’t thought about it as respects that particular site, but I have also felt lately like women seem less represented than ever in Left Blogistan. As the whole uterus-fearing-vagina-hating crowd ramps up the pressure on women’s rights/human rights from the right, letting women speak for themselves seems like such an afterthought to a lot of pundits and male bloggers.
muddy
@eemom: Okay, thanks for sharing.
muddy
@eemom:
Apparently. I hope your crusade goes well for you.
Tom Levenson
@J. Michael Neal: Maybe so.
I could indeed have suffered from a pre-caffeine dose of humorlessness.
If so, I’ll humbly apologize to Mr. Kilgore. Still don’t read it that way, though.
eemom
[stalks off mumbling ominously]
Donut
@J. Michael Neal:
This is how I read the comment, too, but again, I’m not familiar enough with Kilgore’s other musings on religion to know what his general take is on religion/state separation issues.
I am pretty wary always of anyone on the left who tries to justify a policy position based on religious beliefs. I wanted to figuratively punch both EJ Dionne and Chris Matthews in their necks when they both got on their high horses about the contraception rule for religious employers, before Obama shifted gears and put it on the insurance companies. For my money, the bullshit those two and others enabled set our side back and was a distraction from the other shit being pulled all over the country with state-level contraception and abortion legislation.
scav
@Robert Sneddon: I’m a lousy speller in point of fact, which is why I rather enjoy places where people don’t get their hair in a tizzy over them. I had to work at being a freaking QC geek. I’m not even sure what the hell the rest of your point is, other than I got up your nose. It probably needed a good cleaning.
Donut
@scav:
I was trying to figure out where the bile was coming from there. Even highly educated people with good writing skills get lazy. I’m just sayin, fucking A, I have pay really close attention to what I write in work-related functions all damn day. If I’m cruising by here and make a comment quick-like, and it’s riddled with errors or typos, fuck it. This is a comment section on a blog, not a seminar session.
People, you are not being deprived nor harmed by reading some shitty grammer/spelling/typos. Fuck.
Ha ha, look, I misspelled grammar. I’m leaving it.
Anton Sirius
Nobody on the innerwebz who starts a sentence with “Do you perhaps think…” can possibly be serious about it. Dead giveaway.
Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937
I thought Ed Kilgore was just another DLC hack. My eyes glaze over whenever I try to read his posts.
If churches were expected to be forgiven mortgages, it would not be long before churches would no longer be able to get mortgages. Wouldn’t that be the real threat to religious liberty? Isn’t religious liberty threatened when their greedy members are not generous enough? or their administrators are incompetent? or they are sued for raping children?
Redshift
@eemom:
Okay, that was hilarious. I hope it was meant that way.
Southern Beale
Forcing a Presbyterian receptionist to submit to Catholic doctrine because she answers phones at a Catholic school is not a threat to anyone’s religious freedom except the receptionist’s.
I’m sick of this nonsense, especially from educated pundits who should fucking know better.
PTirebiter
@scav: I read somewhere that it was after the great depression, banks and big business began to realize that their shrinking influence and bottom lines was somehow tied to the public’s new disdain for Wallstreet and freinds.
They began hiring high profile religious leaders to promote their virtue.
They article went on to assert that in doing so, they managed to tie themselves to Christian virtue and wrap the package in the American Flag.
That was the genesis of this being a Christian Nation- as in one nation under God. No wonder the banks are loathe to foreclose on a Jesus MegaPlex.
CarolDuhart2
I agree with Kilgore. Shouldn’t helping struggling churches with their real estate be more important than worrying about women’s wombs? After all, having a place to meet is essential for a church. What female members do with their uteruses not essential.
BTW, the issue of foreclosed churches is pretty complex. Some of the loans are to preserve churches that are aging at the same time that many of these places are taking on extra responsibilities for things such as food pantries, after-school programs and other community activities. And many of these churches are second-hand churches emptied when the previous white members fled to far-flung suburbs. A poorer congregation was able to keep up until the Great Recession knocked many of the better paid civil servant members out of their jobs.
I’ve seen a similar situation with theatres. The audience has moved far away, the technology needed cannot be easily retrofitted into an old structure, and the numbers who regularly attend have gotten smaller. What the theatres have done is convert to uses that allow for a smaller and more dedicated audience. Several theatres in my area have become live action reperatory or specialty theatares.
For churches, it may mean going from purchasing real estate to renting out space for churches to meet who can’t afford their own space, and for churches to agree to space-sharing.
Professor
The question is: why should a bank even lend money to a church? What is the collateral against the debt? How does one assess the cashflow to make an informed decision whether to lend the money? If the church is foreclosed, what other uses can one put the church. Answers needed please!
J. Michael Neal
@Donut:
Personally, I think that that’s a silly approach and isn’t any different than those who are wary of someone’s positions based solely on a lack of religious justification. People are going to have different origins for their beliefs. Judge them on the arguments themselves.
Dionne and Matthews weren’t wrong because their position derived from religious belief. They were wrong because their position was stupid on its on merits.
dmsilev
@Professor: Churches have cash-flows and budgets which could be used to evaluate a mortgage application. Collateral is the building itself, which has value (could be sold to another church, redeveloped into something else like housing, or even torn down and the land repurposed).
Now, from the church’s perspective, taking out a mortgage on their building might or might not be a sensible thing to do, but that’s a question that has to be answered on a per-church basis.
Brachiator
@J. Michael Neal:
Works for me equally well.
@Professor:
Recently, in Southern California, the Protestant Crystal Cathedral went bankrupt, and was bought by the Catholic Church. Another bidder was Chapman College.
I would think that even in a foreclosure, a church might have some assets. But casflow can be a problem. Since the sale, the following has been a result.
Tough times in the deity biz.
Ellen
Ed Kilgore didn’t write the post, it was a guest blogger.
CarolDuhart2
@Professor: First of all, many churches often have a fundraising drive that precedes making an offer to a bank, so there’s upfront money to offer. Secondly, if a church has been around several years, which is when the church decides to build or borrow, there’s a core group of steady givers who can be counted on for at least a steady flow of income. Lastly, there may also be funding(depending on denomination or religion) that comes from central headquarters, some legacies, the church bookstore, even fund-raising events such as carnivals and bingo. So a bank has advance cash, a fair estimate of cashflow, and an idea of fundraising potential.
Donut
@J. Michael Neal:
You say tomatO and I say tomAto.
I am of the opinion that religion is on the whole harmful and destructive, and that most of it is fiction.
You are free to practice one if you like, but leave me out of it.
You have an argument to make about morality or ethics? Fine. Make those arguments.
But if you have to justify a moral or ethical code because it is derived from religious beliefs, I have no interest in what you are saying. Ethics and morality do not derive from religion, they exist apart from it.
Sorry, does that make me a close-minded dick? Maybe you think so. I don’t think so, but you’re free to have your opinion, as well.
Please tell me how I can judge an argument about morality based on its merits, when it derives from a religious belief? WTF? I really would like to know what you think I should respect about religious beliefs entering public policy?
scav
@CarolDuhart2: @Professor: Amusing because of the juxtaposition. At one point one of the more interesting movie theaters in Santa Barbara was in in an old church building. Come to think of it, one of the coffee shops later was either in an old Church or a theater but I forget which.
PTirebiter
Tell it the Pilgrims. “That ocean is really scary and my feet are killing me, I’m not sure religious freedom is worth having these stupid buckles on my shoes”
MattR
@Ellen: Ed has a guest blogger, but Ed was also the author of that piece.
@Donut: I agree completely. Murder and theft should be illegal because they are immoral (and detrimental to society), not because the Ten Commandments forbid them.
Mark B
Would a bank ever voluntarily lend money to an organization which could avoid repayment based on a religion based exemption? The next step would be to force lenders to give churches loans, even if they had no way to pay them back. Why is it that right-wingers talk so much about the free market? Their actions surely make it clear that they don’t believe in it.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
You wanna see something REALLY misspellled?
CarolDuhart2
@scav: Not surprised at all. One of my interests is in church conversions, where old churches are converted into businesses, homes, and other institutions. I live near several, and a potential conversion. One church now is a multi-story boutique. Another houses a website hosting company. Another has offices for an agency.
Why? Churches are usually built to last generations, have interesting architecture, ample space and are often conveniently located near businesses of all kinds and depending on age, may have ample parking suitable for a small family or small business. They have been often well-maintained up until they can’t be any more, which is when they are sold.
I think too, that part of the problem of church foreclosures is that the churches have overbuilt for the demand like the theatres did at one point, with the additional problem of congregation pride which makes consolidation or even reduction seem unacceptable for a while.
Unabogie
This thread is completely made of FAIL. I mean seriously. Just because some people initially missed the joke doesn’t mean you should double down once it’s pointed out that you read it wrong. The OP was pointing out that the same people who decried forcing churches to pay for insurance that may also cover birth control because it’s an “assault” on churches are strangely silent when banks are closing churches left and right. With the obvious answer being that the people outraged are forgiving of banks and furious with the government and are therefore phonies, etc, etc.
Does this really need pointing out again? Arguing against a position not actually taken is called a straw man. This thread needs to die. It’s embarrassing.
brantl
Genuflections, no tgenufluxions.
Donut
@J. Michael Neal:
Got distracted, couldn’t edit my last post, but to continue:
The problem with accepting your reasoning is that Dionne and Matthews are ONLY making their argument from a religious basis. They have nothing else to stand on. Fine, reject the argument based on merits, that’s great, and people did that to both of them constantly at the height of the so-called “controversy.” But if you do that, if you reject the argument simply on the merits, they will just throw it back at you, “but it’s my BELIEF!” And you just can’t win against that. So my point, admittedly not as well made as it could have been above, is that if you don’t reject religiously based arguments because of, well, religion, then you can’t win the fight with religious people. The point is to reject the religious belief outright and remind these assholes that the first amendment is what it is because religion has no fucking place in public policy in the United States. I understand and accept that I can’t win on that all the time, but I sure as fuck will continue to reject any argument coming at me from religion. It has to be swatted down first and foremost, IMO.
scav
@Mark B: Corporations are people too my friend, and now that they’ve acquired religious sensibilities that must not be offended by funding contraception, etc., apparently they must tithe as well? something like that? I’m also waiting for the Parking Meters in SF to be free Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and I’m hoping the Bhuddists, Wiccans, Druids, Pastafarians and followers of Mithras coordinate so the whole week is sacrosanct.
PTirebiter
@Brachiator: True story. In the seventies, I freelanced as a camera operator at the C.C.
I was there on one occasion when Dr. Schuller (the original Dutch master) came out on to the floor and gathered the crew for a chat. He was hoping we’d agree to bill them hourly with no minimum instead of an already reduced day. The crew out in the truck was monitoring this very uncomfortable conversation and the audio mixer chimed in over our headsets, The fucker’s wearing a two thousand dollar suit, his chauffeur is standing outside the truck and he’s grinding me over my day rate?
Klaus had a way with with words.
J. Michael Neal
@Donut:
The problem is that, when you dig down, *your* moral beliefs rest on an equally unstable foundation. All moral beliefs do. In the end, they all rest on subjective value judgments rather than logic. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that there aren’t some that are right and some that are wrong, just that they aren’t objective.
What you are doing is exactly the same thing that religious people are doing: assuming that your moral beliefs have a solid basis and that theirs don’t. That allows you to put forward a complete argument for your beliefs while denying anyone else the ability to do the same. It’s intellectually dishonest.
If you want to argue moral issues honestly, you need to accept that the underlying assumptions of those that disagree with you are going to strike you as irrational. That applies to them and it applies to you. Either you both get to make arguments as to why you are right, or neither of you does.
divF
Why all the real estate, anyway ? Rent a hall or community center (that’s what my mother-in-law’s church in a retirement community does).
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20)
Mike G
@CarolDuhart2:
A local church was sold and remodeled as a skating equipment store called “The Church of Skatan” (skatin’, Satan, etc.). The bible-thumpers were not amused…
KS in MA
@efgoldman: Make that “Let her/him who is without sin …”
KS in MA
On the bright side, y’all might enjoy “Mortgage Crisis Inspires Churches to Send Lenten Message to Banks” in today’s NY Times. The message includes moving their accounts out of BOA, for instance.
Idtt
Unabogie for the win!
CarolDuhart2
@Mike G: Church Of Skatan.
The links are from 2010 or so. The online shop is closed. Is it still open?
Brachiator
@PTirebiter:
Very droll stuff.
I don’t know if Crystal Cathedral services are on TV anymore. I get the impression that with the down economy, the TV time that tele-evangelists used to command is also down.
Their suits, though, are still as sharp as ever.
asiangrrlMN
@MonkeyBoy: I agree with this. In fact, I read his post the same way Tom L. did in part because Kilgore mentions his religion so often.
I didn’t get the sarcasm at first, but in reading the comments here and re-reading the post, I can see it. I find myself reading WaMo less and less with Kilgore at the helm.
PoliticalHack
Sorry, churches… if you make bad business decisions and overextend yourselves, you are subject to foreclosure.
Keith G
Yeah Tom, you missed this.
Ed was saying (in effect): “Instead of going after Obama for imagined harm, our wonderful christian leaders might want to focus on perps who are really harming churches.” This makes your apostrophe error seem a bit minor by comparison, so you might want to correct this as well.
No biggie, You are not alone. Several FPers here have their “defend Obama” triggers set a bit tight.
Smedley the Uncertain
@scav: Is proof reading your own pontifications too much to ask?
Smedley the Uncertain
@efgoldman: This
Smedley the Uncertain
@Donut: If you don’t care enough about the content of your contribution to proof read it with easily available tools so that it flows easily to the reader’s mind, then why should the reader value your writing?
I’m not talking about errant punctuation here.
draftmama
Churches – blech. We have one trying to change our rural agricultural zoning so they can built a mega church complete with a septic system for 500 people which will drain down over our wellhead into our pasture and then they plan to make community gardens right across the road from us. They assure us they will have lots of beautiful landscaping to shelter us from their ugly ass building. I wonder what I will do when my three Belgian geldings (all over 18 hands) accidentally push over a fence because that’s what draft horses do and go noshing on their community garden – of course the poop is great fertilizer, as long as its composted for three years. hehehe
lauren
I was once told a long time ago that applying for loan online was very bad and it made me never got involved in acquiring loan from the internet because i believed that the internet was full of scams though i have never been scammed online. To my greatest surprise i applied for a loan when i got frustrated in the office that i had to quit then i decided to be my own captain and i took this very bold step that i will apply for a loan online to start my own company and to God be the glory, i was able to get a good loan lenders who gave me what i actually needed without been scammed. The internet is still a good place and i will forever talk good about this forever because i am now a C.E.O of myself. If you are interested in acquiring loan from this wonderful company, all you need to do is contact then via email: ([email protected]) or you can even visit their site http://www.dateloanlender.com
You will not be disappointed, I love the internet.
My Email: [email protected]