Dumb Things?

A saw on my Facebook newsreel an article posted by a friend from Newsweek. This had the caption in the status: "This is why America is in trouble." I found a number of these "dumb" beliefs curious. I think that Newsweek does indeed show why America is in trouble, but not for the reasons they stipulate (more on that in a minute).

The first one that requires a second look is that only 39% "believe" in evolution. I find this curious as to what is meant by "evolution". If by "evolution" one means the creation of larger and more complex organisms via mutation over eons, then we might be able to discuss this. However I have found far too often that those who promote the theory of evolution wrap the theory in the dogma of "natural selection." The idea that this process is purely random and has no "guiding force" or other influence beyond purely physical influences is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. It is as much a belief as the belief in God. That a number of scientists often confuse the two is the cause of much confusion when answering the question.

Another of these I found curious is the matter of President Obama's religious viewpoint. That Newsweek identifies Obama as a Christian is a debate in and of itself. However I am curious if Newsweek considers one of the various strains of Muslim thought to be dumb. According to some teachers of Islam, there is no such thing as "conversion." Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. I wonder if Newsweek considers such doctrine of the Muslim world to be "dumb."

Coming back to the idea of why America is in trouble I find the tendency to label the ideas of others as "dumb." Certainly we can disagree with another's opinion to the point where we wonder how one would believe an idea. However, as pointed out the ideas mentioned as "dumb" in the article might not be considered dumb if we took the time to learn a little more of the other half of the country. This unwillingness to learn is what threatens the country far more than any particular belief. That Newsweek only perpetuates the problem is what is "Dumb."

Through fear we give in to evil

John 18:14 tells us of Caiaphas' philosophy. That the evil of killing an innocent man must be done to protect the people. Going against the Commandment that they were charged with teaching, the Pharisees seek to murder a man who had done nothing wrong. In the eyes of the Law he was blameless.

It was fear that motivated them. Fear of how the "King of the Jews" would appear to the local Roman authorities. That the people only a few days ago had hailed as their Savior. To save the Jews, they would break the Law. It was all for the "greater good."

It is striking to realize that we are no different today. It is the fear that says a baby is "punishment." The same temptation that argues we must enter into evil to save ourselves. The same temptation that says it is OK to slaughter the unborn in the name of health care.

The primary motivation of these sins is fear. Fear that being good isn't enough. That good cannot fix the problems. That good is not "productive." Evil offers a shortcut. A direct path through the mud that will solve the issue. Fear of our powerlessness to overcome our own sinfulness and that of society. Fear of the world and it's capacity to cause death and pain.

But just as the execution of that innocent Man 2000 years ago didn't save Jerusalem, neither will our modern evils that we have convinced ourselves are "necessary" will actually save us. For true Hope lies not in the machinations of the state or systems of economics, but in Christ. Our first and foremost thoughts must turn to Him.

Pray unceasingly. The King of Kings hears our prayers. Listen to Him.

Viva Christo Rey!

In the interest of fairness

since I hold no real loyalty to either political party.

The Republicans have never struck me as the "prolife" party. More like the "not so pro death" party. Although that is changing sadly to the "torture" party.

Abortion to the left of me, torture to the right, stuck in the middle with Christ.

Because

it's only incendiary if Republicans say stuff like this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27726.html

No big deal if Democrats do it.

Not really news

If it's Republicans in the crosshairs. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025942.php

Not that violence on either side is justified. But this latest spat isn't the "first" spark.

On passions

Passion is often difficult to deal with. When used for good it can be harnessed into a motivational energy that can change the world. Used wrongly it can corrupt anything it touches.

I look out at the Catholic landscape and I see (among other things) two main camps. Those who are concerned for the wellbeing of the poor, who often call themselves proponents of social justice. In another main camp we have those who uphold the right to life of the unborn (and soon the elderly and the infirmed).

Now ideally both camps would work together for the wellbeing of both the poor and the unborn. That all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Both sides would operate passionate for their particular cause while recognizing the necessity of the other camp's cause. And both would work to insure that evil, regardless of the dimension, is not advanced. We would stand in solidarity with one another.

Sadly, the two camps are at war with another. Social justice folks view the prolife movement as an impediment to social justice causes. Likewise prolife folks view the social justice movement as being complict in the expansion of the culture of death. Both sides view the other not as allies, but at best an obstacle and at worst as enemies.

The problem is that both sides are right. The social justice movement, with their support of the latest health care debacle, IS complict in the expansion of the culture of death through the expansion of abortion. Likewise the prolife movement has failed to appreciate the very real problem of health care financing situation. The unborn, the poor, the infirmed. All of these are vulnerable and require our protection.

What we cannot do however is harm for the sake of good. Would that a politician would offer to end abortion if torture were to be legalized, we have an obligation to say no. We CANNOT cooperate with evil, even if good ends are sought. When we compromise with evil, only evil prevails.

We must recognize that if we are to truly fight for social justice and the common good, we cannot advance evil. We may not be passionate about torture, or abortion, or healthcare, or modern slavery. But we cannot support that which we know will bring more evil into the world. We gain nothing, and lose our souls in the process.

Will it be worth it?

Heading to the final vote today on the health care bill I have examined the arguments of the pro-bill side of the debate, especially from those of the progressive Catholic wing. I have wondered if they realize how many bridges they have burned in their attempt to get this bill passed. To date, I count the following:

*Thrown the USCCB under the bus for its opposition to the bill
*Called into question the USCCB's legal dept. on its ability to analyze this bill (re abortion).
*Imputed ulterior motives on the part of the pro-life movement in general (ie. it's not about abortion, it's about killing health care)
*Become so single issue minded to denigrate the concerns of a wide sector of the population's views on the bill (constitutional, moral, fiscal, etc.)

It amazes me in a sense because the bill itself falls way short of the vaunted goals of those who believe in state financed care. The public option doesn't exist, for example. Nor is the system streamlined to achieve any real benefit from getting the government involved.

More importantly, they have made it much more difficult for those on the other side to cooperate in the future. By undermining the USCCB as well as fellow Catholics in the pro-life movement they have further widened the rift between Catholics on this issue.

I do hope some good comes out of this bill if it passes. But I can't imagine what good could possibly offset the damage this bill has caused to the Catholic community, as well as the general U.S. population.

USCCB and fair weather fans

One of the more interesting things about the current health care debate is the sudden realignment of the loyalties to the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). Old friends are now enemies, and vice versa.

The progressive held that since the USCCB was against the Iraq war this was the official Catholic position on the war in Iraq. Multiple appeals to documents released during the run up and initial phase of the war lent credibility to the idea the correct moral position was one of opposition.

However, since the bishops have come out against the current Senate bill the progressive Catholics have all but ignored the USCCB. Indeed some have insinuated that they are misled on abortion, they are in too deep with the NRLC (National Right to Life Coallition). Indeed, we are suddenly reminded of the fact that from a "required submission" standpoint that fidelity to the USCCB is only mandatory insofar as your local bishop agrees with it. Note: This is the correct view, it is simply the timing that bothers me.

Conversley, we have those on the right who have in the past and present criticized the USCCB for being too far to the left on political issues. From the Iraq War to immigration, these folks have referred to the USCCB as a left wing organization. Arguments abound about the right to differ with prudential matters with the USCCB. Again, the arguments are correct so far as the moral teaching of the Church is concerned, but the motivation is somewhat dubious.

Now with the USCCB coming out against the health care bill conservative Catholics now view the council as the vanguard of the Faith. Suddenly it is popular to agree with the USCCB among conservative Catholics.

It is enough to make one's head spin. One can only wonder what will happen when immigration is a hot topic again. The political shift might tilt the Earth's axis.

Single issue voters

For those of us who stand up for the rights of the unborn, we are often accused of being "single issue voters." This term is used in a derogatory fashion. It basically means that prolife folks are so focused on abortion to the exclusion of other social justice concerns.

I am therefore enamored by the extent to which the current health care bill proponents support and defend it with almost single-minded focus. Objections to the bill are dismissed as being tangential.

*Inadequate conscience rights - not important
*Funding of abortion through CHCs - irrelevant
*Constitutional concerns - pfft!
*Budget issues - poor people are dying!1!!1
*Rationing of care - "death panels.....sure"

Indeed the concerns that a variety of people have concerning the the current bill from a number of perspectives are dismissed if not denigrated as being uncaring about the poor.

As this is written proponents are undermining the validity of the "single issue voter problem" by promoting a bill that has a variety of problems, under the guise of being "too important" to be hampered by such trivialities as funding the murder of unborn children.

I guess it depends on which issue you "single out."

Suspicion for me but not for thee

As if to continue my last post it seems that taking your advice is a very difficult thing to do. Over at Vox Nova one of the regular posters writes about the Hermeneutic of Suspicion. I could not help but notice the following:

Today, the pro-life movement is automatically inclined to view any Democratic initiative in this area through the “hermeneutic of suspicion”, always assuming bad motives, and always seeking hidden traps and pitfalls.

Given that the Democratic Party platform is dedicated to the expansion of abortion "rights" as they define it I think a little suspicion is healthy. Although suspicion of politicians in general is a good idea, regardless of your fav government ideology.

What I kept thinking about was what came toward the end of this post:

It would be a grave mistake to prevent passage of such a momentous bill based on a prudential preference for the language of one bill when the differences are second order. It would be a grave mistake for the USCCB to be influenced by the likes of the NRLC in this matter – they are not trustworthy[emphasis mine].

Apparently it is okay to distrust groups that the author disagrees with.

Now in all fairness the author is correct in that there are those who want to use the abortion issue as a wedge to stall the passage of the current health care bill. Just as there are those who would use the current health care bill as a vehicle as a means for more government control over the health industry (Obama himself stated that the public option is a gateway to a single payer).

But to plead for those of us who are "suspicious" to drop our suspicion, not in order for people to approach all sides in charity, but simply to transfer the distrust from the author's view to the author's ideological opponents is a bit suspicious in and of itself.

This is not to say that the NRLC may deserve some criticism for inconsistency(the "evidence" provided for Medicare Advantage is from 2009, not sure what was passed since Medicare Advantage was first passed), or that the Democrats are trying to sneak in abortion funding. It's just that I don't think it is entirely convincing to plead for insinuation of motives to end and then to accuse your opponents of falsehood in the same post. Apparently only those of us who disagree need to "get with it."

A call for civility in debate?

Every once in a while I will read a blogger or writer calling for "civility in public debate." The hatred is too intense. The language is too coarse. We aren't communicating with each other. Etc. All of the above in a certain sense is true (though I truly wonder if it was really different in any other age or time).

What I have found interesting is a curious phenomenon where the person calling for civility is often commits the very crimes he decries. In one post the writer will lament the lick of civility and then in the next declare how his opponents are the very incarnation of evil, because he wants to lower/raise taxes or some other trivial nonsense(depends on what you read).

I read such articles and posts and while in general I agree that we could all do well with a dose of civility, I often feel that those who make the call often enough are in need of their own advice. It's almost a dye marker of sorts. If you find yourself thinking there is too much heat in the kitchen, maybe you were the one who turned up the oven.

I was thinking these thoughts as I realized that I myself was thinking that there is too little charity in the public square. But as I meditated more I realized I was just as much as a problem as anyone else. The Internet, for the good it does in terms of making information readily available, makes it difficult to connect on a human level. A person I tear apart in a combobox I might be best friends with despite our disagreements if sat down and had a beer.

I think anyone who wants more civility in discussion should take a good look in the mirror. Too often we fail to see, in specific terms, how we contribute to the problem. Whenever we accuse someone of ulterior motives, we should be the first to point out our own faults in this matter. To truly see if we are acting in charity rather than simply trying to "win" or "be right."

In this vein I would like to make an apology. There is one person named Henry Karlson, a regular contributor at a site called Vox Nova. Their politics are about as far from mine as they can get. Yet in arguing with him I have said things that were unfair. In particular, I have accused him of supporting the pro-abortion movement despite his protests to the contrary.

For clarification, I think Mr. Karlson argues too much against the pro-life movement. At best, I think his views do little to advance the rights of the unborn, and at worst undermine them. I stand by my view of this and will defend such. Indeed it was because of my view on this that I initially thought he was actually arguing for a pro-abortion position.

But my evaluation of his arguments and what he actually says and believes are different things. Everyone deserves to have his opinion represented accurately. What I think his opinion leads to is not the same as his opinion. Karlson, despite my disagreements with him, says he is pro-life, and without evidence to the contrary he deserves to be taken at his word.

And so with that I offer a heartfelt apology. I hope to rectify this mistake however I can. And will attempt in the future to discuss, debate, and argue in the spirit of charity. If we truly seek to live as Christ's disciples, then we should at least be able to discuss our political differences in the Truth of the Faith.

The coming exodus from politics?

I have been musing lately about the state of Catholics in politics. From the recent scandals surrounding the CCHD funding of pro-abortion and homosexual causes to the recent advocacy of torture by certain sectors of the Republican Party, I wonder if it would be prudent for Catholics to take a step back and reassess the current political makeup.

There was a time when a Catholic felt comfortable within the Democratic Party. The party's social justice platform on a lot of levels squared quite nicely with the Catholic social justice thought. Catholic bishops and priests marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King. The Church's history of advocacy for workers' rights during the Industrial Revolution again played into the politics of the time.

In the 60's however the Democratic Party embraced abortion as part of it's social justice framework. Rather than abandon the Party, several prominent Catholics abandoned the Faith, and several theologians and clergy aided this effort to create a rationalization for the abandonment of the right to life.

Since that time rifts opened between the social justice movement and the new and emerging pro-life movement. As the politics split on the abortion issue, so did the Catholic population. The social justice advocates abandoned their stance against abortion (or regulated it to the back burner), and the pro-life faction drifted toward the emerging conservative movement.

Over time the moral views of the factions drifted farther apart. The Catholic Left all but abandoned the sexual ethics of the Church in favor of social justice causes focused on the poor. The pro-life, pro-sexual ethics faction formed an uneasy alliance with the political conservatives. Often incorporating the small government movement with pro-life causes.

In more recent years under the Bush administration the issue of torture arose out of policies that came to light during the Iraq War. While some policies, such as retention in foreign countries that allowed for torture were nothing new, the public defense of policies such as waterboarding was a new phenomenon. The pro-life faction in large part ignored or defended the Bush Administration's policies.

Today the politics that have split the country down the middle have split the Church congregation as well. Social justice is pitted against pro-life. Solidarity vs. Subsidiarity. The right to health care vs. the right to live. Catholics are presented time and again with choosing one intrinsic evil vs. another, and trying to end one by supporting another, even indirectly.

It is time to reevaluate if the involvement in politics is worth the split that has resulted. What are the gains we've made? What have we lost? Were the gains worth it? Where do we go now? In an increasingly secular society that pushes a view of humanity that is twisted and false, the Church, clergy and laity, will need to reassess their own involvement in the realm of politics. "For what is it worth to gain the whole world, and lose your soul." There may come a point where we have to choose between our political rights and our souls. To choose to live in this world, or to choose to be faithful to God, and choose exile in the public sphere.

This is not to say to withdraw from society altogether. But that as the secular degradation progresses, we must be cautious in what we support, and vigilant in opposition to the intrinsic evils in this world. It is time I believe that the Church in America must reevaluate where we stand in regards to the current culture, and what we can do without cutting ourselves off from the Source of Life.

As it was said, "We are neither Democrats nor Republicans, we are monarchists." Remember that in all things we must surrender not to a Republic or a Despot, but our true King. He is the one we serve first.

Pro-Reform, but not this reform

It is a curious tendency in today's politics to conflate opposition to a particular action or policy of the government with rejecting the principle that the policy is supposed to address outright. That the rejection of a bill in Congress to, say, reform federal welfare is to be against welfare reform in principle.

It is thus the curious tendency of those who support the current health care bill(s) in Congress to label those who oppose the bills as wanting to keep the status quo. That the current bills before the legislature are the only way to fix the current mess that is the U.S. health care financial system.

However that is not the case. In fact I think it may be one of the few things that all Americans agree on is that the financing system is in desperate need of reform. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, etc. you are under the thumb of a horribly inefficient and costly system. The quality of the care itself is second to none, yet you may go bankrupt by breaking a leg. Such a system cannot be sustained.

It is however the HOW that we are currently arguing over. What the current debate shows is a clash of political ideologies. Private market vs. state run. Centralized control vs. private ownership. Single-payer vs. private financing. Those on both sides of the fence know that with 17% of the economy on the line, who wins the debate over health care will more or less ultimately decide the course of America's political operating philosophy in this country for years to come.

As a small government conservative I have grave doubts about the ability of the U.S. government to control costs without restricting care. I also am skeptical of the ability of the national government to manage the financial system of 300 million people with the diversity that this country possesses. Other countries with far less geography and differences in culture experience great problems in state run care. This is not to say that there aren't benefits to a centralized system. But given that Western Europe's problems with state run care (France, England) with their spending of 11% of their GDP on average, state run care is far from a panacea. Thus while I acknowledge the problems we have I don't feel the current legislation is the way to go.

I am all too aware, as most of the opposition is, about the problems in the current system. But the unfortunate tendency to label those who disagree with us and stuff them in an ideological box so we can dismiss their argument is far too easy these days. If we are to solve the health care financial problems we will need to come up with a solution that we can all be comfortable with. The political left and right have the right to have a say. I am thankful that the wisdom of the founding fathers has shone through again and that sweeping changes cannot happen in this country unless both the minority and majority have a voice.

For homework today I suggest an excellent article about why our system is neither a free market or state controlled system, but a horrid hybrid of both. I welcome all comments and discussion provided that they are conducted in a spirit of charity.