My Blue Tie

I encountered a person who was upset at those who oppose gay marriage, since allowing gay people to marry in no way affects those who have a traditional marriage.  Not wanting to engage in a biased charged argument in which I would inevitably be called a bigot, I let her persist in her sense of moral superiority, and avoided expressing my view.  But, in thinking about it, it really is not the kind of arrangements that people agree to that bothers me at all, it is precisely what they insist on calling it that bothers me, because, were I married, changing the definition of marriage to include other arrangements that may be similar but are not the same as marriage would, in fact, bother me.  Since I am not married, let's consider something else that I may have, and that someone may change the definition of, and see if I have a right to be offended at the redefinition.

Suppose I have a blue tie.  Not just any blue tie, but the perfect blue tie.  It is precisely the right width and the perfect shade of blue.  When you think of a blue tie, you think of my tie.  Other people have thin navy blue ties, or wide pale blue ties, and I have to accept that when they call their ties, "blue ties," they are in the right, even if they are not the perfect blue tie that I have.  Now, suppose someone with a red tie really likes my blue tie, but he does not have a blue tie, he has a red tie.  But instead of getting a blue tie of his own, since he does not really want a blue tie, but just wants to be considered as having a blue tie, he decides to start calling his red tie a blue tie.  After all, it is similar to a blue tie.  You tie it around your neck the same way.  And, well, a lot of people have crummy blue ties that are not so nice.  And, his calling his red tie a blue tie in no way materially changes my blue tie.  My blue tie is just as perfect as it has always been.  So, why shouldn't he be able to call his red tie a blue tie?    So, now, when I tell people I have a blue tie, in order for anyone to know what I mean, I will have to add that I have a blue tie that reflects light between a certain range of wavelengths.  Perhaps, some people may come to believe that the perfect blue tie is actually a red tie.  Do I have a right to feel aggrieved by the change in definition of blue ties to include red ties, even though my blue tie has not changed?

Every person, gay or straight, has a mother and a father, and the ideal union between male and female that has procreative power is sanctified in the mystical bonds of marriage.  That is the perfect blue tie.  There are many bad relationships between men and women that still fit the bill and may be called  marriage, which is bad enough.  But, gay people know very well that no matter how much they love each other, and how similar their relationships may be to marriage, there is no procreative power in what they are doing, and so, calling the relationship a marriage will never make it one, any more than changing a definition can make a red tie into a blue tie.  Why not be happy with your red tie, and leave my blue tie out of it?  Why can't we say those with red ties will be treated the same as those with blue ties, without saying that therefore a red tie is a blue tie, and it is bigoted to say otherwise?  Why is it bigoted to believe that things can be similar without being the same?

Parable of the Ostrich and the Eagle

An ostrich is a magnificent bird, with many fine qualities, but it cannot fly.  Nothing in this parable is intended to insult or demean the ostrich in any way.

Once there was an ostrich who thought it was terribly unfair that he could not fly like other birds.  Oh, he tried to fly, by running, jumping, flapping his wings, and squawking, but could only get a few feet off the ground for a fraction of a second, not anything that a sensible bird would call flying.  But, the ostrich was quite good at squawking; he could squawk with the best of birds.  And so, the other birds pitied the poor ostrich.  He had tried so hard to fly, and after all, it does seem unfair that most other birds can fly, so why not the ostrich?  Why not just tell the ostrich that, well, yes, all that running, jumping, flapping, and squawking, was actually flying?  After all, there are many other birds  that don't fly so well?  And it would make the ostrich feel better, and maybe stop all that infernal squawking.

But then, the eagle swooped down, and added his two-cents.  He said, "You can't call what the ostrich is doing flying!  All that running and jumping, flapping and squawking!  That's not flying!  That's a mockery of flight!  When the other animals think about flying, they should be thinking about the way we eagles can soar up into the heavens, and swoop back down to the earth.  Not all that squawking, and useless flapping! If you call that flying, you have destroyed what it means to fly.  I know many of you other birds don't fly so well, but when you fly, don't you want to imagine that you can fly like an eagle?  Or, do you want the new image of what it means to fly to be what the ostrich is doing?  I don't want to hurt the ostrich's feelings, but it is not in his nature to fly.  Let him glory instead in his own great gifts.  After all, what bird among us can run so fast as the ostrich?  Let the ostrich be the image of what it means for a bird to run, and leave the flying to the birds that can fly."

Well, since the wise old owls thought it best to stay out of it, in hopes that all the squawking might at last come to a end, and the other birds thought the eagle was just being arrogant and elitist, they passed a law proclaiming that ostriches can fly.  And, some generations later, even the mighty eagle could be found meeting this new standard of flight, squawking, running, jumping, and uselessly flapping.  But he was not nearly so good at it as the ostrich.  And so, it became clear to all the birds, that in all God's great kingdom, no bird could fly quite so well as the ostrich, though he never managed to actually get off the ground.

But after a time, a new predator entered the land, and found most birds who had adopted this new standard of flight easy pickings.  Soon, the only birds left were the ostriches, who could still outrun the predator, and some of the wise old owls who never really bought into the new definition of flight. And with all there fellow birds gone, they wondered if maybe they were not so wise, after all.

Defending Life, Even In The Case Of Rape

Todd Akin, the Republican party candidate from Missouri for the US Senate, embarrassed himself, and the pro-life movement, by supplying the worst possible defense for outlawing abortion, even in the case of rape.  The proper defense has nothing to do with how common it is for women to become pregnant as a result of rape.  The fact that it is not common would appear to be a more likely reason to enact an exception.  Let us try to make a proper defense.

The argument in favor of an exception in the case of rape comes down to this: A woman who has been raped is an innocent victim, put in a situation not of her choosing, so how can you force the woman to carry the baby to term?  But, if we are to defend life, this is the wrong question.  The proper question is, Are we really not going to defend this child because the father raped the mother?  Is this life, thus conceived, not worth saving?  We can further ask, do we actually help the mother if we allow her to have an abortion?

The thinking for those who have never been in this situation is, "Of course, I would not want to carry the child of my rapist!"  But, if you take the time to actually talk to women who have born the child of their rapist, you rarely find that they regret the choice.  Make no mistake, it is a horrible choice to have to make, but the better choice, if you take the time to talk to people in this situation, appears to be to have the child.  What you find, if you investigate it, is that most women who bear the child of their rapist find something good coming out of a tragic situation.  Because the child is innocent of the crimes of the father, just as innocent as the mother.  And, abortion does not make the rape go away.  It only complicates the mother's grief with the added guilt of having taken the life of an innocent.

To say that it is right for a woman to have an abortion in the case of rape is to say that the child conceived in rape has no right to life.  Consider the testimony of a woman I heard on the radio.  She had been adopted, and once she had grown up wanted to find her birth mother.  In the process, she discovered that she had been conceived as a result of rape.  In talking to her mother, she discovered that if abortion had been legal, her mother would have aborted her.  Her mother had actually gone to two back-alley abortionists, but could not go through with it, considering the unsanitary conditions.  This child now thanks the pro-life advocates, who helped keep abortion illegal, for her life, as well as her mother, with whom she has renewed a loving relationship.  It seems that the gift of life, even when given grudgingly, may bear good fruit.  Do any of us have the wisdom to assert, "This one does not deserve to live?"

When advocates of abortion can look this woman, conceived as a result of rape, in the eye, and say to her that she should not have been allowed to live, that's when they will have earned the right to advise women to have an abortion in the case of rape.  Life is worth defending, no matter the circumstances of conception.

Why Reason Makes A Lousy God

Modern Atheists are not really atheists at all. They are worshippers of reason. And, they seem to believe that their faith in reason is well-placed, and gleefully point to various religious conflicts, most of which occurred long ago, and imagine a utopia, if only these religious fools would just abandon their superstitious belief in God. But the worship of reason, has in fact, been the cause of far more murders than any other religion. If we add the murders of China's Mao, and Stalin's Soviet Union, well, we find that state-sponsored atheism has quite easily surpassed any other religion in body count. It seems, when atheists are in charge, the murders are counted in the tens of millions.

Don't get me wrong. I have friends who are atheists, and they are fine people. In the millieu of a Christian-dominated society, the village atheist may even provide a beneficial, skeptical challenge to the dominant authority. I just don't want them in charge. And the reason is simple. Power corrupts. And, reason, in the hands of the powerful, with no belief in divine retribution, finds very fine rationale for the wholesale extermination of multitudes, and has no "superstitious" constraint to inhibit them from carrying out their fine and glorious plans. The most horrific plots imaginable seem reasonable to the atheist in charge, when there is no check on his power.

There is a reason why every science fiction story where the unfeeling, godless machines take over end quite unhappily for the human race. Reason, when unchecked by conscience, is a peculiarly unworthy god. And, does the god of reason really supply a way to form a conscience? Reason only provides a way for getting from assumptions to conclusions. It cannot supply assumptions. Many confuse an openess to new assumptions, or search for correct assumptions, as occurs many times in scientific inquiry, with reason. But science only engages in reason when checking the validity of assumptions. Reason does not supply the assumptions. And, the mind of man without a belief in a creator, a mind that dismisses the concepts of good and evil as false doctrines, while it may have convinced itself that it has applied reason to dismiss conventional morality, has no starting point to reason from to construct an alternative moral system. In my experience, most atheists stop at the point of dismissing religion and never bother to try to construct a new morality, and, whether they realize it or not, are left with power as the only remaining virtue. And, reason applied where power is the only virtue, has particularly ugly consequences, as it has no starting place but personal passions, or the will to survive. Such, I imagine, are the guiding moral principles of the dominion of Hell, itself.

Last weekend, a gathering of several thousand professed atheists gathered in Washington, D.C. Among there displays, there was a mock-up of a coin where "In God We Trust" was replaced with "In Reason We Trust." If we actually apply reason, rather than worshipping it, and learn a little from history, we will find that reason is not at all worthy of our trust. It is no mere coincidence that as the French turned to worship the Goddess of Reason in their bloody revolution, going so far as to place an image of the goddess of reason in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, that the guillotine lopped heads at an unprecedented rate. Reason is at best a tool for man's use in service of the one true God, never worthy of worship itself, and if ever promoted to the status of god, it will remain unsated as it demands multitudes of bloody sacrifices.

Why Does The Church Oppose Artificial Contraception?

There really should be no mystery. In 1968, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical, Humanae, Vitae, answering the question: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html. But virtually everyone who criticizes the Church's position, has not read this encyclical, nor addressed the assumptions and reasoning in it. Instead, they ascribe insidious motives to the Church, conjuring up bogeymen like a desire to repress women, or to ensure that there is an abundant supply of poor, stupid Catholics from which the Church derives her power. But, if you read Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul is very clear about the Church's motives, which are only to discern the natural law, which the Church does not view itself as creating, or even having the ability to change. And, Pope Paul also knew and asserted that what the Church had discerned as natural law would be controversial and difficult to accept:

"18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." (22) She does not, because
of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man. "

These are not the words of some nefarious cabal attempting to repress woman, but the words of a thoughtful and courageous seeker of truth and wisdom, despite the challenging nature of that truth, and its likely unpopularity. The Church is but the messenger; it does not create the rules.

Pope Paul made some assertions about the consequences of the use of artificial contraception. Let's see if you might think he was right:

1) "...first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards"

2) "... a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

3) "Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone"

More infidelity? Lower moral standards? Sexual objectification of women? Is it even arguable that the Pope's warnings about the dangers of artificial contraception were not warranted, and have not, in fact, been born out? The final warning is particularly concerning, given the latest debate. Forcing the Church to offer contraceptives and sterilization to her employees is getting very close to the government imposing the use of contraceptives on everyone.

If you wish to argue with the Church about the use of contraception, you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on her position by reading Humanae Vitae. You may well come to question your assumptions about the Church, and even if you find it difficult to accept the conclusions the Church makes, you will be able to see that the Church has no malice towards anyone, and in fact considered all the concerns that you have, and understands well your concerns, but she simply cannot tell you what you want to hear, any more than she could tell you it is okay to covet, kill or steal.

Is Contraception Health Care?

We religious folk are often accused of being incapable of, or afraid of, reason, because we believe things that cannot be proven. But, such things that cannot be proven, are the starting points of reason. We begin with definitions and assumptions that cannot be proven, apply reason, and draw conclusions. That is how reason works. What we do not do, is make reason into our god, and insist that all things must be proven via reason, with no assumptions on which to base our conclusions, as many of our critics do, as they attempt to use reason in reverse, starting with their preferred conclusion and trying to find the assumptions that would lead them there. We are often ridiculed for an inability to reason, while we have, in fact, flawlessly applied reason, and drawn proper conclusions that offend the sensibilities of those who do not like the place where reason has led. Such is the case of contraception and health care.

What is health care? What is its definition, our starting point for reason? We might say that health care is processes, procedures, or applications that preserve or improve health, or return the subject to health from an unhealthy state. Would that be a fair definition? If so, would contraceptives or sterilization procedures qualify as health care? Well, the goal of contraception or sterilization is precisely opposite to proper, healthy functioning of the body, is it not? Healthy bodies, when engaging in sexual intercourse, if things are working properly, may result in the female party becoming pregnant. That is the healthy state. Contraception or sterilization intends to cause the body's reproductive system to malfunction, which is in fact, the opposite of what a reasoned person would consider health care.

Often, the proponents of including contraception and sterilization services in our definition of health care will say that if you include Viagra, a treatment for impotence provided for men, then you need to include contraceptives for women. But this is an illogicality. Viagra is a treatment for a malfunction of the reproductive system, not a treatment intended to subvert the normal functioning of the body. A more logical parallel would be to assert that fertility treatments need to be provided to women who are having difficulty becoming pregnant, or other treatments intended to aid a woman who is having difficulty engaging in sexual intercourse to be more able to must be included. No one would object to such well-reasoned assertions. But to, assert that if you provide services that treat the improper functioning of the male reproductive system, you must aid women in subverting the normal functioning of their reproductive systems just does not make sense.

If the Catholic Church, or anybody else, does not wish to provide contraception or sterilization services as part of their health care offerings to their employees, they are on well-reasoned and logical grounds. Those who wish to force them to make such services available, if they wish to assert that their position makes any sense at all, are obliged to provide a reasonable definition of health care that would include the subverting of normal, healthy reproductive processes of the body. If they cannot, their demands are, indeed, unfounded and unreasonable.

St. Katharine Drexel

The Feast Day of Saint Katharine Drexel, patron saint of racial justice and philanthropy, is March third, just this last Saturday. St. Katharine was an heiress who became a nun and spent her considerable fortune founding institutions serving the Native American and African American populations, when neither the Federal Government nor State Governments had any interest in them. Now, the Federal Government is insisting that if these institutions want to continue serving these populations, they must provide birth control and sterilization services to their employees. Why should it be required that you provide birth control when all you want to do is provide education and health services to the poor? Do we really want to discourage religious people like Katharine Drexel from helping people, just because they don't wish to be complicit in their employee's use of birth control?