It is relevant and necessary to briefly cover the recent media blitz surrounding Pope Benedict XVI. I say "brief" because this is a shameful attempt by the New York Times which deserves little attention. The following article from the National Review aptly destroys the NYT's case:
National Review Article regarding Pope Benedict XVI
I can only ask why so many people remain unable to acknowledge the media (and deeper spiritual) war against Catholicism, especially in a decade where Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII, and Mother Teresa were all unjustly smeared in a coordinated media effort. As to why this war is taking place against Catholics -- as opposed to other religious groups -- one need not think too hard: the last things that relativists want is an objective standard of truth present at their international discussions of public policy and morality.
That sad sound you hear is the windblown tatters of the New York Times' credibility blowing away. Sadly, these accusations will affect many simple-minded people, only added further fuel to the unjustified stereotypes now being built around the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, November 28, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Convenient Thinking
Robert Reilly, writing on the "Culture of Vice," speaks of self-justifying rationalization. Or, in simpler terms, the art of convincing yourself something is right even when you realize that it isn't (or denying that you are really unsure in the matter.)
This is akin to what George Orwell called "double-think", and what others more simply term "self deception" or "lack of formation." Granted, most liberals -- minor insanities aside -- are responsible and compassionate Americans. Many are my dear friends. One tolerates their idiosyncratic beliefs, hoping that time equates into wisdom. After all, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
It's been pointed out to me that I've spent an inordinate amount of time railing against a certain Obama, and not enough time defending "my candidate." To those who have claimed as much, I do believe that you're missing the point.
No, the point is not that I have yet to firmly decide on a candidate (if any.) The point is that the single most illogical and extremist portion of our society -- the far left -- has found a poster-child in Obama. This, despite the fact that he is a professing Christian. I find this fascinating, and as an amateur commentator, I am enjoying publicly dissecting and trying to understand Obamamania.
We live in a reactionary culture. We live in an environment which eschews feelings over reason, and self-justifying rationalization over the pursuit of an objective truth.
Rather than rail more about Obama today, I thought I would contemplate the extreme-left mentality instead. Extreme liberals are like extreme conservatives, save one major failing: extreme conservatives tend to have belief systems that are internally consistent. The far left, on the other hand, rides the high-horse of emotion and rhetoric, because they have little else to offer us. Sprinkle this with some bumper-sticker ideology and soundbite philosophy, and you're ready to vote for Nader.
I mentioned Robert Reilly before. He is the "chairman of the Committee for Western Civilization and a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council." It is educational to read his thoughts on the matter, as they are far superior to what I could muster at this time. Are our leaders engaging in such a high level of thought?
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ReillyCultureVice.php
This is akin to what George Orwell called "double-think", and what others more simply term "self deception" or "lack of formation." Granted, most liberals -- minor insanities aside -- are responsible and compassionate Americans. Many are my dear friends. One tolerates their idiosyncratic beliefs, hoping that time equates into wisdom. After all, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
It's been pointed out to me that I've spent an inordinate amount of time railing against a certain Obama, and not enough time defending "my candidate." To those who have claimed as much, I do believe that you're missing the point.
No, the point is not that I have yet to firmly decide on a candidate (if any.) The point is that the single most illogical and extremist portion of our society -- the far left -- has found a poster-child in Obama. This, despite the fact that he is a professing Christian. I find this fascinating, and as an amateur commentator, I am enjoying publicly dissecting and trying to understand Obamamania.
We live in a reactionary culture. We live in an environment which eschews feelings over reason, and self-justifying rationalization over the pursuit of an objective truth.
Rather than rail more about Obama today, I thought I would contemplate the extreme-left mentality instead. Extreme liberals are like extreme conservatives, save one major failing: extreme conservatives tend to have belief systems that are internally consistent. The far left, on the other hand, rides the high-horse of emotion and rhetoric, because they have little else to offer us. Sprinkle this with some bumper-sticker ideology and soundbite philosophy, and you're ready to vote for Nader.
I mentioned Robert Reilly before. He is the "chairman of the Committee for Western Civilization and a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council." It is educational to read his thoughts on the matter, as they are far superior to what I could muster at this time. Are our leaders engaging in such a high level of thought?
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ReillyCultureVice.php
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Your Pope.
The arrival of Pope Benedict XVI in the United States this week will bring with it a renewed attention, excitement, and criticism of the Church. With the arrival of Benedict, some will rejoice, others will feign indifference, while still others will comment that the Papacy is an irrelevant institution.
If you fall into the last two groups, I will state simply: The Pope matters. Perhaps more than ever.
If the Pope didn't matter, the otherwise anti-Catholic media wouldn't bother covering his arrival with such detail.
If the Pope didn't matter, he wouldn't be meeting with the President of the United States or addressing the United Nations.
If the Pope didn't matter, bigot clubs from Pride to the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be there to protest his visit.
If the Pope didn't matter, loony-left spokesmen like Bill Maher wouldn't be spreading lies on the air before his arrival.
If the Pope didn't matter, Rosie O'Donnell wouldn't be so mad.
If the Pope didn't matter, Yankee stadium would not be full for the celebration of the Mass.
The Pope matters, my dear friends. If John Paul the Great gave the Church her humanism back, he did it with an eye to move her back towards her Orthodox roots. Benedict XVI has quietly but surely forwarded this agenda, knowing that only in Orthodoxy is there truth, and only in Orthodoxy does the Church have her true strength.
The diminutive German theologian has confounded those fearing his famed "bulldog conservatism," deflecting their fears with a disarming smile. His work has been anything but indirect, however, and I think that history will reflect his quiet accomplishments.
Lastly, in a fragmented Christian world, only the Catholic Church has maintained an unmodified and uncompromising Christian vision and ethic for the entirety of her existence, regardless of what scoundrels may have occupied her posts. In a time when Churches are losing their moral ground to populist pressure and fragmenting as a result, the Pope stands once again at the helm of the faith. Liberals, bigots, and Church-haters know that if you silence the Pope, you conquer Christianity.
Historically speaking, modern critics and moral lunatics are small-fry compared to the extreme challenges previously weathered by Rome.
Benedict XVI will face his fiercest critics with a calm and assured smile this week. Knowing that his Church cannot be conquered, we can now understand the source of his quiet confidence.
If you fall into the last two groups, I will state simply: The Pope matters. Perhaps more than ever.
If the Pope didn't matter, the otherwise anti-Catholic media wouldn't bother covering his arrival with such detail.
If the Pope didn't matter, he wouldn't be meeting with the President of the United States or addressing the United Nations.
If the Pope didn't matter, bigot clubs from Pride to the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be there to protest his visit.
If the Pope didn't matter, loony-left spokesmen like Bill Maher wouldn't be spreading lies on the air before his arrival.
If the Pope didn't matter, Rosie O'Donnell wouldn't be so mad.
If the Pope didn't matter, Yankee stadium would not be full for the celebration of the Mass.
The Pope matters, my dear friends. If John Paul the Great gave the Church her humanism back, he did it with an eye to move her back towards her Orthodox roots. Benedict XVI has quietly but surely forwarded this agenda, knowing that only in Orthodoxy is there truth, and only in Orthodoxy does the Church have her true strength.
The diminutive German theologian has confounded those fearing his famed "bulldog conservatism," deflecting their fears with a disarming smile. His work has been anything but indirect, however, and I think that history will reflect his quiet accomplishments.
Lastly, in a fragmented Christian world, only the Catholic Church has maintained an unmodified and uncompromising Christian vision and ethic for the entirety of her existence, regardless of what scoundrels may have occupied her posts. In a time when Churches are losing their moral ground to populist pressure and fragmenting as a result, the Pope stands once again at the helm of the faith. Liberals, bigots, and Church-haters know that if you silence the Pope, you conquer Christianity.
Historically speaking, modern critics and moral lunatics are small-fry compared to the extreme challenges previously weathered by Rome.
Benedict XVI will face his fiercest critics with a calm and assured smile this week. Knowing that his Church cannot be conquered, we can now understand the source of his quiet confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
