Someone needs to tell Scalia that... nt

The "religious left" isn't actually that religious...

which is why it acts differently from the religious right. From what I've seen, progressive religions are filled with types that have few specific beliefs beyond some comforting ideas about the afterlife. They're much more flexible and malleable, and much less consistent (thankfully) than the religious right. The people in it, for all intents and purposes, act like and think like atheists/agnostics in most ways, and quite a few of them probably are.

That, combined with the fact that liberals in this country never undertook to woo religion as a political strategy like conservatives did, and the conservatives are reaping what they sowed now.

Pathetic and disgusting...

are the words to describe the Catholic Church in their official positions of bigotry that they actively spread.

Apologists of this bigoted religion are engaging in disgusting and pathetic cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

And they are calling relevant criticism "bigotry". Reminds me of KKK members saying that the real racists are black people.

When a person holds the official position that women are inferior and gay marriage is an act of the devil, it doesn't matter what good he does in the name of those offical positions.

Everyone realizes this with secular institutions, but many religious people still feel privileged and entitled to special protection from criticism. Not anymore. Fuck that.

"Compassionate Conservatism" I believe is what it's called...

Feed the poor but don't do anything to change the system that keeps them poor. Oh, and hold a lot of socially conservative positions.

Eh, but many of the religious will grasp any sort of good nugget they can to not face the bad aspects of their own beliefs. Head in the sand.

You can...

but in the case of religion, if you're found out, you're gone, excommunicated, whatever (if the belief system is consistent). You're no longer a member. If you are found out as a citizen that you don't like certain laws or the moral justifications for them, nothing happens to you. Actually, you can be quite vocal about it.

Both function incredibly differently, and both of their functions are very different. One is meant to create a structure by which to govern society, the other is to expound upon supernatural, objective truths. One has lots of power, the other doesn't. There are a ton of differences.

You don't have to recite the pledge of allegiance...

and you don't have to believe in any of the values of the US to be a citizen. Even affirming and swearing an oath of citizenship has nothing to do with belief. As long as you serve, the US doesn't care what you believe. As long as you follow the laws, the US doesn't care if you don't believe the morality behind them. Belief systems, on the other hand, are quite different. In theory, at least, what you believe matters in belief systems. That's what they're built on.

Religions and political bodies are far too different for any good sort of analogy.

Let me deconstruct this terrible analogy again...

The US is not a belief system. The US doesn't have catcheisms, and you don't have to believe in anything the government says or any of its laws to be a US citizen. The US is a political body, one which can change its policies and does, and even allows for input from citizens.

You can become a citizen merely by being born in the US, but again, you don't have to be indoctrinated into a certain set of beliefs or proclaim your belief in them to be a US citizen.

If you decide to leave the US because you don't like the government's actions, the process is several magnitudes more involved and tougher than leaving a religion, and no matter where you go, you will be under another government.

Religion is a belief system. To belong to a religion, you have to believe the belief system, otherwise you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance. Catholicism specifically is a belief system that has little to no inpute from its members. It is essentially authoritarian and patriarchal in structure.

The vast majority of people who identify as religious came to that decision through childhood indoctrination. That's because religion requires you to believe in a belief system, unlike the US, in order to be a member.

If you decide to leave religion in the US, there are few financial barriers and many other religions out there to join, with all sorts of beliefs, or you can even choose no religion.

A person who identifies as an American is not identifying with any set of beliefs, because it's not a belief system. A person who identifies with a religion is identifying with a set of beliefs, since religions are belief systems.

So American citizens are not identifying or supporting a belief system, while religious people are. IMHO, considering how much easier it is to leave religion than a country (taking away the voluntary nature of it substantially, unless you are wealthy and privileged), and considering being a member of a country doesn't mean you are identifying with a belief system, the analogy that one is engaging in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty by being a citizen of a country the same as one is engaging in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty by being a member of a belief system strike me as a false equivalency and poor analogy. It reflects a deflection argument, since it does not answer the legitimate criticism of saying you're identifying with a bigoted belief system by saying "well, everyone does, see?"

With that sort of logic, criticizing a liberal for belonging to Pro-Life organizations, or a Koch Brothers organization, or the KKK, or ANY sort of bigoted or misogynist organization is off-limits. It's silly.

Religious people have this sense of privilege and entitlement that their religious beliefs are somehow above criticism. That's the way it has been for a long time. But no more. No, you're religious beliefs don't get a pass because the word religion is in them, and your membership in bigoted belief systems doesn't get a pass because it's a religion.

Everyone is born an atheist...

so we've been around awhile!

Religious people...

are not used to having their membership with their belief system, which in most cases is perfunctory, actually criticized. They feel privileged and entitled to their beliefs with no criticism of any sort. That's why they can't handle relevant, legitimate criticism of their membership. They're privileged. Hell, some consider it something in your DNA, like you are born into it, which is just a further validation of childhood indoctrination, nearly the sole way new members of churches are made.

What's worse, they don't believe the things their belief system says, so they feel like they're being criticized for beliefs they don't hold, yet can't quite make the connection (or refuse to) that they identify with a belief system that has beliefs they don't hold, and that is intellectually dishonest and an example of cognitive dissonance.

Catholics are discouraged from their faith...

and are leaving in record numbers. You can cover your ears and eyes and pretend all you want the the Catholic heirarchy doesn't exist, but it's there.

Your OP seems almost delusional, as if you're trying to convince yourself of some sort of ideal Catholic Church that has never existed. You might as well face reality. It's not just Catholicism, but all religions in the developed world that are shrinking.

As for religious schools... let's just say that indoctrinating children in unproven, unproveable beliefs is a form of child abuse.

Most Catholics are not tough, nor most other religious people, considering the majority don't agree with their own belief system yet won't face their own cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty out of fear. Hell, few have the courage of their religion's convictions.