WE'RE piously devout; THEY'RE fundamentalist lunatics.

John at Americablog has a profound observation on the (alleged) difference between our religious fundamentalists and their religious fundamentalists (emphasis added):

One man's Islamic fundamentalist is another man's Christian fundamentalist

This photo in today's Washington Post of Islamic fundamentalist students rioting in Pakistan got me thinking about the difference between Islamic radicals and America's religious right. Both want to live in a theocratic state where they can force others to live under their own warped, hate-filled, minority version of an otherwise peaceful mainstream religion. And yes, the Islamic radicals are more violent than our Christian radicals, but only because our Christian radicals know that violence isn't acceptable in America. So they express their violence in their hearts, and their souls, and their politics. But at their core, they're no different. They hate all the same, and they'll happily bash with the power of a club or the power of the state. Both claim to represent the true God, both think they speak for all Muslims and all Christians, and neither does.

Exactly. Our fundamentalists love to sit around, sanctimoniously pointing out how they're not a bunch of raging, violent, hate-filled loons. However, one suspects that's simply because they can't get away with it here, and there would be consequences if they tried. But, every so often, the mask slips and the real extremist emerges and the consequences are ugly indeed.

No, our wingnuts are far more civilized and would never descend into that kind of violent madness. But, deep down, you have to suspect that they'd give it some serious consideration if they thought they could get away with it.

DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: In a funny way, beating up on people using the power of the state is even more insidious than outright violence. If someone hated you so much that they came at you with a baseball bat, you could at least defend yourself in a similar manner, and it might be a fair fight.

But why resort to violence when you can slowly and inexorably grind down those same people with the power of the state? Strip them of their rights, deny them housing based on their skin colour or sexual orientation, make it difficult or impossible for them to get and keep certain jobs, perpetually describe them in public forums as abominations, tell them they can't marry the person of their choice, criminalize their private behaviour, and on and on and depressingly on. And, all the while, defend your actions with flowery phrases like "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression." After all, it allows you to keep your hands clean, doesn't it?

Yeah, that'll work. Violence might give you instant gratification, but there's nothing like slowly and permanently dehumanizing some demographic to give you that all-over warm, fuzzy feeling of religious satisfaction while still letting you attend all the classier dinner parties.

Or letting you hang out over here. Yeah, you can still do that, too.

Thank God for that editorially-enforced word limit.

Shorter Steve Janke: "Next, we'll talk about fundamentalist Christian lunatics who kill their children or murder medical providers and ... oh, darn, I see we're out of time here."

No, not THOSE religious extremist terrorists. The OTHER religious extremist terrorists.

Over at My Blahg, Robert discusses the notion that even the North American neo-con whackjobs understand that they'd probably come out on the short end of a real "religious war." To which one can properly respond ... well, duh.

I mean, when the "enemy" is quite prepared to sacrifice suicide bombers but the best we can expect out of our Bible-thumping cheerleaders is that they're prepared to put on something red and hang out for the cameras for a while, well, I'll take the foreign extremists and the point spread, know what I'm sayin'? But that's missing the larger picture.

It's not the foreign Islamogothiextremojihadifarians that worry me. It's these lunatics. Make no mistake -- the foreign religious loons concern me. They give me reason to be wary. But the local religious Christopaths? They scare the crap out of me, because they're the Scripture-spouting idiots who do shit like this.

When it comes to the foreign nutjobs, maybe we can protect ourselves against explosives and rocket-propelled grenades and suicide bombers. But the homegrown ones? They have a much more evil agenda -- they want to totally fuck us over from the inside.

These are the clinically-insane devout, who want to expunge actual science from public school classes and replace it with fundamentalist Christian drivel. These are the yahoos who want to curtail womens' rights, and gay rights, and want to change the law so that they have the right to deny service to anyone who doesn't quite measure up to their moral standards.

Swarthy, middle-Eastern extremists with shoe bombs, I can deal with. But that doesn't begin to compare with the fear I feel when I imagine vicious, ignorant dingbats like this possibly running the country.

Suddenly, the Islamojihadifarians don't seem like such a big problem anymore.

P.S. It's not just that the homegrown religious warriors seem bent on trashing Canada from a human rights point of view -- they're also just plain stealing our money.

Consider the recent giveaway of almost half a billion dollars of softwood lumber money to the United States. The Canadian wankersphere would have us all believe that this was a small price to pay to get a "deal." But ask yourself a simple question -- would the CPoC have been as accommodating if it had been President Al Gore in the White House and all that money would have been going into Democratic coffers to be available as a completely unaccountable slush fund for the next U.S. federal election?

Don't make me have to answer that for you, OK?

You know, maybe that "shunning" thing is not such a bad idea after all.

Here we go again -- the right-to-life lunatics in the U.S. are once again cranking up their campaign to protect pharmacists who want to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills:

Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.

A number of bloggers have suggested one way to react is to boycott the offending pharmacies and hit them where it hurts -- in the pocketbook. Oh, come now, you can do better than that. Don't boycott the store; boycott the pharmacist. Find out who these people are and shun them, socially, commercially, in every possible way:

"Gosh, I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, but I can't sell you any gas today. It's against my religious principles to do business with ignorant, closed-minded wingnuts."

"Gee, Mr. Smith, I'd really like to sell you those groceries, but the story policy is that we have the right to refuse service to bone-headed, fundamentalist crackpots."

"I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, but we don't have any seats at the moment. Those empty tables? They're all reserved for people who aren't intolerant, misogynistic cocksuckers. Maybe next week? Buh bye."

And, look, here's a good place to start: Karen L. Brauer, Pharmacists for Life president. Make it your personal challenge to make her life just a bit more miserable. Remember: every little bit helps.

BY THE WAY: Do I really need to point out that there is, in fact, a pharmacist's oath, which reads as follows:

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

I guess the oath doesn't count if you have your fingers crossed or something.

Conscience clauses and religious wingnuts: Part 4, the last.

And if you've toughed it out through the last three parts, you'll have noticed how it's not really sufficient to ask "pro-life" pharmacists what they want, and get an answer of "We want to dispense medications according to our conscience." That doesn't really say much since it still leaves a lot of wiggle room to mess with peoples' lives, doesn't it? But all that aside, there's two bigger issues that need to be addressed.

First, if one is willing to grant these people the right to be selective about their dispensation, it's fair game to ask them, what should the customers expect to get in return? What's that, they'll ask? What do you mean?

Simple. If one is willing to accommodate them to some extent, what "accommodation" are they willing to give in return? The old "quid pro quo". If we bend a bit to satisfy you, what do we get back? Put another way, if these folks are granted one particular right, what other right or rights are they prepared to sacrifice to even things out? And the answer, if you read carefully, is nothing.

As an example, one can imagine that pro-life pharmacists, if they're granted the right to follow their conscience, might be willing to give up, say, the right to employment. As in, you can follow your beliefs, but you should be prepared to get fired because of them. Quid pro quo. We give you something, we have the right to get something in return. It's only fair.

Or how about, sure, you can adhere to your "pro-life" views, but you have to pay for them by hiring another pharmacist to step in for you when the occasion calls for it. In other words, we'll respect your conscience as long as you guarantee that customers can still get their prescriptions filled. If you won't do it, you just have to make sure someone else is there who will. In short, it'll cost you.

But it never works that way, does it? These people want customers to accommodate to their religious principles without having to do any accommodation in return. It's all a one-way street -- pro-life pharmacists get additional rights and privileges and, in return, customers get inconvenienced. Conscience without consequences. What a great deal. But that's not even the worst of it.

Ask a simple question -- who benefits from the idea of a "conscience clause"? Why, that's easy, you think -- the pharmacist. And sure, you'd like to think so. It seems pretty clear that that clause has no value to the customer. It's designed strictly and expressly for the benefit of the pharmacist, isn't it? Well, you would think so until you read the FAQ section at the web site of "Pharmacists for Life International", particularly this eye-opening excerpt:

Q. If a pharmacist objects to dispensing, say, an OC/MAP he knows is abortifacient, is he obliged to refer that client to someone else?

A. A pharmacist by virtue of properly understood conscience cannot be licitly compelled to cooperate in such a fashion with what he knows will result in a chemical abortion and, hence, a dead baby. Such activity is called material cooperation. Further, it is not an inconvenience to refuse to refer such a client since the pharmacist is doing the woman and her preborn child a favor in terms of physical and spiritual health.

Well, how about that? Turns out this wasn't just about them after all, was it? No, what we have is the position of a bunch of holier-than-thou, sanctimonious religious wingnuts who have decided they know what's best for you and your "spiritual health". So even if you're mightily pissed about not getting your prescription, you can take comfort in the fact that they're just doing it for your own good. It's not like you or your doctor would be the best person to make those decisions, oh no. That's their job now.

And just in case you didn't get that message the first time, well, here it is again:

Q. Isn't the pharmacist who declines to dispense such chemicals "imposing" his morality on his client?

A. The pharmacist who declines to dispense drugs or counseling which he knows to violate his conscience, properly understood, is resisting an objective evil and, in fact, is doing his client a favor.

Read the entire FAQ -- it really is major scary.

In closing all this out, then, let's be clear what we're dealing with here. These are not just internally-conflicted folks trying to obey their moral conscience while doing a tough job. Oh no, what we have here are fundamentalist wackos who see themselves on a mission from God, and that's what makes them scary as hell.

It's tempting, in the interests of fairness, to try to negotiate, to compromise, to accommodate them and keep everyone happy. And that approach is just doomed to failure because no amount of accommodation will ever be enough for these lunatics. There is only one solution, and that's to get them out of the business. Whenever this subject comes up, there should be one and only one response -- either do your job or find another line of work.

Congratulations Dr. Morgentaler Redux

From the delightful Big City Lib (not to be confused with the Punkeydoodles Progressive) we learn that Jason Kenney has been reaching out to his true constituency. That would be the slack jawed yokels that soak up the briny piss and delusion peddled by Life Site. Seems the recognition of Henry Morgentaler as an Order of Canada recipient has got all of the Conservative Reform Alliance Prigs dropping their carefully constructed facades.

Canadian Cabinet Minister Kenney "Deeply Disturbed" that Abortion Doc Awarded Order of Canada

By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, July 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper briefly signaled his displeasure with the nomination of abortionist Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada yesterday.  "My preference, to be frank, would be to see the Order of Canada be something that really unifies, that brings Canadians together," he said at a press conference.  That theme of divisiveness has been repeated by most Conservative MPs who have spoken on the matter since the announcement on Canada Day - July 1st.

Big Pappy manages to dodge the issue by clutching a solitary, lonely pearl. In his guise as frank, he wants to see the Order of Canada really unifying and bringing us Canadians together. Seems a noble enough sentiment. Until you note that reprehensible, crooked characters like Conrad Black are still honoured. Black went so far as to renounce his Canadian citizenship and insult the entirety of this nation in the pursuit of baubles and selfish glories. Not to mention the millions he bilked out of his company and shareholders, the millions that got him locked up in the slammer. Then there is the child abusing priest, Lucien Larre who climbed up on his dirty pulpit and declared he would be returning his own Order of Canada. Larre, in the grand old Catholic tradition, abused youths and when caught out, he pulled up stakes and moved to a new area. He has since had his license to practice psychology suspended, after a thorough review by the B.C. College of Psychologists noted, "The Panel was faced with a situation where it was satisfied that unless Dr. Larre’s practice was suspended the public was exposed to a serious risk. There was a need to act without delay."

Of course we shouldn't forget that Brian Mulroney still holds an Order of Canada, not only did that ego driven fool cause divisions in the country, he managed to set conservatives in such a tizzy that the Tories dissolved as a national political party. That led to the ascension of Weepy Pete to the leadership of the crippled party and of course, Elmer's special needs son then sold tradition down the river to the Reform/Alliance gang that form our present government. I feel like I'm forgetting something... oh yes, Brian is also under almost constant investigation/suspicion for his suspect dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. Some little matter of a lobbying scandal and hundreds of thousands of dollars, lawsuits and stonewalling. Nothing to see there in the way of disunity. ADSCAM. Perhaps the future will smile on Canada's greatest honour and award and we'll see Lord Black and Lyin' Brian stripped of their awards like Brian Eagleson and David Ahenakew. In the mean time, there are no doubt a large number of priests, bishops and assorted clergy and lay folk that actively oppose the rights of women to obtain legal, safe abortion and reproductive health care. Hell, I'm sure some digging would turn up a few recipients that opposed the ready availability of birth control. But that sort of opinion flies in the face of a great many Canadians who don't lose their minds, screaming about divisiveness and controversy. Perhaps the terrible shock of division and disunity is only an issue when it is displeasing to the narrow minded sorts that would inflict their own petty vision on the rest of us. Surprise!

Today Conservative MP Jason Kenney, a Minister in the Department of Canadian Heritage, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about his reaction to the nomination.  "I'm deeply disturbed by this nomination," he said.  "It violates profoundly the spirit of the Order of Canada which is a symbol that is supposed to unite Canadians. Instead, the advisory council has chosen to divide Canadians."

Well, I for one am shocked. Shocked I say, that my opinions and feelings aren't being taken into account. I am personally offended that Catholic clergy might be honoured by the Order of Canada. They work for a draconian theocratic organization that actively oppresses and derides women and gays and lobbies against abortion rights, same sex marriage rights and goes so far as to try and extort politicians by withholding their superstitious ritual sacraments. These robed and bejewelled villains have enabled and covered up systemic child abuse within their own ranks. They were principle players in a generational campaign to commit cultural genocide against first nations peoples by targetting their children. There can be no unity in allowing representatives of such an organization to sully the great honour. If it is controversial to support abortion rights, against the will of a segment of the population, then it is also controversial to oppose those same rights against our will.

Kenney added that "those members of the council who made this deliberately contentious choice were more interested in using the Order as a vehicle for their own political views on a contentious issue rather than as a unifying symbol of great achievements which is what the Order was created for."

Well my parochial pal, put down the gobbling sticks for a moment and consider, the denial of the honour to Dr. Morgentaler would be no less controversial to a great many people who see his legacy as one of great achievements. Dr. Morgentaler risked incarceration, abuse, threats and harassment to help win the right for women to access safe abortion procedures. The decision of the council is one that required courage in the face of the inevitable backlash from a small group of religious zealots, professional crybabies and spoiled lumpkins like Jason Kenney.

Harper has distanced his Government from the decision saying, "I have to say this clearly: This is not a decision of the government of Canada."

Ah, the imperial arrogance of Big Chunks O' Steve. Listen up you reform party twat. You are not the government of Canada. The government of Canada is made up of representatives from every riding in the land and many of those representatives do support the appointment of the man and the goal that the man achieved to earn the appointment. You sir, are not president of us. You lead a minority government. But for the sake of argument, let's concede that this is not a decision of the Canadian government, rather it is a decision of the Canadian people and the council who reflect our will more accurately that your government has been able to do.

Kenney concurred, noting further: "There is a provision in the Order which requires the Council to consider rescinding the Order from individuals who after their appointments end up with criminal records or reprimands from their professions.  When the constitution of the order was crafted, they didn't even bother to make that apply to prospective nominees because it was at the time probably unthinkable that they would seriously consider a nomination for someone with such a background as this."

Kenney concurred = suck-washed the boss's shorts. An amazing feat of post-cognition and suppository causation. They probably never imagined that there would be a nominee who was a hero to millions of Canadians, whose heroism and achievements might not be universally applauded. Son of a gun. Well since these awards seem to require a sudden unanimity of approval I suppose it's time that we had a quick look at all of the thousands who have been so recognized. I've already had a quick look at the majority of the clergy and found them wanting, controversial and unacceptable. Now as a good left leaning boy, I'd have to look carefully at the robber barons who are honoured. The Lord Blacks and others of that acquisitive, rapacious ilk who are surely nestled among the honourees. Can't have the greed mongers, tycoons and industrialist applauded, not when they might be fronting for polluters, crushing small businesses and laying waste to competition. Let's haul the deregulators, the agribusiness farm devouring bastards and the oil company racketeers into the light and make sure none of them are sporting national jewellery.

Morgentaler has been incarcerated for conducting illegal abortions prior to the Supreme Court's striking down of the abortion law.  Moreover he had his licence to practice medicine suspended in 1976 by the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Corporation of Physicians of Quebec. 

Yes and Gandhi had a record too, convicted of sedition, doncha know. Civil disobedience is a potent tool in the hands of those committed to doing what they feel is right and bringing much needed change to a nation.

Catherine Dunphy's 1996 biography of Morgentaler notes that the disciplinary committee "commented on 'an attitude which is primarily directed to protecting his fees. No really valid interview is held before proceeding with the abortion. This behaviour confers a mercenary character on the doctor-patient relationship. This committee is incapable of reconciling this behaviour with the humanitarian concern that the accused invoked throughout his defence.'"

Kenney might be happy to take the bias of that council at face value, provided that it agrees with his prejudices. But he sure isn't willing to sit idly by when someone tries to act on anything he doesn't like. The disciplinary committee comment must be fact, after all, physicians are judged by attitude all the time. Dr. Morgentaler is nothing if not a baby killing profiteer... or not so much. Let Dr. Dawg debunk that notion.

"His great healthcare legacy is a chain of private abortion clinics where doctors can make great wads of cash outside of the medical/ethical oversight of hospital committees and other doctors."

This is what my mother used to call lying by implication. The impression is given of big profits made outside the official health care system. In fact most of Morgentaler's clinics are non-profit, because they receive funding from the provinces and are licensed by provincial health departments. Doctors and other health professionals who work in these clinics are subject to the same rules of practice as they would be working anywhere else, rules that are enforced by provincial licensing bodies.

But hey, if that don't tear all. Why, the uppity bastard has an attitude! Sounds like Catherine Dunphy has the goods on him. What else does her biography of the man have to say, what shocking revelations lie within those 480 pages? Where could we ever find a description of such a notable tome? Why there's one, courtesy of Amazon.ca...

This book stands as the definitive biography of one of Canada's most controversial personalities. Dr. Henry Morgentaler is the unlikely hero at the centre of Canada's most divisive issue--the right to legal and medically safe abortion--and a man of intense contradiction. He is a champion of women, a humanist, and a caring, compassionate doctor, beloved by patients from all social strata. Yet his relationships with friends, family, and lovers over the years have been troubled. Morgentaler is no easy hero, but he is an intriguing subject. This book is the first to tell his story completely, in all its complexity. It traces the life of a man forced to face death at an early age in Auschwitz, a man who has chosen to live as a perpetual and deliberate outsider, and a man who may not himself understand why he feels he must go to battle for an issue that few Canadians are comfortable with. Morgentaler paints a fascinating portrait of a heroic Canadian figure, complex in his motivations, loved and hated for his central role in the country's most dangerous debate.

Well that sounds like a ringing indictment. Darned abortionist. Wonder if he ever did anything other than fight for the right to terminate pregnancies legally and safely...

Henry Morgentaler, physician, abortion advocate (b at Lodz, Poland 19 Mar 1923). The son of Jewish socialist activists killed in the Holocaust, Morgentaler survived Auschwitz and Dachau, arriving in Canada in 1950. He began a general practice in medicine in Montréal in 1955 but by 1969 was devoting all his energies to family planning. He was one of the first Canadian doctors to perform vasectomies, insert IUDs and provide contraceptive pills to the unmarried. As president of the Montréal Humanist Fellowship, he urged the Commons Health and Welfare Committee in 1967 to repeal the law against ABORTION.

Oh my gawd. Vasectomies. The pill. Family planning! What kind of monster is he?

Kenny continued, "Obviously this individual has been nominated several times, and the council has seen fit to disregard his nomination in the past precisely because they understood how divisive it would be and how far outside the spirit of the Order it would be.  This is a deliberate rupture from the tradition of the Order and I think it is deeply regrettable and will make many Canadians feel that the Order has lost its symbolic importance to Canadians."

Perhaps, I mean just maybe, the council has seen fit to speak on behalf of the many, many Canadians who are not fanatical, screaming lunatics. If the symbolic importance of the Order resides in the religious tyranny of a handful of deluded fools, the squeaky wheels all drunk on an endless pacification and excess lubrication, then it is high time that the symbol be adjusted. The importance Kenney weeps for is not for "Canadians", it is for his fellow travellers, the fundamentalist, extreme right wing religious howlers. The readers of Life Site, which is where he so appropriately takes his concerns.

Kenney also addressed the "undenied" reports that the Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the chair of the council which decides who receives the award, railroaded the award to Morgentaler, dispensing with the need for consensus on the committee and permitting a rare recorded vote.  The Globe and Mail reports today that the panel was divided 7-2, with the two government members having cast the opposing votes.

Anyone care to speculate that Jason Kenney doesn't leave the Parliamentary cafeteria until every last plate is clean? C'mon, make a report, I won't deny it. If true, my kudos to Chief Justice McLachlin for exercising the wisdom to prevent the committee from being held hostage by the petty tyranny of our minority government's religious leanings. If the best they could do in opposition to the Morgentaler appointment is two Harpercrats, then Canada's voice is being heard, despite Kenney's wounded bleating. Maybe now we can begin to see progress in this nation that isn't terminally hobbled by the obnoxious, high volume whining of the religious right. The conservatives and their allies in the chorus of self-righteous prayer teams are weeping a mighty river now they they have been defied in their long held privilege of denying social movement and progress. They can't just hang the jury and get their way and they are not happy.

"I am concerned by the undenied reports that the council departed from its usual consensus rule in this instance," said Kenney. "If that's true it's very troublesome because it seems to me that the consensus rule exists precisely to avoid divisive and disruptive decisions.  If anyone on this council made a power play to override the usual consensus rule that would be very regrettable indeed."

Regrettable indeed. Why, all the god botherers ever needed before was one voice from one seat and they could hold everyone and everything accountable to their own ugly standard. They have enjoyed a de facto veto over every nominee they sniffed at. The only people divided and disrupted are them. More than 70% of the nomination committee supported the Morgentaler appointment, 5 out of 7. The two hold outs were representative of a government deeply rooted in and answerable to the religious right. They are not Canada, they do not speak for all Canadians. The many voices raised in celebration across this land are proof of that. The smears and screaming coming from Kenney and his fellow travellers is indicative of the freak show, fundamentalist need to control the actions of others and to impose their beliefs without check. It is high time Canadians gave some of these zealots the pie-face they so richly deserve and I for one am delighted that Canada Day brought news of such a well deserved award to a great Canadian scrapper.

This isn't the first and surely won't be the last time that Jason Kenney tries to torpedo someone. Kenney is a disingenuous toad and he is more than happy to smear his betters.

Kenney promptly twisted Dallaire's point: "Is it your testimony that Al Qaeda strapping up a 14-year-old girl with Down's syndrome and sending her into a pet market to be remotely detonated is the moral equivalent to Canada's not making extraordinary political efforts for a transfer of Omar Khadr to this country?"

Dallaire shot back, rightly, that Kenney was positing "extreme scenarios." Kenney's point was also factually wrong, wildly hyped and calculated to deflect attention from Ottawa's shabby disregard for human rights. Rather than answer his critic, Kenney smeared him.

The Conservatives discredit themselves with such tactics.

It really doesn't matter to Kenney that his dramatics and grandstanding might be completely fabricated out of whole cloth. He bets on intimidation and puffs up his great bloated neck in indignant mockery of righteousness. If he can shout down or cow his opposition, does it matter that he's spouting garbage? Not to him. He answers to a higher master. The religious lobby. Well Jason, fuck you and the altar you rode in on.