My Argument with a Pro-Abortion Journalist

It is difficult to respond with charity when "progressive" leftists show nothing but regressive disdain to their opponents.

There is a certain major journalist -- whom we shall refer to as "Mr. Z" for the sake of anonymity and my legal well-being -- whom I routinely challenge on his many false pro(re)gressive arguments. We have previously had an email exchange, while one of my numerous letters was published in his newspaper.

In Mr. Z's most recent tirade, he lambasts the pro-life agenda (whom he refers to under the misleading moniker of "anti-choice") for "not worrying about real babies" and "defending pseudo babies while not changing any diapers themselves." In what be one of the most ridiculous sentences in liberal journalistic history, Mr. Z writes:

"I, like most Americans, differentiate between actual, born-and-alive-in-the-real-world-now babies and the fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence that typically gets aborted."

This, my friends, is apparently what passes for a well-reasoned opinion piece these days. I could not resist a response. My first email to Mr. Z and his newspaper read:

It is interesting that Mr. Z would heap such derision on activists who care about the welfare of (in his own words) a "fertilized egg the size of a period." Mr. Z seems to forget that he also previously existed as a being no larger then the period which ends this sentence. Furthermore, when you deny an entire segment of our population its humanity, you find yourself on the very same intellectual slippery slope which has previously been used to justify the brutal murder of millions of other innocent "non-persons." I would think that a Jewish thinker would be more sensitive about making such unwarranted generalizations.

Much to my chagrin, Mr. Z replied quickly:

"Like the baby metaphor, the abortion-equals-holocaust line of thinking only really works if you already believe it. I could just as easily point out that the tendency of pro-lifers to force their religious scruples through law onto the unwilling smacks of the Spanish inquistiion. But that would be insensitive, though I'm not sure how somebody standing in the street with a five-foot photo of mangled fetuses can talk of "sensitivity." Thanks for writng."

You're more likely to get cohesive arguments out of a high-school debate team than the average liberal journalist, it seems. While I elected to ignore Mr. Z's blatant lack of knowledge regarding historical events like the Spanish Inquisition (which were just about as religious as another more-political-than-religious event, the Reformation), I couldn't resist another response:

"Thanks for your response. I will only briefly tackle what you wrote, in all charity and respect, simply because I can see that you have not thought this issue through. I will only itemize the list to make it clear, not in the intention of being condescending.

1.) The word "baby" is not a "metaphor," but rather only a label, albeit an emotional one. Yet one my continue to ask: when is it a baby? When it is wanted? Only after it is born? It is a terrible burden to define the beginning of our shared humanity.

2.) I never said "abortion = holocaust." I clearly said that it is a philosophical slippery slope to remove the rights of our shared humanity from any segment of the population. The Nazis thought that the mentally ill and elderly were "undesirables" whose life was a social burden; they also had no qualms regarding abortion. Slippery slopes being what they are, itt was not a far intellectual leap to label an entire nationality as sub-human. Consider what manner of rationalization it took to allow otherwise cultured and mannered men to slaughter thousands of men with their own bare hands.

3.) I never mention religion, nor are you fair to assume that I am religious. I've always said that atheists and secular humanists should be the most vehement pro-lifers. To the Judeo-Christian mentality, there is at least an afterlife. To the secular humanist, you are robbing a unique human creature of their only chance at existence. This is a terrible crime to commit in the name of social convenience.

4.) The people who stand in the streets with pictures of dismembered fetuses are simply trying to express the truth about the abortion procedure; it is a truth that demands an insensitive expression, as nothing else seems to get through.

-I appreciate your return email, and hope that you take these points under consideration. You are far too intelligent of a man to write the manner of article which was published in today's paper."

Predictably, Mr. Z never responded to this, as those who are grossly in error seldom wish to confront the glaring failings of their arguments. Yet his most recent column betrayed either further disdain for his readership, or perhaps the presence of an editor asking him to "tone it down a bit."

This most recent column, after the vicious anti-life attack, was about muffins.

Yes, "muffins." . . .

John Lennon and Bags Full of Dead Babies

It is no secret that many people in our culture today would like to create a new society without religion. Specifically, many would like to relegate Christianity to the trash-heap of historical memory, to be no more significant than the religions which came before it.

One of the most popular expressions of this worldview came in the famous John Lennon song, Imagine. The song begins by discouraging religious thinking:

People in China demonstrating a world without religion...

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

It proceeds with a rather utopian wish:

Imagine all the people
Living for today

Of course Lennon never thought about what a world without objective standards (and the possibility of spiritual justice) looked like.  It never  occurred to him that -- rather than creating a hippy utopia -- a world without ultimate consequences would eventually lead to moral anarchy.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
No greed or hunger
And no religion too

John never tells us how a world without coherent structures of government could feed billions of people. Nor could a state of political anarchy support healthcare, welfare for the poor, or education.  As to "greed," it is a real human tendency, and will persist with us until the end of time.  Finally, once he's done pulling out every structure we need to survive, John takes away our religion as well.

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

Yes -- clearly, a society with no governments to preserve the peace and provide for the economic structures necessary for human development -- along with a total lack of objective moral standards -- would lead to a peaceful utopian paradise.  It seems that our only problem would be finding enough flowers to plait into billions of shaggy heads of hair.

Clearly I have a great disdain for this song -- yet when you consider the colossal social damage it has caused, so should you! John Lennon wrote the anthem for the new irreligious culture, and it has echoed mindlessly through the unrefined intellects of millions.   This song should come free with every Hitchens or Davis atheism book sold; It could be a fitting background piece to the now famous atheist bus sign (picture, left.)

Yet it is no secret what such a pagan culture would look like, as there remain many parts of the world where Christianity has not become a dominant part of the cultural fabric. In recent world news, we hear of bags of dead babies being dumped into a river in China, or video games glorifying rape in Japan. It is not surprising that the majority of major human rights violations in our world take place in countries where the Christian ethos is not present.

With all of the major imperfections, hypocrisies, and potential troubles of organized religion, there remains the singular advantage of having an objective source of morality. These ideas -- observed in the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes of Christ -- provide an immutable standard for morality while establishing the universal love of human dignity. This objective standard allowed for the creation of the United States of America. "In God we Trust" is not a political option, but rather the source of American freedom and success.

Before the Judeo-Christian worldview, there was no objective for human dignity.

So before you rush to embrace a secular view of the world, think of the grave injustices which have always followed on the heel of pagan regimes such as Nazism, or atheist regimes such as the Soviet Union. Think of the terrible world of ancient Rome, or the modern human rights travesties in China.

The pagan world was -- and remains -- a dark and terrible place. It is a place where goodness and common decency only exist until somebody stronger takes them away from you. Even those who choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian religion should be grateful that this worldview founded a new society where intellectual and religious freedom is tolerated. Your freedom not to believe is a property of the dominant belief -- if you lose the Christian culture, you will also eventually lose your freedom.

After all, do you think football is brutal?  You should read about what passed for typical weekend entertainment in the pagan superdome, otherwise known as the Roman Colosseum.

Yet another reason to show a healthy disdain for all the fruitful "thinking" that went on in the 1960's...

God as the Practical Answer

Life with God is the easiest and most practical choice that man can make...

Thomas Paine wrote that "Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."  

Yet freedom, once earned, presents a quandary.  Is it possible that modern man has too many choices?  Furthermore, is it possible that he does not have the necessary spiritual formation to help him sort through the dizzying myriad of possibility before him?

Centuries after Paine, John Paul the Great said that "freedom consists in doing what we ought."  This is the quintessential truth about how to use our hard-earned freedom, and yet it is meaningless with an absolute reference point.  The freedom which Thomas Paine espoused -- and which John Paull II so perfectly defined -- needs God at its center.  To have any other reference point, be it a political ideal or a single man's will, can only lead to moral and aesthetic anarchy.  Our founding fathers understood this clearly when they used the phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident."  Without God, nothing is self-evident.


Yet as elegant and clear as this idea is, so many modern men either ignore or outright reject their God.  I recently came across the blog of a former student, now blissfully wandering the world and glorifying hedonism.  Confusing old thoughts and values with recent hippy social disasters, he blissfully sums up his worldview with a quote from the American poet and author, Charles Bukowski:

“I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”

One would have to labor greatly to cram so much idiocy into such a short paragraph.  Little wonder that Bukowski led such a shallow and narcissistic life, exemplifying the utilitarian and anti-humanistic despair that his type of "un-religion" was designed to breed.  I say "designed" because the above quote from Bukowski -- and other world-views similar to his -- are not a modern invention.  They come from a far deeper malice and a far more clever deceiver than the average hippy could hope to contend with.  Notice that in Bukowski's own prose, "god" is spelled with a small 'g,' while "Death" becomes a capitalized personality.  Notice the appeal to un-education, as such a worldview requires a mind easily deceived.  Notice the appeal to anti-religion, as such a world-view needs an unformed soul to corrupt. These are not coincidences, considering the spiritual root of such a phrase, as well as the moribund destiny of anybody who would follow such a thought to its inevitable conclusion.

God, in the end, is the impractical practicality.  Belief in him is the only sensible answer.  It brings sense to our lives by giving us understanding of our world.  It explains suffering, giving us a way to use this inevitable pain in a redemptive fashion.  It puts history into an understandable perspective.  It gives us rules by which to live, while presenting an ideal by which no rules will be necessary.  It frees human love to be an infinite gesture.

In short, it provides freedom.  He who seeks to be free must seek to "do as he ought."  In asking what we "ought," there is only one sure place to gain an answer.  There is no alternative path but the role of the aimless wanderer, and he is sure to get nowhere...

The Brother of Christopher Hitchens finds God.

Taken from a spiritual perspective, atheism is no more than a juvenile rebellion against your Father.  Sometimes prompted by real-life tragedy or betrayal, atheism nonetheless remains intellectually untenable and politically dangerous.  It is shocking that such a worldview could continue to hold water -- and attract believers -- after the bloody century of relativism we have just left behind.

This new atheism is truly a bigoted fundamentalism in disguise; as an anti-religion, it attempts to enshrine the very things which almost ended our society over the past 100 years.  When otherwise intellectually sharp people like Christopher Hitchens stubbornly insist on a doctrine that has led to nothing but heartache and tragedy, we can only wonder about their sanity.  


A fascinating article was recently penned by other Hitchens -- Peter -- about his tenuous journey back to the faith of his fathers.  Considering the strong climate of anti-religion in Europe, he writes:


   "Why is there such a fury against religion now? Because religion is the one reliable force that stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. The one reliable force that forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law.  The one reliable force that restrains the hand of the man of power. In an age of powerworship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power."


And yet Hitchens give us hope in the fact that he is able to reconcile with his fundamentally atheist brother.  As far as the faith goes, history has taught us a lesson:  Either cultures and civilizations return to their faith, or they collapse tragically.   The faith, when chased away, always finds a new home and a willing ear.  Civilizations are mortal, the faith is imperishable.  In our overly anthropocentric age, it is important to realize that the faith is paramount, and that the faith will always survive, whether the rebellion be a single juvenile act or an entire society's folly.


Already, I feel, the tide is turning back towards the faith.  This latest attack, it seems, is fizzling away...


I highly encourage you to read what Peter Hitchens has to say:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html

What We Have Lost

Already the lessons of this journey begin to emerge, and I feel as one who has been allowed to step outside of the mad rush of modern life in order to learn to live more fully. Surely, I am very busy. Surely, there are many challenges before me. Yet something is different.

I have always understood, even if intuitively, what we have lost as a Western culture. It was only later that what I learned confirmed my intuition. Now, I am beginning to feel what I have understood, and therefore understanding on an entirely different level.

In my previous blog, I wrote about the choral Mysterium I witnessed, and how it managed to fulfill a deep human need found scarcely anywhere outside of the realms of religion and art.

Over-skeptics, atheists, and doubters of all sort will be quick to counter that my religious sentiment is no more than a product of evolution, an evolved condition for my own personal comfort as well as for social cohesion.

I will be quick to counter that the deification of natural selection is far more bizarre than the belief in a higher power. If natural selection is truly so precise, then it makes no sense that mankind would have evolved a contentious "sense of things" for which he would also have to evolve a religious need as an opiate. No, my friends, this is far too complex, and hardly the most elegant solution to the matter.

Nor do I think that the being who willed us into existence is above dabbling in the very genetic code he created. If religious need be genetic, if emotions be entirely chemical, then it was meant to be so. It is exceptionally odd and short-sighted that learned men would assign to us a religious need borne out of randomness. Such men, for all their learning and degrees, are no more profound than bleating sheep and stubborn children.

Last night I attended Mass in yet another ancient Cathedral. This time the crowd numbered well over two thousand young people, all eagerly crowded around four Dominican Priests. In a country viciously under attack by secularism and liberalism, this was a stunning witness of faith from the generation on the cusp of taking power. The feeling in the Church bordered on ecstasy (aided along by a wonderful musical presentation and vivid homily.) And I was reminded of what we have lost.

In the west, we have lost the sense of origin. We are, for better or worse, the wayward creations of a higher power. While we constantly emphasize the grand potential of these "imperfect creatures," we are quick to forget how quickly this potential can go astray. The 20th century was, if nothing else, a material confirmation of the doctrine of original sin. Perhaps our current economic crisis is no more than a gentle reminder?

We need help. We need guidance. We need to take a day a week to slow down, take a deep breath, and bring our frail selves before the creator. We need grace to learn, grace to persevere, grace to live in the moment, grace to be kind, grace to know when to fight, grace to know when to back away, grace to know when we are wrong, grace to confess our wrongs, and grace to even begin to approach the image of a decent life.

This is not religious fanaticism, nor is it the sort of sentiment which breeds oppression. It is a simple and comprehensive knowledge, available to any person with the courage to truly examine the human condition.

America, God, and the Necessity of Natural Law

Church and state, so much hate...

Recently in an online debate concerning Prop-8, I suggested -- without stating my own thoughts on the issue -- that both sides, regardless of belief, should examine both prevalent scientific research on the topic, as well as the common-sense conclusions of Natural Law, before agreeing to legislate one way or the other. Two of the numerous vitriolic responses were telling:

"You need to keep your archaic religious beliefs out of this."
--and--
"Take your Natural Law and go live in the forest -- you'll be more comfortable there."

Ouch. But funny, considering -- in the first case -- that I had never brought religion into the issue, and -- in the second case -- that this person clearly did not know what Natural Law is.

It occurs to me that in order to justify the existence of the American experiment, both God and the Natural Law must be assumed as a measuring stick. You are free to be an atheist, of course, but you cannot request that "God be removed from the public sphere" without burning both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as well.

The foundation of the American experiment, and the very justification of our revolution, stems from Natural Law. (For those unfamiliar, a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)

For instance, take the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence:
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Laws of Nature, and Nature's God," you say?

How, in a public debate free of any mention of God, could the resulting relativistic morass agree that any truths are "self-evident?" The answer is simple: they couldn't. Nor would any self-respecting liberal agree that the last sentence above invalidates abortion-on-demand, but that's another debate.

And now we move to the first amendment of the Constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redres of grievances.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the document. Our Founding Fathers assumed that religious belief -- as a key forming element of every educated man's conscience -- would enter into the public debate. This is not to say that Congress should -- or even can -- debate theology. It is to say that the very human dignity which our elected representatives are sworn to uphold and consider cannot be fully justified outside of the theistic realm. End of story. No absolute truth, such as human dignity or freedom, is ultimately possible without an absolute referrant. To see the alternative, I refer you to the "people's" French revolution, or the experiments of 20th century communism.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but you must acknowledge certain basic facts about the American experiment, or become party to its unraveling.

You may not believe in God, or you may not be sure of what you believe... but be glad that other brave men of belief have made your disbelief a safe and legal possibility.

Natural Law is part of the Foundation of America, and we have no right to eliminate her source, nor to pass laws which go contrary to her common-sense dictates.

Don't like it? Move to China and have your relativism.

Dawkins Debunked.... Far too Easily.

Is Richard Dawkins an intellectual charlatan? How about a psychological terrorist?

A friend recently posted the following video. While I've been railing against Dawkins for quite a while now, I will share the video before I debunk it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTnbtSvjAQc

With all complete respect to intelligent atheists, I present this as a counter-argument, and not a personal attack.

All religions -- including atheism -- have a claim to ultimate truth or reality.

Having read Dawkins, I realize the philosophical errors he is prone to. This video is no different. His main thesis tends towards the idea of "religion leads to hate and death." He fails to address how atheist regimes such as the Soviet Union -- free of a absolute reference point for ideas such as freedom or human dignity -- have slaughtered people and amassed body-counts large enough to make the crusades look
like a cub-scout outing.

The very first person Dawkins interviews in this video brings up this very point. Dawkins ignores the query, instead labeling the man as a religious "fundamentalist." In doing so he avoids the question which is devastating to his entire argument. Hate-monger or not, the very first person Dawkins interviews in this video is capable of demolishing him in a public debate: it is fortunate for Dawkins that he controlled the editing of this video.

Dawkins also fails to recognize the begged-for question: how are atheist fundamentalists any better than religious fundamentalists? Aren't both working on philosophically-supported faith? Aren't both as historically prone to mass carnage?

This is why guys like Dawkins infuriate me -- they present themselves as de-bunking scholars and "clear-thinkers," while time and time again failing to address the most basic points regarding their so-called world view. A sophomore philosophy major could demolish most of their arguments.

Dawkins' chosen vocabulary is suspect. Words such as "beauty" and "goodness" and "evil", let alone "right" or "wrong" have no real basis outside of individual opinion when an absolute position -- God -- is denied.

"Freedom," for instance -- and the American revolution to gain it -- were justified as a basic right which comes from God. Take away God, and America will fall. The philosophical reason is simple: if nothing exists -- if nothing is absolute -- then all concrete ideas such as "freedom" become untenable.

For instance: Dawkins says that "killing for God is not only hideous murder, but also totally ridiculous."

I agree with Dawkins whole-heartedly, but I agree BECAUSE of religion, not in spite of it. I can justify my belief: Dawkins cannot.

Lastly, words such as "hideous" cannot be used, the idea of the immorality of "murder" becomes questionable, and even the idea of what is or is not "ridiculous" cannot be upheld without an absolute reference point.

I am reminded of the pro-pedophile from New Zealand who I heard publicly criticize the "hardline American perspective" on youth sexuality. Deny absolutes, and anything else is possible.

Dawkins says: "unlike religion, science does not pretend to have all of the answers."

Really, Mr. Dawkins, can you honestly name a religious system which claims to know everything? My experience with religion rather admits to a lack of knowledge, encouraging personal humbleness in the face of what we don't know -- and will never know -- in our current reality.

In his "teapot" argument, he commits an error of equivocation in both his philosophical and historical arguments, all complete with nicely-filmed visuals.

Can it be any clearer?

Atheism has no reference point. It has no ultimate goal. It merely stares into an empty and indifferent cosmos, unsure of how to proceed beyond the realm of personal opinion.

Dawkins ultimately presents us with this bleak world-view while ultimately failing to justify his beliefs. He is therefore no better than a believer who cannot justify his belief. He is just as guilty of "faith" as the Christians and Muslims he lambasts.

Dawkins and his kind are no better than the charlatan Christian cult leaders and Muslim hate-mongers who hijack the trappings of faith to manipulate the vulnerable and uninformed. I would like to say that both types are equally dangerous, but history has already demonstrated the far-greater threat of relativism and atheism.

In short: While atheism has had admirable defenders, men like Dawkins or Hitchens are not in their company.

For my part, I'd rather be a part of something prone to error, as opposed to destined for it.

Media Misses Major International Event

So what would you say about a media that missed an event that fulfilled the following qualifications?

1.) Largest international event in months
2.) Largest event ever hosted by Australia
3.) Event which attracted people and major names from every continent
4.) Over 200,000 young people gathered in one place, without drugs or violence or rock-music festivals a part of the equation?

Such was World Youth Day 2008, and the media was blatantly biased in not covering the event. As I watched and read the news throughout the week, any brief mention of the event focused on the minor presence of protesters on the outskirts.

That's right: 200,000 people gathered in the name of peace and love, and the only thing the media could focus on was the guy standing on the sidelines dressed like a giant condom.

Truth was proclaimed from the rooftops, and the media predictably stuck their fingers in their ears and said "no no no... I'm not listening!"

Such slighting only confirms one thing: contemporary culture is not ambivalent towards the Church: it is afraid of it.

How is this for a headline?
"Over 200,000 gather to discuss and celebrate Truth while protesters exchange empty and unsupported slogans on the outskirts."

As a Catholic, I draw great pride from every protester, dissenter, cynic, and uninformed (so-called) atheist who criticizes or (attempts to) ignore my Church. After all, if we weren't on to something important -- and if we weren't a major international power -- they wouldn't be wasting so much energy on us.

Back to world youth day -- a wonderful article describing the event was written by Sophie Caldecott with Zenit. Enjoy.

http://www.zenit.org/article-23391?l=english

Professor Myers: Professional Bigot?

Professor Myers, I hope you're reading this.

For the other folks who read my blog: have you heard of Professor Myers?

I'm speaking of the "educator" at the U of Minnesota who has sought to entertain his readers on the seeming nonsense of religion.

In his blog posting "It's just a Frackin Cracker," Myers writes:

There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.

That's funny, Professor, because those were my exact thoughts as I read your blog.

I won't post a link: I don't want anything of mine linking to this guy's blog. Google it if you wish.

I will spare you the rest of his jagged and awkward prose, his obscenities, and in general his complete demonstration of intolerance and ignorance. To summarize, he ridicules first Catholicism and then religious belief in general, attacking anyone who would even remotely defend "the frackin' cracker."

Seeking to prove a point, Myers asked for and received a consecrated host from a Catholic Mass.

Being an equal-opportunity bigot, Myers ended up desecrating the Eucharist by putting a rusty nail through it, also putting a nail through a page of the Koran. He threw the items into his trash, covering them with his coffee grounds and a rotten banana peel.

Classy, Professor Myers, classy. Not only are you a sad, unfortunate, and hateful person, you are also historically ignorant and religiously bigoted. To rephrase your very own words: you are stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid.
It was also quite anti-climactic: after days of promising some sort of grant desecration, you managed only this? The great heretics of old are rolling in their graves and ash-pits.

Does it bother you, Myers, that you're being forgiven? That thousands -- perhaps even millions -- of believers worldwide are now praying for you? Does it bother you that we worry about the state of your soul? That people are fasting for you even now?

Does it bother you that we have answered your hate with love?

***

People can be forgiven. Institutions, however, are another story. Proceeding right along then, we'll take a few well-deserved swipes at the University of Minnesota.

In a press release today, University President Jacqueline Johnson repudiated Myers' actions, admitting that he was in violation of the University's conduct policy for Professors. Despite this, she will decline to punish him, chiefly because she feels his actions fall under the umbrella of "academic freedom."

Excuse me, Ms. Johnson, but is Myers a professor of Religion? Or perhaps Philosophy? Considering that he is a scientist, what experiment, class, or academically-related activity did his actions fall under? How is it, exactly, that he is protected by academic freedom in this case?

Not to mention the deep irony that academic freedom is a CATHOLIC concept. In resurrecting the ancient model of the University during medieval times, it was the Catholic Church which protected Universities from the outside interference of politics and royalty. (We must note that significant dissidence has historically been tolerated amongst Church intellectuals and hierarchy. This is why Myers is small-fry in comparison.)

We can deepen the irony in suggesting that institutionalized science is also a Catholic legacy (not without its faults), and the Vatican remains a large public supporter of the sciences, even inviting known atheists such as Stephen Hawking to come share their views AT THE VATICAN itself.

Many questions, both spiritual and temporal, arise from this incident. First of all, why is Myers -- typical of so many atheists I have known -- so virulent in his hate of religion? In a largely secularized United States, are there not bigger fish to fry? Are there not more appropriate targets for his energies? What about those who steal from the homeless? Or the guys who raise taxes on oil?

Or what about the guys who call you in the middle of dinner, trying to sell you swampland in Florida? Man, THOSE guys REALLY boil my blood. If you want to desecrate a cold-call list, Myers, I'll do it with you.

What mysterious energy animates the hate that so-called atheists often manifest towards religion and religious thinkers?

If Myers really, truly believes that it's "just a frackin' cracker," then it wouldn't have him so worked up. I believe that something deeper is happening here.

If you really want a reaction, Myers, go into an African American neighborhood, and repeat the same stunt near a Mosque. The words "just a frackin' cracker" will take on an entirely new meaning to you.

Most of Myers' public supporters, commenting on his antics, revel gleefully in his actions. One can't help but be reminded of ancient pictures of witches and devils spinning gleefully around a fire, ecstatic in their sacrilege.

Ultimately, Myers and his kind will be fortunate to even become a footnote in the great history of the Catholic Church. Myers is small-fry compared to the terrible international tyrants who have raged against the Church with fire and sword.

A wonderful Priest I once knew described us as sheep, meandering around, not entirely cognizant of our shortcomings, mewing pathetically as we pass through life.

And so it is, Myers. Stupid, mewing sheep. Baaaaaa. And no amount of desecration will change that. Thankfully, some sheep are smarter than others.

I know, I know: I contradict myself by wasting so many words on you. I'm only human, however, and prone to my own flashes of temper. That, and you make an easy target for satire.

As to all the Muslims you've no doubt pissed off -- well, buddy, you're on your own with that one.