Sometimes...

Sometimes an image is worth a thousand words...
(This is very 'graphic')


And if words are still needed...

Boys? What on Earth is Happening to Them?!

Hat Tip to Touchstone's Mere Comments for reference to Amanda Witt's blog featuring a fake ad to help the overactive boy. The "ad" is from Salvo Magazine. In true web-surfing fashion, I followed a link in one of the Salvo article's comments and checked out Dr Helen Smith's blog; which, in turn, led me to a "Top 10: Worst Male Bashing Ads" list over at Ask Men. {Note: I'm not very familiar with Ask Men, so don't assume I endorse the site. For example, some of the side-bar images are a bit too risque for my tastes. However, the commercials in the top ten list are certainly worth viewing.}

Altogether, these references contribute to a disturbing view of societal pressures to follow the materialistic relativism that tries to "do one better" than nature.

Ya hahram!

A Day to Remember - A Day to Pray

From the Scripps News Service, this sad reminder and warning.

Interesting Stuff from MercatorNet

Three snippets from three thought provoking essays over at MercatorNet.

We live in an age in which the media are scrupulously rigorous in self-censoring when it comes to the terrible social crime of offending women, gays, people of colour and natives. Only one identifiable group – white heterosexual men (if they’re Christian, so much the better) – is considered fair game for overt collective prejudice.

Identifying active misandry is easy. One has only to imagine the same words, image or falsehood or failure to report attached to any other identifiable group, and the imbalance becomes clear.

From Misandry is the Message.

The state must hold that mothers and fathers are completely interchangeable. Biological parents married to each other become officially equivalent to one parent plus their lover. The state will be indifferent as to whether children have any connection with their biological parents.

From Beyond Same Sex Marriage.

While “human dignity” is an idea which certainly requires extensive clarification and precise definition, “respect for persons” and “autonomy” are as squishy as a wet sponge. I would have thought that a Harvard prof would be more discerning. For instance, are dolphins or chimpanzees “persons”, too? Should Japanese fishermen be jailed for violating the person rights of minke whales? And is a sleeping person autonomous? A comatose person? A two-day-old infant?

Note: This essay's links also reward pursuit.

From Human Dignity, What a Stupid Idea!

Dinesh Triumphant! (up 3-0)

Everyone visiting this blog knows that I am quite impressed with Dinesh D'Souza. His clear and precise analysis is worth reading whether one agrees or not with him. Recently, I posted reference to his ongoing battle with neo-atheists ("irrational" atheists, as I am fond of calling them). Given the vitriol that has been spat at him, one could forgive him a bit of strutting while admitting that his use of logic and common sense have trounced the God-hating opposition three to nothing.

Click here to read his most recent column.

The Meaning of Life and Hope

From Canada, Michael Coren writes in the National Post on life without meaning. The Kanuck commentator aptly notes the denigration of life as the central and essential value in modern Western society.

Problem is, life is considered one of the least significant issues in Western culture. Compared to opinions on the state of the market or the state of Paris Hilton, the notion of a person's inalienable right to live appears rather meager. Or to put it another way, life is only assumed to be significant when it is thought to be of quality. (Emphasis added)

Being old, handicapped or even unattractive are at best unfashionable and at worst unacceptable. Life is not precious in itself but measured to the degree that it is ostensibly glamorous, stylish or important. And none of these characteristics are instantly applied to the dying, the severely disabled and the very old. Which leads us to the cult of euthanasia.

Implicit in Mr Coren's argument, which is no more than speaking clearly about the situation, the relativistic secularism that currently rules our society ultimately is vacuous in re values, leaving irrational hedonism at the ultimate determinant. If it can't be enjoyed it is to be avoided or ended.

The general view is that all depends on will. In other words, if a person does indeed ask for death it is their body and their choice. Yet surely the very last people who can make calm and balanced decisions about life and death are those who are suffering or are in pain. (Emphasis added) Anguish and emotion are powerful factors and they make for an often gripping story. But by their very nature they obscure clear thought.

This is such an obvious point that I'm surprised so few have stated it in such succinct terms before. Ignoring the influence of pain and stress on such important decisions leads to a de facto ethical callousness in which "my" inconvenience in dealing with the one suffering ultimately trumps the value of the very personhood of the sufferer.

It is no coincidence that the most outspoken opponents of euthanasia are the handicapped. They are justifiably concerned about how they will be treated in a society increasingly obsessed with ending what is seen as life lacking in quality. They also know that for every seemingly compelling story of a dying person merely wanting closure, there are innumerable cases of the vulnerable being coerced into assisted suicide and the powerless being murdered.

The the whole article here.

I would also note that the one monk who is interviewed in the magnificent "Into Great Silence" (the elderly blind monk) also speaks eloquently to the meaninglessness of life when God is taken out of the equation. (If you haven't seen it yet, don't wait for Nativity, get it now as inspiration for your Advent Fast!)

In yet more related news, the Holy Father has released his second Encyclical called Spe Salvi, which like its predecessor, Deus Caritas Est, should be read, contemplated, and treasured.

Amongst the many vital things noted in the Encyclical, the Holy Father speaks to the failure of atheism and modern relativistic materialism.

We can try to limit suffering, to fight against it, but we cannot eliminate it. It is when we attempt to avoid suffering by withdrawing from anything that might involve hurt, when we try to spare ourselves the effort and pain of pursuing truth, love, and goodness, that we drift into a life of emptiness, in which there may be almost no pain, but the dark sensation of meaninglessness and abandonment is all the greater. It is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love.

(Spe Salvi, no. 37)

Atheism precisely fails due to the elimination of objective values it entails. A Godless universe is truly a universe without purpose, blindly moving from chaos to vacuous darkness. Similarly, human life requires purpose and direction. Progress without purpose is mere careering in the void.

If progress, in order to be progress, needs moral growth on the part of
humanity, then the reason behind action and capacity for action is likewise
urgently in need of integration through reason's openness to the saving forces
of faith, to the differentiation between good and evil. Only thus does reason
become truly human. It becomes human only if it is capable of directing the will
along the right path, and it is capable of this only if it looks beyond itself.
Otherwise, man's situation, in view of the imbalance between his material
capacity and the lack of judgement in his heart, becomes a threat for him and
for creation. Thus where freedom is concerned, we must remember that human
freedom always requires a convergence of various freedoms. Yet this convergence
cannot succeed unless it is determined by a common intrinsic criterion of
measurement, which is the foundation and goal of our freedom. Let us put it very
simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.

(Spe Salvi, no. 23)

Dinesh D'Souza is at it again!

Dinesh D'Souza has written an excellent book defending Christianity against the irrationalist pseudo-scientific atheists called, What's So Great About Christianity. In Monday's Townhall, a column by Dinesh highlights the myths behind the Galileo versus the Church arguments. Here is the opening paragraphs:

Many people have uncritically accepted the idea that there is a longstanding war between science and religion. We find this war advertised in many of the leading atheist tracts such as those by Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Every few months one of the leading newsweeklies does a story on this subject. Little do the peddlers of this paradigm realize that they are victims of nineteenth-century atheist propaganda.

About a hundred years ago, two anti-religious bigots named John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White wrote books promoting the idea of an irreconcilable conflict between science and God. The books were full of facts that have now been totally discredited by scholars. But the myths produced by Draper and Dickson continue to be recycled. They are believed by many who consider themselves educated, and they even find their way into the textbooks. In this article I expose several of these myths, focusing especially on the Galileo case, since Galileo is routinely portrayed as a victim of religious persecution and a martyr to the cause of science.

As always, Dinesh is fresh and precise in his research and analysis. I highly recommend the article and the book!

Pro "Pro-Life Article"? In the LA Times?!

Yes it's true, sort of...

An article in the LA Time actually treats of the pro-life movement in a surprisingly even-handed manner. Below are some excerpts (in italics) and a few comments from your rambling host (in bold).

Abortion foes' strategy advances
An attempt to undermine Roe vs. Wade by amending constitutions to grant human status to embryos gains ground in several states.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

The campaigns to grant "personhood" to fertilized eggs, giving them the same legal protections as human beings, come as the nation in January marks the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. During those three decades, abortion foes have succeeded in imposing a variety of restrictions, such as waiting periods and parental notification for minors. But there are still about 1.3 million abortions a year in the U.S.

In fact, "personhood" will not be granted, it will be recognized. To be a human being is to be a person. Personhood is an essential component of humanity. It is not equivalent to nor dependent upon I.Q., personality, race, ethnicity, gender, physical ability, size, height, weight or age.

...

Still, national abortion-rights groups consider the current wave of amendment campaigns a legitimate threat.

They worry that the language of the initiatives might mislead voters. In Colorado, for instance, voters will be asked whether the constitution should "include any human being from the moment of fertilization as 'person' . . . in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law." The amendment is being promoted by a group called Colorado for Equal Rights.

"This type of language may be scarier than an outright ban," said Belinda Bulger, deputy legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "First, because it can be hard for people to understand what it's doing, and second, because it would be far further reaching."

This is an interesting concern. It might 'mislead' the the voters by defining a living human being as a living human being? Similar arguments were made during the slavery debates in the nineteenth century and during the civil rights debates of the last century.

...

Amendment supporters freely admit that giving a fertilized egg the legal status of a human being would affect a wide range of medical decisions. That's precisely the point, they say: "We're trying to establish some bioethical standards to move us into the 21st century," said Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life.

...

"What is the potential impact on our court system of every fertilized egg having access to Colorado's court?" asked Toni Panetta, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado.

Frightening, eh? That would mean equal protection under the law!

Read the entire article here.

Archbishop speaks on life, truth and relativism

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has written a very cogent and precise argument regarding the irrationality and dangers of secular relativism as it impacts the abortion debate in First Things: On the Square. Below are a few snippets.

For many in our culture today, tolerance and diversity have become the new absolutes. Certainly, there is much good in such values. Tolerance is an important and helpful civic virtue in a democratic society. And it is consistent with Christian teaching.

In fact, as Christians, we are called to do much more than tolerate others who may be different from us in a whole host of ways. We are called to reverence every other human being as one made in the image of God and one the Son of God deemed of such worth that he gave his life on Calvary. This does not mean, however, that every action is to be approved, much less respected. There are some actions and activities that are against the innate dignity of the human person and that infringe on the rights and dignity of others.
...
The question that needs to be posed to those who make this claim is: Why are you personally opposed to abortion? Why do so many of the pro-choice politicians even say that they want to make abortion rare? Why want to make something rare if it is truly a valid choice? The rhetoric of choice has been a very clever marketing campaign for something that is of its nature evil and repugnant.
...
In some of the inner-city neighborhoods where I served as a priest, there was a great problem with gun violence. Could you imagine anyone saying that they were personally against drive-by shootings, but if someone else wanted to do it they should have that right? Yet it is precisely that illogic that has been used now for several decades to defend the legalization of abortion—the destruction of an innocent human life.

Without the acceptance of objective truth, everything becomes negotiable. The moral conscience of society and the individual are impaired. There is confusion in the recognition of good and evil. We become uncertain about such fundamental institutions for family and society as marriage. From the denial of natural truth, a nihilism emerges that we find expressing itself today in art, literature, and films. We become confused about what is good and noble. We question what is worth devoting our life to. This confusion results in a great interior emptiness. We try to distract ourselves with more and more things, divert our attention with more and more entertainment, and numb ourselves with drugs and other addictions.

For the entire article, click here.

Check Your Faith at the Door

Hat tip to Catholic World News.

A New Form of Discrimination
By Chuck Colson
10/2/2007

Imagine you own a small business—let’s say a donut shop—and you have an employee who is late for work everyday and is rude to customers. When you fire him, he claims it is really because he is gay—and sues.

Or imagine you run a daycare center in your church basement. One day a homosexual applies for a job. When you turn him down, he says you broke the law.

Today, both of these stories are simply scenarios. But by the end of the week, they could be reality.

Under intense goading from the gay-rights lobby, the House of Representatives is poised to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, called ENDA. This legislation would add “sexual orientation” to civil rights law. If passed, ENDA would cut deeply into the religious rights and freedoms of all Americans.

For the entire article, click here.

Moscow Representative Speaks on Real Truth and Sin

Hat tip to Catholic World News for a series of links related to the recent European Ecumenical Assembly in Romania. Metropolitan Kiril of the Moscow Patriarchate is reported to have spoken strong words in support of strengthening Christianity in Europe and forthrightly teaching the reality of sin.

Check out four reports on his remarks here, here, here, and here.

For the complete list of speeches, click here for the Italian Episcopal Conference collection.

First Things On the Square Topic for 5 September - Relativism

On Relativism
By Edward T. Oakes, S.J.

At first glance, the expression “the dictatorship of relativism” sounds like a paradox, maybe even an oxymoron. After all, aren’t dictatorships a form of absolutism? And don’t relativists find it difficult, if not impossible, to make judgments about differing moral systems? So how can they “dictate” the behavior and thoughts of others if they can’t make judgments about what people should think and do?

...

Maybe, in fact, there are no relativists and “we’re all absolutists now,” to paraphrase a line from Nathan Glazer. Alasdair MacIntyre opened the second chapter of his famous book After Virtue with a scene we can all recognize: Debates on just war, abortion, capital punishment, and the like are echo chambers, with everyone essentially hurling absolutes at the other side of the debate. But since these absolutes are conceptually incommensurable, the shrillest debater gets the last word.

But where do these incommensurable absolutes come from? To sum up MacIntyre’s argument as briefly as possible (a longer account can be found here), the word good when applied to moral situations has changed its meaning. In Aristotle it was simply taken for granted that the word good can, with no violence to its meaning, be equally applied to a good saddle, a good horse, a good cavalryman, a good general, and a good person: The adjective properly belongs to all these nouns if each item is doing what it is assigned, or designed, to do. But with the loss of Aristotle’s equally teleological understanding of physics and biology, the moral application of good came under heavy challenge, above all from David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche: Now man no longer seems to have a purpose or function that can be assessed by easily adjudicable standards. The result of this is that, according to MacIntyre, good becomes a mere term of approval, and all contemporary debate about morality boils down to a choice between either Aristotle or Nietzsche.

...

The sexual revolution marched under the banner of freedom; feminism under that of equality. Although they went arm in arm for a while, their differences eventually put them at odds with each other, as Tocqueville said freedom and equality would always be. This is manifest in the squabble over pornography, which pits liberated sexual desire against feminist resentment about stereotyping. We are presented with the amusing spectacle of pornography clad in armor borrowed from the heroic struggles for freedom of speech, and using Miltonic rhetoric, doing battle with feminism, newly draped in the robes of community morality, using arguments associated with conservatives who defend traditional sex roles, and also defying an authoritative tradition in which it was taboo to suggest any relation between what a person reads and sees and his sexual practices. In the background stand the liberals, wringing their hands in confusion because they wish to favor both sides and cannot.

...

Amid these random observations, I’m sure I must have an argument buried here somewhere, although given the confused way absolutes and relativities rattle around inside our minds and in contemporary debate, I’m not exactly sure what that argument is or how to conclude. But I think I can at least say this: (1) everyone is an absolutist about something; (2) relativism, both in the moral and theological sense, represents the single greatest challenge to the Christian religion in our contemporary setting; (3) relativists usually have arguments, but that doesn’t mean they are not arguing for relativism, even if, like the rest of us, they are absolutist about something.

For the whole article, click here.

Secular Relativism in Spain (and at the IHT)

The International Herald Tribune weighs in on the Spanish Zapatero government's actions to take over the moral training of its citizenry's children. The the article seems to view the Church's opposition as somehow anti-pluralistic.

A new secular civics class riling Catholic Church
By Victoria Burnett

Tuesday, August 7, 2007
MADRID: As Spanish children sun themselves on the beach this month, classrooms and curricula will be far from their thoughts. But a dispute over a new civics education class that awaits them in September is adding to the heat of the summer.

The government says the new class, "education for citizenship," aims to teach values consistent with a modern, diverse democracy. It will be introduced in five of Spain's 17 regions next month, and in the rest by the end of 2008. Starting around age 11, students will be required to take the course an hour or two a week at four stages in their school career.

According to Victorino Mayoral, a Socialist lawmaker and president of the CIVES Foundation, which was involved in crafting the course, students will receive a mix of ethics, civics and study of human rights. Based on the values enshrined in Spain's 1978 Constitution, the course will cover issues ranging from domestic violence to dangerous driving, which claims thousands of Spanish lives every year.

But the course will also deal with issues like gender, sexuality and the family, and the church is up in arms.

Catholic bishops say the new course usurps the family's freedom to shape a child's morality and will impart values that in some instances diverge radically from their own. The Episcopal Conference has called on parents to protest the new syllabus by any legitimate means, and several bishops have called for a boycott.

In an open letter to his parishioners in July, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, archbishop of Toledo, said the course would force society to accept "a particular vision of man that diverges from the reality of man and from the Christian vision."

Cardinal María Rouco Varela, archbishop of Madrid, called the course a "serious problem" because it aims to "shape the individual, which is not the remit of the state."

The course "clashes with the fundamental principles of the Constitution and with the right of parents to choose their children's moral instruction," Varela declared at a seminar on religion organized by King Juan Carlos University in Madrid last month.

Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero countered last month by warning the bishops that "no faith is above the law" and said it was society's job to "teach citizens the values of respect" and harmony.

"Spain is a lay country, and its lay principles guarantee pluralism and tolerance," Zapatero said at a Socialist youth conference on July 22.

Prominent members of the conservative opposition Popular Party also oppose the syllabus, as do some teachers and parents.

Alfonso Aguiló, a Catholic headmaster and head of the Madrid Association of Private Education Companies, said that 2,500 parents of the 40,000 students the association represents do not want their children to take the course. In an interview by telephone, he said he was worried about textbooks that put heterosexuality on an equal footing with homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality.

"There are a lot of people who don't want their children to think there are five types of sexuality, five types of family," he said.

Aguiló argues that individual morality is being supplanted by secular dogma. He and other critics say the course smacks of classes in "formation of the national spirit" that were obligatory school fodder under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco.

"The government cannot say, 'There is no religion, the only religion is my religion: secularism,' " he said.

Mayoral says the course is not intended to promote one social model at the expense of another, but rather to inform students, for example, of the fact that same-sex marriages are now legal in Spain.

"The reality of the classroom reflects every kind of family - single parents, gays, divorced parents," he said by telephone. "We want the course to reflect what is real and what is legal."

While the Catholic Church sees a conflict between its morality and Zapatero's liberal social model, data indicate that the general population does not. About three-quarters of parents opt to have their children take Catholic studies in school, while two-thirds support gay marriage.

Raquel Mallavibarrena, spokeswoman for Christian Networks, a Spanish umbrella group of progressive Christian associations, said, "There is a plurality in the Catholic community that the bishops don't reflect."

"It's a shame there isn't more dialogue, more flexibility," she added.

People like Mallavibarrena say that this intransigeance is the reason the church is losing its struggle to retain influence in a society where it once enjoyed uncommon privilege. In a July survey by the Center for Sociological Research in Madrid, 77 percent of respondents described themselves as Catholics, but only 16 percent of those said they went to church every week - and 55 percent said they almost never went. Spain is now home to an estimated million Muslims and more than a million Evangelicals and Protestants.

The church hierarchy also seems to view the course as a challenge to its influence in the education system, an area where it still wields tremendous power. About a quarter of the country's children are educated in Catholic schools that get about half their funding from the state and the other half from nongovernment sources.

The church retains the power to hire and fire teachers of religious education in the public school system and scrutinize their private behavior. However, the extent of that power has come into question as a result of a recent court ruling on unfair dismissal in the Canary Islands. The court in July awarded €16,000, or $22,000, in damages to a teacher who was fired by the church in 2000 because she lived with a man to whom she was not married, the newspaper El País reported.

Critics say the dispute has been stirred up by a conservative minority to mobilize opposition to Zapatero and has eclipsed what could have been a healthy debate about how to educate Spain's youth.

"In a plural society like Spain's, which is changing so quickly, it's important for students to reflect, to learn to think and to consider different options," Mallavibarrena said.

But instead of debating how best to implement the new course, she said, the bishops and politicians "just throw stones at each other."

What Price Peace?

Peace is God's gift that requires human cooperation, pope says

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Prayers for peace demonstrate a recognition that peace is a gift of God that requires human cooperation, Pope Benedict XVI said in a message to a summit of religious leaders meeting on Mount Hiei in Japan.

"Peace is both a gift from God and an obligation for every individual," the pope said in the message to the Aug. 3-4 summit organized by the leader of the Tendai Buddhist community.

Members of the community consider Mount Hiei to be the holiest site in Japan; the Tendai school of Buddhism was founded on the mountain in the 9th century.

When Pope John Paul II invited religious leaders from around the world to gather in Assisi, Italy, in 1986 to pray for peace, the leader of the Tendai Buddhists accepted the invitation. The next year, the community began hosting Japanese religious leaders for an annual prayer for peace service on Mount Hiei.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the head of Tendai Buddhism began inviting international representatives of Christianity, Islam and Judaism to join Japanese religious leaders for the prayer service.

In his message to the 2007 summit, Pope Benedict said, "The world's cry for peace, echoed by families and communities throughout the globe, is at once both a prayer to God and an appeal to every brother and sister of our human family."

The pope expressed his hope that the religious leaders gathered for the summit would be filled with God's peace and strengthened in their resolve to give witness to the logic of peace, which surpasses "the irrationality of violence."

Brendan Sweetman on Politics, Religion and Secularism

Zenit.org has an interesting article by Fr John Flynn on Brendan Sweetman's book "Why Politics Needs Religion".

Excerpts are given below.

Religion in the Public Arena
The Vital Role of Spiritual Values

By Father John Flynn, L.C.
...
Brendan Sweetman explained his position in "Why Politics Needs Religion: The Place of Religious Arguments in the Public Square" (InterVarsity Press). Sweetman, a professor of philosophy at Rockhurst University in Kansas City, Missouri, is convinced that attempts to remove religion from politics are based on a misunderstanding of modern pluralism.

....

Proponents of secularism, the book explains, wish to exclude worldviews founded on religion because they are supposedly based on sources that are not reliable or are irrational. In a pluralistic society is it not sustainable, according to secularists, to introduce religious arguments because this is imposing elements of a religion on others who do not share these beliefs.

...

"The secularist conveniently ignores the issue of the rationality of religious belief, or superficially denies that religious belief can be rational, or fails to compare the rationality of religious belief with that of secularist beliefs," Sweetman argues.

It is time, he proposes, that we move away from the view that religion is somehow a synonym for irrational. The religious view of the world in general, Sweetman maintains, has nothing to fear from rational scrutiny.

...

One objection raised by secularists, Sweetman notes, is the argument that religion introduces division and dogmatism, or even violence, into the political arena. It is true that religion can divide, Sweetman admits, but this is equally true of purely secular-founded arguments. The 20th century provides abundant examples of excesses committed in the name of secular ideologies.

...

It is the role of laypeople to work and act directly in constructing the temporal order, the Pope noted. Nevertheless, they need to be guided in this by the light of the Gospel and Christian love.

Christians who are active on the public sphere should, the Pontiff recommended, give public testimony to their faith and not live two parallel lives: one which is spiritual; and another which is secular, dedicated to their participation in social, political and cultural activities.

The entire article may be read here.

The book may be ordered from here or here.