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.