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...

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

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.

What are the Beatitudes?

What is a system of faith, and when is it outdated?

The soundtrack to my past few months has been Czieslaw Niemen's "Dziwny Jest Ten Swiat" , which translates to "Strange is our World."

I can't help but think of God himself bobbing his head to the soulful organ and simply true lyrics, as Niemen crooned:

"How Strange is our world.
Where still, somehow
there is room for so much wrong...
...it is a shame to admit."

Yesterday's mass reading was the famous Beatitudes.

Almost two millenia after people first heard these revolutionary thoughts, we still haven't gotten them through our collective thick skulls.

The homilist at my Church stated it brilliantly yesterday:

What if above the doors of our courts, it read:
"Blessed are the merciful?"

What if above the doors of our military bases, it read:
"Blessed are the peacemakers?"

What if above the doors of Senate and Congress, it read:
"Blessed are those who thirst for Righteousness?"

I'm sure that you can think of a few yourself. My point is this: whether we are talking about the people who embrace him -- or those who reject him -- it seems that few of us have really listened to what Christ really had to say.

It is difficult to say that "Christianity is outdated," when we've rarely gotten it right in the first place. Indeed, as a system for life, it is one that we are called to revisit now more than ever.

The Beatitudes seem to ring true in our hearts, because they address the most fundamental aspects of our human journey. They register as an echo of perfect eternity in our hearts -- haunting us because of our origins, inspiring us because of our destiny.

I have taken up Richard Dawkins on his invitation to "imagine a world without religion." I know of a world where enough people have at least tried to live up to the beatitudes as to rescue us from much misery. I shudder to think where we would be today, had they never been set as a human standard so long ago.

So this year, instead of giving something up for Lent, I will instead dedicate myself to re-learning the words of Christ. When the season is over, I will still be a deeply flawed human being... but perhaps I will be a little kinder, more patient, possessed of greater vision, and a little less of a hypocrite.

Those are goals that we can all strive towards, my friends, regardless of our differing religious beliefs. As another wise man recently reminded me: "God does not desire perfection, only progress."

I think that the late Czeslaw Niemen was echoing Christ's words in his famous song, as if to say: "after all the terrible things we have seen in recent history, how can there still be room for willing strife in our hearts?" He concludes his song by saying:

"It is time -- high time -- that we kill the hate in our hearts"

Indeed, how can there still be room for such things?

And just for fun, here is a live clip of the afformentioned song, all the way back from Opole Fest 1979:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1bdMhrvh20&feature=related