Mental Health Expert Doesn't Understand Christianity

With an opening paragraph that summarizes best as "the top five most superficial, surface-level reasons people become atheists", it's easy to start rolling your eyes as soon as you start to read this article. Don't worry, though, because at no point will your eyes get any rest. The article continues to portray a misunderstanding of Biblical reality so unbearable, it's no wonder that anyone who has these hangups about their former faith left it in the first place. 

The first unhealthy, allegedly Christianity-induced thought pattern is "all or nothing thinking", wherein the concept that "no sin is too small to send you to Hell" is causing former believers to go too hard at work, which sounds much more like a works-based salvation problem, but why would I try to make sense of this hot mess of a conceptual leap that's already based off of flimsy, incorrect theology. Apparently working 20 hours of overtime a week is some kind of black-and-white thinking issue. Regardless, the real crime here is a complete misconception of what "sends" one to Hell. It even further exacerbates its floppy conundrum with a statement that contains two truths, but has them both jammed together in an incoherent way. "Jesus only saves because He was perfect." Yes... Only Jesus saves, and He is perfect, but these don't cause each other. So what's the Bible actually say about these things?

The only thing the author gets right is, yes, there is either Heaven or Hell and nothing in-between. To argue against this in the examination of "all or nothing thinking", though, is absurd. These refer to locations, relative to their presence or absence of God Almighty. You are either in the presence of God, or you are not. There is no grey area between Heaven and Hell because there is no quasi-"Shrödingers God" type location to go to. Of course, the vast majority of even the lukewarm-est of Christians should, at this point in modern Christian theological discourse, be quite aware that it's not sin that sends one to Hell, but failure to accept Jesus as one's savior. What some may not be fully aware of is that it wasn't just that Jesus never committed a sin, but that His conception was immaculate, that makes Him free of sin and thus perfect, and able to be the ultimate and final sacrifice needed to satisfy God's wrath. 

Immaculate doesn't mean "no sex involved," - you've probably at least once heard immaculate used to describe a cleaning job that was done so well as to not leave a single speck of dirt behind. "Immaculate conception" refers to a conception that was, in layman's terms, spotlessly clean. The manner in which He was conceived made Him born without sin. Denominations disagree about what this exactly means, with Catholics believing Mary herself was also free of sin, but the fact of the matter is that Jesus was exempt from the original sin of Adam. Thus, even if, somehow, a human being from start to finish, never committed a sin, they are still born of the original sin of Adam and still require salvation from Jesus. The very state of our existence is tainted by sin (something the author takes issue with later), so there's actually little need to worry about "even the smallest sin" sending you to hell - it's actually much simpler. The only unforgivable sin is "blasphemy against the holy spirit". Some people believe this translates more or less into the only unforgivable sin being the denial of Jesus specifically. However you feel about it, it's clear for multiple reasons that, theologically, the whole concept here is a mess.

Second of all, only Jesus saves, but not because He is perfect. He was, and is, (and always will be) perfect, but He saves because he chose voluntarily to be a sinless sacrifice to close the gap between humanity and God, allowing us to be with God through Jesus. These are, as we see, very different justifications for why, specifically, only Jesus saves. Only fleeting remnants of the herein accused "Christian" reasons for an all-or-nothing thought complex are actually present in our theology.

Next up we have the apparently uniquely Christian concept of Us vs. Them complex. Obviously that was sarcastic, since "Good guys and bad guys" is basically in vogue at the moment when it comes to the vast majority of our society, unless this author is going to try to convince me that nearly every politician, pundit, and political activist is an "ex-vangelical". The "us vs. them" trap is easy to fall into, and unfortunately Christians do, too, but likely not because of what's in the bible. What's worse is, not only is this laughably nowhere near a uniquely Christian idea, it's - yet again - not even a Christian idea to start. 

Most starkly of course is the concept that Christians view sinners as our Bad Guys camp, which would then imply that we would scorn, hate, and avoid them - but of course the bible has plenty of passages about praying for your enemies, loving people who hate you, and trying desperately to save sinners from the eternal torment of Hell. The bible tries very hard to free us from the prolific us vs. them complex, forcing us to see our enemies as God's beloved children, just as we are. Seems a lot more complex of a relationship than "good guys and bad guys".

To make matters even more laughable, we see the line in this paragraph, "Christianity offers no mental model in which people are complicated and imperfect but basically decent," which I laughed at in real time when I first read it. People being complicated and imperfect while desiring to be good, decent people and do what's right is such a frequent theme in the bible that I'm not sure this person is talking about the right religion. I'm not sure what these people think they converted from, but it wasn't Christianity.

This next one is an extension of the previous, wherein the argument is that, due to our awareness of our own failings, we feel we are never good enough, since we are supposed to be like Jesus, who is perfect. This may be the only arguably valid concern in this article as actually being a potential side effect of Christian thought, but it is nonetheless still not biblically reasonable. We coach against this destructive mindset with poignant reminders that, as simple as it may be, God loves us. Yes, He wants us to work to be more like His son, but He loves us still, even when we fail. He is not a preoccupied, busy working father who only notices us when we are succeeding and excelling, who we feel compelled to compete against ourselves for his attention and love. At our worst and most lowly, God is there with us and loves us.

Our fourth presumably Christian hangup is called "hyperactive guilt detection", which seems fully to be the same category as the previous issue and should probably have been the prequel to the third point, if I had to be the editor for this piece. Ultimately the issue being explained here is that doing morally wrong things causes one to feel guilty, so as one continues to do morally wrong things, it weighs down their conscious. I'm trying to figure out why that's a bad thing so I'll go out on a limb here and assume that, because the author disagrees with objective moral good, that they are insisting here that it's bad to continually feel bad for doing things that are bad. We will just have to chalk this one up to pagan shenanigans and move on, then.

The fifth one is a classic, so I'll try to avoid dedicating too many paragraphs as to why this tired old argument simply must be hung up to dry for the final time. While this piece does not state outright the argument against "sexual repression", it would be silly to think they don't believe in it. Essentially, the argument is that keeping the aspects of your sexual desires that are morally wrong under control, or "repressed", causes neuroses and generally bad, negative side effects. It's much better, the argument goes, to express your traditionally-considered-wrong sexual desires, or else it will build up and explode in some modernly-considered-wrong way.

Let's clear up a few things first - homosexual and premarital relations are as morally wrong in biblical Christianity as nonconsensual, pedophilic, and adulterous relations are - it's just the first two that modernists want us to consider as socially and morally acceptable. Then again, this particular author may disagree since they bizarrely use the commandment that tells you to not bang your neighbor's wife as an example of that mean ol' biblical sexuality. Given the fact that all sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are considered morally wrong in Christianity, but only half or so are considered morally wrong by secular standards, by what standard exactly do we base rape and the like as being acceptable to repress? Surely the author does not condone seeking sexual relations with minors, and yet somehow the concept of sexual repression is bad and will hurt people. What we have here is an argument not worth having unless this question can be answered - and don't fool yourself, the answer has nothing to do with "consenting adults can do whatever they want in their own bedrooms". Repressing a sexual desire to rape is analogous to repressing a sexual desire for your consenting boyfriend or girlfriend, in regards to the concept that repression of those desires will cause harm. The question is why is repressing a sexual desire to rape or to fornicate with 8 year olds not only acceptable but necessary, while other forms of sexual repression are evil and bad and will hurt the one repressing them? Without an answer, the "sexual repression" argument against biblical Christianity is nothing but vapid self-serving hogwash.

The next concern makes little sense, frankly, so I can only suspect the author has some kind of experience with people feeling this way in order to make a claim that anyone does this. The concern here is a strange take on the "build your treasures up in heaven" mindset wherein the person fails to also take joy in enjoyable things in life. The line "small every-day wonders that comprise the center of joy in mindful living" invokes thoughts of the exact sort of things that Christians emphasis daily, particularly when you use a term like "mindful living" which is a cornerstone of Christian culture. 

Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, here, and the problem is that the things they think people should be "enjoying" here on earth aren't wholesome pleasures like spending time with family, gardening, playing a team sport, baking with your grandmother, stopping your busy life for five minutes to sit on the porch and enjoy the sunset, and so forth. If so, they did a fanciful job of hiding this behind a term like "everyday wonders", as those same everyday wonders are the things that we behold and give thanks and praise to the Lord for providing us. We typically pray before every meal, for heaven's sake, an act that regularly reminds me how blessed I am to eat such delicious food, increasing my enjoyment of it so much more - these are the everyday wonders of mindful Christian living that we take great joy in. Nothing in my life has come close to shattering my deeply embedded cynicism as effectively as my trust in and love for God. It is that very Christian outlook on life that grants me a deep, rich appreciation for the smallest things on this earth, the amazing miracle all around us, God's beautiful creation.

No, surely this concern is, in fact, referring to "everyday wonders" like hedonistic indulgence in self-destructive vices. There is no other explanation, aside from pure, unadulterated incompetence. 

This next one is not necessarily wrong so much as a potential side effect of coming to terms with the whole truth of Christ. "Fear of apocalypse" surely comes with the territory, but it is again a manifestation of poor emphasis on accurate theology. We should not fear the end times. The end times, the apocalypse, is the end of earth, but not the end of time. Through the bible, we are instructed not to look for the antichrist, but to look for Jesus. The return of Jesus is emphasized as a good thing and we do much unnecessary worrying when we focus on the "apocalypse" part.

However, that isn't even the biggest spot of contention here for this section. The absolute most laughable concept, here, is the idea that fearing a cataclysmic, horrible end is uniquely Christian. Our culture today is never-ending doomsday prophecies, with just about everyone convinced that - one way or another - the world as we know it is ending, and soon. Climate change alarmists are predicting that earth will be uninhabitable by 2050 - that's a lot sooner and more concrete a fear than the Christian apocalypse deadline of "we don't know". My generation is so consumed by morbid confidence in a quickly approaching dystopia-slash-Armageddon that it's basically a running joke. The most ironic part is that, without the redemption arch of Jesus' return in the mix, secular doomsday fears are an order of magnitude more hopeless and dreadful than the biblical end times. In those scenarios, there is no paradise awaiting us - just total annihilation and subsequent nothingness.

The next one is yet another shining example of this list's awkward habit of naming things that are super common in secular culture and then saying they're uniquely Christian neuroses. "Idealizing leaders" as something Christians specifically have issues with is a new one - I'd argue this is more of a general thing most people gravitate towards - a good ol' classic "are you a leader or a follower" type situation. Yes, many Christians incorrectly idolize human leaders, but this is specifically something they should not do. Actual biblical guidance tells us to, in short, not trust flawed humans, but only trust God. There is no parallel here between our commandment to trust God and any sort of mental hangup over idolizing a human leader. "No king but King Jesus". The bible does not pull any punches describing the human leaders at the time - and all of their horrible atrocities. Nowhere will you find support for the idea of idealizing a human leader.

Of course, again, we must uncomfortably point out that this is not unique to Christians - there are bobbleheads of politicians and supreme court justices, after all. Of course, fixation on the "conservative" Trump cult is the flashiest talking point lately, but the idea that every Trump sycophant is also a devout Christian is simply a false concept. Most Christians raised quite the eyebrow at the trotting out of a literal golden statue of Trump at CPAC, and our constant reminders and basic worldview concept of the fact that human beings are flawed and imperfect leads most actual Christians toward remaining sane and stable as our associates grow closer and closer to the concept of Trump as a savior. Jesus as the only one who saves is, quite literally as well as figuratively, a bedrock upon which we can remain grounded.

Secular folks do not have this kind of grounding, allowing their devotion to ebb and flow as charismatic leaders, promising all of the social change they desire, rise up and battle for the spotlight (this is how the antichrist will gain power, loved by the world - not Christians). Of course, I must mention, for fairness and context, that the worship of politicians is somewhat uniquely American - many people from other countries comment on how strange it is. Unfortunately, no one from any country is safe from the risk of attaching to a leader or charismatic figure as long as they lack a rock upon which to stand and place their trust. Again, it is ironically the Christian worldview alone that protects from the mental problem described here.

This next one I find quite interesting, described as "desperately seeking simplicity". The concept here is that a biblical understanding of our world creates quite an easy to follow set of instructions for what is right and wrong. The main point of contention here is that the author insists the world is much more complex than what a biblical worldview allows. The problem here is not that the biblical worldview is simple, but a concern that Christians would supposedly seek simplicity where there is none. The main flaw in this concept is the idea that Christianity does not contain any murky situations that require nuance and deep, complex consideration. 

I'm sure you can guess, but that assessment is wrong. Yes, there are aspects that are simple, but there are aspects of life that are simple. There are, in fact, many things that are astoundingly simple. Just as many things in biblical understanding are simple and many things are complex, so it is in a general sort of way, about everything. I must also take a quick moment to point out, that surely this list item should have been closer in position to its counterparts, items 2, 3, and 4. Indeed, this seems at best to be just another branch of the "good guys vs bad guys" point of contention from above. However, I'll address it as if it were its own case.

Compartmentalization is a problem Christians can have, but so can anyone else. Indeed, the failure to consider things as parts of one whole is a common ailment of the general population. The real issue here is not of a failure for Christians to consider "complex moral questions" but the actual point of contention is that Christians have an objective moral standard through which they analyze moral situations. There is no argument to be made that it's somehow bad to consider things with a "simple" moral frame, as how simple your moral framework is, is irrelevant to whether something is moral or immoral. The argument being made here can only logically be that the Christian moral framework is incorrect, not that Christians are somehow "trying too hard to find simplicity". This is not too surprising, since the author clearly disagrees with Christian morals. To phrase this another way, the author is not upset that Christians have a simplistic moral worldview, but that the Christian moral worldview itself is simplistic. 

And, frankly, the Christian moral framework is only simplistic in the broadest terms. We can easily designate things as murder or theft, but this is one part of the equation. Indeed, what do you DO with the murderer and the thief? God only tells us these things are wrong, He does not tell us how to punish these sinners. You can be executed for murder, but adultery is not against the law. Both are egregious sins! How to move forward from someone else's wrongdoings is intensely complex and the Christian worldview does not simplify them anymore than a secular one. In fact, it may make them much more complicated. God wants us to forgive people who have wronged us, which some brave souls have so shockingly managed to do for people who have murdered their loved ones. I can barely imagine having that kind of resolve. This is supposed to be simplistic?

The list item has other concerns to point out, like perhaps a fight lacks any identifiable good or bad sides, or problems that have no "right" answer. I place suspicion on the use of the word "right", as the author likely meant "perfect". Mostly everyone knows there are problems with no right answer, but we simply try to choose the best one. Sometimes there does not even seem to be a "best" one. These issues do exist within a Christian framework, as if they did not, we would not be instructed to pray to God and ask Him for wisdom for such complex issues as these. The "good guys vs bad guys" issue has, of course, already been beaten to death.

The only difficulty the author has that I would concede as accurate is a concern for "blurry" lines between humans and other sentient creatures. There is a biblical truth that animals lack the breath of God that humans have; there is indeed no blurred line. However, there is no biblical justification for anything less than respect and responsible treatment of those animals, as we were given dominion over them, but also told directly by God to care for and tend to His creation. The issue here is - funnily enough - a lot more complex than the author would have us imagine. If it were not complex as such, we would not have the vast number of incredibly long debates about whether it's most biblical to be vegan if possible. Frankly, coming from a staunch believer in a large number of simple biblical answers for a wide array of things, I could not tell you for a fact that veganism is not biblically coherent. The bible provides no clear answer on whether it is most righteous to abstain from meat or not. The only things I can say for sure is that humans have the breath of life from God while animals do not, that we were given dominion over animals, that we were charged with tending to animals, and that we were given permission (not commanded!) to eat meat. From there, there's quite a lively debate.

The final list item is something I would understand as a mental problem for former Christians - the nagging feeling that you're wrong, that you've made a mistake. This is, of course, something active Christians also struggle with, and indeed, every single living human person. We all struggle with doubt, and I'd be quite suspicious of the one who claims they do not.

Thus, our unfortunate adventure ends with a few closing paragraphs. The author is, in fact, a former Christian, so I can only assume their upbringing and Christian instruction were flawed, as many experience, perhaps unknowingly. It is never enjoyable to see that someone has rejected God, since we all know what that means. 

I must draw attention to the quote, meant to be poignant, "I would rather live with unanswered questions than unquestioned answers". I am clearly not the person this quote is meant for, as it makes no sense to me. While living as Christians, did these people truly believe they had no unanswered questions? I have an absolute smorgasbord of unanswered questions. I am constantly in wonder at the universe God has created, the plans He has. Properly appreciated, Christianity leaves perhaps too many unanswered questions, which is likely how we got to the point of thousands of denominations. I also have very few "unquestioned answers," and I'm not sure that this phrase is much more than vapid nonsense. Perhaps it seems so brave and inspiring because people do not wish to appear stupid by questioning it?

Unfortunately, despite being so humble as to admit that one cannot possibly have all the answers, they contend that they do have at least one answer, which is funnily enough one of the most arrogant. Looking back and being "certain of one thing", which is, that God is not real, is the absolute most obtuse thing to be certain of. If you are, as nihilistic atheists are so fond of reminding us, one speck in billions of entirely common and non-miraculous living creatures standing upon a rock hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, how can you be so certain that there is no God? They believe themselves to be so humble, yet drip of hubris all over. I would know, of course, being a former atheist. Unlike a former Christian, it does not bother me so much that I may be wrong to have abandoned atheism. Blaise Pascal has a good few points to make on that wager. While we all have our doubts, mine are quite fleeting, and mostly revolve around other things than the existential questions of life and death. 

This wild ride has drawn to a close. I will concede that improperly understood Christianity will likely lead to a good number of unhealthy behaviors and mental disturbances, but funnily enough I would view this list as a good diagnostic tool for finding out if someone is following a cheap riff off Christianity rather than the real thing. Maybe we should read this list in church to find people's weak points in scriptural and theological understanding. 

What Does "Catholic" and Religion Mean to the General Public

The current political discourse is focused pretty heavily on President Trump's most likely choice to fill the Supreme Court seat, Amy Coney Barrett. While large numbers of arguments are bubbling up all over for every possible for and against position, one of the agreed upon main focuses for the mainstream pundits is over her religious faith. She is a Catholic who actually believes in Catholic tenants, which of course is bad according to liberals and progressives. It's not that she's Catholic persay, it's that she actually believes in and practices her Catholic faith. This results in the argument that she intends to legislate through her religious beliefs.

Many have pointed out that the problem is certainly not simply that she is religious - while there is a large number of atheists and anti-theists who claim that having religious beliefs at all is a crime against humanity, anyone who is honest is able to recognize that it's the active practice of the actual beliefs behind what it means to be Catholic that is the "problem". People who are looking only to score "debate points" ignore the obvious, well understood concept here that people are against anyone who actually believes in what they say they believe, and attempt to proclaim that, "no! of course we are not against Catholics! How absurd, clearly, honestly, how could you be so obtuse as to say we don't like Catholics!"

Anyone intellectually sincere understands that the thing that causes the disagreement is when the faithful person in question goes forward with applying their beliefs actively to their life. See, that's the "bad thing" that religious people do - when people believe there is an all powerful, all knowing, merciful but just God who created all things, who created existence itself, and has given us directions on how to navigate through the universe He created, and then apply this knowledge to their everyday existence in a way which is entirely consistent and obviously understandable when you give it more than a passing thought, that's a problem. You can have your "religious beliefs" - that is, that God has given us distinct instructions on what is good and what is bad and that these things apply to all existence at every second of every day - but don't you dare actually believe that.

So, how does this weird inconsistency happen in the first place? Amy Coney Barrett is Catholic, just like Joe Biden, even Nancy Pelosi. All of these people self-identify as Catholic. Amy Coney Barrett is the only one who causes issues, because she actually practices Catholic beliefs. But as far as intellectually dishonest left-wing pundits are concerned, all three are fully and equally Catholic. The American left doesn't have a problem with Catholics, and the followup argument that is either thinly veiled or outright proclaimed is that right-leaning pundits are making up strawmen and being insincere when they say that an anti-Catholic bias exists. Because, you see, Joe and Nancy are Catholic! So, obviously, we see there's nothing wrong with Catholics. This should seem absurd if you are capable of honest analysis - because it is. But how do people get here, to this obviously cognitive dissonant position, without seeing the issue?

The actual root problem lies in what the general public understands about what it means to have a religious belief, and especially Catholic beliefs. To understand how this inconsistent belief persists, we have to look at how people understand what it means to be both Catholic and religious. The problem is quite clear when we first realize that the common American fundamentally misunderstands what religious beliefs even are. The problem is exacerbated by the idea of the Catholic identity, which somehow manages to exist in this peculiar state as almost a separate idea from actual faithful religious beliefs. Let me explain.

America was a Christian nation at its founding. People often talk about how the colonists were seeking "religious freedom" when they came to North America, but sneakily discard the obvious fact that this religious freedom was Protestantism and not, say, Judaism or Buddhism. They didn't seek "religious freedom" so they could practice pagan tree-worship and become Wiccans - England was Catholic and the colonists wanted to be Protestant. Still explicitly Jesus worshippers - the religious freedom they sought was away from the Pope and the theocratic legal atmosphere therein. The purpose of explaining all this is to stress that Americans from their very foundation, and thus American culture from its very beginning, was Christian. This means that the every day person believed in God, spoke of God, prayed to God, and the culture was directly influenced by religious beliefs - what is basically "socially right-wing" today. A cohesive and coherent understanding of who God is was explained to children and adults every day through media, every day conversations, cultural phenomenon, and of course in church, where people actually went very often. The general cultural understanding of God and religious reality was Christian and was much more correctly understood than it is today.

This culture persisted for the next couple centuries of America's history. It has only recently begun to be dismantled, the culture only recently - within the lifetimes of people alive right now - has become abjectly secular. This means that the common man no longer genuinely believes in God as described by the bible, as this information must be sought out individually. It takes a person with intentional desire for faith-focus education to find out the reality of who God is and what it means to believe in Him. These days, it's not taught or explained to the average person without their effort. People come to understand what God is and what faith and religion are via infostreams that do not explain these concepts properly. The Christian understanding of the world is a faded echo in our culture - people use "Jesus Christ" as an expletive without even consciously realizing they're invoking the name of the savior of the world. People believe nebulously in the concept of God without believing anything consistent about Him - not even that they would believe other religion's concepts of God, but that they simply believe in God as a secular, cultural concept - a brand new concept of God that is not reflected in any formal religious understanding. These people have not engaged with religion as an important aspect of their lives and believe very generally things like "good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell" without ever reflecting any further on this idea. Absolutely no recognized religion actually believes in Heaven and Hell this way, these concepts are best described as "secular spiritualism". These people falsely identify as Christian or Catholic due to their upbringing because their parents said "we're Catholic" and then they never actually learned what any of that meant. Or, perhaps, they did learn it, but it became unlearned as they aged within our aggressively secular culture.

These secular-focused and non-Christian ideas have invaded the current culture so that much older people - say maybe 65 and older - were the last generation to experience an actual cohesive religious reality portrayed through media. As the 1970s came and went, the culture became exponentially more secular, and this ever-present general understanding of actual religious reality experienced by the average, every day person has gone away. What this means is that well meaning parents of baby boomers who experienced a constant every day culture of religious reality simply expected their children to grow up the same way, not believing they needed to put actual individual effort forth into ensuring that their children grew up with a coherent religious understanding of God and Christianity. Even people who had strong religious backgrounds growing up may quite easily, and without intending to, fall away from their faith simply because there is such a deficit in the culture of mentioning God. They simply "forget to remember" God in their day to day lives because there is nothing around them reminding them.

This overall failure to understand the importance of our existential spiritual reality that is encompassed by religious faith is the root cause of this strange phenomenon where "Catholics" like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are A-OK by democrats, in a very real and sincere belief by the general public, but Amy Coney Barrett's actual Catholic faith that she actively applies to her life, is not. To the general common man, these three people are all genuinely Catholic. It is a unique aspect to Amy Coney Barrett that she actually applies her beliefs - a concept that, to the general public, is something "people who are religious" can simply choose to turn on and off at will without their underlying spiritual commitment being affected. They in all sincerity do not understand the problem here.

The reason for this is that they don't understand what "makes" someone Catholic. The general layman understanding is, in all actuality, that someone is Catholic by way of the performance of rituals in their upbringing, by way of their parent's faith. They have a confirmation name, and thus they are Catholic. It is understood - very incorrectly - as an aspect of someone's identity in the same way that you graduated from a particular college or, to some, similar to how someone can be Jewish, but not religious. People are for example "Irish Catholic" by birth - despite the fact that Catholic identity is not connected to any race in the way that Jewish identity is, severing the importance behind the actual application of religious beliefs to their lives. "Being Catholic" is a nebulous identity with no actual important underlying aspects to the majority of Americans. 

 

Biden is Catholic because, well, he just is. He was "raised Catholic" and thus, despite not believing anything even vaguely resembling Catholicism, he simply is Catholic as a matter of identity. Barrett is equally as Catholic as Joe Biden, but she is also religious, where Biden is not. People understand this issue subconsciously but fail to fully apprehend it, thus they believe something as ridiculous as "we have nothing against Catholics don't be silly" without seeing any inconsistencies in their beliefs. Someone being Catholic is effectively meaningless, just a box you check on the census indicating a particular series of rituals performed as a child, and nothing more.

Both the people who believe they are Catholic and the secular, existential-reality denying faithless general public do not understand what someone is saying when they say they are Catholic. The concept exists of a "lapsed Catholic" which, at its base, means someone who is simultaneously Catholic and not Catholic - they were Catholic, but do not practice Catholicism anymore, yet in a subtle way they somehow remain Catholic by way of immutable identity. The very existence of the phrase "lapsed Catholic" underlines the issue here - people believe you simply are or are not Catholic by way of circumstance, not by way of genuine committed faithful adherence to a set of religious beliefs. If you've ever attended Mass or been confirmed, you're now always Catholic, allegedly. 

 

But that is not how religion - any religion - works. In fact, we simultaneously seem to believe it's possible to choose your religion due to your preferences while believing someone who was raised Catholic is simply always Catholic. You can choose to convert - religion is just a meaningless preference, like preferring Coke over Pepsi, and yet they are simultaneously concrete indicators of identity of a person. These conflicting ideas exist in the consciousness of society without reflection and people fail to recognize the issue with these inconsistencies. Religious affiliation, in fact, is so meaningless, that we take at face value every claim of religious identity. This should not be the case - if someone says they are Christian, they cannot deny all of Christianity's dogma. 

 

I am not even referring to, here, on matters of popular disagreements like gay marriages or women pastors - there is an unbelievably high number of people who identify themselves as Christians and do not even believe Jesus was a real person. There are people who claim to be pastors who genuinely believe you can actually just believe whatever you want and still go to Heaven if you are "good" - this is not a belief congruent with Christianity. There are bare basic claims Christianity makes that, if you don't believe in them, you cannot in any good conscious claim to be Christian. It would be like saying that you are a vegan, but still eat fish. There is a different name for that classification of identity, and it is not "vegan". When we allow definitions of words to exist in the general conscious that conflict directly with the understood definition of that word, the result is that we communicate nothing. In this day and age, saying that you are a Christian has effectively been made meaningless because it carries with it no consistent outline of expectation - if you can say you're a Christian and simultaneously believe that everyone goes to Heaven, then what does "Christian" even mean?

Now, in regards to the actual theological beliefs that coincide to Christianity, there are certain truth claims that are necessary to say that you believe in Christian dogma. While the cultural problem with the definition of religion in and of itself suffers from this failure to adhere to even the bare basic tenants of a religious affiliation, things like the aforementioned popular disagreements do still come into play in a very real and important way. If you believe in the truth claims made within the Christian religion, then you should, if you are being consistent, thoughtful, and intellectually honest, wind up believing particular claims made within Christianity that are not explicitly existential theological truth claims. Of course I refer to "social issues", and the social issue that is in the forefront here because of this whole current hulabaloo with Barrett is of course the issue of abortion. 

 

Catholics believe in a very specific set of theological truths in regards to God, Jesus, the spiritual world, the value and purpose of human life, salvation, and eternity. When those theological truths are applied thoughtfully, a Catholic should be staunchly against abortion. This is where the issue is coming into play - Biden and Pelosi claim to "be Catholic" in a meaningless, self-identifying sort of way, while Barrett claims to be Catholic in an actual, applied, committed way. Thus, with no actual theological beliefs about truth, the aforementioned duo are in favor of abortion on demand at any time and in any circumstance, while people are "afraid" that Barrett - because they, whether they spell it out for themselves or not, truly do understand the concept that the theological truths put forth by Catholicism ultimately comes to a conclusion where abortion is morally repugnant - will legislate from her religious beliefs against abortion.

The failure of the common man to bring beliefs to coherent conclusions is the root of this problem. The culture will pretend like you can choose a set of religious beliefs that you have, but you never speak about them, you apply them only personally to yourself, and that you should under no circumstance discuss them or apply them to the rest of your beliefs that "aren't about" religion. The very act of having a certain set of beliefs but not applying them to the rest of your thought processes is cognitive dissonance - it is inconsistent and incoherent. When you do not apply your beliefs about one thing to another thing, you wind up with inconsistent beliefs, in regards to anything. It is how hypocrisy occurs. This idea that we should keep our "religion out of politics" or "religion out of ____" is nothing more than social pressure to be hypocrites. If we were to be sincere - intellectually honest, thoughtful, self-reflective people - then we should, absolutely, under every circumstance, apply our religious beliefs to our politics and every other aspect of our lives.

The failure to recognize this comes from a failure to understand what religion is. I'll help - religion is the term we use to describe the mechanisms by which we believe the entire world operates. It would be an aggressive act of intentional mental disconnection to have the beliefs I have about God, how we got here, why we are here, who Jesus was and what He did, and what will happen to each of us when we die, and then proceed to not think about that in regards to everything else that ever happens to me or anyone else on this earth. If I believe God is active in my life, it would be nothing less than pathetically thoughtless for me to not remember that when I think about other aspects of my life. The very idea that religious beliefs, of all possible things, are somehow relegated to only discussing privately in your own head, is the most offensive scam in modern history. The purpose of religion is describing our very existence in the most fundamental possible ways. People have managed to incorrectly define and identify the purpose of religion to the point where people don't even know what it is for.

Indeed, it is more accurate to define our religious beliefs as our "worldview" - especially because there are a good number of people who claim to "not be religious" while simultaneously holding views about the fundamental reality of our existence. That is what religion is, and thus everyone is "religious" - or at least analogous to it. The modern blunder of inaccurately defining religion has led to a fractured social consciousness - it is totally normal and acceptable to simply have beliefs about things, and as long as you don't imply in any way that you believe the way you do due to your "religion" (i.e., the fundamental understanding of the cause and purpose of our existence) then people will debate you based on the merits of your beliefs. As soon as you attribute those beliefs to your religion, then it is the religion that is the problem, and you should have never applied your religion to your beliefs - despite the fact that the root cause of all belief is "religious" in nature, attributed to the worldview we have about the mechanisms through which existence functions. To say you are "not religious" is truly to say you are not self-reflective or thoughtful - you are drifting through life without ever stopping to think on the whys or hows about it.

This is how we have arrived to this nonsensical future, where anyone can say they are a Catholic and democrats can say they don't have anything against Catholicism, while simultaneously being against everything that Catholicism has to say about anything at all. The failure to adhere to a coherent understanding of the words we are using has created an epidemic of communication failures. Do not be fooled by this flimsy argument - this baseless idea that democrats are fully accepting of Catholics because particular prominent democrats "are" Catholics. The definitions they are using are different from the definitions we understand - and thus, it is fully consistent, in their minds, to make these claims. We differ fundamentally not merely on ideas of law and politics, but the very essence of what makes up our reality. This is the reason why there is such immense failure to find common ground with our ideological rivals - they are speaking a completely different language.