Atheism is morally superior

For those who study the New Atheist movement I often find the following claims presented by such:

1. Religion poisons everything.
2. Atheists can be just as good as religious people.

While I contend the first premise I'm more than happy to acknowledge the second. There are plenty of wonderful people who for one reason or another do not believe in God, the Christian definition or otherwise.

There is a disturbing trend though to attempt to have it both ways among among the New Atheists. One the one hand we are told that atheists can be just as good as their religious counterparts. On the other hand we are told that 'traditional religious based morality' is outdated. The New Atheists typically set up a new set of rules for morality.

For example, there is a new movie out in select theaters where an atheist is the hero of the story. The synopsis basically is that the hero atheist has a love affair with a Christian wife, whose husband then, in a battle of wills, encourages the hero to commit suicide.

My first thought on the film was that it should be no wonder why those of religious belief find atheism to be morally subversive to say the least. To the movie creators the adulterer who seduces the wife of another man is assigned the role of 'hero.' This is enough for those who hold themselves to a moral higher standard to put their teeth on edge and rightly point out that this is simply subversive. It is easy to be 'moral' if morality is whatever one wants.

To me this is essentially to change the rules of the game. If I were to redefine morality to whatever I want and thus be able to redefine my 'vices' as 'virtues' then I would be the most moral person I know. No one else could match my moral stature, because it was crafted entirely for my benefit.

It is important then to realize that New Atheist claims to the moral high ground are rooted not in any sense of morality as understood by the traditional term. Redefine the term enough and Adolf Hitler can be the epitome of 'moral virtue.' Given where such high ground is located I'm perfectly content to let others occupy that swamp.

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.

Douglas Kemic picked as Ambassador

Douglas Kmiec, the "controversial" pro life supporter of Barack Obama has recently been appointed to the position of Ambassador to Malta.

I have attempted to defend his position in the spirit of charity as required by my Faith. His position has always seemed to me to be one of resignation to the current pro-death culture with regard to abortion, and as such to meet it on its terms in order to slow down the decay. His advocacy for working with the current administration to "reduce abortions" IMO is one of defeat, yet I tried to take his statements at face value.

His recent appointment however throws that whole analysis into turmoil. Now it appears that he may have simply sold us Obama in order to get a cushy Ambassadorship. (No idea if Malta fits this category). I hope for the sake of his soul this is not the case.

My initial thought is that he should reject the post. But given that the announcement has been made it is all but done.