Does Christianity have a Future?

The Daily Beast asks: Does Christianity have a Future?

Does anything else under the sun?

Uncharitable Discourse on Charity

I appreciate Jesuit Father James V. Schall. He is a recently retired professor of Philosophy at the nominally Catholic Georgetown University. I became aware of him through his association with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

I occasionally appreciate Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter. Usually not. NCR is to Catholicism what the Huffington Post is to politics: Left of reality, biased and bigoted against opposing views and critical of authority unless that authority reliably agrees with its worldview.

I don't appreciate MSW's criticism of an article by Fr. Schall on the topic of Christianity's relationship with poverty.

Fr. Schall meditates on the propensity of Christians to "identify" with poverty rather than doing things that actually help poor people stop being poor.

Mr. Winters will have none of it. By misrepresenting Fr. Schall's position and by contrasting that straw-man position with one that he projects upon Pope Francis, Mr. Winters attempts to defend the very point of that does perpetuate poverty.

And he does it in a very uncharitable way. I hope Fr. Schall takes the time to respond, but I doubt it would be worth his effort. Some hearts are too hardened, including the one on Mr. Winter's sleeve.

As I thought about the two sides of the argument, I was reminded of the story of Boaz and Ruth. Ruth, along with other widows, gleaned Boaz' fields after his laborers had harvested. As a righteous man, Boaz obeyed the Levitical law to leave gleanings for the widows and the poor.

Lev 19:9: "9 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."

Googling the story of Boaz and Ruth brought my attention to Boaz and Ruth in Richmond, VA. "Planted in the center of Highland Park, one of Richmond, Virginia's most troubled areas, Boaz & Ruth advances a missionof  rebuilding lives and communities through relationships, training, transitional jobs, and economic revitalization. "

This seems about right to me. I think Fr. Schall would approve. What of Mr. Winter?

It just can't get any better than this

While trying to find some mention of the revised Mandate on the White House web site today, I came across a link to a page entitled, "It Gets Better".

It was really no surprise that a preening, posturing president who so desperately wishes to be identified with every pecadillo that piques to paletes of Progressive pinheads would want to jump on the It Gets Better bandwagon.

Bullying is bad. No mature person would want to associate with a bully -whether due to someone's LGBTIA.... identity or race or physical apperance or religion.

I certainly wouldn't associate myself with someone who spewed a profanity-laced rant in front of over 2000 high school students which belittled their values and identity and hurled epithets at those who refused to sit through his bullying.

In other words, I wouldn't want to associate myself with Dan Savage who cursed at, belittled the Bible and Christianity and called high school students who chose not to sit through his tirade "pansy-a##ed".

Dan Savage who is the creator of the "It Gets Better" web site and who, apparently, is the model for the president's position on those who disagree with him on Homosexual behavior.

On second thought, it can't get much worse than this. But it continues to, nontheless.

"Civil" Debate or Civil War?

Stephen Prothero commented on the CNN Belief Blog about the existence of Catholic politicians on both of the major party's presidential ticket: "A century and a half ago, Americans engaged in a collective conversation about the Bible and slavery that was both civil and informed. Is it too much to hope that an intelligent debate about Christianity and the economy is now in the offing? If so, we will likely have Ryan (and Romney) to thank."

A century and a half ago, "Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith begins an invasion of Kentucky as part of a Confederate plan to draw the Yankee army of General Don Carlos Buell away from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to raise support for the Southern cause in Kentucky."
The unspoken corollary to this is of course, that the Democrats who made the conversation uncivil in 1862 in order to defend their power over living souls will once again turn the debate uncivil in 2012 in order to defend their power over living souls.

Next week, blasphemy gets its own holiday

A friend brought this to my attention. As I read, I had difficulty getting too upset. I certainly wasn't amused but perhaps bemused. The folks quoted give me the impression of being petulant children begging for attention by making a scene about something the adults around them are doing.

Next week, blasphemy gets its own holiday

By Leanne Larmondin

TORONTO—You’ve never seen Jesus like this before: dripping red nail polish around the nails in his feet and hands, an irreverent riff on the crucifixion wounds. The provocative title of the painting: “Jesus Does His Nails.”

Blasphemous? Absolutely. Deliberately provocative? You bet.

But childish and even amateurish in comparison to the famous bit of blasphemous art perpetrated by Andres Serrano. Somehow seems kinda high school to me.

It is part of an upcoming art exhibit in Washington that will mark the first-ever International Blasphemy Day next Wednesday (Sept. 30) at the Center for Inquiry DC near Capitol Hill.

Hmm. I suppose 'international' because someone is coming down from Toronto. I doubt the contingent from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan will be very large... Like "Tom's Famous Steaks and Hoagies" I'm also impressed by their presumption that they are the first group to publicly blaspheme. Still seems like that grade-school boy who says, 'poopie' and giggles at his own trangressivity.

Artist Dana Ellyn says her “Blasphemy” paintings are a tongue-in-cheek expression of her lack of belief in God and religion. The self-described “agnostic atheist”—she doesn’t believe in the existence of any deity but can’t say for sure one doesn’t exist—says her introduction to religion was in college when she studied art history. Stories from the Bible, she says, are just that: stories.

So, Ms Ellyn isn't serious about her blasphemy, but she is organizing an art show around it. I smell an opportunist. Oh, and is it just me or is there something irrational about someone who doesn't believe in God whether He exists or not. Seems like the sort of anti-intellectualism and lack of rationalism that the Center for Inquiry would eschew. But, at least Ms Ellyn bases her opinion on a sound intellectual background of a college art history class. Certainly, that is enough for her to justify gainsaying 2000 years of theological, philosophical and intellectual history.

“My point is not to offend, but I realize it can offend, because religion is such a polarizing topic,” Ellyn said of the exhibit.

Any bets on where Ms Ellyn comes down on the 'polarizing topic' of children rescued from Abortion?

This from the Facebook page for Blasphemy Day: "The purpose of Blasphemy Day is not to promote hate or violence; it is to support free speech, support the right to criticize and satirize religion..."

So, they would probably be all in favor of this picture:

Atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and free-speech advocates around the world will mark Blasphemy Day by mounting their soapboxes—figuratively and literally—and uttering words and displaying images that may cause offense.

And they’re making no apologies.

“We’re not seeking to offend, but if in the course of dialogue and debate, people become offended, that’s not an issue for us,” said Justin Trottier, a Toronto coordinator of Blasphemy Day and executive director of the Ontario chapter of the Center for Inquiry. “There is no human right not to be offended.”

Mark Steyn has found out differently from the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Various campus 'speech codes' also give the lie to this bit of silliness. Perhaps Mr Trottier should be asked why he isn't having his show in Toronto. And does he really expect rational people to believe him when 'Jesus Does His Nails' is one of the exhibits? Sophmoric in word and deed.

St. Thomas Aquinas described blasphemy—deliberately showing contempt or irreverence for something considered sacred—as a sin “committed directly against God ... more grave than murder.” In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

While it may sound as anachronistic as a witchcraft trial, blasphemy remains punishable by death in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. In addition, Ireland recently introduced a defamation law making blasphemy punishable by fines up to 25,000 euros ($37,000 US). What’s more, six U.S. states (Massachusetts, Michigan, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wyoming) have laws that, in some way, prohibit or regulate blasphemy, noted Ron Lindsay, a lawyer and president of the CFI International in Amherst, N.Y.

CFI also cites efforts by the United Nations to introduce anti-blasphemy resolutions that many say would curtail free speech about religion.

These grown-up babies with more time and money than sense are really giving blasphemy a bad name. Grown-ups know that the UN resolutions are being pushed by Islamic states to protect their Islamic theocracies and to add cover for their persecution of Christians and converts from Islam. That is a serious subject. This nonsense is really nothing more than a stunt by the emotionally impoverished that is nevertheless dangerous in that it may lead an impressionable person astray. Again, I have little doubt that the organizers would be aghast at truly radical public utterances; like those of St. Francis of Assisi:

"My little sisters, the birds, much bounden are ye unto God, your Creator, and always in every place ought ye to praise Him, for that He hath given you liberty to fly about everywhere, and hath also given you double and triple rainment; moreover He preserved your seed in the ark of Noah, that your race might not perish out of the world; still more are ye beholden to Him for the element of the air which He hath appointed for you; beyond all this, ye sow not, neither do you reap; and God feedeth you, and giveth you the streams and fountains for your drink; the mountains and valleys for your refuge and the high trees whereon to make your nests; and because ye know not how to spin or sow, God clotheth you, you and your children; wherefore your Creator loveth you much, seeing that He hath bestowed on you so many benefits; and therefore, my little sisters, beware of the sin of ingratitude, and study always to give praises unto God."

Sept. 30 was chosen for the inaugural Blasphemy Day because it is the anniversary of the 2005 publication of the controversial Muhammad cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The cartoons resulted in worldwide riots by outraged Muslims and widespread self-censorship by media.

Strange thing is, all of the religiously- oriented paintings on Ms Ellyn's web site are explicitly anti-Christian. If the impetus to this theater really is the cowardly response of the Danish government and newspapers to the violent Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons (which they should be protecting as incidents of free speech), why has Ms Ellyn refrained from her own satire of Islam and Mohammad?

Lindsay said the Blasphemy Day events are part of his group’s larger Campaign for Free Expression, which encompasses more than protection of speech about religion. CFI, he said, aims to expose all religious beliefs to the same level of inquiry, discussion and criticism to which other areas of intellectual interest are subjected.

Judging from the subject matter I reviewed while composing my replies, I cannot fathom why CFI and the rest of the organizers would propose subjecting religious beliefs to a less rigorous level of inquiry, discussion and criticism than they have already been subject to by their adherents and their devout opponents. These witlings cannot hold a scented candle to even the most mediocre theology student.

Besides the Washington art exhibit, Blasphemy Day events include:

-- a Blasphemy-Fest! at CFI Los Angeles that will feature a talk about free speech followed by three provocative films;

-- supporters worldwide have been encouraged to take up The Blasphemy Challenge (http://www.blasphemychallenge.com) by uploading their denials of faith to YouTube. A typical recording: “Hi, my name is Ray and I deny the Holy Spirit. (pause) No lightning. Maybe next time.”

-- a Speaker’s Corner, modeled after the famed soapbox in London’s Hyde Park, and a Blasphemy Challenge at CFI Toronto;

-- a blasphemy contest held by CFI International, in conjunction with its Campaign for Free Expression, in which participants are invited to submit phrases, poems, or statements that would be, or have been, considered blasphemous. Winners will receive T-shirts and mugs printed with their winning phrases.

I have one: "There are no dead atheist!" Think about it...

Will the public events and demonstrations disturb some people? Without a doubt, said Lindsay, but causing offense is not the intention. Participants are encouraged to avoid vulgarity and profanity.

Back in the day, being intentionally blasphemous was considered vulgar and well, I suggest they look up the definition of the word, 'profane.' How does one be profane while avoiding profanity? These rationalists at CFI are awfully irrational.

“We’re stressing that we want something that is insightful and thoughtful,” Lindsay said. “The point we’re trying to make is that we’re against restrictions on speech based purely on the possibility that some people might be offended, because if you go down that path there’s no end to it.”

Indeed.
"The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled as well as privately run Medicare alternatives, on Monday said it was investigating a letter Humana Inc sent enrollees about efforts to overhaul the nation's healthcare system.
"CMS warned Humana it would take necessary enforcement action, and agency spokesman Peter Ashkenaz said Tuesday it is unclear when the investigation will conclude. The company has said it is cooperating with the probe."
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/09/22/afx6916781.html

"Ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski is used to being taught at home by her mother, Brenda Voydatch. Bible study was part of her curriculum until this year, when a judge ordered Voydatch to enroll Amanda in public school.

“The court has stepped in and said that this child and the mother are too religious and the child needs to be taken out of that environment and exposed to other worldviews, and that is a constitutional problem for all of us,” says John Anthony Simmons, Voydatch’s attorney.

"The judge’s order goes on to say, “Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs… suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”"
http://www.nhpr.org/node/26912

Seems like some speech is more equal than other. And there is one thing I'll bet all these rational blasphemers believe in:

Obey, by Dana Ellyn

The National Journal cover story this week is entitled:
The Godless Rise As A Political Force

Secularist, humanist, freethinking nontheists and atheists are coalescing into a movement with a real agenda.

by Paul Starobin

Saturday, March 7, 2009

(subscription required)

Mr. Starobin appeared on CSPANs Washington Journal this morning (I suppose he may have attended religious services at another time - Saturday evening, perhaps). I enjoy listening to the Washington Journal on Sunday mornings (on those Sundays that I attend religious services in the evening due to work commitments). For what may be to some people obvious reasons, Democrat callers predominate. And such was the case this morning. Mr. Starobin demurred on making public his own religious leanings, but he appeared to be sympathetic to the atheists, secularists, freethinking non-theists, agnostics and unchurched he lumped into the Godless class (it's all about class and identity politics, after all, isn't it?)

Obviously, a brief radio interview cannot cover the sound and detailed analysis I'm sure is contained in his undoubtedly insightful article. But, we can discern from his subtitle and his exposition on CSPAN that it really is all about political power and the godless are indeed attempting to shape themselves as an identity group in order to get in on the victim gravy train that has its nexus at Union Station.

But back to the moonbattery that call in to CSPAN on Sunday mornings. The impression they gave me was that they had drunk the Sam Harris (brights vs dulls) KoolAid. I have a major problem with this way of looking at things. Mostly because it is so damn untrue. If Sam Harris and the other 4 Jackasses of Atheism

(Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) and their witling lemmings who called into CSPAN are bright and Avery Cardinal Dulles Fr. James V. Schall, George Weigel, Michael Novak and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are dull then I'm unsure what those words mean. To be fair, the Godly callers were mostly Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians whose doctrines are a fair match for the weak arguments of the neo-atheists.

But therein lies another beef I have with those unreasonable defenders of what they think is reason. How is it that the best arguments of the neo-darwinists and neo-atheists are so damn weak? Perhaps the true atheist intellectuals are not being published in the US. Or perhaps there aren't any. Is Camille Paglia the best they can do? Ward Churchill? Spittle-spewing haters like Harris and Hitchens? I've seen their arguments and they are weak. They mostly depend upon strawmen, misrepresentations, false causality, ad homenim and appeal to (their own) authority.

I can understand why Hitchens drinks. I would too if I were a nominally intelligent person who was determined to convince others that their chipped and faded veneer of rationality is the patina of Reason. What bare logic that may be found in their defense of a negative proposition is lost when it filters down to the true believers calling in to CSPAN on Sunday Morning. It washes out to something like: I don't fall for that religious mumbo-jumbo, I think for myself; therefore I am smart. You believe in God, so you must not think for yourself; therefore you are dumb. This is disproved by the very existence of Bill Maher - and Bill Buckley. When your most prominent apologists are comedians Penn & Teller, you've got to suspect that your dogma is a joke.

The CSPAN moderator asked of several callers if they would support a politician who was an atheist but all of whose policies you otherwise supported. A reasonable person could be expected to answer that question affirmatively. Perhaps he was looking for proof of the unreasonableness of 'dulls'. However, at the same time, the godless tended to call in on the Democrat line while the faithful called in on the Republican line. Surely this is obvious evidence of the pragmatic reason driven intelligence of Democrats and the unreasonable illogic of Republicans in the thrall of the Radical Religious Right.

No.

It is exceedingly unlikely that a politician who viewed reality through an atheist lens would arrive at policies with which I agreed. Atheism is nothing new in human history. Nor are the subsequent beliefs that man is perfectible by man or that politics is the highest form of human endeavor or that the ends of perfecting man and his society justify the means of achieving those seemingly lofty goals. Those sorts of beliefs, today, result in the Obama pledge to 'remake America' and 'perfect our Union' by means of increasing government intervention into people's lives.

While the Christian view of reality; that we are creatures endowed with immortal souls who have inherent dignity and free will but who are fallible and whose perfection comes from Someone above and outside of ourselves leads to a very different conclusion. Human dignity must be respected by means of personal freedom. Our fallen nature cannot be perfected by psychological, pharmacological, neurological or genetic manipulation. The state's role then is to protect our freedom to live dignified lives in pursuit of our own salvation.

Those who seek to immanentize the eschaton are bound to fail. It isn't the way the world is made.

CCC 676: " the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,⁵⁷⁶ especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.<sup>577"

While I was getting that off of my chest, I read an article in the March issue of First Things by Jean Bethke Elshtain, entitled While Europe Slept. Mike Novak posted it on his blog: http://novak.livejournal.com/428104.html#cutid1

A topic for another post. Read it. I'm sure I cannot do it justice.</sup>