Why believe?

There have been two different campaigns this Advent/Christmas season to campaign against God sponsored by organizations such as the American Humanist Association and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. These are two highly-founded and militant organizations that are trying to elimate our right and freedom to worship as their explicitly stated goal (nice and tolerant of that isn't it?).

They are sponsoring ad campaigns with bus posters and billboards in Washington state and Washington, DC with such slogans as, "God doesn't exist, get over it!" and "Why God? Be good for goodness sake!"

It is natural for each human being to have faith - to believe. This exist at a natural level - such as the faith that I have in a doctor, in whose car I am in - faith because the doctor has a much better medical knowledge than I do - so I believe him (her). Life without belief and faith is impossible.

What is more is that God invites us to believe Him, and this is to know Him and this is because He loves us.

Here is a counter-campaign to the militant-atheistic organizations: I believe too!

A good ole Wisconsin boy speaks up...

H.E. Frank J. Dewane

2nd bishop of Venice in Florida

A photocopy of the letter, for your own prooftexting.

transcription:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As you are all aware next week our country will conduct its political elections in so doing, choose its public officials. Many of you have spoke and written to me on this matter sometimes requestion that I endorse a political party or candidate: that is something I cannot do.

However, as Bishop, it is my responsibility to instruct the faithful regarding the Church's teaching on moral issues, the most important being the right to life and dignity of every person, from conception till natural death. There issues are fundamental to the healthy of any society and should therefore, be carefully considered when voting for a particular candidate. After all, in voting we are making moral choices [my emphasis].

The Second Vatican Council has taught that the laity are not to reliquish their participation in 'public life,' but instead fulfill their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values. This teaching would apply for instance, to the act of voting for a political candidate or public official [my emphasis], which I encourage you to do.

In assisting you in properly forming your conscience before voting, I would recomment that you consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium fo the Social Doctrine of the Church. There two works highlight the Church's teaching on our moral responsibility to promote the common good [my emphasis, see note 1].

As Catholics, we are called upon to respect and protect the rights of all, especially, the unborn child [his emphasis], the weakest and most vulnerable among us. At the same time the family [his emphasis], the basic unit of society [my emphasis], must be safeguarded, promoted, and protected based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman [my emphasis].

In affirming these right of natural law [my emphasis, see note 2], it is often argued that Catholics are promoting their own "personal values" which do not apply to other citizens. This accuation is false inasmuch as rights, such as the right to life and dignity of ever person are common to all people [my emphais - common to all people, not just Catholics, and Catholic is always pro-life for all], regardless of their personal belief. These fundamental rights cannot be denied by any individual or group as they are intrinsic God-given rights which we must affirm [my emphasis, see note 3], and above all protect.

As you discern your choices of public official, be assured of my prayers for you and your families.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Frank J. Dewane

Bishop of Venice in Florida

Notes:

(1): This term, common good, is very much misunderstood. Often people think of what society, most specifically government can provide for them in a material and fiscal sense. This is not the common good, but rather an exercise in distrubative justice. The common good actual is not material, it is the benefit that a person receives from being a member of that society in and of itself. This is seen by looking at a marriage: When a man and woman marry, we say that they enter into a marriage. If unfortunetly they divorce, as they stand before the family court judge they cannot ask for "half-the-marriage" in the final settlement. Each of them benefited from being part of this marriage, but neither of them would be able to point out what this benefit was materially. So the interest of the common good actually means to promote what makes the nation better.

(2): Natural law are the moral norms that any healthy and sound person (and many unhealthy and unsound people for that matter) can arrive at through the exercise of reason. It is objective true for all, since human nature is the same for all. While often used in various systems of ethics developed by various religious systems, natural law is not dependent on any religious doctrine. It can be used just as easily in the secular sphere, as in the religious sphere.

(3): From the Declaration of Independance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" (paragraph 2). In its founding documents the state, and in Her teachings the Church, agree that human rights are not created by man, but for man, and are given to him by God. As such it is also a common teaching of both state and Church, that the state cannot create new rights. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the concept of rights in general. These "new rights" are necessarily "false rights," and hence will ultimately conflict with each and every genuine right.

I mean this last sentence as a prophetic utterance, unless false rights, such as the "right for two men or two women to marry each other," the "right to abortion," the "right to redistribution of property," etc. are not absolutely opposed, all other rights will in practice be eroded. There will be limits on freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of the free exercise of religion (this is not just the running of parishes, congregations, and dioceses, but also the running of schools, hospitals, and other social outreaches, which are intrinsic to the mission and character of the Christian religion), the freedom of parents to educate their own children as they see fit, etc. will be severly limited.

A short treatise on Sarah Palin's ability to swim.

Benedict XVI, noticably very happy to have his hat returned to him.

Sarah Palin was invited to meet with the Pope while both were vacationing in Venice. The liberal press reluctantly watched the semi-private audience, hoping they will be able to allot minimal coverage, if any. The Pope asks Governor Palin to join him on a Gondola ride through the canals of Venice. They're admiring the sights and agreeing on moral issues when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat blows off his head and out into the water. The gondolier starts to reach for the Pontiff's hat with his pole, but this move threatens to overturn the floating craft. Sarah waves the tour guide off, saying, 'Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry.' She steps off the gondola onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Pope's hat, bends over and picks it up. She walks back across the water to the gondola and steps aboard. She hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence. The next morning the topic of conversation among Democrats in Congress, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, PBS, CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, Hollywood celebrities, and most of the people in France and Germany is:

'Palin Can't Swim.'

With special credit to Some Have Hats

Part II: The dangers of being "non-biased," or Don't be so open headed that your brain falls out

A prisoner of the War in the Vendée

Part II: The dangers of being "non-biased," or Don't be so open headed that your brain falls out

Even if it were possible to achieve a truly “non-biased point of view,” would it truly be desirable? The very fabric of humanity is tied up in this "messy knot" of cultural, social, spiritual factors. The demand to neutralize these human factors when make decisions in the public square is in fact a demand for every citizen to deny his own humanity. The resulting decisions will not reflect the solutions that a human society requires to function. The world that results from these "non-biased" decisions is slowly becoming less and less friendly to the human person. We see this being played out in art, which is at this point utterly void of any meaning. It is also played out in the extreme environmental and animal right movements, which demand an end to so called "anthropologic-centricism." It is played out legally, which is especially vivid in Spain and her recent debate on the legal status of high primates (and I am not talking about bishops and cardinals, but rather apes and gorillas).

The Enlightenment strove to be the great “Age of Reason.” It was the first modern attempt of Western society to divorce itself from God. It has been a messy divorce so far. In the late 1700’s the European and American intellectuals looked back on the previous two century and so much blood, much violence, much suffering, and much evil. There were wars of religion from one end of Europe to the other. There were dynastic disputes that pulled whole constellations of countries in war. The feudal system of society was rapidly falling apart. This led to much social and political turmoil. In their reflection on these events the thinkers of the Enlightenment, called the “philosophes,” proposed a diagnosis of what went wrong. They placed the cause of all this suffering in what they thought was an irrational belief in god and an unreasonable oppression of human reason from organized religion. There basic program was neutralize the religious and cultural bias by organizing society around the dictates of human reason. They were very much impressed with the achievements of the natural sciences in their use of reason, and wanted to extend this to politics and morals.

We are the heirs of the Enlightenment project – does it seem like we are living in the age of reason? Are all rights truly protected? Both history and current events show that this is not the case. At the very beginning of the secular experiment -- the French revolution there is already a strong counter-example in the Vendée genocide. Vendée wished to remain faithful to the Church, and rebelled against the revolutionary regime. They were poor, untrained, and underequipped farmers. The response of the revolutionary regime was not a tolerant respect of the rights of the people of the Vendée -- but a resposne of violence. The armies of the revolution marched up and down the Vendée gathering the priest, religious brothers and sister, nuns, and all those who aided them. They stripped them of their clothes, tied them together on a boat, and would sink the boat. This was the first modern genocide. In a particular twist of cruelty they would tie a naked priest and a naked nun together before drowning them, calling this a "Marriage of the Vendee."

Here is a historic quote in regards to this genocide: There is no more Vendée, Republican citizens. It died beneath our free sword, with its women and its children. I have just buried it in the swamps and the woods of Savenay. Following the orders that you gave to me, I crushed the children beneath the horses' hooves, massacred the women who, those at least, will bear no more brigands. I do not have a single prisoner to reproach myself with. I have exterminated them all... Francis Joseph Westerman, the slaughter of the Vendée

The revolution that put atheistic humanism into practice was born in violence, and became a regime of violence. This continued through the 19th century, as colonialism was a direct result of the Enligtenment, into the 20th century with the two world wars and the Holocaust. The previous two and a half centuries have been exceedily bloody. They have also been the most god-less epochs of human history.

As the War in the Vendée progressed the killing became even more arbitrary. Eventually just wearing a Sacred Heart Badge like the one pictured here would be enough of a reason for a person -- man, woman, or child -- to be killed. There was no trial, and there was not mercy.

If religion is the cause of violence as many hold now, it would stand to reason that the abolition of religion and the exhile of God from the public sphere would result in a great dimishment of violence. This abolition and exhile has been attempted for the last two centuries, and interesting enough the last to centuries have not been less violent than what went before it, but more violent. It is not religion that causes violence, but men. When these men are formed by religion history demonstrates that they are less violent. Yes there was violence before the Enligtenment, but these were men that dis regared Christian principles, as we can see in how they burned Churches and raped nuns. The sum total though was that there was much less violence, and it effected a much smaller portion of the civilian population, especially in comparison to the total war carnage of the London Blitz or the Dresden Bombing. What is particularly true of Christianity, is that it holds that all human life is sacred and hence must be honored as such. This always held back the violence to an extent. When religion was abolished in the European mindset in the French revolution, this safe-guard disappreared, and total carnage resulted.

The Myth of being "non-biased"

(Part I: Yes I am biased, because it is impossible to be otherwise and still remain human)

In a recent note I have been accused of being biased. To the person that accused me of such I have one thing to say -- "Thank you."

What does this mean?Does it mean that I discriminate based on race, gender, ethnic group, political affiliation, etc.? NO.

Does it mean that I do not examine issues and causes before forming a conviction of my conscience? NO.

What it does mean is that I have come to examine the factors that have contributed to my current make-up. What are the psychological, sociological political, social, environmental, and cultural experiences that shapes the paradigm through which I see the world and assess it? I must recognize that all of these factors, and many more, contribute to the rich tapestry of who I am. Each person also possesses his own rich tapestry of "person-hood." In asking how these factors serve as the lens through which I see the world, I am also recognizing that I see the world from a particular point of view, namely mine. This is my bias. Guess what -- we all have a bias.

It seems like one of the "ultimate values" of the current cultural-social matrix of the west since political-cultural-social revolutions of the twentieth century has been above all things to be unbiased. Where does this come from? Much ink has spilt over this. Some ground it in the scientific revolution, some in the enlightenment, some in the great massacre of all values and morals during the two world wars. It is not my objective to spill more ink on this. So know we stand at a point that the only voice that "can be trusted" in the public square is the voice of the "non-biased person." At first look is very attractive. The society that all of us live in is very diverse. It is not just a plurality, but a number of systems of belief and values existing side -by-side, some of them incompatible among each other. In the true and good intention then to not infringe upon anyone system of beliefs, it is thought best to always make decisions concerning the public square from a non-biased point of view.

Yes -- this is a good and holy desire. It follows from the true dignity of each human person that a majority ought not snuff out the belief of the minority. The problem though is obtaining this non-biased point of view. Can a person really be removed from all the rich tapestry that forms them, so that he can stand separate from them and make a non-biased decision? I think this is very difficult, if not outright impossible. There simply is not such thing as "a view from no-where." This is affirmed in the modern philosophy of science, and holds true from this physical level onto the metaphysical level.

My religious, cultural, social, familial background neccesarily contributes to who I am. Human dignity and the values that modern democracy stands on says that who I am, and what I say has value, that it matters. This is true of myself, but also true of ever person. In the determination to be "non-biased," there is a strong demand to neutralize how my religious, spiritual, cultural, social and familial background colors my decisions, opinions, and values. It is a demand to deny myself -- my own humanity, and as much as there is a strong push for every person to be "non-biased," this demand is for every person to deny his own humanity. Not only "non-biased" view point an impossible objective to reach, it is inhumane, since it necessarily follows that in order to be non-biased a person has to deny the very fabric of his own humanity.
I typed in "a view from nowhere" into Google image search, and this is the first item that came up. It is confused and hazy, just like the current public moral reasoning. It just needs the right lens and everything will be pulled into focus.