coming soon ...
I hope to post a new essay on the topic of the Dictatorship of Relativism, especially as it relates to legislation and public policy, acceptable modes of public discourse ("tolerance"/P.C.), and the freedom of religious expression and practice.

Please be patient, and I'll try to get it up as soon as I can.
- posted by the Green Flash @ 10:00 PM |

 
It's been a long time, I know
It has been a very long time since I've posted here. I still occasionally check to see if anyone has left a new comment, but I just haven't found the inspiration to write anything major. I have a few ideas for topics, but they just seem to drift about in the back of my mind like vague cloud formations.

My mind hasn't been able to focus on a solid topic for some time. I think it's because there is SO MUCH going on so FAST that I haven't so much as started mulling over Topic A before I am distracted by Topics B, C and D and start thinking about what to write about them. And so it goes. There is so much to write about that nothing gets written.

Time/opportunity to write is also a big issue, as well as dealing with mental and physical fatigue after my long daily commute (approximately 50 miles between home and work).

My mind is fairly active most of the time, and there are plenty of things that bug me or I think need to be clarified or brought up for discussion, but I can't seem to focus on any one thing long enough to "put it to paper." There are a lot of things at work that bug me about how things are done, how people treat each other, or how "management" is structured or practiced. But I also write a column in my organization's quasi-monthly newsletter where I try to lay out issues in a logical fashion (sort of a "reality check"), or at least describe them from my perspective. (There's been nothing but positive feedback for the 4 articles I've written so far.) I should be starting on another one, but the thing that bugs me the most at work is extremely sensitive (touching on certain legal and regulatory issues), so I'm wondering if I can speak the truth (reality check again) without getting into serious "hot water."

So my mind is working on that problem (which has nothing to do with this blog, except that it consumes my time and mental energy). And I hear about the things going on in the political realm that are very serious and disturbing. And things and events that touch on public morality that demand discussion and clarification. And various issues within my own family that require my time and attention (but not necessarily things I would write about).

I envy those bloggers out there who find the time to write regularly (sometimes several times a day). For some, they can work it into their jobs, but for most people that isn't an option, so I appreciate and applaud their efforts and the passion that keeps them at it. (A lot of blogs are junk, of course, but many are quite good, and run the whole gamut of interesting fields and topics.) I also envy people who can just sit down and pound out an interesting blog on the spur of the moment. It takes me a couple of days, at least, to craft an essay once inpiration comes.

Blah, Blah, Blah ....

So what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that I'm still here but struggling to settle on a good topic to write about. (I'm always open to suggestions from you; but as I said above, I know that there's no shortage of things to write about. All I have to do is sit down and "just do it.")
- posted by the Green Flash @ 4:32 PM |

 
Jimmy Akin on same-sex “marriage”
(The following is a closely-approximate transcription of his answer given to a caller on "Catholic Answers Live" on Thursday November 20, 2008 (3:00 PM hour), show ID # CA-3992 [time reference 40:45 / 55:01]. If you click on that link and queue up the time-slider thingy at the bottom of the Real Audio player that appears, you can listen and read along at the same time. Neato!)


Caller (Vic): My question is with respect to homosexual or same-sex “marriages”. I was debating with a friend regarding his idea that, well, marriage is simply an institution for those who love each other, which seems kind of whimsical because … then anyone should be able to enter into it with … [Jimmy chuckles and interjects: “Oh yeah, parents could marry their children then, if it’s just about loving people.”] Yeah. So someone informed me about an article by a Robert P. George or somebody, with respect to how marriage was never intended to be an issue of the rights of the adults — like well, let’s grant rights just to a male and a female — but it was about the needs of the child, and the benefit of the community in which this child would be beared [sic] and reared with them. So my question is about the Catholic view on that, because he is kind of attacking my faith quite vigorously with that.

Jimmy: OK, this can be approached in a couple of different ways. Marriage does involve the good of the spouses. If you look in the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church it’ll say that “the ends of marriage are the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring” … umm … so those are both … goals, and the Church has had a clearer awareness in recent times of the importance of the good of the spouses, that’s something that really has developed in the last couple of decades. But what you can’t do is say, “Oh, well, it would be good for me and my ‘boy-pal’ to get married …um… and fulfill that end of marriage” … and leave the other undone, you know … just as with contraception, you can’t separate the unitive and the procreative aspects [of the marital act], you also can’t separate the good of the spouses from an openness to children. And you are doing that if you are entering a union that by its nature is intrinsically incapable of producing children. (That’s different than a union that for some external reason, some extrinsic reason, can’t produce them, like when the couple is advanced in age or something like that, or they have a medical condition so that they can’t conceive.) If you’ve got two men or two women together … there’s just a difference in their union.

There’s also a problem in that it’s really not good for them. It doesn’t foster the good of the parties if the two people are of the same sex. They may enjoy it on some level; they may say they are deriving benefit from it — but on a fundamental level, they’re not. They’re really harming each other. So neither of the purposes of marriage is going to be fulfilled through a homosexual union.

You can also look at the question another way, and say, well okay, fundamentally, marriage is — I mean, the way the term has historically been used — it refers to a union of a man and a woman oriented towards the procreation and education of offspring. Fine. Suppose you change the meaning of the word. Are you changing the fact that a union between a man and a woman oriented to the procreation and education of offspring is different than any other union? No you’re not. That reality remains the same. The reality of marriage is the fact that there is a union between a man and a woman that is oriented to children, both their production and education. If you stretch the term “marriage” like Silly Putty to refer to other things, you’re not changing the fact that that man-woman union is unique. All you’re doing is obfuscating the fact that it’s unique, but you’re not changing the underlying reality. The underlying reality is a man and a woman can get together in a particular kind of union and do something that two men, or two women, or … a person and a tractor … cannot do together. So all you’re doing is confusing the issue by pretending that something is like the union of a man and a woman, which it’s not. And that just detaches us from reality, it gums up public policy, it devalues the actual uniqueness of the man-woman union, and it will mislead people into thinking that they are married when they’re not, and it will confirm them in a destructive lifestyle that will ultimately harm them in this life and in the next. And that is not loving.


[And that's why he's the PROFESSIONAL apologist, and I'm just a rank AMATEUR! --G/F]
- posted by the Green Flash @ 9:42 PM |

 
Life is like ... Faith is like ...
Life is like a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle

Suppose you'd never seen a jigsaw puzzle before, nor even heard of one. When you first dump it out of the box it looks like mass confusion. But with a little imagination and effort you begin to see that what at first seemed like a big pile of random shapes actually might fit together.

There are two ways to put it together. One way is to put it together backwards (i.e. what we would call upside-down). This is possible, of course, but extremely difficult, since it appears all gray and meaningless. But it gives you something to do, and might even prove how "intelligent" and clever you are because you are able to fit together meaningless pieces.

The other way is to turn the pieces over at the beginning to reveal the "picture" side. This makes putting the pieces together much easier, more interesting and delightful, it tends to draw other people in to enjoy and share in the project of assembling the pieces. You discover as time goes on, bit by bit, an interesting and meaningful picture begins to emerge that pleases the whole person, body and spirit, because the effort of doing the puzzle pays off in the accomplishment of the meaningful task, and the final result is a picture that everyone around you can enjoy both in its details and its overall beauty.


Faith is like the way Adrian Monk solves a case

Have you ever seen the show "Monk" on TV (USA Network [cable], Fridays 9-10 pm, and repeat episodes at other times and On Demand)? It's listed as a "comedy drama", and is suitable for children.

At the beginning of many an episode, someone dies, and you don't always know who, if anyone, is at fault. After the theme music and opening credits, the San Francisco Police are shown going over the scene. Mr. Monk and his lovely assistant show up and, if he has something else on his mind (which is often the case), Mr. Monk says, "There's no mystery here; it was all just an accident."

But then he starts to notice things here and there, an object that seems out of place or a casual remark someone makes, that suggest that it might be something more than an accident. Then, as he pokes around, it becomes clear that someone knows more than he's telling.

In time, his investigation leads him to point someone out and say, "He's the guy! I know he did it. I just don't know how he did it ..."

Everyone around him remains skeptical, coming up with one reasonable excuse or another why he's wrong, until in the end the final clue is revealed and all the pieces fall into place. The final explanation is given and all the former skeptics say, "Of course! It was right there all along. Why couldn't we see it before?"

What started as "no mystery" then becomes a mystery of vital importance, and ends with a clear and satisfying explanation that makes everyone happy.

Everyone, that is, except the murderer. Roll the credits...
- posted by the Green Flash @ 7:45 PM |

 
On Political Correctness
Part of the trouble with Political Correctness (there is much more) is that it has to be enforced politically (artificially) since it apparently does not stand up even to ordinary reason. If it did correspond to reason, that would make it true, not just “correct”. (E.g., “You’re not allowed to say that … In fact, it just might be a hate crime!”)

So the way I see it, the implication is that the kind of people who invent and insist on P.C. usage know that it is false (contrary to right reason), so they have to change the terms of the discussion and back it up with artificial peer pressure (demanding recognition of a non-existent duty not to offend and the non-existent “right” not to be offended) and, on occasion, the force of “law”.
- posted by the Green Flash @ 5:02 PM |

 
The Comment Box is not a Chatter Box
JohnnyK (calling himself "The Truth" or "Not The Truth" at present) posted to my last blog entry about 70 comment entries over a period from July 3rd to 30th in what amounted to a VERY LONG and uniteresting monologue of New Age (or something like it) nonsense.
[When copied-and-pasted to Word document format and compressed to 8-point Ariel font and minimal .5 inch margins, the thing still ran to over 30 pages! Incredible.]

He seems to rely on my sense of "fair play" in not deleting him outright. But since he does not respect the norms of courtesy for me or my little corner of cyberspace, I feel no obligation to treat him with even the barest civility. My policy for him is to ban & delete without warning. Soon (I hope) he will get the message and stop trying. (I am reminded of the knife fight scene from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where "no rules" means NO rules.)

The contorted "logic" of his views and endless non sequitur "word-play" takes tedium to bold new extremes. It is absolutely opaque. I have stated many times before now that he is free to post his verbal dysentery elsewhere, but not here. If he does find some other cyber-spot to unload on, he has the option of e-mailing me privately and (in 100 words or less) asking me nicely to post a LINK here to his drivel. I might consider it. Then anyone who cares to can follow the link and read it.

On the other hand, if God knocks him off his horse and he has a conversion back to something resembling coherent thought, he can e-mail me privately about that too (in 100 words or less) and I might consider readmitting him to this forum.
- posted by the Green Flash @ 4:44 PM |

 
Mike Jones' new book
I thought I made a promise some time ago that I would announce particulars in this space when E. Michael Jones (editor of Culture Wars magazine) finally published his book on the "Revolutionary Jew". I can't find exactly where I made that promise (it might have been in a private e-mail), but here are the particulars nonetheless.

The title of the book is The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. It is hot off the press and available only in hardcover at present. 1,200 pages; $48.00 plus $8 for S&H; order from Fidelity Press, 206 Marquette Ave., South Bend, IN 46617; ISBN 0-929891-07-4. It was reviewed by Robert Sungenis, Ph.D., in the current (May 2008) issue of Culture Wars Magazine (available for $4.00 single issue or by subscription (in U.S.) for $30 per year from the same address given above).
- posted by the Green Flash @ 1:41 PM |

 
The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 3 (conclusion)

After an unexpected hiatus, the Blue Blazer returns to complete his 3-part series on the seeming contradiction of the Progressive attacks on Christian values.

Why do “Progressives” seek to undermine the cultural heritage of Western culture, particularly those that relate to Christianity? Why would they do this when those cultural elements also form the foundation of democracy and human rights—values that “progressives” hold so dear? I see three possible explanations. And I believe that each of these factors is at play on some people, but usually not at the same time for any individual.

The Culturally Gullible: Many people believe strongly in the progressive ideals while rejecting their Christian origins and principles (covered in Part 2). They do this not because of any inner conviction or personal experience, but rather because they have accepted, uncritically, a whole range of ideas that seem “acceptable” in popular media or the so-called “conventional wisdom.” Many of them take this gullibility a step further and thoughtlessly repeat criticism of the ideas that they hear criticized in popular media. Thus their beliefs about what is good or bad are not based upon personal conviction about good and evil, but upon what sounds good on the surface. Therefore, they frequently end up adopting an idea without any concept of its historic philosophic foundations. In other words, they “follow like sheep” or “jump on the bandwagon” to accept just about anything that seems popular (including unsupported cultural mythologies). They never question the post-Modern views of religion (and especially Christianity) promoted by various influential shapers of popular culture; ideas of religion as, at best, an annoying collection of “superstitions,” and at worst, an insidious source social evils, past and present.

Of course, while these people may accept foolish ideas out of ignorance, gullibility or laziness, they are not responsible for creating the distorted views in the first place. That requires active deception. And active deception comes in two types: subconscious and deliberate. The subconscious deceivers seek to avoid facing anything in life that is difficult or inconvenient. This means avoiding the challenging components of Christianity while openly embracing the warm and comforting components. This self-deceptive view of Christianity also requires an added deception—an act of hiding from their own motive which, like the gullible, is usually laziness. While I will touch on this second group briefly, I will focus most of my attention on the deliberate deceivers, those who consciously and carefully craft distortions and lies about history that will serve their vested interest in discrediting Christianity.

Subconscious Deceivers: In his bestselling book, The Road Less Traveled, psychologist M. Scott Peck describes the modern epidemic of self-deception: “Some of us will go to quite extraordinary lengths to avoid our problems [things that cause us discomfort or pain] and the suffering they cause, proceeding far afield from all that is clearly good and sensible in order to try to find an easy way out, building the most elaborate fantasies in which to live, sometimes to the total exclusion of reality.” Peck’s book, subtitled “A new psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth” provides striking evidence that everyone, to some extent, seeks to avoid responsibility for problems or challenges they face. Rather than taking responsibility to deal directly with problems and difficulties, it is tempting to avoid responsibility in various ways. Traditional religious values are an historic reminder of the challenges of being human with individual responsibility and accountability to follow a “good” or righteous path, even when it is difficult or inconvenient. Modern pop culture has embraced a god-less and self-centered ethos articulated by (but not invented by) Rousseau and Nietzsche. It is a self-perpetuating elevation of personal comfort and autonomy that became possible only with the development of modern technology that enabled leisure, learning, communication and social mobility and freedom—all of which, ironically, were the direct result of Christian influence on Western society (see Part 2). While the Church and the society under the influence of her ideals worked to promote learning, justice and freedom, she removed historic constraints of fear and ignorance that, while keeping people in poverty and oppression by the powerful, also applied constraints on the opportunities for self-absorption that is destructive to society.

With the primitive constraints on individual autonomy gone, it has become a “lifestyle choice” to either accept personal responsibility for promoting good in the society or to avoid responsibility when it is hard and opt for an easy out. Given the choice, it seems a growing number avoid the harder road of personal responsibility in favor of the easy course of taking as much as possible while giving as little as possible. Freedom thus becomes a popular concept (at long as it refers only to the freedom from duties, constraints or norms). “Justice” is the rallying cry to be used to claim something that somebody else has (but conveniently, justice is never mentioned when it would threaten my grip on what I have that others might claim). As more individuals have succumbed to these distortions of the Christian values of freedom and justice, the more the distorted versions are viewed as “mainstream” in popular culture, further reinforcing the ideas in a self-perpetuating spiral. And it is not surprising that the basic Christian values of freedom and justice (and likewise peace and love), when redefined from their theistic root meaning, can be elevated by someone who simultaneously attacks Christianity and its basic world view.

Deliberate Deceivers: Not all deception is subconscious, however (though most self-deception appears to be subconscious). In fact, the growth of the anti-religious and uber-autonomistic culture would not be possible without a conscious and deliberate program of deception by people in positions of influence and authority. The evidence for that is that there are those who willfully discard or reconstruct institutions that have proven successful in conserving and advancing society; while replacing them with unproven and clearly anti-intuitive substitutes. Education and science are two examples of institutions that have been transformed from institutions for preserving and advancing social goals of individual freedom and progress, into institutions for influencing social change and control of resources and political and social power—a direct contradiction to their espoused purposes. The aim of these deceivers is not a society in which all members of society share equally in freedoms protected by an equal share in the responsibilities of a social contract. Instead, it is a society run by the “enlightened” who use political power and control of social institutions to meet their own needs at the expense of a cultural underclass, dependent upon them. Today’s so-called “progressive” rhetoric must always be tested to see if it is consistent with the society’s espoused values, or not. The test will frequently reveal a carefully crafted deception to promote a different society altogether—an oligarchy of the powerful who control an underclass through monopoly power over economic resources and social institutions. It should be clear that that oligarchic model is an all-too-familiar fixture in human experience. It has been checked only where Judeo/Christian ideas of human equality under the law have flourished (basically only in Europe and the West since gaining hold in the Middle Ages and Renaissance). Because Christian ideals and education have been the only force to ever overthrow the “law of the jungle,” those who would rule for their own aggrandizement must discredit or destroy Christianity.

There is a group among so-called progressives, who are intent upon more than claiming autonomy and sovereignty over themselves. They wish to claim sovereignty over others too. To claim this sovereignty, they must be thoroughly committed to undermine Christianity. But because imposed sovereignty is inconsistent with the very values of Western Culture inculcated by Christians, there is danger in pushing this agenda openly. Instead they have learned from earlier failures of fascist and communist regimes that direct confrontation will not succeed. Instead, they patiently chip away at the West’s Christian foundation while claiming to embrace its progressive values. This seeming contradiction is not hard to explain. They conveniently embrace the parts of the Christian message that support their agenda, but they cannot embrace the totality of the Christian world view (such as equal dignity for all). But Christianity is a holistic world view that acknowledges a reality that cannot be dismembered. It includes hope and optimism, but it also recognizes weakness and demands responsibility. For those who want freedom to do what they want, without any personal responsibility, it is not pleasant to accept the whole of human experience that Christianity imparts. It must be picked apart. And those who know or suspect the power of Christianity realize that, if they are to pick it apart, they must first destroy it.

I do not consider the culturally gullible to be cause of the progressive threat to freedom and human rights. If anything they are the most pitiable victims. They are manipulated into the destruction of the culture that allows them the luxury of blissful ignorance. They have become the pawns of the few deliberate deceivers who seek to derail the journey of Western Culture and return to a culture of deceptive domination in which “Some are more equal than others.” It is a culture that cannot coexist where a divine creator is acknowledged, especially the God who bestows dignity to all as He reveals Himself through the values of the Torah, the prophets and the Gospel.
- posted by the Blue Blazer @ 3:16 PM |

 
The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 2

How did Judaism and Christianity lead to the philosophic framework that enables Western democracy and social and economic freedom?

This is part two of a series in which I describe how Christian philosophy led Western society to the basic fundamentals of modern liberal thinking on human dignity and rights; including the idea that government or the "ruling classes" have a duty serve the people, rather than the other way around. I will also show that the idea of social, economic and technological progress is also based upon Christian ideals. It is important for so-called progressive thinkers to recognize where these values came from, for if they hope to sustain these cultural values they would do well not to attack the free practice or discussion of the Christian ideals upon which they rest.

To support this assertion of the role of Christian ideas, I must show is that there is something unique about Judaic and Christian beliefs or experience that set them apart from other human cultures; and that those unique elements are directly related to the values and ideas that have won the allegiance of self-proclaimed enlightened liberal humanists.

I listed in Part 1 four values that seem to underpin modern, progressive philosophy:

1. Individual human dignity and equality under the law based upon that dignity
2. Basic rights of the individual to self-determination in their life and property
3. The belief that social, economic and technological improvement (progress) is possible and good
4. That humans have a moral value — or even an imperative — to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others

Individual human dignity and equality under the law
Today, in modern Western civilization it is largely agreed (although not always practiced) that each human being is worthy of some basic standard set of rights. Implicit in this is the acknowledgement that all people share a certain dignity. In fact, recent history has been a journey to expand the depth and scope of those human rights, and to codify them into law. These laws represent the power of the state, mobilized to protect the rights of individuals. This is fundamentally different from the concept in other ancient and modern civilizations which have held that individuals are to be mobilized to protect the power of the state (acknowledging that in most cases “the state” means the ruling class).

Throughout ancient history, and continuing in non-Western societies today, “The State” is usually represented by a small group who wields power, frequently in support of a monarch or dictator. Everyone else is relegated to a subclass that is at the disposal of the ruling class. Even in ancient Greece, a society that we think of as the birthplace of democracy, the most important duties were those owed by the individual citizen to the polis (city-state). Plato clearly espouses this view in The Republic. And the civil law was designed to protect the government and society as a whole. The idea of the state taking steps to protect individual freedom and civil rights had not occurred to anyone we know of in any society — except among the ancient Hebrews and their cultural successors.

The Hebrews received a law that applied to all equally. It did not afford special rights to the ruling class that trumped the rights of the least in the society. Quite the contrary. Unique in the history of civilization, the Hebrew law placed a duty upon the society for the welfare of the weakest of the individual members (e.g. widows and orphans) and even extended that duty to welcome and respect non-members (the stranger or sojourners). Rulers were seen as stewards responsible to God for the care of His people. This can be seen in the Biblical history of the rulers of Israel, frequently confronted by prophets speaking in God’s name, being taken to task for ignoring their responsibility as stewards.

This was remarkable at a time when rulers exercised absolute power over both civic and religious life, and the institutions of both were used by the elite ruling class at the expense of everyone else. It was in the new and unique cultural system described in the Old Testament that we see everyone afforded equal standing under the law. Incidentally the same principles established a “Separation of Church and State” for the first time. Just as the rulers in Israel were given authority by God to serve all the people, those same rulers served only a civic role. Their role was separate from — and did not overlap — the role of the religious class of priests and Levites. This separation of duties between the civic leaders and the religious leaders, all of whom served the people, was ingrained in the Hebrew culture and was seen as strange by outsiders. Evidence of this separation is seen in the rabbinic traditions surrounding the Ten Commandments and the two tablets upon which they were written. The commandments were said to be divided into two groups — the duties to God (religious duties) were expressed in the first 3, written on one tablet. The duties to all other people (civic) were written on the second tablet.

There is certainly no historical or biological reason for such ideas to emerge. Especially to an “enlightened” Darwinian, it makes no sense to espouse equal rights to all people based upon some philosophical notion of equal dignity. To them, “rights” only follow strength, power and success. "Might makes right" and power is the only source of dignity. But it was the notion of an equal dignity of everyone “born of woman” (created by God) that stands as the lynchpin of this whole system of societal protection of individual human rights. To paraphrase the book of Job, everyone comes into this world equally naked and all will depart without a stitch; so everything that anyone has is a gift of God. With this view, it is impossible to accept a system of stratified rights based upon power.

So why do the modern progressives denigrate — and even attack — the philosophic pillars holding up this view of human dignity? We’ll answer that later on in Part 3.

Potential for Human Progress
What is perhaps the primary philosophical hallmark of what we call “Western Civilization” and modern liberal thinking is the belief in human progress. Many of today’s liberal thinkers characterize themselves as “progressives,” holding up the idea of progress as a keystone of their outlook on life. It would probably surprise many of them to find that the optimistic view of human potential is a direct legacy of Christianity. Judaism broke from the ancient concept of humanity trapped in endless cycles driven by capricious fates, demons and deities. The Hebrews were the first people to view themselves as a people on a journey. Instead of repeating endless cycles, they were making progress on a linear pilgrimage through history (see Thomas Cahill’s book Gifts of the Jews). But the journey was still largely a journey of the people as a whole. It was Jesus, the Christ or Messiah (anointed one), that built upon the Jewish concept of individual dignity (discussed above) to emphasize the individual’s responsibility to follow a path of righteousness to advance the coming of the kingdom on earth as a prelude to the kingdom of heaven.

St. Paul and the early Christian Fathers further developed this theology of human progress. Unlike Judaism (and later Islam) which dwelt upon their scriptures and history in terms of legal frameworks of the past to be consulted to navigate the present, Christianity was distinctly forward-looking, shaped primarily by a view of the present as a prelude to a future filled with hope, enlightened by faith. (see St. Paul, I Cor. 13:9; St. Augustine, City of God, Book 22, ch. 24)

The Christian view of a world enlightened by the spreading Gospel, with believers serving as stewards of God’s gifts, enabled them to escape the doldrums of a life as a pawn of fate in an endless cycle of destiny. Instead they embraced a hope-filled future of change and innovation. Just as Christianity assumed a distinctly developmental view of theology, it also encouraged a developmental spirit in daily life. In his book The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark traces the blossoming of innovations in farming, animal husbandry, transportation, commerce, trade and technology in Europe to the adoption of Christian ideals into the popular culture of the Western Roman Empire. Although Stark points out that Christian ideals and idealism were necessary for this to happen, alone they were not sufficient. He cites two other factors present in Europe that made the blossoming of Western civilization possible. Without the other two — small political units and diverse, well-matched interest groups — other Christian areas remained stuck in ancient cultural patterns of tyranny and class struggle.

From its beginning, Christian theology developed continuously. In the Middle Ages, led by Thomas Aquinas, theological exploration naturally led to similar exploration of the natural world. The founding of universities came from this growing culture of education and inquiry. It was the same culture of inquiry that would lead to the so-called “scientific revolution” of the 16th Century. It is well known that the great scientists of that age, from Copernicus and Galileo, to Newton, were men of faith driven to understand the world as a way to better appreciate its Creator. Even the modern secular observer Alfred North Whitehead acknowledged in his 1925 Lowell Lecture at Harvard that “science rose in Europe because of widespread faith in the possibility of science … derived from medieval theology.” He recognized that modern science could not emerge from the cultures of Greece, China or Islam.

We see that the modern list of progressive values and virtues only make sense within a context of the Judeo-Christian ethic of the individual’s dignity as a child of God. And the idea that social progress is possible and worth pursuing is not found as a universal human value. It has only emerged in a culture that accepts the uniquely Christian-based premises that what an individual does matters beyond the immediate results. But the moral assumptions of Christianity have been so deeply imbued into Western Culture during its centuries of development that they can easily be ignored by those who wish to ignore them. And yet, any intellectually honest assessment must recognize that the liberal values that Western Culture brings to the rest of the world are ultimately rooted in a set of moral imperatives that cannot be separated from their Judeo-Christian religious context — to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others.

The greatest danger to human progress today is that modern thinkers have started to view “liberal values” as self sustaining and have jettisoned the foundation of religious heritage that supports them. The modern attacks on the beliefs and institutions that nurtured the progressive advance of human development over the past 1500 years, serve to weaken the hold of those values on the culture. And without them the culture is free to fall, once again, into the ethic of other civilizations in which “Might is Right,” and law is used to enslave a lower class in service to the “State” (i.e. the ruling class).

This scenario would be considered horrible to the average Westerner. Why would anyone who embraces the liberal ideas of equality, human rights and human progress take actions that would hasten such an outcome? This is the question we will attempt to answer in Part 3.

- posted by the Blue Blazer @ 1:44 PM |

 
News Item
I came across this AP article by Larry McShane in the local newspaper the other day. It got me thinking: Why are the big crime families of the Cosa Nostra (a.k.a. "the Mafia" and "the Mob") gradually going out of business?

My guess is that, when it comes to Organized Crime, it is becoming more and more difficult to compete with the Government.
- posted by the Green Flash @ 6:13 PM |

 
Welcome, Blue Blazer!
The new post below is presented by a guest contributor.
- posted by the Green Flash @ 7:30 PM |

 
The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 1

Progressive zealots bite the hand that feeds them

Many who claim to be devoted to the ideals of human progress are unknowingly chipping away at the very foundation upon which those ideals rely. As anti-religious zealots attack all public acknowledgement of any principle or symbol that is tied to religion, they are undermining the philosophic underpinnings that allow them the freedoms they take so much for granted.

A couple years ago (2003) a young man filed a lawsuit against the city where I live, Everett, Wash., to force the removal of a stone monument that depicted the Ten Commandments. The monument is a 6-foot, engraved granite slab that stands near the entrance to a city office building. It was paid for and placed there in 1959 by a local fraternal organization. See news story.

The young man, Jesse Card, seemed to be arguing that, because the Ten Commandments represent the religious traditions of Jews and Christians, the monument serves to promote those religions and, by being on public property, violates the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion. The arguments in this and other such cases focus on the basic principals of individual autonomy established in the U.S. Constitution (1788) and Bill of Rights (1791).

Of course the idea that individual freedom could not be trumped by monarchs or states was not invented in America. The Magna Carta limited the power of the English king, basing those limits on the notion that the law applies to all, due to the equal dignity of the individual under God. Again, this concept of kings being subject to higher laws was not new in the Christian West. From Constantine to Charlemagne, monarchs had humbled themselves before the God of David and Moses.

It is, in fact, the Law of Moses that began the revolution that gives the young man in Everett the right to free speech, to sue the government, to observe his own religion or no religion at all. The Hebrew innovation that would help shape Western law and politics is the idea that even Moses was not above the Law that bears his name. Even King David was culpable under Hebrew law for his transgressions. This was a radical departure from all ancient civilizations for whom the ruler was the law and “might made right.” It is still a radical idea in non-Westernized nations. Why? Because without the cultural influence of Christian thought, it does not occur to the human mind.

The irony of the lawsuit in Everett was that the limited view of the monument as a religious symbol seemed to blind this zealot for individual rights to its much larger significance as a symbol of human rights that transcends the whims of individuals to control the freedoms of others. For unless there is an acknowledgement that ALL individuals are equal under a higher law, then the way is open for an elite class of individuals to claim sovereignty over everyone else. Our system of law and justice can only respect all equally because it requires all individuals to extend equal respect to everyone else. And those concepts come from where? The law of Moses, symbolized by the Ten Commandments.

I might point out as an aside that the concept of division of church and state can be seen in the ancient Jewish and Christian tradition of showing the commandments related to our duty to God on one tablet and those related to our duty to other people on the second tablet. Those tablets are very rich symbols that the basic concepts of liberalism are not modern innovations, but are rooted in a unique ancient innovation.

Mr. Card stirred up a great deal of vitriol by those who interpreted his lawsuit as an attack on their religion and values. Their response was to condemn his action as anti-Christian bigotry. I thought that was an unfortunate reaction. I do not know what Mr. Card’s real motives were, but I will take him at his word that it was to protect individual liberty as demanded by our Constitution. I felt that the best argument against his action was that it was internally inconsistent to defend one liberty, guaranteed in one document, by dismissing the philosophic pillar holding up that liberty by seeking to drive all symbols of its origin from the public square.

This episode is just one example of the so-called progressives battling against all appearances of religious symbols and concepts in public in the name of basic human rights principles, without realizing that by doing so, they are undermining the very foundation of those principles.

Before going any further, it is important to articulate some of the key progressive ideals we are talking about:

• Individual human dignity and equality under the law based upon that dignity
  
• Basic rights of the individual to self-determination in their life and property
  
• The belief that social, economic and technological improvement (progress) is possible and good

A moral value – or even an imperative – to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others

I will not attempt to argue that these are key “progressive” ideals. I will take that as a given (until I hear from someone who disagrees). I would point out only that the first two are philosophical imperatives of modern democracy. What bears examination, however is the origins of these concepts in Judaism and their blossoming in Christianity, because I think that THIS idea may not have occurred to many progressives.

In fact, many progressive thinkers resist or even harbor hostility to Christianity and Christian institutions. Apparently in ignorance of the fact that these ideals were sown and nurtured only in the unique World View that emerged from the Judeo-Christian religious experience and its resulting philosophic mind-set, a mindset commonly referred to as “Western Civilization.” Recently, there have been a number of popular books following this theme. Examples include: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

More disconcerting than their apparent ignorance, is the prospect that anti-Christian progressives will continue to drive anything openly religious (at least openly Christian or Jewish) out of the public square and thus out of the culture. Their “success” in this endeavor would have the predictable consequence of burying any hope that those espoused values could survive in the public square and the new “reformed” culture. Essentially, their hostility to Christian values, virtues and culture, is a rejection of Western Civilization itself. And I will argue that the attack on Western culture – if it ever succeeds – could only result in a replacement culture that will have little or no use for the basic “progressive values” mentioned above.

The first phase of this discussion will begin in part two of this series where I will explain how Christian philosophy led Western society to the basic fundamentals of modern liberal thinking on human dignity and rights and on the roles of social institutions to serve people, rather than the other way around. I will also show how these values cannot be sustained in a culture that rejects the basic philosophical assumptions upon which they rest. For, indeed, the hope of social, economic and technological progress is based upon Christian ideals.

Finally, in part three of this series, I will attempt to understand why so-called “progressives” seek to undermine the very foundation of their espoused values. I will explore a couple of possible motives. I think that some (probably most) truly believe in the ideals but are foolishly ignorant of the historic and philosophic origins of those same ideals. They are easily misled by notions that religion (particularly Christianity) is anti-progress and even barbaric. But I believe there are others who hold a “progressive agenda” that has nothing to do with embracing liberal values of human dignity and progress. It is an agenda that requires a deliberate effort to eliminate Christianity for the very fact that it opposes human dignity and progress. I will discuss what this agenda is and why they must hide the origin of the progressive ideals to create a “progressive” smoke-screen to lend moral legitimacy to what is really a frightening – and quite un-progressive – future society.

(Coming installments)
Part 2:
How did Judaism and Christianity lead to the philosophic framework that enables Western democracy and social and economic freedom?

Part 3:
Why do “Progressives” seek to undermine the values of Western culture (thus undermining Christianity, democracy and human rights?)

- posted by the Blue Blazer @ 6:51 PM |

 
Morality Salad
Yompin’ Yimminy! It’s been a long time since my last post, I know.

I’ve been thinking about a lot of little topics, nothing huge or terribly pressing, but always buzzing there in the background of my consciousness. Summertime has also imposed certain burdens on my time which have hampered my ability or opportunity to write anything new. Summer also tends to be a busy time at work (where many, even most, of my ideas usually have time to germinate and sprout), so I’ve had to spend more energy focusing on the mundane tasks of the job rather than doing the more mentally satisfying work of theology, philosophy and social analysis.

The things I’ve been mulling over constitute a varied jumble, a salad if you will, of topics concerning morality as it relates to business culture, economics and other social and political concerns. The “global economy”, war, the legal vs. moral status of the family in society, contemporary American culture and the “religion” of secular materialism are among the topics in the mix. (I suspect that there is more than just greens and vegetables in there, so maybe it’s more like a “taco salad” with a little spicy beef mixed in as well.)

(By the way, if any of you have any suggestions for a topic for this blog, any topic, feel free to leave a comment and tell me about it. If I find your idea interesting, I’ll give it some thought and write something …)

In any event, I hope to develop something soon that is worth posting, so check back every so often. Also, I’m still waiting for word from my “guest contributor” who it seems has even less time for writing than I do.

In the meantime, feel free to peruse my older posts and browse through the archives (linked on the gray sidebar) for the ones that have dropped off this main page. Don’t be shy—leave new comments there too, if you wish, but if you do, be sure to leave a “flag” message in the most recent post’s comment box directing my attention to the right place.
- posted by the Green Flash @ 12:48 AM |

 
The saddest thing I ever heard
Like everyone else, I hear a lot of sad things all the time. Things such as news about a toddler who was accidentally run over and killed by her aunt who had come to visit (it truly was an accident), psychotic killers on the rampage, or victims of natural or man-made disasters. Every day, it seems, we hear about a lot of seemingly senseless death and suffering, disease, situations created by the consequences of a long series of bad choices, a bad philosophy about life or someone just being “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

But of all the tragedies I hear reported, or hear from the mouths of friends and acquaintances, by far the SADDEST thing I ever hear is, “I used to be Catholic”.

“WHAT!??” you may ask, “Are you saying that someone’s choice of RELIGION is more important than someone dying of cancer, whole cities being wiped out by tsunamis and hurricanes, the bombs of war and terrorism, and innocent children being killed??”

Yes, I am saying that.

I have said many times that religion (the way we understand and approach God and how we treat other people) is the most important thing in the world. Everyone has to die sometime, and it can be either quick or slow, self-induced or at the hand of someone else (either by intent or accident), by disease or by some other unexpected and unavoidable process or event (the details aren’t that important). And of course, “he who dies with the most toys” is still dead and leaves all his toys behind.

Suffering is an unavoidable part of life. The difference between happiness and misery isn’t whether or not you suffer (or what the particular things are that cause you to suffer), rather it is how you suffer (i.e. how you choose to deal with the suffering that comes your way, and where you find the strength to help you endure it). Sometimes people truly suffer needlessly, such as when they suffer loneliness or alienation because they are so self-absorbed that they refuse to love anyone else, but usually suffering has a way of finding us all by itself.

So everyone suffers and everyone dies. (I’m not trying to be callous, just putting things into perspective, showing you the “Big Picture”.) When a person dies, he faces a personal Judgment before God that determines where he spends eternity. (Next to eternity, our time and suffering on earth are nothing.) The main focus of this Judgment is whether or not you loved and served God in this life (or at least did the best you could with the natural reason God gave you (cf. Rom 2:13-16)). Those who truly loved God in life (not just pretending to) will be eternally happy (beyond imagination). Those who truly loved themselves more than God will be eternally miserable (beyond imagination). There is no third choice.

Part of serving God is how you treat the people around you during your life on earth. Part of how you love God is shaped by what you know about Him. This is the stuff of religion. It is what sets the balance that determines where every individual soul will spend eternity. I’d say that’s pretty darn important!

I’ve done my level best to explain why the Catholic religion, taught and practiced by the Catholic Church, is true and tells us the truth about God and man and how we are to relate to both. No one has ever given me any reason to believe that it is not true or that some other religion (or no religion) is better or truer than Catholicism. And it is objectively true, which means that it is true for everyone without exception. (If you think I am wrong on this point, please set me straight, either by leaving a comment (below) or by e-mail (see sidebar).)

The Catholic Church teaches us that the Church itself is “necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism, as through a door, men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), 14; emphasis mine).

Therefore the only way any ex-Catholic can be saved at all is by his bona fide ignorance of the fact that Christ made the Catholic Church necessary for salvation. And since I’m telling you now, that “escape clause” is now closed to any former Catholic who is reading this. (Or at the very least, it is incumbent upon him to “do his homework” and confirm the truth of the matter and stop kidding himself that “everything is OK” regarding the state of his soul before God. He can no longer say at his particular Judgment, “Gee, Lord, I didn’t know. Nobody ever told me.”)

That is why the phrase “I used to be a Catholic” is the saddest thing I ever hear. No one ever leaves the Church (stops attending Mass on Sundays and practicing the faith) except through ignorance (not adequately understanding the truths of the faith) or malice (loving one’s sin more than God—and the sin might simply be the deadly sin of pride). If a person truly understood what the Church teaches, and truly loved God, he could never leave the Church He established, His Bride, His Mystical Body.

A case in point

I have a good friend whom I have known since childhood (I’ll call him “Dave”) who was born and raised in the Catholic faith. While he was away at college, he met and fell in love with a girl (I’ll call her “Patty”) who was also born and raised a Catholic. Many years before, Patty had had a number of “bad experiences” concerning the Church, for example the bad example of a particular priest (alcoholism, I think) and her parents’ divorce. Apparently she used these events collectively as an excuse for leaving the Church “never to return!” (she is very strong-willed). I believe she was attending some Protestant church when Dave met her.

Dave started attending church with Patty in their college town and everything seemed OK (I don’t know at what point he stopped going to Mass). It seems Dave was poorly catechized in school (a common situation in the ’60s and ’70s) and he either didn’t know or didn’t care about the essential differences between Catholicism and Protestantism or what was expected of him as a Catholic.

Well a few years later, in any event (to make a long story short), they got married in a Protestant church, had a number of kids and are now living their lives like good Evangelical Protestants. It’s not that Dave has any problem with Catholicism, but rather that Patty does and, if he values his marriage, he’d better not set foot in a Catholic church ever again(!). And so, caught on the horns this dilemma, Dave seems to have convinced himself that “it’s no big deal, as long as you are [some kind of] Christian”. (These are not actual quotes. I am putting words in their mouths based on what I know of their attitudes and personalities.)

Here’s where it gets dicey. Unless they had both formally defected from the Catholic Church before the time of their marriage (which basically involves each of them writing a letter to the bishop informing him of their intention to leave the Catholic Church), or had applied for and received a document from the bishop dispensing them from the normal requirement of observing the Catholic form of marriage (i.e. in a Catholic church before a Catholic priest)—and I have no reason to believe they did either one—they were bound under a moral obligation to observe the Catholic form for marriage. Since (I assume) they didn’t (thus failing to meet that requirement for Catholics to be validly married), in the eyes of the Church, they aren’t actually married (whether they realize it or not). Since the Church was given the authority by God (Jesus) to regulate this sort of thing among her members, they aren’t married in God’s eyes either. So in God’s eyes, they are “living in sin” (fornication—sexual relations between unmarried persons). [This has nothing to do with the “legitimacy” of their children. Legitimacy is a matter of civil law, and as far as the State is concerned they were legally married.] In Canon (Church) Law, this would be a “slam dunk” annulment (meaning it is obvious without further investigation (if I have the facts straight) that no marriage ever existed in this case).

If Dave and Patty have not formally defected from the Church, they are NOT PROTESTANTS (regardless of how they describe themselves); they are in fact lapsed Catholics who happen to attend Protestant services and no doubt hold a number of Protestant doctrines. This may seem to be a mere technicality to non-Catholics, but it makes all the difference in the world in Canon Law.

To rectify their situation, Dave and Patty could each go to sacramental confession (for all the years they were away from the Church) and return to the practice of the Faith of their youth, and finally have their (civil) marriage convalidated (or “blessed”) by a Catholic priest (not a likely scenario under the circumstances). Or (if Patty refuses to be reconciled to the Church) Dave could still go to confession on his own and receive absolution for his own years away from the Church (and his illicit sexual relations with Patty), and then continue to live chastely (sleeping in separate rooms like brother and sister) with Patty (also unlikely). I suppose a third possibility would be for them both to formally defect from the Church now and then get “re-married” in their Protestant church or before a JP (then at least in the eyes of God and the Church they would in fact be married for the first time).

But that still leaves the question of the state their souls when they die. Fornication is a mortal sin (if done with full knowledge and consent of the will). So is leaving the Church. One unrepented mortal sin lands you in hell. A sin is mortal if three conditions are met: (1) it is “grave matter” (the act itself is serious enough), (2) one understands at the time that it is grave matter, and (3) one gives full consent of the will (in other words, “I know it’s a serious sin, but I freely choose to do it anyway”). If there was a way they could have found this out but still went ahead, they are still (at least partially) guilty of the sin. If they didn’t know at the time but were informed about it later, but refused to do anything to correct the situation, they are as culpable as if they knew all along.

Presumably both Dave and Patty want to go to heaven, but the way things are now I don’t see how they can get there. Ignorance is a wonderful thing, I suppose, but it has its limits. You see why I feel the situation is so sad. I constantly look for an opportunity to clue Dave in to the precarious spiritual position they are in, but circumstances make such an opportunity exceedingly remote and I’m certain he “don’t want to hear it”, and talking to Patty about it is out of the question. It looks hopeless.

Good thing it isn’t up to me. God gives every person every opportunity to repent before death and be saved. If someone chooses to defy God and His law, that is his own choice. I can still pray for them, certainly. But it is still a very, very sad situation.
- posted by the Green Flash @ 4:47 PM |

 
Prayer, worship and the communion of saints
This topic is a major stumbling block for many (perhaps most) non-Catholics. The problem arises because for most non-Catholics (with the exception of Eastern Orthodox and other schismatic churches and groups which retain valid priestly orders), the highest form of worship is prayer.

At a typical Evangelical Protestant worship service, for example, there are periods of singing, communal prayer (led by the pastor or some other minister), perhaps a time for some silent personal prayer, and the sermon (into which is usually incorporated some scriptural passages). During the service, the prayers are directed to the Heavenly Father, to Jesus, and perhaps on a rare occasion to the Holy Spirit—but always to God. Most Protestants would never dream of praying to anyone but God, because prayer is worship.

And a Catholic would agree—prayer directed to God is a form of worship. But for the Catholic, prayer is not the highest form of worship. The highest form of worship, as ordained by God Himself, is sacrifice. This was true of the Old Covenant with the Jews (which is why God (through Moses) went to such lengths to train the Jews in how to do it), and it is true of the New Covenant with the Church (in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, or the Eucharist). The Eucharistic sacrifice, we believe, is the same one, pure, eternal Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, offered “once, for all” (Rom 6:10; Heb 10:10; 1 Pet 3:18), and re-presented for us by the priest in an un-bloody manner, thus fulfilling the command of Christ, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). (If there are any questions or comments on this, I can go deeper into the theology of the Eucharist, but this is enough for the moment.)

Protestants, on the other hand, have no sacrifice, since the Reformation did away (for the most part) with the ministerial priesthood. (The main function of a priest is to offer sacrifice.) So when it comes to worship, all they have is prayer.

But sometimes Catholics “pray to” Mary or another saint (or angel), and it is understandable that someone who doesn’t have the Catholic understanding of prayer might confuse this act with the act of worship. And of course worship (latria) of anyone or anything other than God constitutes the grave sin of idolatry.

We communicate with other human beings on earth by means of speech or some kind of writing or signals. We communicate with spirits by means of prayer (which can be either verbal [audible] or mental). God is spirit, but so too are the angels and the saints in heaven.

When we “pray” to a saint or one of the good angels, we are simply asking him (or her) either to pray to God on our behalf (i.e. to intercede for us), or to pray along with us to God. The New Testament enjoins us (or gives us an example) to pray for one another, and to ask others to pray for us (1 Thes 5:25; 2 Thes 3:1; Heb 13:18; James 5:16; etc.) Nowhere does the Bible say that those who have died in Christ (i.e., who are commonly called saints) are prevented from praying for us, or that we shouldn’t ask for their prayers. In fact, Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 depict the prayers of the saints being offered like incense by angels and the holy ones in heaven before the throne of God. These are the prayers of those on earth offered to God through the mediation of the angels and saints already in heaven. This mediation in no way detracts from the One Mediatorship of Christ (1 Tim 2:5), but rather participates in it, for we are members of His Body, the Church (1 Cor 12:25, 27). Each member of the body (whether on earth or in heaven) works together with the other members for the benefit of the whole body. The Church is also the family of God, and like the members of any family, we all communicate freely with one another and help each other any way we can.

I can’t imagine any Christian who, if asked, would simply refuse to pray for another Christian (or anyone else, for that matter). We here on earth are still hindered by the effects of our sinfulness. Those in heaven, however, are not. There is no sin in heaven and no sinful thing can enter it (cf. Rev 21:27). Those who have died in the grace of God are freed (or are in the process of being freed) from all sin and all its effects and see God face to face in unadulterated love. This love extends also to all He created, including the souls still struggling on earth with sin and its effects. We know, too, that the prayers of the just (or righteous) are very powerful (James 5:16). Those in heaven are more righteous than anyone still on earth. The pure prayers of the saints before the throne of God are of tremendous help to us here below. Why would they, now perfected in charity, not ardently desire to continue praying for us? Why should we not avail ourselves of their powerful intercession and assistance?
- posted by the Green Flash @ 7:54 PM |