Atheists Respectable or Not

Are Atheists respectable or not?

I commented this (see below) on a First Things On the Square article with no response (on many sites, I am just ignored: no one will be ignored on this blog).

(1) From the On the Square article the day before this article was posted ("Cogito and Christ" by Mr. Carter)
"Over the past few decades, many Christians—particularly those intrigued by postmodernism—have rightly questioned Descartes’ reversal. They have attempted to dethrone the idol of reason by pointing out the limits of rationality and questioning the human ability to achieve epistemic certainty, particularly about matters of theology. Unfortunately, in trimming away the underbrush they have failed to cut away the root of Descartes error: the faith in doubt.

"Among these Christians, as well as among secular intellectuals, doubt about metaphysical truths—such as the existence and creative actions of God—has become viewed as a form of intellectual humility. Once considered evidence of a poor intellect, agnosticism and atheism are now treated as evidence of intellectual virtue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This reliance on doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known. Rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name. The doubters accept the limits of the human mind, embrace pluralism, and do not impose any one idea of truth upon others.

"However when we put our trust solely in our own reason we either become dogmatic or skeptical, and even dogmatic in our skepticism. But when we set aside our self-idolatry and seek true epistemic humility we can discover that the only reliable foundation for reason is found in special revelation."

(2) From this article:
"There are two answers to the question: 'Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?' The atheist answers, 'There is no explanation.' The theist replies, God. An intelligent case can be made for either answer. But to say that the laws of physics alone answer it is the purest nonsense—as Hawking himself once realized."

I find the two passages above conflicting.

I talked to an in-law who claims to be an Atheist. I basically said that one of us has to be right (there is God or not), but that I respected my in-law's belief. My in-law has reasons, and I have my own.

From the first passage, it seems that the in-law's reasons contra-God's existence are directed to "self-idolatry", and from the second passage, the reasons derive an "intelligent case".

Which one is it? Can it be both at the same time like it is in so many philosophical/religious topics?

So what is it?

All One Needs to Know About Politics

All one needs to know about politics can be thought to come from A Man for All Seasons (it's one of my favorite movies; I don't do favorites lightly). St. Thomas More, the patron of statesmen, knew that no one was above the law. He also knew that law was imperfect since it was written by men, especially if the law was disregarded or interpreted away.

If a law seems to be or is in fact wrong, it must be changed, not trampled underfoot alone or in the company of other laws.


The precedence of previous laws must be obliged. However, natural law must be upheld as its underpinning.


Finally, the oath that public officials take are not merely words but binding tethers to the path of an official's destination for the benefit of society and its tradition.


Officials cannot function on the will-to-power but must be grounded in the path toward the common good: otherwise moral, political, and ethical chaos ensues.

For the U.S., "And for the support of this Declaration [of Independence of the USA], with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Craigslist Boycott

This news came not as a shocker but as a dark night of my American soul. One day I could browse dozens of hits for stuff I needed and the next I could only find ones that required shipping and handling. Woe is me.

I mean, I just bought all my work-at-home furniture and some more storage items for under $200. The night was not long enough to get all the things I bought. I'm sure glad I had my third child whose car seat wouldn't fit the other two car seats in a car so I could get a van to seat them all: I could get bigger stuff on craigslist Baltimore.

My dream is nevermore. I now have a computer which will never (?) search for a computer mouse nor a desk.

Darn principles (at least I have ones that stick).

LGBT Equality Nonstarter

On Assumption Sunday, there was a visiting priest from Boston who said mass since the pastor was away. In his homily he mentioned that the Assumption was about how we come to God in our bodies, male or female, black or white, ..., gay or straight.

I never heard any ordained priest say anything like that where I could see them in person. It just shocked me.

I reflected a little about what he said. I wonder, should he have said, "adulterous and non-adulterous", "liar or non-liar", etc? Just because we have an inclination to sin, does it mean that we have to identify with a particular, potential sin?

Some people think that the LGBT label is their identity. Some people think that their profession is their identity. For some, the color of their skin links them to others.

How is an inclination of sinfulness regarded as identity? Those of the current LGBT subculture think they are discriminated against: they think they're hated. Should equality be not linked to sin (inclination and/or acts) but to dignity as human persons in our bodies?

Some more thought is needed. Just thinking as I write. (Be nice now if you comment.)

(Good read: Obedience vs. Conscience)

US Sen Mikulski (D-MD) is All About More Government

I got this in my email from the Baltimore County Connector:

US Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said (picture from here with Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith),

"We need small businesses so they can keep creating jobs and keep powering our economy. But small businesses can't do it on their own. They need a government on their side. They need government bringing down health care costs, supporting innovation, and preparing the workforce for the jobs of the future. They also need a level playing field in government contracting. I want them to know I'm on their side."

How about this:
We need government to get off the back of small businesses. They're already burdened enough by the tax code, paying taxes, and spending 7/8 of their company time trying to figure out government regulations or spending more time and money on a legal adviser. So much for the little guy: the big guy has more resources to figure out big government's mess.

Direct Killing Always Wrong

Here's part of a dialog that took place over Youtube messaging behind the scenes. (It's from the video at the end of this post.)

If accepting the message on the video below is what it means to "trust black women", what do you think? I say, "Trust them to do what, kill the right preborn boy or girl?"

----------
[From other person, not me:]
@otaaac3 "always wrong" going to extreme is "always" a mistake. are you pro-surrendering to invaders so as not to kill them?
would you shout "dont shoot back at the planes" which bombed pearl harbor so they do not "kill" the pilot??
luckily law makers are not extreme and take into account bodily injury of the mother.
if you limit yourself to healthy births say so. but agree if mother will be injured by the birth to remove the fetus in small peices to save mom.

-----------
[From me:]
I said direct killing was always wrong.
"An abortion would be ***indirect*** if it were used neither as an end nor as a means. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means." -_This Rock_ (emphasis added) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/double%20effect

Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.

-----
[From other person:]
'Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.'
what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong? you would answer indirect by 'intent' then abortion is always indirect since the intent is for the family finance

-----
[From me:]
"what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong?"

The pilot himself outside of the plane is innocent until s/he tries to kill someone directly. If they are, say, eating a sandwich in the mess hall, no one has a right to kill them since they are just eating lunch.

A preborn boy or girl inside of his or her mother is doing nothing except eating lunch in his or her mess hall (the mother's womb). No one has a right to kill them for what they might do (potential finance burden). A preborn boy or girl has the same moral worth as you or me.

How much family finance has to be in jeopardy for his or her mother to kill them? $1? $50? $100? $1000? Over how many years? What about adopting to the plethora of people who are waiting to adopt to very little, if no cost to the pregnant mother?

How about born babies? Does the mother have a right to kill them? for how much?

These questions have a very bad logical conclusion.

-----

CA Prop 8 Struck Down

So, the homosexual judge struck down the anti-homosexual "marriage" proposition 8 of CA. Clearly, this judgment was made on factual grounds (finding of fact) as shown in Ace of Spades (I just got a link to it from CMR) so it's harder to strike down on appeal (As I wrote before, I just hope they get the history right).

However, on page 133, there is a vestige of finding of law based on Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa v Casey (505 US 833, 850, (1992)) and Lawrence (539 US at 582) (I believe Lawrence was the case about consensual gay sex).

California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579. (emphasis added)

I could have predicted that this supposedly current reading of the U.S. Constitution, seemingly now the law of the land, would creep into this and all other "culture war" court cases, i.e., there are no morals except the judicial interpretation of the living document that is the U.S. Constitution. (BTW, this legal positivism comes with Kagan too.)

This comes from Casey. It's worth a full read.

Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. [From the current case] The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

It is conventional constitutional doctrine that where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other. That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other.

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. (emphasis added)

This is what lead to legal assisted suicide in Oregon and to the continuation of abortion on demand. Until this interpretation of what's left of the U.S. Constitution is struck down utterly and without equivocation, there will be no stopping that which people are capable of imagining.

Really, how can the court know what the people in the voting booth were thinking when they voted? Who cares if people who brought Prop. 8 to the voting booth had a reason or not to do so: they only have one (1) vote a piece. The people of CA had their reasons to vote for it that only they know.

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The court has forgot. Sorry, dear Abe, may God have mercy on us.

(BTW, see Fr. Barron on the Casey decision near the end of the video below.)

Legal Positivism and the Source of Rights

Lifesitenews.com conducted an interview with Christopher Ferrara, president and chief counsel of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association.

I liked what he had to say. It was quite controversial. He actually said that monarchy was the best form of government. I never heard someone say that before even though I also think it.

What this post is really about are ideas about legal positivism.

Chrisopher Ferrara: We’re operating under the shadow of Roe v. Wade. But R v W is only one of the many emanations of the doctrine known as legal positivism. What is legal positivism? It is simply the doctrine that the law is what is posited. Put forth. So let it be written, so let it be done. It doesn’t matter whether there’s a natural law standard underlying a legal enactment, a utilitarian standard or any standard at all.

I then read this opinion article from Yahoo!News, "Elena Kagan: Could she defend the Constitution's purpose?"

The Holmes model: sneering at natural rights[sic]Instead, they follow the path marked out by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who sat on the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. “All my life I have sneered at the natural rights of man,” Holmes wrote, reflecting his view that the individual rights venerated by the Founders have no objective validity and therefore no role in discerning the Constitution’s meaning. ...
In a written follow-up, Kagan named Holmes as the last century’s most influential Supreme Court justice, stating: “His opinions ... set forth the basic rationale for judicial deference to legislative policy decisions.” Having discarded the Constitution’s actual purpose as irrelevant to judging, Kagan is left with Holmes’s concept of the Constitution as a mechanism for implementing unlimited majority rule. ...
Nor would she fail to find authority for the government to bully banks into joining bailout schemes, launch massive “stimulus” spending of taxpayer money, and cap carbon emissions. If it’s commerce, the majority can control it. During her testimony, Kagan even lectured Sen. Coburn on the majority’s constitutional right to (hypothetically) require that each individual eat three vegetables a day – allowing herself only an inconsequential personal opinion that such a dictatorial law would be “dumb.”

This got me to thinking about the scary lecture by Bill Schulz of Amnesty International and Unitarian Universalist Association, "What Torture's Taught Me", "...[W]e are left with public opinion as the basis for determining rights." (p. 14)

If we leave rights up to people, what basis will they use to determine the scope? Without direction to the telos of the person (God), we are only on the road to the real tyranny of the democratic majority and the oligarchy of SCOTUS.

This is one of the reasons why I think the abortion debate is so important. It boils down governance to the questions of 'what is man?’ and ‘what is man for?' as Christopher Ferrara said in his interview.