The Catholic Church likes discrimination better than helping people--who knew?

You know, I'm remiss in not linking to this seriously awesome debate--The Intelligence Squared Debate - Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. The Catholics-- over the question: Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the World? (Trust me, this will be apropos.)



This is just part one; go on YouTube and check out the whole thing or bookmark it--it's worth it.

The argument you generally end up getting in favor of the Church is something like, "Well, all history aside, look at the charity work and the education the church provides. The influence nets out positive." The sorry apologists for this one were very good at setting aside history (just as Hitchens and Fry were quite good at pointing it out), but were definitely weak on demonstrating that the all-over effect Catholicism has had has been good. The examples of the long and troublesome history regarding child abuse, which is actually bankrupting one US diocese, and the disinformation against condom use in Africa, which I completely deplore, give a pretty bad account of what the Catholic Church is about.

And then there are things like this:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

I do not know how many openly-gay employees work for the diocese, but if they are working for the diocese in the first place, as in, "good enough to have a job there", then treating them equally shouldn't be a problem, should it? But even if that really is a moral issue for them--in just what way would withholding services to the homeless, or for children in need of placement in safe homes, or whatever, even be a related issue? The homeless didn't do anything to them, nor did the wee orphans.

As Digby mentions, the Catholic Church has made this sort of threat a reality before in letting children in Massachusetts down because of a disagreement regarding gay adoption. It seems like they are trying to assert influence over secular people who are not even with the church, and the government as well, by way of a kind of moral extortion.

And did you know the "charity" portion in all this is actually backed by some contributions from the "Office of the Faith-Based Whatever" nonsense? As if our government is paying them to be a thorn in our own side!

Add that to the pressures they put out via propaganda regarding anti-abortion activity, and abstinence education, and anti-birth control, and wanting to take away reproductive choices from secular women who don't even believe what they do--all of which sometimes affect our supposedly "separated from Church" state--and really! It doesn't feel like altruism. It just feels like leverage and exercise of worldly power.

Just as a pro-marriage-equality feminist secularist--um, it looks bad to me.