Why religion matters

An essay from Academy of Ideas on why a lack of religion breeds mental illness, and explains a lot about our current state of affairs. My personal belief, as a Christian, is that not just any religion can provide what we require, because they do not all stem from absolute truth.

Positivity from Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson explains the Biblical story of Cain and Abel, that took him 40 years to think through:

Busy day for SCOTUS

The Supreme Court today sided with the first amendment over the woke agenda, in the second win in a row for common sense. 

The fallacy of the logic and facts approach

You have to talk to people in terms that they will understand.  I don't mean intellectually understand, I mean in a way that resonates with them.  The problem with conservatives is we believe in facts and we believe in logic. Facts and logic can bring you to the truth, but that in itself is not a universal truth because many people operate illogically.  That's a fact conservatives often overlook.  The logic and facts approach is pure fallacy in many situations.

When talking to a woke liberal, we often forget that facts don't matter to everyone.  What resonates with people are things that affect them emotionally.  Take for example the notion that inflation has recently been at historical highs. Telling someone that fact has far less emotional impact than saying simply "I can't afford eggs anymore."  Implicit in that latter statement are a couple of fundamental notions that all revolve around empathy;

• it is likely they are in the same boat, or a similar one and have similar complaints
• complaining sounds whiney and woke liberals love that (snarky but not untrue)
• they can sympathize and feel bad for you (woke SJWs have to have an underdog to protect)

You have not only started a discussion with something that they can empathize with and also get behind trying to solve.  It's the start of a more pliable conversation instead of a debate.  You have started on what is probably common ground or at least at a place of empathy or sympathy.  The way forward at least exists from that point.  Hammering someone with facts will more have the opposite effect; entrenchment.

We don't do enough as conservatives to understand our audience and with each generation that happens it gets harder and harder to do because each generation has been Overton windowed further away from the fundamental truths of life.  I'm not talking just religion here, I'm talking about even the fundamental basics of common sense (e.g. 2 genders).

We have to understand that we are currently on the losing side of the culture war.  We have not lost but we are losing.  That means we have to work both harder and smarter.  I'm not suggesting I have all the answers as to who.  But I think one of the key notions is that we need better understanding.  We need to understand how to connect, but in order to do that we need to understand the map, the lay of the land as it currently exists.  We cannot change beliefs for the better without having both a starting point and an end point.

Here, as an example of trying to get to that understanding, Ken Ham discusses the state of Gen Z as it pertains to (lack of) religious belief.  It's a specific but excellent example of how to change the direction of society from a massive leftward drift to back on course.

Crisis of meaning in society

 A great auditory essay:

Philosophical Question for the Faithful From an Atheist

 Dinesh D'Souza weighs in and explains the answer.

Religious egocentrism vs. the futility of atheism; a philosophical rant

If I were an atheist, I would most certainly also be a hedonist. It seems to be the only logical option. If you take the sum of all human activity; our greatest accomplishments, our innovations, our greatest foibles and blunders, all of our art, music, philosophy, literature and theater, our wars, our famine, our conquests and defeats, love and death - all of it is meaningless. We are infinitesimally small in the universe, which itself seems eventually destined for death. We cannot change either of those precepts of existence. Nothing we do matters; we are a pointless speck of no consequence. 

In that regard, everything we do, say or think has no real matter, no grand consequence or significance. In that light, why not toss aside virtue?  And value?  What point is there to doing anything other than pleasing oneself as much as possible as often as possible? Obey laws? Only insofar as they keep you out of prison.

Atheists can be virtuous people but those who are, are likely as rare as they are misguided in their atheism.  Once you have thought through the nature of existence you have three choices as an atheist: 

(i) nihilism (which taken to its logical conclusion does not end well) 

(ii) hedonism (which is pointless but at least potentially enjoyable) or

(iii) unavailingly continuing to strive to improve the world.

But to what purpose the latter option?  Atheists who want to do good for mankind, at the expense of their own hedonistic pleasure have likely not thought through the pointlessness of their own efforts. It will not make a difference.  And if they have thought this through and still are insistent upon efforts towards greater good it is because they have a belief at the root of it. That in itself is a form of religion. 

The other alternative for atheism was exactly as Nietzsche proclaimed it would be - nihilism; the belief that all values are without foundation and that nothing can be truly known or communicated. Nietzsche was not necessarily a proponent of nihilism.  In fact he warned us of its future. He argued that its toxic effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions in humanity. He also predicted it would lead to the greatest crisis in human history. 

With the creeping death of religion in the West, with the accompanying decay of morality and virtue nihilism has taken root and the crisis Nietzsche warned about is upon us. We have seen the decay of value, beauty, morality, virtue, and society writ large.  There is no coincidence that belief in institutions beyond just the church have coincided with this undercurrent of unspoken nihilism.  It is slowly pervading everything.  It will consume the entire world, not just Western society. 

That decay is what fascist and communist leaders wish for the west, not realizing it will consume them in turn. They may seek to have unfettered access to a forlorn, nihilistic and unmotivated populace who will easily be suborned to their dictates, but it is a self-defeating effort. Because of the inevitability of entropy, ants can only build an ant hill so high before it collapses upon itself. We in the West appear to be in this stage of collapse. Although it may be far more profound a thing at play than communism vs. capitalism. Sure, communism seeks the overthrow of capitalism but not for some grandiose purpose but rather, whether out of jealousy or true belief, the reality of godless communism is that those at its epicenter seek to rule over others in a society of pointlessness. And in the end the entropic nature of existence will crumble communism as quickly as capitalism if not more quickly. It's a weird perversion of Schopenhauer then which communists have created for themselves.  Existence is characterized by suffering that we cannot overcome, only mitigate in small amounts. So, they seek to replace God as the opiate of the masses with their own social religion.  To what end? Do they believe it themselves?  Probably not but no one can say for sure what another thinks or believes. But in my estimation, it is for their own hedonistic opportunity to minimize their own suffering while selling an impossible dream to the masses. Western traditional liberal thinkers have gotten it exactly right when it comes to assessing the 'virtue' of communism and socialism.  As Winston Churchill so eloquently summed it up "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." But that sharing is not meant to include the ruling elite. They will sell it to you as a Utopian possibility but the Utopia they hope to achieve is only for themselves, at your expense.

Putting that aside, the option of nihilism for atheists is clearly not a worthwhile endeavor.  As an individual it can only lead to a sense of no self worth and no purpose.  That can only lead down negative paths with death as the only destination. For society it means a fragmentation and eventual collapse.

That leaves hedonism, the endless seeking of pleasure and self-indulgence, as the only viable option as an atheist. Given the proclivities of the societal elites not just those of today, but throughout historical empires (from predating Nero to the clients of Jeffery Epstein) it would seem the ruling elite class have long since taken this philosophy as their own. In their self-indulgence they have no qualms about deceiving the rest of society to further their own ends.  They live to enrich themselves monetarily and experientially to their own whims.  But hedonism contains its own peril.  Religion may be the opiate of the masses according to Karl Marx, but there are actual physical opiates that have taken hold. From nicotine to alcohol to fentanyl, far too many people across the globe are addicts, slowly or quickly killing themselves, unaware of their own self worth. The wealthy who themselves are not addicts are still in a manner, doing the same thing: avoiding reality with their hedonistic self-indulgence. 

But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. ~1 Timothy 5:6

Self awareness is a marvelous thing. If instead of a mindless pursuit of pleasure to avoid thinking about our place in the universe, and the meaning of life, you take some time to think about those things for yourself you will be better off; be it through religion or as an atheist.  Though the latter may lead you back to the same pointless place.

Spirituality is also a marvelous thing. It opens us up to the possibility of greater purpose. It opens you up to the possibility of development. While spirituality (opening oneself up to the questions of who you are, what is your purpose and what is the meaning of life) does not require religion, but it does open you up to the possibility of religion. Religion is the written and passed down knowledge of the spiritual realm that inevitably comes originally from God. It is the codification of spirituality in an attempt to connect us to God. That connection is spiritual. Spirituality gives suffering meaning.  It gives existence meaning.  That alone provides the pillars of structure religion and by extension for society.  But the precepts of religion go even further in prescribing a morality and virtue based on the notion of the greater good. Both spirituality and religion encourage you to be a better person, both within yourself and within society.  Not all religions are equal in this regard but that is a discussion for another day.

Atheists would argue that religion is an egocentric exercise, spirituality too. They put humanity on a level of importance incongruous with our miniscule place in the universe.  It is a pretentious exercise in self-importance which overstates our role in the universe. While that may be true, if religion is baseless, it still does not preclude the contribution of spirituality or religion to both societal structure and continuity and individual peace of mind.  These two things cannot be glossed over as they both are of utmost importance.

Given that they encourage you to be a better person, both within yourself and within society, religion and spirituality are not an egocentric exercise.  They are an attempt to create harmony; both between oneself and God as well as within society.  Unless you are a nihilist bent on societal destruction you cannot argue the benefit of those things given the stream of unrelenting entropy in which you swim.

Atheism does not preclude the questions and openness to ideas of spirituality, it merely comes to a different conclusion.  The endpoint for atheism is a dark foreboding place, where as spirituality, religion and the requisite faith offers hope and meaning. While that endpoint cannot be proven, the benefits of following the path of faith within this earthly existence can be. That is not the reason I choose a belief in God, nor is it a justification for it.  Those choices are deeply personal for everyone and do not require explanation or justification.  My personal belief in God comes from somewhere I cannot properly explain other than to say it is a spiritual place.

Go to church atheists

I get that there are a lot atheists in Western civilization.  There's an antagonistic view of religion, particularly Christianity for far too many people on the Left.  That's a shame. There are a lot of things anyone can take from the fundamental precepts of Christianity (and Judaism, or other religions for that matter).  The liberal left has, wittingly or not, thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

In addition to the fundamental goodness of the Ten Commandments, the sermon on the mount and countless other principles expounded in the Bible, concepts like the Protestant Work Ethic, the sanctity of marriage (as opposed to immorality in sexual conduct), the golden rule and other doctrines that come from a religious base.  These are good concepts to live by and are the basis of a sound society.  

Atheists, the left in general, and in fact communism argues that we can achieve these virtuous ideals without God, without religion.   That notion has failed repeatedly to be proven correct.  Religion has a place in society regardless of whether you practice it or not, regardless of whether you choose to believe or not.  There is room for religion in society even for those who choose not to believe.

That is because religion has something healthy to contribute to society.  My father was a devout atheist and spent a lot of my childhood deriding religion.  My grandparents on both sides were very religious, so I was able to see both sides of the spectrum.  After we were adults, my father once said to my brother and I that he wished he had involved religion in our lives.  He was able to see not only what values it helped impart, but that it offered an alternative to a wildly liberal education system that had it's own agenda. He still did not believe or support a belief in God, but he believed there was a lot of good that the church could do to help instill personal values, personal responsibility and personal ethics.

Atheists in America howl for separation of church and state to an absurd degree of separation.  Yet they cannot seem to separate the value of the principals from the tenets of the institution (the church).  Conversely, in what seems like an effort to remain relevant, many churches too seem to have forgotten many of the principles that they were founded upon.  But that is a sermon for another day.  

Personal I would consider myself a Christian (albeit flawed).  While I do not wish to impose my beliefs upon anyone else, it would be a kinder, gentler society if those who oppose religion, were merely non-practitioners rather than openly hostile. Church (or a synagogue) is not going to poison society.  It's meant to be a pillar that society can leverage to its advantage.  To claim that Christianity is bad for society is akin to the claim that America is the source of all evil in the world.  Neither is true, neither accusation is deserved.  But liberal shorthand not only allows for it, it calls out for it.  That is more evidence that a lack of religion is anathema to good neighbors, and a healthy society.  If you want to claim that society is better without religion, you'd better practice the golden rule you claim to be able to achieve without a church being needed.  So far, no luck.

It's Freedom of association, stupid

YouGov has a poll out indicating that Americans are 'torn' between religious freedom and something they refer to as marriage equality.  It's rife with flaws. First and foremost, this is not a matter of polling, it's a Constitutional matter.  Additionally, polling should never trump common sense even though public opinion often runs counter to basic intuitive logic. That's a formula for mob rule which runs counter to democratic principals (the latter point is a debate for another day).

Here's some of the YouGov findings;

The Supreme Court is wrestling with balancing religious freedom and equal rights in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, deciding whether a baker’s First Amendment religious protections permit him to violate Colorado anti-discrimination regulations and refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Americans are torn, too. But on balance, they seem to come down on the side of religion...

But the more important distinction, perhaps, may be that a plurality sees a violation of the First Amendments religious freedom protections if someone were to be required to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. That is particularly true for Republicans, 74% of whom say this would violate First Amendment religious freedom. 47% of independents also agree, as do one in five Democrats.

While there appears to be a general support for the law, there is a freedom of religion implication that people are not comfortable with embedded in the law. I haven't heard anyone argue this point however; there is also a freedom of association violation within the law.

The Constitution protects both rights, though with association the protection is implicit not explicit;

Clearly, the First Amendment protects the individual rights to freely exercise one’s religion, speak freely, publish freely, peaceably assemble, and petition the government. Technically, the freedom of association is not mentioned. It is sometimes subsumed under the freedom of assembly but usually by limiting it to things such as trade unions and collective bargaining.

Legally, the freedom of association is considered to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case of N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama(1958), a unanimous Court ruled that the NAACP did not have to reveal to the Alabama attorney general the names and addresses of the NAACP members in the state because it would violate the NAACP members’ freedom of association. Writing for the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan II said in the decision that

immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists … is here so related to the right of members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Alabama] has fallen short of showing a controlling justification for the deterrent effect on the free enjoyment of the right to associate which disclosure of membership lists is likely to have….

Freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” ensured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The thing is, if freedom of association is protected, does it not extend to commerce?  Am I not entitled to decide with whom I want to conduct business?  I don't want to engage in commerce with the mafia, can a court order compel me to do so?  If I choose to turn down business I am using my freedom to exclude association with certain people.  Clearly that's a tenuous argument or it would have successfully been put forward before now.  I'm just not sure why there isn't a valid case to be made for the idea.

Liberals, Democrats Can't Stop Slipping Further Away from Religious Voters

As The Atlantic frets over the Democrats' hold on religious voters, more and more Democrats and establishment liberals continue to be accused of sexual harassment by the day. While liberals used to hold Republicans and conservatives to the highest possible standards, it seems under the surface they themselves have been not quite as pure as the wind-driven snow. The double standard is now openly on display as there are vast swaths of the liberal establishment that are disquietingly quiet about it all.

As a refresher, her's a list which is undoubtedly incomplete (Conyers and Franken already aren't mentioned, for example, nor are the likes of Kevin Spacey):

Granted, there are also a lot of duplicitous liberals who suddenly are aghast at Bill Clinton's sexual foibles decades ago. It's mere opportunism.

If The Atlantic is expecting to somehow for liberals' to continue their hold on religious voters, the timing of the article is either curious or stupid.  Yes there's unproven and denied allegations re: Roy Moore in Alabama and CNN is dutifully trying to remind us all of Trump's comments (not actual inappropriate touching or advances on women) as if that rises to the same level as groping.

But the other 90+% of the allegations are all against liberals.  That's not going to help The Atlantic's recommendation to sway back religious voters. Voters cannot be so easily fooled by the mainstream media any longer.  President Trump's election has proven that.

It will be interesting to see if there is a liberal Democrat implosion or a civil war within the Democratic party as a result of all of these things coming to light. It might. 

The Atlantic frets over Democrats' hold on religious voters

The hypocrisy doesn't help your case.

There's an article in The Atlantic today, explaining why the Democrats need to regain the trust of religious voters.  That's not the real point.  The real point is why they lost that trust in the first place.

The Atlantic, missing the point entirely (and not for the first time):

Democrats ignored broad swaths of religious America in the 2016 election campaign and the nation has suffered because of it. Yet calls for a recommitment to faith outreach—particularly to white and other conservative or moderate religious voters—have been met in some corners of liberal punditry with a response as common as it is unwarranted. Some quarters of the Democratic party would rather maintain rhetorical and ideological purity than win with a more inclusive coalition. For the sake of the country, the party must turn back to people of faith.

We know faith outreach works, because it has worked before. In 2005, after the reelection of a president many Democrats believed was clearly unfit for leadership, a concerted decision was made to close the “God Gap” that the GOP had so effectively exploited. Yes, the Democratic Party was losing among white religious people, but there was also an understanding in the party that its margins among black and Hispanic voters were limited by the perception that the party was antagonistic toward religion. Democrats took back Congress in the 2006 midterms, through a combination of direct engagement, district-based flexibility on policy, and rhetorical adjustments.

That's wrong on so many levels. Firstly the Democratic party is clearly only interested in providing lip service to religious voters. Their actions - from abortion, to prayer in schools, to hard stands on gay marriage  and birth control,  to banning of religious displays, to referring to religious voters in terms of being 'bitter clingers' - speak much louder than anything they might say during election season.  They want the votes of religious voters but they don't want to actually do anything to support their concerns because they are anathema to Democrat dogma. So they entice them with notions of being charitable and supporting the community as being a Christian duty. But not only do they not-so-secretly disdain Christian voters, they are openly hostile to them in political practice.

Even the Atlantic view the connection with those voters as a means to an end - saving the country from conservatives, and in the process, many conservative and often Christian traditional values.  The Atlantic speaks of outreach as having the ability to win back religious voters and they use 2006 as an example.  Even their example is wrong; 2006 was simply an anti-Bush anti-Iraq-war backlash.

The Atlantic article is cynical and hopefully religious voters don't fall for this sort of political sophistry any longer. Then again, the Democratic party seems to be headed towards a hard turning of its's back on religious voters anyway.  The true positions are more and more out in the open thanks to former president Obama.  What likely remains to be seen is if the Democrats can win with a more overtly anti-Christian platform.  Instead they are likely to continue to rely on a combination of identity politics and social safety net handouts hoping that will trump voter religious views when it comes to the ballot box.  The Democrats turned their back on religion decades ago, it's just now that people are finally starting to notice.  Assuming that stark stance remains,  whether it works remains to be seen, but for the sake of having a culture, a national identity and even social norms, let's hope it fails.

The right to disrespectfully disagree

Culled from the articles on HotAir, a recent Allahpundit entry discusses a poll that indicates only 36% of Americans believe that they have the right to blaspheme religion.

The problem? Of course you have the right to blaspheme. The real question is whether it's a good idea or not. The real problem as Allahpundit points out is the high number of "I don't know" answers. Yes people could be interpreting the question to mean should you do it.

Other than that Allahpundit does his level best to try and interpret the results. The problem is, there's too little information - about how the question was asked, the wording itself, respondents' views on religion and on civics, their knowledge of their rights - to explain it.

My takeaway from the survey is that it is a single dot in the snapshot of the American political and/or moral and/or civics landscape and as a standalone exercise it means and explains very, very little and can be disregarded. For now.

That aside, everyone has the right to disagree with the precepts of any religion. They have the right to do so respectfully or disrespectfully. The decision to do so disrespectfully should be carefully considered and not undertaken lightly. To insult someone has consequences. Those consequences should come in the form of counter argument, boycotts, perhaps even shaming. But to voice your opinion is, pardon the reference, a God-given right. No terror group can take it away from you. ISIS and Al Qaida believe they have that right, indeed obligation to do so. It would appear a number of Americans require a reminder, or a lesson, that such is not the case.

Science, religion and the Dark Ages

I've long held a notion to post an essay about how science and religion can co-exist quite successfully but I've never gotten around to doing more than mentioning it, and not done it justice.  As part of the discussion, an entire book could be written on the subject of debunking the notion that the Dark Ages were a result of Christianity and the Roman Catholic church (in fact all organized Christian religion).

Now it looks like that portion of the effort - the Dark Ages part - is less necessary. RealClearScience has a terrific article by Alex B. Berezow and James Hannam that does a lot of that legwork in refuting the discussions of Jerry Coyne.

Historians have long realized that the great conflict between science and religion is a myth. But it continues to be an article of faith among the New Atheists. In contrast to his views on evolution, Dr. Coyne thinks that he can ignore the evidence from history and disregard the settled view of experts in the field. But, being a scholar and a rational man, we’re sure that he will change his mind if shown to be wrong.

From that premise, they take apart portions of Coyne's arguments with astute observations.

Actually, historians start the Western scientific tradition with the “12th Century Renaissance” 500 years before Galileo. If you want to know why there were not many people doing natural philosophy before that, the answer includes words like “barbarian invasions,” “collapse of civilization,” “Huns,” “Goths,” and “Vikings.” The fact that some scientific knowledge survived the upheaval after the fall of the Roman Empire was largely due to the Church.

They argue that Christianity was not a barrier to scientific achievement but that it in fact supported it in spite of all of the other factors that kept impeding progress.

What’s truly amazing is just how much science early Christians were doing. John Philoponus (c. 490 – c. 570) was one of the first Christian professors in Alexandria. Historians today are stunned by his achievements.

As a Christian, Philoponus was happy to ditch pagan orthodoxy and start afresh. So he was the first to actually do the experiment of dropping stones, proving Aristotle wrong about falling objects. Alas, shortly after he died, Egypt was invaded by the Persians and then by the Arabs. Alexandria lost its status as an important center of learning, while the Byzantine Empire went into siege mode as it fought an existential struggle for survival. Not a great environment for science!

It's worth reading, and certainly worth a lot more discussion. For too long Christianity has shouldered the blame for a millennia of turtle-like scientific progress and such is not the case.  Never has there been a need to view science as the antithesis of religion.  There have been times and places where it has been, but the story has been oversold as THE cause for delay in human progress.  However there were also times and places where monasteries were the ones keeping the candle of knowledge from flickering out entirely in Europe. Credit, where it is due, is lacking.

Pope Socialist, I am NOT cool with that.

Socialist Cristina Fernández Kirchner with the then future Pope.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  In the spirit of full disclosure, let me start by saying that I was baptized Catholic, but my father was (is) a rabid atheist.  As the story is told to me, my paternal grandmother had me baptized without my father's knowledge.   I grew up in a home where religion was absent.  My maternal grandmother was profoundly religious, and I spent a lot of time with her as a child.  Consequently, most of my exposure to Christianity was through her.  She was a member of the United Church, a Protestant denomination.  It may explain my consternation with the idea that anyone of a Christian or Jewish faith does not have a significant tolerance for anyone else in any of those particular subsets that is different from their own - or indeed any other religion that does not foster hatred or tolerance of religious liberty, or the choice to be an atheist or agnostic. I myself identify as a Christian, not a Catholic, or Lutheran or United Church parishioner. I try to live a Christian life but am far from perfect.   I bring all of this up because there may be people who believe I am, because of my religious self-identification (or lack thereof), I am not qualified to disagree with the Pope, or more accurately, that in this case my opinion does not matter.

That is their prerogative.  I respectfully disagree.   I was a great admirer of Pope John Paul, and just because I disagree with a Pope does not mean I disagree with all of Catholicism.

Alright, this post may p*** off a number of my readers because I am about to disagree with the Pope.  The Pope it seems, is a socialist.  He has a fetish for social justice.

The former Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio's "resume" is open to interpretation. The first Jesuit pope, he is known to share his religious order's passion for education and social justice, particularly as it concerns the welfare of the poor and oppressed. In a speech last year, he accused fellow church officials of hypocrisy "for forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes," according to the Associated Press.

It seems like this guy sees the Pope as a useful idiot.

Coming from South America, where socialism is the predominant notion when it comes to political philosophy, it is not surprising that he would seek to marry his religious beliefs (which I am sure are heartfelt) with his political beliefs (which I'm sure are equally heartfelt).  Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Che Guevara are some high profile examples of South American politics.  In nations where poverty is rampant and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is so vast, socialism is an easy sell.  Priests of the church are not immune to the political speeches of men.

Indeed the Pope can turn to the Bible to find scripture that can reinforce the notion of social justice.  But here's the problem I have with that approach.  It is not the responsibility of government to impart social justice from a Christian perspective.  To require the government to impart social justice is an abrogation of one's own duty as a Christian.  It is in a sense a way of saying I cannot do it myself so I will get the government to force me, and others to pay for social justice.  It is both sloth and greed that lead to this mindset.

Secondly, while working through the church to do such things creates a similar quandary,  a church is still a voluntary membership organization.  You are not required to attend church and even upon attending you are not compelled to donate, the way you are with an income tax.  You still have freedom of choice, an inalienable right given by God.  

Thirdly, as a Christian, it is more responsible to be involved directly with the social injustices you see.  I'm sure that will be seen as more important and more charitable by God.  I could be wrong, but paying an extra dollar in tax is less altruistic than helping a person on your street who needs a hand.  Raising funds for 

Fourthly, the question of whether the church should be involved in affairs of state at all is debatable. It is one thing to say help the poor, it is another to say the government's austerity measures are bad.    I also find it quite ironic that liberals in the U.S. who will hammer the table for the separation of church and state from the perspective of government would feel quite happy to accept the views  of the church and feel that it is okay for them to espouse a progressive cause like social justice. I guess the separation of church and state only works one way for them. At least, while it's convenient with Pope socialist.

It is important to remember that South America has never had equality of opportunity, and this is not the fault of capitalism.  Everything from conquest to corruption and cronyism  have played much larger parts.  Certainly Puerto Rico has had some success with fledgling capitalism, and Mexico has put itself on a path to prosperity - assuming it's criminal issues can be resolved.  Capitalism is not the enemy of the poor and it certainly is not the enemy of the church. Ignorance is the enemy of both. Is there any place where the gap between the very wealthy and very poor is as bad as China?  The poor in the United States have televisions and air conditioners.  The poor in communist Cuba are more numerous than pre-Castro.  Oops.

Setting aside all of the geopolitical stuff, there are religious reasons to consider that perhaps the Pope is wrong on this one.  They are expressed pretty well in numerous places on the website Christian Capitalism, here's an excerpt from one such post:

Simply, God ordains governments for the suppression of evil.  In Genesis 9:5-6, the initial post-diluvian government was to be established upon capital punishment in order to suppress evil.  This was the extent of the affirmative directive from God.  It must be stressed ever so strongly, that the Bible never commands or mandates anything further for human government than to suppress evil.  Thus it is wrong to assert that God ordains active redistribution of wealth in a government. 

Jesus commanded us in Luke 10:37 to take our personal abilities, talents and possessions and use them in showing mercy to other individuals.  Jesus demonstrated this by taking His own abilities and talents (which were considerable since He was God on earth) and used them to show mercy to other individuals. 

Jesus never projected this command to any government. To take this command and extrapolate it to government is simply not in the text.  Let me repeat, the Bible makes no mandate whatsoever for a government to take the position of redistributors of wealth. 

“But does not Romans 13:7 order us to pay taxes?” one may ask.  Yes!  But these taxes are for the government’s duty to restrain evil.  No mandate for taxes for entitlement programs was ever given. 

Neither did Jesus compel or force His followers to give their wealth away.  Giving was to be voluntary and done cheerfully from the heart.  Those who gave with bad motives would lose their heavenly reward or, at worst, be struck down (Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-9). 

But did not the early Church of Jerusalem in Acts 4:32-36 sell all their goods and “distributed to each as anyone had need”?  Yes, they did do this.  But we must note again that their participation in this community was voluntary (Acts 5:4).

 Now, it's not a slam dunk that the Pope is a socialist, but there is plenty of evidence that he leans that way.  While that may be good for the Catholic church in South America or other socialist and communist countries, it isn't de facto good for Christianity and certainly not for the global financial situation.

Obama Rattled?

Obama on health care recently said that it was time to stop clinging to an unworkable health care system. The last time he used the word 'cling', it didn't work out so well for him. Something about Bibles and guns...




Oops.

Since the President clearly choice to waive his right to remain silent, this seems like something that could be used against him in a court of public opinion. I haven't seen the exact quote, just the paraphrase, but even if he didn't say it, there's enough there to indicate that the attitude exists. Elitist.

Shouldn't the President know by now that his words carry implications? It seems like he understands it in a positive sense - he tries to talk his way into public opinion polling bumps. But it also seems like he doesn't get the fact that when he says something negative it has negative impacts too.

Top 10 Obama Quotes

The Top 10 Barack Obama Quotes caught on video.

[Note to Feed subscribers - please visit the site for videos]

#10 My Uncle Liberated Auschwitz: Was your uncle a Russian?



#9 Clinging To Guns and Religion: The TelePrompter is the real brains of the operation.



#8 57 States: Isn't that supposed to be Heinz 57 Varieties Steak Sauce?



#7 Health Care For Veterans: Dumber than soup.



#6 Spread the Wealth: You get what you vote for.



#5 Selma Marches: Faulty Memory or prenatal memory?



#4 On AIG, pre-election: All over the place except specifics



#3 Various Babblings: Just slow down and catch your breath.



#2 Fallen Heroes in the Audience: Obama Sees Dead People



#1 Bank of China Credit Card: Brutal hypocrisy.