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?

Do Women Really Want To Be Paid In Birth Control Pills?

Well, well. The Rush Limbaugh took the bait and got himself in trouble for calling a rather silly woman a nasty name. Sandra Fluke testifies that the Georgetown University Law School health plan should cover her birth control costs, which she absurdly prices at $3,000 for three years' worth. Instead of just pointing out the mathematics of this, and how truly silly this person, and the whole argument is, or better yet, just letting her put her testimony into the congressional record and letting it go, Mr. Limbaugh elevated her to status of a cause celeb, which is exactly what she wanted.

Now, the woman was clearly exaggerating the cost of birth control in order to draw attention to herself, but let's use her numbers as an example. Here's the math. If a health plan is to provide $1,000 per year in birth control pills for every woman, that would mean an increment to the health bill of 1,000 per year. One might argue that the cost could be spread over men as well as women, which would mean that each person's premium would go up by $500, for which the men wouldn't get anything, except perhaps, a vasectomy, if he so elected.. If you are lucky, your employer might pay half of this, so everyone would pay an additional $250 for insurance, and the employer would pay an additional $250, which the employer could otherwise add into the person's check.

So, the real question is, would most women rather be paid an extra $500 per year in cash to spend on whatever they want, or would they like to be forced to pay $250 more in insurance premiums so they can get $1000 worth of birth control pills? Yes, in this scenario, women have succeeded in wrangling an extra net of $250 worth of birth control pills from their male co-workers, but really, do women really want to be paid in birth control pills? And, if we offered most women $500 more in their pay, would they find a more efficient way to avoid pregnancy on their own, and be able to spend the difference on something else?

I know the administration would argue that by avoiding pregnancy and its attendant costs, the overall health care costs would actually decline. But, by their own reckoning, 99% of women are already using birth control. So, will there really be fewer pregnancies if only we paid women in birth control pills?

Proud To Be A Jesus Eater

Larry Doyle of the Huffington Post published an anti-Catholic blog post called, "The Jesus-Eating Cult of Rick Santorum." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-doyle/the-jesuseating-cult-of-r_b_1296358.html?ref=tw

It is filled with hatred and untruths. One would think Mr. Doyle would like to go back to the days when the government of the time fed the Christians to the lions. Indeed, much of his mischaracterizations are the same ones the Romans used, until, of course, the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire. But in all of his attacks, one truth is undeniable. Catholics are Jesus-Eaters. And, I think, we should be proud of it. Just as we take the cross, the instrument of cruel torture that was used to execute our savior, as our symbol, we should accept the title of Jesus-Eater.

We'll give Mr. Doyle that one as a truth, but let's count the lies:

1) The Catholic Church is not a cult, any more than any established religion is a cult. The word 'cult" is used as a pejorative. The Church certainly is not a cult of Rick Santorum. It might be called a cult of Jesus Christ, which is another title I would accept.

2) Mr. Doyle refers to "the bloody jihads his so-called church has carried on for centuries." What are these? It might be true to say, "carried out centuries ago," but has carried on for centuries? I would have to ask for clarification. In the 20th century, state sponsored atheism was responsible for far more murders than the Catholic Church could have ever even imagined. I wonder what Mr. Doyle thinks of the bloody cults of atheism?

3) Mr. Doyle makes an alarming charge that the Catholic Church has assumed the role as the tactical arm of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, that he claims he "discovered after conducting some research on the Internet." He even provides a link, but the link goes to an article alleging that the Girl Scouts are the tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, and does not mention the Catholic Church or NAMBLA. I think you need to be a little careful about what you read on the Internet. The Catholic Church has identified homosexual acts as sin for centuries and still does, despite the failings of a small minority of priests who have been guilty of falling to such temptations.

4) Mr. Doyle asserts that Irish Catholics are the worst kind. I don't think there is any evidence to support this, and I'm not exactly sure what he means by the "worst kind."

5-6-7) Here's a doozy of a sentence; "Unlike Christians, Santorum and his fellow Roman Catholics participate in a barbaric ritual dating back two millennia, a "mass" in which a black-robed cleric casts a spell over some bread and wine, transfiguring it into the actual living flesh and blood of their Christ. " First of all, Catholics are Christians, so it is nonsensical to begin with "unlike Christians." For centuries the only Christians were Catholics. Then, while it is true that the Catholic Mass does date back two millennia, it is hardly barbaric. If Mr. Doyle ever attended a Mass, as he claims he has, he would not see anything barbaric in it. Also, the priest does not wear black robes when celebrating the Mass. The robes are different colors based on the liturgical season, or day in the liturgical calendar. There is nothing dark or mysterious or secret about any of this. It has been going on in the open, in much the same way, for two thousand years, and all are invited to come and see, and even join the Church, if they wish to accept its teachings. Also, I would hardly characterize what the priest does as "casting a spell." And, the bread and wine are not "transfigured;" they are transubstantiated, which means that the substance changes into the body and blood of Christ, but the species remains bread and wine, which means it still retains the physical appearance of bread and wine, though its substance has changed to be the body and blood of Christ. Mr. Doyle seems to have confused this rather difficult theological teaching which leads to his next outrageous sentence.

8)"Followers then line up to eat the Jesus meat and drink his holy blood in a cannibalistic reverie not often seen outside Cinemax." If only Cinemax limited itself to the kind of activity that occurs in a Catholic Mass! Only, I don't think many would watch. Or, maybe just on Christmas and Easter. The charge of cannibalism goes all the way back to pagan Roman days. Nice of Mr. Doyle to resurrect the old charge. As mentioned previously, there is no "Jesus meat." The species remains bread and wine, the substance has changed into Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe what the Catholic believes, but suggesting that the bread of life becomes meat is just an outrageous lie.

9-10) "Roman Catholics like Santorum take their orders from "the Pope," a high priest who, they believe, chats with God." No, Catholics do not take their orders from the Pope, any more than Barack Obama gets his orders from Jeremiah Wright. The Pope gives moral guidance and instruction in matters of faith and morals. He doesn't order around presidents. And the Pope prays. He does not "chat" with God.

11) "Santorum has made no secret of his plans to implement his leader's dicta on allowed uses of vaginas and anuses, " I don't recall Mr. Santorum doing this? I have heard neither the Pope nor Mr. Santorum comment on the "uses of vaginas and anuses." The Pope may have commented on disordered sexuality, but there really isn't anything to "implement" here, only moral guidance on what is right and wrong, that everyone is free to disregard. I really am not sure what Mr. Santorum's unsecret plans are? I really think this is just another lie.

12) "Will child killers and terrorists go unexecuted on the Pope's say-so?" Since this is a question, it's not really a lie. The Pope has suggested that the death penalty should be reserved for the most grievous of crimes. A lot of people agree with the Pope on this, but I don't think Mr Santorum plans to take orders from the Pope, though he probably agrees in a limited use of capital punishment. Amazing that bloodthirsty cannibals should be against the death penalty in most cases, though...

13)"Will we be able to conduct our wars as we see fit, or only the "just" ones?" Another question, rather than a lie. Seems Mr. Doyle thinks it is dangerous policy to limit war making to just causes. Another surprising question from one who has accused the Church of centuries of jihad.

14) "If Santorum is a good Catholic, and he appears to be among the very best, our real president will be Benedict XVI (a "former" Nazi, by the way)." Well, we agree that Mr. Santorum is probably among the better Catholics, but that correct supposition leads to another lie. If Rick Santorum is elected, Rick Santorum will be the real president. And, while Pope Benedict was conscripted into the Hitler youth at age 14 in 1941 and later, into the Nazi German army, the connotation of "former Nazi' is misleading. He was more a victim of Nazism than a proponent of it. But, I guess we can say that this is misleading, but perhaps not a lie.

Now, let's look at the truth:

1) "Santorum has also remained silent on his religious organization's various reigns of terror, in which good protestants and others were tortured and killed in imaginatively grisly ways." I think this is actually true. I don't think I've heard Mr. Santorum talk about religious persecutions that happened centuries ago. I'm just not sure what Mr. Doyle would expect that Mr. Santorum could add to this history, nor why he should?

Mr. Doyle closes with a rather ominous question; "Need I remind you that only once in our great history has a Roman Catholic been elected president, and how tragically it ended?" That sounds rather like a threat. Is he suggesting that Rick Santorum would be assassinated? Is he suggesting that JFK was assassinated because he was Catholic? I really can't make sense of it.

Well, as a Jesus-Eater, I can attest that none of this hatred and scorn is new. It is truly odd, however that the Huffington Post placed this entry in the Comedy section. Does anyone find any of this funny? We are in a very difficult cultural place if people do. I would suggest that there is far more to fear from people who find this funny, or find much to agree with in it, than we do from Rick Santorum or Pope Benedict, who, most likely, will simply turn the other cheek and pray for their enemies.

Is Contraception Dangerous to Society?

Rick Santorum has recently caused a stir by suggesting that contraception is dangerous to society. Let's take a look at what might have happened if over the course of history we implemented a Planned Parenthood style two-child policy. What worthy people would not have been born? And, what unworthy persons would have survived?

...

First, let's decide on a Planned Parenthood style program. First, each person is entitled to two children. This means that you are not disqualified from existing if you have older half-siblings. Second, if your older siblings die before you would have been born, you are allowed to exist. We will only consider birth order, though we think Planned Parenthood might want to eliminate persons with birth-defects, as well, and there are two on our list of geniuses who might have been candidates for abortion. We are also allowing Leonardo Da Vinci to survive, even though he was born out of wedlock, which almost certainly means he was the result of an unplanned pregnancy.

...

I found a list of the top 50 geniuses of all time:

...

http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/03/30/list-of-geniuses-top-50-influential-minds/

...

Albert Einstein

Leonardo Da Vinci

Nikola Tesla

Sir Isaac Newton

Stephen Hawking

Michelangelo

Archimedes

Warren Buffet

Swami Vivekananda

Samuel Johnson

Immanuel Kant

Aristotle

Pablo Picasso

Niles Bohr

Thomas Jefferson

Plato

Winston Churchill

Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Edison

Daniel Tammet

William Shakespeare

Kim Peek

Ludwig van Beethoven

Srinivasa Ramanujan

Johann Sebastian Bach

Wolfgang Amedeus Mozart

Sir Francis Drake

George Berkeley

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Socrates

Linus Pauling

Christopher Michael Langan

Michael Faraday

Blaise Pascal

Galileo Galilei

Martin Luther

Robert Boyle

John Locke

Charles Darwin

Johannes Kepler

Napoleon Bonaparte

Garry Kasparov

John Stuart Mill

Rene Descartes

George Washington

Miguel de Cervantes

Francois Marie-Arouet (Voltaire)

Baruch de Spinoza

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

...
We are not going to argue the content. We will just stipulate that these are probably people we would like to have around.

...

And this list of the top 16 mass murderers of all time:

...

http://thepirata.com/top-mass-murderers-in-history/

...

Slobodan Milosevic

Harry S. Truman

Genghis Khan

Benito Mussolini

Idi Amin

Saddam Hussein

Suharto

Jean Kambanda

Leonid Brezhnev

Menghistu

Kim Il Sung

Pol Pot

Hideki Tojo

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

Mao Ze-Dong

...

Again, for the sake of argument, we are not questioning the content, though we might not agree with Harry Truman being on the list.

...

Using the Internet as a source, and if anyone would like to correct anything, please let me know, I found data on siblings and birth order for most of these individuals. However, I did not find enough information to apply the rules for the following:

...

Archimedes

Samuel Johnson

Socrates

John Locke

Garry Kasparov

Jean Kambanda

Menghistu

...

Of the worthy group, we would lose the following:

...

Nikola Tesla

Immanuel Kant

Aristotle

Thomas Jefferson

Plato

Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Edison

Johann Sebastian Bach

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Michael Faraday

Galileo Galilei

Martin Luther

Robert Boyle

Charles Darwin

Rene Descartes

George Washington

Miguel de Cervantes

Francois Marie-Arouet (Voltaire)

...

Of the mass murdering group, we only lose one, Pol Pot.

...

Imagine how history would have unfolded if Planned Parenthood had succeeded with their vision. Is it dangerous?

Why Obama Picked A Fight With The Catholics?

Why, oh, why? Here are some possibilities:

1) The smartest president ever elected made a mistake. Well, that's hardly likely. Let's assume he knows exactly what he is doing.

2) The president wants to make an ideological point about the value of birth control. This one hardly seems likely. No doubt the president thinks birth control should be available, but it already is, without the Catholic Church paying for it in most states. And, most people disagree with the Church's position already. It just does not seem likely that many people would be persuaded.

3) The president needs to shore up his political base of liberal women's groups. I give this one very little credibility. Liberal women's groups would not hold it against the president if he did not require Catholic institutions to provide birth control, especially if he did it quietly, with little fanfare.

4) The president would like to change the subject from the economy and focus attention on social policies, where he thinks he has an advantage. Possibly, possibly. Remember the George Stephanopoulos focus on contraception in one of the Republican debates that appeared to come out of nowhere? Over 8% unemployment and the world in turmoil, and the pressing question is about contraception? Well, perhaps, the president is doubling-down on changing the subject. Don't elect Republicans! They'll take away your birth control!

5) The president would like to take over health care in this country and Catholic institutions are standing in his way. Hmm. Are Catholic institutions standing in his way? Well, if you believe that President Obama's grand plan to control health care costs involves rationing of care, well, yes, the Catholics are going to be a problem. Catholics value life, all life, from unborn fetuses to disabled persons who cannot care for themselves. Progressives, while they advocate many similar positions to Catholics in terms of social justice, do not value these forms of life and advocate abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and even euthanasia. These are articles of faith for progressives, so if they are to take over health care, they need the Catholic church out. And, how better to go about it then to have the Catholics voluntarily withdraw from their social service ministries because they cannot abide requirements to provide contraceptives, something on which most of the Catholic laity do not agree with the Church's teachings? If this conjecture seems far-fetched, consider the recent action of the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois, where Catholic Charities divested its adoption and foster care services because it could not agree with mandated policies on gay adoption. The government wants the Catholic Church out of the social services business, which explains why the Obama administration granted the Catholic Church a waiver of one year to "adjust" to the ruling. Could "adjust" mean get out of the way? A fight with the Catholic Church is coming. Why not have it now?

Putting Catholics in a position where they must choose between their moral teachings, or their social service ministries, is despicable. It is an effort to isolate the Catholic clergy from the Catholic laity, and is wedge politics at its worst. To say that you cannot run a hospital if you are not willing to provide free contraceptives to your employees is tyrannical, un-American, and if the Catholic position on the morality of contraception is correct, completely evil. The smartest president ever elected certainly understands this.

Why Do Atheists Fight Against Their Own Interests?

Well, the latest atheist attack on religion is truly proving to be a pyrrhic victory. An atheist teen in Cranston Rhode Island is cheesed-off about the presence of a prayer posted on the wall of the cafeteria. When she reads this pray, she feels ostracized and left out. So, some trouble makers at the ACLU take up the cause and represent her. Now, the banner with the pray was not something new, that the crazy Christians just decided to put on the wall to start forcing kids into Godliness against their will. It was a gift to the school almost fifty years ago, written by a seventh grader in 1963. And, what was the content of this document that made this poor atheist feel so left out? Only one of the most beautiful, innocent prayers, one that we would hope all our children might say, one that we would beam with pride if our child had written it. A petition, if granted, could only make for the best students, and the best school environment, even for the atheists. Here's the content:

Our Heavenly Father,
Grant us each day the desire to do our best, To grow mentally and morally as well as physically, To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, To be honest with ourselves as well as with others, Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win, Teach us the value of true friendship, Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Amen

I just don't believe that any true atheist would object to this! So, you don't believe in God? Why not let the religious suckers believe this tripe! Would taking this prayer down make for a better environment in your school? Would you be more or less likely to be bullied if this prayer hangs in the cafeteria? If even only a few students take this message to heart, would it not improve the environment for you to learn, even if you are an atheist?

So, now the young lady who objected to this banner, and with the aid of the ACLU succeeded in having the banner covered up pending an appeal of the case, now, she who felt so ostracized by the mere presence of the banner, has to be escorted to school because of threats against her, and local florists refuse to deliver flowers to her, sent by equally misguided atheists looking to do battle against God. But, if God does not exist, what exactly are they so angry about? If you don't believe in God, why should it cheese you off if others seek the aid of something that does not exist, to be kind and helpful to their teachers and classmates?

If atheists were smart, they would quietly take advantage of religion, using it as the opiate of the masses, as Lenin called it. If they were smart, they would realize that their strength does not come in increasing their numbers, but by taking advantage of the foolish kindness of Christians. For, if there were more atheists, and fewer Christians, the world would be a darker, less comfortable place for everyone, especially those who do not believe in God.

Why Good Science is not Good Religion

Men of science these days appear to have as their objective disproving God, or, at least, finding inconsistencies between religious texts and physical realities in order to discredit religion. However, for most of the history of science, there was no such objective, and it is only a relatively recent change in the objective of scientific inquiry. The traditional objective of science was always to describe how God's creation worked, not to attempt to prove that it all could have happened without a creator. Yes, science can cast some doubt in this or that assertion from religious texts on how creation operates, or how things came to be, but the essential assertions of religion are beyond the reach of science. Religion attempts to explain the why of things, not the how. Explanations of the how in religion are only attempted in order to get at the why. Why is there evil? Why is there a universe? Why do things appear to happen in an ordered way, that, for the most part, can be modeled with mathematics? Religion points to a creator, a grand designer of all things, to explain the why. Scientific minds of today appear to be open to any possible answer to the why, other than a creator. I marvel when scientific rationalists assert that there is no evidence of a creator. My only answer is, "Look around!"

But, if we try to construct a religion based on science, we immediately find ourselves in difficulties. Science is based on drawing conclusions based on observations that rely on our senses, and our senses are easily fooled. While scientists may start with a hypothesis to prove or disprove through observation, and, in building models, may start with assumptions and use reason to prove or disprove the hypothesis, science itself does not start with assumptions to prove itself valid. If science were to have a creed, what would it be? If we were to attempt a creed for science, we might suggest two premises to start: 1) That all things are knowable, if they can be properly observed, and 2) that observations are reliable, that when things are actively observed, they occur the same way as when they are not observed.

If we could get scientists to agree to these two basic principles as a foundation for their religion based on science, they would also have to agree that if these principles were contradicted, it would disprove the basis of their religion. Based on these fairly simple principles, however, science has already disproven itself as a religion. Science has asserted, and proven through experiment, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which asserts that the more one knows about the position of an electron, the less one can know about its momentum. Therefore, if the knowing of one thing leads another thing to be unknowable, the first premise is disproved, since all things cannot be knowable with observation. And, to make matters worse for our religion of science, it is the observing of one thing that causes a change in the other. So, science has proven that things behave differently when observed, so how can observations be trusted to indicate how things operate when not observed?

Now, the discovery of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has caused some scientists distress. Albert Einstein has asserted that "God does not play dice with atoms!" But, to a person of religion, if God wants to play dice with atoms, that's God's business. God does not have to fit in Einstein's box. God's universe is not one where all things are knowable by man. The religious texts certainly back up that premise. And, it also appears to be a proven scientific fact. And, that's not a troubling revelation to religious people, but to scientific rationalists, it undermines the very premise and foundation of their work. Ironically, scientists may have an easier time disproving science than disproving God, for it is God who has set the limits on science, and He winks at us when we try to discover more than it is appointed for us to know.

And, the next questions may be more troubling for scientific rationalists. If there is no creator, why should certain things in the unfolding universe that occurred purely by chance be unknowable? And, if a human observer can change the physical behavior of subatomic particles just by looking at them, why is it so far-fetched that faith the size of a mustard seed might move a mountain?

Science in its proper place is a tool for discovering how God's universe operates. It is not equipped to prove nor disprove the existence of God. The discovery of uncertainty in the basic building blocks of matter, and that there are changes in the operation of the physical universe when observed, should lead us to a healthy skepticism of science that is not at all troubling to those who believe in the Creator of all things, but should trouble the deepest part of any soul that would promote science to the status of God.