Is It Religion That Makes Us Worse People?

Another individual recommended a blog to me asking whether religion does harm to people.  (In fairness, the blog author seemed to be asking "Is this true since I became a Christian?"  Not asserting it was true).  He gave this quote as a lead-in to the article:

"I have watched a good many atheists who were harmless, inoffensive people.  They committed a few adulteries or a little quiet pederasty and they were not to be trusted with unattended typewriters or valuable books, but, by and large, they were inoffensive.  Then they would start going to church and listening to the clink of thuribles and inhaling incense and suddenly they would acquire all those wonderful Christian virtues—bigotry, pride, intolerance, chronic anger, sexual dishonesty."

— Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel

The problem of course is the associating of these "Christian virtues" with Christianity, and not in the failing of the individual practicing it.

These are not Christian vices.  They are vices found in all men, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist or even Atheist.

The thing is we notice them only when a person changes a world view.  When person X practices the same vices we do, but practices them with the same outlook as we have, we write it off as "That's how people are."

However, when a person changes his worldview, the vices he possesses has not gone anywhere, but are practiced in light of his new perspective those vices are no longer tolerable.  We hypocritically denounce them as being "caused" by this change.

Certainly the atheist can possess all of these "wonderful Christian virtues" as well.  They can be prideful that they "know better" than the believer.  They can be intolerant of the Christian who practices openly what he preaches.  They can be continually angry at the Christian who challenges them, and they can be sexually dishonest (the atheist may deny there are any binding sexual mores, but I think he would be quite upset if he found his wife in bed with another man).

It would of course be hypocrisy to look down on Christians for these vices when they are present in all.

I believe the common stereotype of Christians being judgmental comes not from their actual change for the worse, but because they are seeking to devote themselves to God, and that necessarily means a turning away from the old man who lived contrary to the way God willed.

This turning however does not mean we automatically lose our former behaviors.  I try to gentle myself because being a Christian means loving others, but that doesn't mean I automatically lost my exasperation with bad logic and unchallenged assumptions.  Rather, the target has changed.

[People who think I am arrogant or condescending now as a Christian would have probably liked me much less twenty years ago, when my focus was on politics.  It was the Christian faith which taught me that truth is not constrained in a party platform.]

I do believe the teachings of the Catholic faith have tempered me from the man I was before, teaching me not to confuse the error with the person who held them [that is: An idea may be idiotic, but that does not mean the person holding it is an idiot].

So I would say, no, religion does NOT make us worse people.  It is our refusing (or our inability) to die to ourselves that makes these vices noticeable in Christians.  However they are not "Christian" vices, but human vices.

Is It Religion That Makes Us Worse People?

Another individual recommended a blog to me asking whether religion does harm to people.  (In fairness, the blog author seemed to be asking "Is this true since I became a Christian?"  Not asserting it was true).  He gave this quote as a lead-in to the article:

"I have watched a good many atheists who were harmless, inoffensive people.  They committed a few adulteries or a little quiet pederasty and they were not to be trusted with unattended typewriters or valuable books, but, by and large, they were inoffensive.  Then they would start going to church and listening to the clink of thuribles and inhaling incense and suddenly they would acquire all those wonderful Christian virtues—bigotry, pride, intolerance, chronic anger, sexual dishonesty."

— Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel

The problem of course is the associating of these "Christian virtues" with Christianity, and not in the failing of the individual practicing it.

These are not Christian vices.  They are vices found in all men, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist or even Atheist.

The thing is we notice them only when a person changes a world view.  When person X practices the same vices we do, but practices them with the same outlook as we have, we write it off as "That's how people are."

However, when a person changes his worldview, the vices he possesses has not gone anywhere, but are practiced in light of his new perspective those vices are no longer tolerable.  We hypocritically denounce them as being "caused" by this change.

Certainly the atheist can possess all of these "wonderful Christian virtues" as well.  They can be prideful that they "know better" than the believer.  They can be intolerant of the Christian who practices openly what he preaches.  They can be continually angry at the Christian who challenges them, and they can be sexually dishonest (the atheist may deny there are any binding sexual mores, but I think he would be quite upset if he found his wife in bed with another man).

It would of course be hypocrisy to look down on Christians for these vices when they are present in all.

I believe the common stereotype of Christians being judgmental comes not from their actual change for the worse, but because they are seeking to devote themselves to God, and that necessarily means a turning away from the old man who lived contrary to the way God willed.

This turning however does not mean we automatically lose our former behaviors.  I try to gentle myself because being a Christian means loving others, but that doesn't mean I automatically lost my exasperation with bad logic and unchallenged assumptions.  Rather, the target has changed.

[People who think I am arrogant or condescending now as a Christian would have probably liked me much less twenty years ago, when my focus was on politics.  It was the Christian faith which taught me that truth is not constrained in a party platform.]

I do believe the teachings of the Catholic faith have tempered me from the man I was before, teaching me not to confuse the error with the person who held them [that is: An idea may be idiotic, but that does not mean the person holding it is an idiot].

So I would say, no, religion does NOT make us worse people.  It is our refusing (or our inability) to die to ourselves that makes these vices noticeable in Christians.  However they are not "Christian" vices, but human vices.

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Read more »

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Read more »

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

I had a run-in with an atheist the other day.  This one tried to defend her anti-Christianism with the claim that Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.  Using the issue of abortion, she argued that the Christian seeking to oppose abortion is trying to impose their beliefs on others and should not be doing so.

The irony was her own argument was in fact an imposition of her own beliefs on others.

The Example of Abortion

I don't intend this to be an article on abortion per se, but the issue was the one raised in challenge to me and it does indeed help bring home the issue of "imposing beliefs."

Abortion being acceptable or evil is not a matter of opinion.  it is a matter of studying the reality of the matter and making a decision on those facts.

The Christian who believes abortion is wrong does not do so because "God says so," but because they believe that the unborn child is a human person, and to arbitrarily end an innocent human life (the unborn child is not an aggressor, as some would argue) at the whim of an individual is to be condemned.  Under this view, to tolerate abortion is to tolerate the right of one person to kill another arbitrarily for reasons of expedience or hardship.

The person who argues abortion should be allowed has to recognize this fact and also to define where their own view is coming from.  The Euphemism of "reproductive freedom" and the slogan of "every child a wanted child" ignores the fact that whether abortion should be allowed or not is not based on "the rights of the mother" but on the issue whether the unborn child is alive.

The pro-life movement has set forth many proofs for the supporting the view the unborn child is alive.  Now, if the Pro-abortion individual wishes to challenge it, a mere denial is not enough, they have to show where the error is and issue their own justifications for their own rule.

Peter Kreeft's "Quadrilemma"

Philosopher Peter Kreeft has discussed what he terms a "quadrilemma" over the abortion issue.  There are four possible choices when it comes to the action of abortion:

1. The unborn is not a human life and we know this to be true
2. The unborn is a human life and we know this to be true
3. The unborn is a human life and we do not know this to be true
4. The unborn is not a human life and we do not know this to be true

This is an issue where there are two considerations: Whether the unborn is alive or not and whether we know it or not.  The first consideration is objective: Either the unborn child is alive or it is not.  The second consideration is whether or not we are able to know this truth.

In Situation 1, if the unborn is not a human life and we can demonstrate this to be true then of course there would be no problems with abortion.  Of course this would have to be established to be true.

In Situation 2, if the unborn is a human life and we can demonstrate it to be true (which seems to be done quite effectively) then there can be no question that abortion must be opposed and those who would support abortion would be guilty of advocating Infanticide.

In Situations 3 and 4, we must err on the side of caution until such a time we can determine what is true.  Otherwise our actions are like a hunter firing blindly into motion in a bust without knowing what it is.  It might be a deer… or it might be a child playing in the bushes.

If the hunter shoots, and the unidentified noise in the bushes is a child, the hunter is guilty of homicide through gross negligence.  If it is a deer, it does not excuse his action.  He was lucky in his gross negligence, but that does not excuse the fact that he did not know what his target was.

In these four choices, applied to abortion, only Situation #1 makes abortion tolerable whether legally or morally.  Situation #2 makes it morally obligatory to oppose abortion as a crime of enormous magnitude.  People who claim we cannot know whether the Child is a human life or not (Situations #3 and 4) must either oppose abortion out of caution or be guilty of grossly reckless behavior.

So ultimately this means that the advocate of abortion needs to prove their point that the unborn child is not a human person.

The abortion advocate may protest here that they are being asked to prove a negative.  However, this is their own argument they make and therefore it is up to them to prove the argument they make. Their poor choice of a claim to defend does not take from them the obligation to establish it to be true.

How This Applies to "Imposing Beliefs"

The individual who invokes the claim of "imposing beliefs" themselves impose their own beliefs.  They disagree with Christian teaching, which is their right under the concept of free will.  However, their disagreement does not mean the Christian teachings are not true.

Ultimately, what is true is what is to be imposed because it is reality.  Claiming it is imposing beliefs is like saying a sign saying "Danger" in front of a cliff is imposing a belief that it is in fact dangerous to step off of the edge.

Christianity has been demonstrating why certain actions must be opposed for two thousand years.  Doubtlessly some will disagree with these teachings.  However, it is not enough to say "I disagree!"  If society is to follow their claims over those of Christianity, then let them demonstrate their claims to be true.  Let us examine them to make sure there are no holes in the argument, no errors which could lead society to its own destruction.

It is only when we arbitrarily insist on a way without justification that we are imposing the will on others.

Yet this is what secularism does now.  It says "We can't know Christianity is true, so we don't have to listen to it."

Yet Kreeft's quadrilemma is present here too.  It is either true or false and we can either know or not know that fact.  The Christian claims "this is true" and gives basis for their claims.  The secularist, the relativist, the atheist all say "I don't agree this is true," but give no real basis to justify their claims (one of my dislikes in reading atheistic apologetics is seeing how bad their reason and logic actually are).

Now, if one side says "This is true" and offers a reasoned argument for their beliefs while the other side says "I disagree" but provides no such argument for their own side, which one is guilty of "imposing beliefs?"

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

I had a run-in with an atheist the other day.  This one tried to defend her anti-Christianism with the claim that Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.  Using the issue of abortion, she argued that the Christian seeking to oppose abortion is trying to impose their beliefs on others and should not be doing so.

The irony was her own argument was in fact an imposition of her own beliefs on others.

The Example of Abortion

I don't intend this to be an article on abortion per se, but the issue was the one raised in challenge to me and it does indeed help bring home the issue of "imposing beliefs."

Abortion being acceptable or evil is not a matter of opinion.  it is a matter of studying the reality of the matter and making a decision on those facts.

The Christian who believes abortion is wrong does not do so because "God says so," but because they believe that the unborn child is a human person, and to arbitrarily end an innocent human life (the unborn child is not an aggressor, as some would argue) at the whim of an individual is to be condemned.  Under this view, to tolerate abortion is to tolerate the right of one person to kill another arbitrarily for reasons of expedience or hardship.

The person who argues abortion should be allowed has to recognize this fact and also to define where their own view is coming from.  The Euphemism of "reproductive freedom" and the slogan of "every child a wanted child" ignores the fact that whether abortion should be allowed or not is not based on "the rights of the mother" but on the issue whether the unborn child is alive.

The pro-life movement has set forth many proofs for the supporting the view the unborn child is alive.  Now, if the Pro-abortion individual wishes to challenge it, a mere denial is not enough, they have to show where the error is and issue their own justifications for their own rule.

Peter Kreeft's "Quadrilemma"

Philosopher Peter Kreeft has discussed what he terms a "quadrilemma" over the abortion issue.  There are four possible choices when it comes to the action of abortion:

1. The unborn is not a human life and we know this to be true
2. The unborn is a human life and we know this to be true
3. The unborn is a human life and we do not know this to be true
4. The unborn is not a human life and we do not know this to be true

This is an issue where there are two considerations: Whether the unborn is alive or not and whether we know it or not.  The first consideration is objective: Either the unborn child is alive or it is not.  The second consideration is whether or not we are able to know this truth.

In Situation 1, if the unborn is not a human life and we can demonstrate this to be true then of course there would be no problems with abortion.  Of course this would have to be established to be true.

In Situation 2, if the unborn is a human life and we can demonstrate it to be true (which seems to be done quite effectively) then there can be no question that abortion must be opposed and those who would support abortion would be guilty of advocating Infanticide.

In Situations 3 and 4, we must err on the side of caution until such a time we can determine what is true.  Otherwise our actions are like a hunter firing blindly into motion in a bust without knowing what it is.  It might be a deer… or it might be a child playing in the bushes.

If the hunter shoots, and the unidentified noise in the bushes is a child, the hunter is guilty of homicide through gross negligence.  If it is a deer, it does not excuse his action.  He was lucky in his gross negligence, but that does not excuse the fact that he did not know what his target was.

In these four choices, applied to abortion, only Situation #1 makes abortion tolerable whether legally or morally.  Situation #2 makes it morally obligatory to oppose abortion as a crime of enormous magnitude.  People who claim we cannot know whether the Child is a human life or not (Situations #3 and 4) must either oppose abortion out of caution or be guilty of grossly reckless behavior.

So ultimately this means that the advocate of abortion needs to prove their point that the unborn child is not a human person.

The abortion advocate may protest here that they are being asked to prove a negative.  However, this is their own argument they make and therefore it is up to them to prove the argument they make. Their poor choice of a claim to defend does not take from them the obligation to establish it to be true.

How This Applies to "Imposing Beliefs"

The individual who invokes the claim of "imposing beliefs" themselves impose their own beliefs.  They disagree with Christian teaching, which is their right under the concept of free will.  However, their disagreement does not mean the Christian teachings are not true.

Ultimately, what is true is what is to be imposed because it is reality.  Claiming it is imposing beliefs is like saying a sign saying "Danger" in front of a cliff is imposing a belief that it is in fact dangerous to step off of the edge.

Christianity has been demonstrating why certain actions must be opposed for two thousand years.  Doubtlessly some will disagree with these teachings.  However, it is not enough to say "I disagree!"  If society is to follow their claims over those of Christianity, then let them demonstrate their claims to be true.  Let us examine them to make sure there are no holes in the argument, no errors which could lead society to its own destruction.

It is only when we arbitrarily insist on a way without justification that we are imposing the will on others.

Yet this is what secularism does now.  It says "We can't know Christianity is true, so we don't have to listen to it."

Yet Kreeft's quadrilemma is present here too.  It is either true or false and we can either know or not know that fact.  The Christian claims "this is true" and gives basis for their claims.  The secularist, the relativist, the atheist all say "I don't agree this is true," but give no real basis to justify their claims (one of my dislikes in reading atheistic apologetics is seeing how bad their reason and logic actually are).

Now, if one side says "This is true" and offers a reasoned argument for their beliefs while the other side says "I disagree" but provides no such argument for their own side, which one is guilty of "imposing beliefs?"

Kmiec Fundamentally Misses the Point

Source: timesofmalta.com - Catholic, pro-life, pro-Obama

(Previous writings on Kmiec can be found HERE)

Doug Kmiec may indeed believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church.  He may even believe himself to be pro-life.  However, in this interview with the Times of Malta, Doug Kmiec shows he is profoundly missing the point about what it means to faithfully carry out the teachings of the Church.

The article tells us of Kmiec's experience:

Prof. Kmiec was invited to a meeting in Chicago of faith leaders, where many people were opposed to Mr Obama on several matters "including myself on the question of how the life issue should be handled".

He says Obama opened this meeting in a remarkable way, saying: "Alright, give me as good as you've got. Give me your best arguments. I know there is disagreement but I want to see whether there is source for common ground."

By the end of the meeting, Prof. Kmiec says, everyone realised that this was a man of humility, great intelligence and capable of listening.

"These were qualities I believed were much need in America in the Oval Office. I believe I saw some of those same qualities in Ronald Reagan in a different time, with a different emphasis," he says.

Even though there were areas of disagreement, Mr Obama pointed out the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide healthcare for the uninsured.

"When I thought about all these things, I thought 'this is my catechism come to life' because we are called to each of these things in the social teachings of the Church."

I would like to point out Kmiec's fatal flaw here.  The fact that Obama may have some ideas on health care and family wages which are similar to the Catholic teaching (we can validly dispute that his ways are the right ways of course) does not mean Obama the candidate holds the Catholic position.

The Catholic Church has consistently taught that it is the right to life which is fundamental here… that if the right to life is neglected, these other rights are meaningless and can be easily taken away.  Obama may use rhetoric which sounds nice, but his deeds are something else altogether.

Another area he fundamentally misses the role of government comes here:

He recalls how he told Mr Obama during the campaign: "How can you allow someone to terminate another person's life? What moral authority do you have for that?"

Mr Obama replied: "Well, professor, not everyone sees life beginning in the same way. The Methodists see it differently, the Jewish faith in part sees it differently." And he went through the list, Presbyterians and so forth.

"If I am elected President," he told Prof. Kmiec, "I am President of all these people."

It's a nice platitude, but when one thinks of it, it is not only worthless but dangerous.  Let us envision a nation which consists of a large Nazi minority and a large Stalinist minority.  Under the platitude Obama offered Kmiec, a president of such a country would have to tolerate their views as well, even if those views brought harm to another.

The fact is some beliefs are not only wrong but evil, and the fact that people support them does not give the political leader the right to tolerate that evil.  If Obama does believe that abortion is evil, then he has a moral obligation to oppose that evil.

Truth is not decided by vox populi vox dei ("The voice of the people is the voice of God").  If one man imposes a just law, it is to be followed even if 99% of the population dissent.  If 99% of the population support an evil law, it remains no law and must be opposed.

Obama's failure to recognize this is his failure as a leader.  Kmiec's failure to recognize the falsity of the statement is a failure in understanding Catholic teaching.

A third fundamental failure on the part of Kmiec comes from this telling bit:

Prof. Kmiec says Mr Obama told him that he views abortion as "a moral tragedy" and that there were two ways of addressing it. There is the law in which people who involved themselves in this procedure would be subject to a penalty. The Supreme Court has put that off limits.

The other way is to do something about it and look at what causes people to have an abortion.

Mr Obama asked Prof. Kmiec: "What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table."

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced - and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions - "this seems to me a good interim step".

This is the false dilemma which Kmiec employed during the campaign.  In arguing that neither candidate was "really" pro-life, he portrayed pro-lifers as solely working to end Roe v. Wade and tried to contrast that as a futile gesture compared to the Obama way.

The problem is that pro-lifers aware of Church teaching recognized that we must do both: oppose the legal sanction of abortion and support those in crisis pregnancies.  Obama's policies are like supporting a campaign to reduce teenage drunk driving… and then lowering the drinking age to sixteen.

His policies of economic support have yet to work, but the work for life is continually being weakened by the Obama administration.  Conscience protection is gone, under the promise to be "replaced with a better one."  Catholic Hospitals have felt the beginning of coercion to permit contraceptive and abortifacient procedures.

This then is Kmiec's problem.  He believes Obama will do more for life, but his assumptions are based on a fundamentally flawed view of what the Church requires.

Kmiec Fundamentally Misses the Point

Source: timesofmalta.com - Catholic, pro-life, pro-Obama

(Previous writings on Kmiec can be found HERE)

Doug Kmiec may indeed believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church.  He may even believe himself to be pro-life.  However, in this interview with the Times of Malta, Doug Kmiec shows he is profoundly missing the point about what it means to faithfully carry out the teachings of the Church.

The article tells us of Kmiec's experience:

Prof. Kmiec was invited to a meeting in Chicago of faith leaders, where many people were opposed to Mr Obama on several matters "including myself on the question of how the life issue should be handled".

He says Obama opened this meeting in a remarkable way, saying: "Alright, give me as good as you've got. Give me your best arguments. I know there is disagreement but I want to see whether there is source for common ground."

By the end of the meeting, Prof. Kmiec says, everyone realised that this was a man of humility, great intelligence and capable of listening.

"These were qualities I believed were much need in America in the Oval Office. I believe I saw some of those same qualities in Ronald Reagan in a different time, with a different emphasis," he says.

Even though there were areas of disagreement, Mr Obama pointed out the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide healthcare for the uninsured.

"When I thought about all these things, I thought 'this is my catechism come to life' because we are called to each of these things in the social teachings of the Church."

I would like to point out Kmiec's fatal flaw here.  The fact that Obama may have some ideas on health care and family wages which are similar to the Catholic teaching (we can validly dispute that his ways are the right ways of course) does not mean Obama the candidate holds the Catholic position.

The Catholic Church has consistently taught that it is the right to life which is fundamental here… that if the right to life is neglected, these other rights are meaningless and can be easily taken away.  Obama may use rhetoric which sounds nice, but his deeds are something else altogether.

Another area he fundamentally misses the role of government comes here:

He recalls how he told Mr Obama during the campaign: "How can you allow someone to terminate another person's life? What moral authority do you have for that?"

Mr Obama replied: "Well, professor, not everyone sees life beginning in the same way. The Methodists see it differently, the Jewish faith in part sees it differently." And he went through the list, Presbyterians and so forth.

"If I am elected President," he told Prof. Kmiec, "I am President of all these people."

It's a nice platitude, but when one thinks of it, it is not only worthless but dangerous.  Let us envision a nation which consists of a large Nazi minority and a large Stalinist minority.  Under the platitude Obama offered Kmiec, a president of such a country would have to tolerate their views as well, even if those views brought harm to another.

The fact is some beliefs are not only wrong but evil, and the fact that people support them does not give the political leader the right to tolerate that evil.  If Obama does believe that abortion is evil, then he has a moral obligation to oppose that evil.

Truth is not decided by vox populi vox dei ("The voice of the people is the voice of God").  If one man imposes a just law, it is to be followed even if 99% of the population dissent.  If 99% of the population support an evil law, it remains no law and must be opposed.

Obama's failure to recognize this is his failure as a leader.  Kmiec's failure to recognize the falsity of the statement is a failure in understanding Catholic teaching.

A third fundamental failure on the part of Kmiec comes from this telling bit:

Prof. Kmiec says Mr Obama told him that he views abortion as "a moral tragedy" and that there were two ways of addressing it. There is the law in which people who involved themselves in this procedure would be subject to a penalty. The Supreme Court has put that off limits.

The other way is to do something about it and look at what causes people to have an abortion.

Mr Obama asked Prof. Kmiec: "What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table."

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced - and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions - "this seems to me a good interim step".

This is the false dilemma which Kmiec employed during the campaign.  In arguing that neither candidate was "really" pro-life, he portrayed pro-lifers as solely working to end Roe v. Wade and tried to contrast that as a futile gesture compared to the Obama way.

The problem is that pro-lifers aware of Church teaching recognized that we must do both: oppose the legal sanction of abortion and support those in crisis pregnancies.  Obama's policies are like supporting a campaign to reduce teenage drunk driving… and then lowering the drinking age to sixteen.

His policies of economic support have yet to work, but the work for life is continually being weakened by the Obama administration.  Conscience protection is gone, under the promise to be "replaced with a better one."  Catholic Hospitals have felt the beginning of coercion to permit contraceptive and abortifacient procedures.

This then is Kmiec's problem.  He believes Obama will do more for life, but his assumptions are based on a fundamentally flawed view of what the Church requires.

Reflections on the Feast of St. Matthew

As Jesus passed by, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post.  He said to him, “Follow me.”  And he got up and followed him.  While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.  The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.  Go and learn the meaning of the words, I desire mercy, not sacrifice.  I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

Matthew 9:9-13

I think among Christians there are two tendencies which go against the teaching of Christ and need to be opposed.  One is the tendency to say "This person is a sinner and therefore his conversion is a sham and we should shun him."  The other is to say "I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

"This Person is a sinner"

Of course we need to recognize that all persons are sinners, and so are we.  All of us have sins we are struggling with, and all of us need to look at our brethren with that in mind: The Lord has been merciful to us, and so we must do this as well in our consideration of others.  The sinner who realizes he is a sinner seeks out God to repent.  The self righteous one focuses on the sins of others and does not consider how his own actions appear before God.

Matthew, as a Tax Collector, would have had a reputation among the Jews as a quisling or collaborator.  He was enriching himself working for the conqueror in exploiting the conquered.  Jesus called him, and he left what he had… probably a lucrative position… and followed Jesus.

Yet because of what he was, some held it against him all the same.  He had collaborated and therefore he was an outcast forever and always.  Jesus recognized that the sick need the physician, but some would argue that anyone who has ever been ill were not welcome.  Such a view ignores the fact that the one judging is behaving in a way contrary to the words of God.  If we do not have mercy towards our fellow man, our acts of sacrifice are meaningless.  As St. John has said (1 John 4:20-21):

^20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. ^21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

"I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

This is often stereotyped as the "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) position, but it is more than that.  One of the most common errors in America is to claim that Public Figure X has done great things, so certain "little things" called sin doesn't matter.

When Jesus calls us, He does indeed call us from where we are.  However, we are not to remain where we are.  If we are great sinners, we are to turn away from the lifestyle that alienated us from God to begin with.  The college student dabbling in drugs and premarital sex, the businessman making use of unethical business practices, the prostitute selling her body on the streets, the politician advocating laws which were contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church… we cannot seek to justify our sins by pointing to something "Good" we have done as balancing out the evil done.

Jesus told us (in Luke 17):

^7 “Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? ^8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? ^9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? ^10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

In doing good, we do not "buy Heaven."  In accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are not "owed salvation."  We are obligated to do these things, and in doing them, we are "unworthy servants."

What good we do does not "balance out" the evil done and permit us to do evil so long as we have done good… or accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord.  The Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia) means "change of mind or heart, repentance, regret."

The Proper Mindset

Moreover these two mentalities can often run together.  We forget our own sins, and assume that our conversion or our charitable actions give us a large bank balance with God against these things.  However we refuse to consider that others might be in the same boat as us and judge them unworthy.

In the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, the three elements necessary for forgiveness are:

1. Sorrow for our sins
2. Admission of our guilt
3. A firm resolve to avoid further evil and turning to good

If we are not sorry for our sins ("I slept with my girlfriend last night and don't regret it"), if we will not admit our guilt ("This isn't a sin!  the Church is just wrong on this issue!"), if we will not resolve to change our lives to live for Christ, rejecting evil in our lives ("So I voted for an abortion law… so what? I work for the poor") we are not followers of Christ but self-righteous men who will not accept the call of Jesus "Come follow me."

The Pharisaical mentality tends to ignore #2 and possibly #1 as well.  It focuses on the sins of others.   The view of the "What I did is enough" mentality ignores #3 and sometimes #2.

If we are not sorry for what we have done, if we will not admit we are sinners in need of the mercy of God how can the Love of God reach us, the God who calls us to be sorry for what we have done, to confess our guilt and do our best to avoid sin in the future becomes a God we can choose to ignore when it is inconvenient.

We then stroke our own egos and congratulate ourselves as the Pharisee did in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

We congratulate ourselves for our pious deeds or our accepting Jesus as our personal savior, but we forget the crucial part.  The Pharisee was not wrong for fasting and giving tithes or for believing in God.  However he was wrong in assuming there was nothing wrong with his own life while standing in judgment of the Tax Collector who at least knew he was a sinner and wanted to change.

This does not mean we should accept evil of course.  When our brother errs, we do need to offer correction.  But it does mean we ought not to judge ourselves righteous in comparison to the world.

Reflections on the Feast of St. Matthew

As Jesus passed by, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post.  He said to him, “Follow me.”  And he got up and followed him.  While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.  The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.  Go and learn the meaning of the words, I desire mercy, not sacrifice.  I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

Matthew 9:9-13

I think among Christians there are two tendencies which go against the teaching of Christ and need to be opposed.  One is the tendency to say "This person is a sinner and therefore his conversion is a sham and we should shun him."  The other is to say "I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

"This Person is a sinner"

Of course we need to recognize that all persons are sinners, and so are we.  All of us have sins we are struggling with, and all of us need to look at our brethren with that in mind: The Lord has been merciful to us, and so we must do this as well in our consideration of others.  The sinner who realizes he is a sinner seeks out God to repent.  The self righteous one focuses on the sins of others and does not consider how his own actions appear before God.

Matthew, as a Tax Collector, would have had a reputation among the Jews as a quisling or collaborator.  He was enriching himself working for the conqueror in exploiting the conquered.  Jesus called him, and he left what he had… probably a lucrative position… and followed Jesus.

Yet because of what he was, some held it against him all the same.  He had collaborated and therefore he was an outcast forever and always.  Jesus recognized that the sick need the physician, but some would argue that anyone who has ever been ill were not welcome.  Such a view ignores the fact that the one judging is behaving in a way contrary to the words of God.  If we do not have mercy towards our fellow man, our acts of sacrifice are meaningless.  As St. John has said (1 John 4:20-21):

^20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. ^21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

"I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

This is often stereotyped as the "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) position, but it is more than that.  One of the most common errors in America is to claim that Public Figure X has done great things, so certain "little things" called sin doesn't matter.

When Jesus calls us, He does indeed call us from where we are.  However, we are not to remain where we are.  If we are great sinners, we are to turn away from the lifestyle that alienated us from God to begin with.  The college student dabbling in drugs and premarital sex, the businessman making use of unethical business practices, the prostitute selling her body on the streets, the politician advocating laws which were contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church… we cannot seek to justify our sins by pointing to something "Good" we have done as balancing out the evil done.

Jesus told us (in Luke 17):

^7 “Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? ^8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? ^9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? ^10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

In doing good, we do not "buy Heaven."  In accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are not "owed salvation."  We are obligated to do these things, and in doing them, we are "unworthy servants."

What good we do does not "balance out" the evil done and permit us to do evil so long as we have done good… or accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord.  The Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia) means "change of mind or heart, repentance, regret."

The Proper Mindset

Moreover these two mentalities can often run together.  We forget our own sins, and assume that our conversion or our charitable actions give us a large bank balance with God against these things.  However we refuse to consider that others might be in the same boat as us and judge them unworthy.

In the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, the three elements necessary for forgiveness are:

1. Sorrow for our sins
2. Admission of our guilt
3. A firm resolve to avoid further evil and turning to good

If we are not sorry for our sins ("I slept with my girlfriend last night and don't regret it"), if we will not admit our guilt ("This isn't a sin!  the Church is just wrong on this issue!"), if we will not resolve to change our lives to live for Christ, rejecting evil in our lives ("So I voted for an abortion law… so what? I work for the poor") we are not followers of Christ but self-righteous men who will not accept the call of Jesus "Come follow me."

The Pharisaical mentality tends to ignore #2 and possibly #1 as well.  It focuses on the sins of others.   The view of the "What I did is enough" mentality ignores #3 and sometimes #2.

If we are not sorry for what we have done, if we will not admit we are sinners in need of the mercy of God how can the Love of God reach us, the God who calls us to be sorry for what we have done, to confess our guilt and do our best to avoid sin in the future becomes a God we can choose to ignore when it is inconvenient.

We then stroke our own egos and congratulate ourselves as the Pharisee did in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

We congratulate ourselves for our pious deeds or our accepting Jesus as our personal savior, but we forget the crucial part.  The Pharisee was not wrong for fasting and giving tithes or for believing in God.  However he was wrong in assuming there was nothing wrong with his own life while standing in judgment of the Tax Collector who at least knew he was a sinner and wanted to change.

This does not mean we should accept evil of course.  When our brother errs, we do need to offer correction.  But it does mean we ought not to judge ourselves righteous in comparison to the world.

An Absence of Reason and Logic: Reflections on an Article Advocating Legalizing Prostitution

On the control panel of the Xanga site, I get little notifications of so and so recommended article X by blogger Y.  One of these recommendations was on an article written advocating women having the right to be prostitutes.  I have no idea why this article was recommended, because the argument put forth is a poor one.

Reading through this I am reminded of the maxim of St. Thomas Aquinas: Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

This article starts out by saying: I've never met a prostitute, spoke to one, nor can I really say have I ever seen one.  This is an indication that whatever she is basing her beliefs on, it is not founded on the actual experience of the prostitute, neither the type taking part in the illegal type or the legal type.

This is a warning right off the bat that there is no reason in this sort of statement.  If I think that prison guards should "be trained differently so as not be so harsh" but have no concept of the experience of the prison guard (whether from hearing from them personally or studying about them) then on what basis does the opinion have any credibility?

The article claims:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me. The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes. I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was. Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood.

There are several errors here, both logical and factual.

The factual error first, to avoid being distracted on a red herring, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, though some Christians made the connection from two incidents which have similarities.  The term "Magdelines" comes from this misunderstanding.

Now on to the logical errors:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me.

This is a form of an Argument from Silence.  If "I" can't think of a reason, there must not be one.  GK Chesterton however pointed out the problem with this form of thinking:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good idea for somebody. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether that reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.

I think the bolded parts of this quote are especially relevant.  To argue that because one can't see the use of it therefore we must end it is the height of reckless folly.  Let those who would seek to allow the legalization of prostitution show they understand why it was declared illegal before we allow them to dismantle what was before.

"The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes."

This is a tu quoque fallacy.  Whether or not some men who make laws make use of prostitutes is of no relevance on whether or not prostitution is illegal.  Some lawmakers who make laws on bribery accept bribes.  Should bribery then be legalized?  Or does it mean some lawmakers are hypocrites?  Hypocrisy on the part of some lawmakers is not a valid reason to negate a law.

"I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was."

This is a false comparison.  The woman did not remain a prostitute.  Christ forgave sinners, but also admonished them to "go and sin no more."  Indeed the work of the Church with "Magdelines" was to help them escape from this lifestyle, and find a more decent lifestyle.

"Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood"

So what we have then are women exploited due to their desperate circumstances, whether poverty, addiction, lack of education or whatever.  Under the author's proposal, the women may now be legally exploited.

Legalizing prostitution will not help these women.  Helping them overcome their lack of education, addictions and poverty so they are not forced into this sort of lifestyle out of desperation will.

The author goes on to say:

I think the state of Nevada does a pretty decent job with the legalization of prostitutes. The kind of person who wants to purchase and the type of person selling is going to be far different from the normal person like me or you. If we provide safety and regulation it makes the "profession" cleaner and maybe not so "wrong".

The first sentence is an opinion and needs to be measured against the reality to see if it is reasoned or uninformed.  The women who are prostitutes there are generally the same type as those who practice illegally.  What the state has done is merely say "pass health tests and don't walk the streets."  However, this has not eliminated illegal prostitution.  Rather it has given sanction to certain pimps to operate legally for paying a fee.  Women receive no benefits, pay half of their take to the brothel (more, as a cab driver's bonus comes out of the woman's cut as well).  In the meantime, illegal "escort services" and child prostitution abound.  Legalization then only benefits some pimps and the women they hire.  It has no bearing on other woman unable or unwilling to enter into the brothel system.

Another item of concern, is whether legalization does improve the plight of these women or whether it makes exploitation easier.  Las Vegas has been identified as one of the top 17 places where sexual trafficking takes place.  This speaks against the "safer and cleaner" argument.  Safer for the "John" perhaps.  Not safer for the women.  Making it "not so 'wrong'" has done nothing to help these women.

The author continues:

Sure, we strive for our little girls to grow up to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, and ladies in the church choir. There will always be one girl that rebels, and we have to defend her right to make ends meet.

Or, to apply an Absurdum ad reductio, we could make the same argument that we have to defend their right to be a drug pusher.  A girl who rebels to do something illegal does not justify making that thing legal. 

The author finishes by saying:

Maybe we should focus our attention on making it a right to be a prostitute, but educate girls about the harms (mentally, socially, etc) and get these girls on a better track to greener pastures. If we are in a country where right now women have the right to abort their unborn, shouldn't women have the right to sell their bodies if they want?

Such is certainly the self-destructive legacy of Roe v. Wade.  Because society argues that a woman has the right to kill an unborn child, there is little reason for them to oppose other actions.  However, the fact something is legal does not make it right.  Once upon a time, slavery was legal and logical questions could be asked  based on the assumption that a slave was not a person.  However, if that premise was false, the conclusions would be too.

Likewise, if abortion was wrongly legalized, conclusions based on that legalization are necessarily false.

As to the statement itself, it does not support a point for legalizing prostitution.  Educating prostitutes to change their lifestyle does not need to be done in the context of legalization (her argument here is a non sequitur).  Legalization seems more likely to keep women in the lifestyle, not move on to "greener pastures."

This article shows the truth of the maxim  Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

An Absence of Reason and Logic: Reflections on an Article Advocating Legalizing Prostitution

On the control panel of the Xanga site, I get little notifications of so and so recommended article X by blogger Y.  One of these recommendations was on an article written advocating women having the right to be prostitutes.  I have no idea why this article was recommended, because the argument put forth is a poor one.

Reading through this I am reminded of the maxim of St. Thomas Aquinas: Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

This article starts out by saying: I've never met a prostitute, spoke to one, nor can I really say have I ever seen one.  This is an indication that whatever she is basing her beliefs on, it is not founded on the actual experience of the prostitute, neither the type taking part in the illegal type or the legal type.

This is a warning right off the bat that there is no reason in this sort of statement.  If I think that prison guards should "be trained differently so as not be so harsh" but have no concept of the experience of the prison guard (whether from hearing from them personally or studying about them) then on what basis does the opinion have any credibility?

The article claims:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me. The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes. I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was. Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood.

There are several errors here, both logical and factual.

The factual error first, to avoid being distracted on a red herring, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, though some Christians made the connection from two incidents which have similarities.  The term "Magdelines" comes from this misunderstanding.

Now on to the logical errors:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me.

This is a form of an Argument from Silence.  If "I" can't think of a reason, there must not be one.  GK Chesterton however pointed out the problem with this form of thinking:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good idea for somebody. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether that reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.

I think the bolded parts of this quote are especially relevant.  To argue that because one can't see the use of it therefore we must end it is the height of reckless folly.  Let those who would seek to allow the legalization of prostitution show they understand why it was declared illegal before we allow them to dismantle what was before.

"The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes."

This is a tu quoque fallacy.  Whether or not some men who make laws make use of prostitutes is of no relevance on whether or not prostitution is illegal.  Some lawmakers who make laws on bribery accept bribes.  Should bribery then be legalized?  Or does it mean some lawmakers are hypocrites?  Hypocrisy on the part of some lawmakers is not a valid reason to negate a law.

"I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was."

This is a false comparison.  The woman did not remain a prostitute.  Christ forgave sinners, but also admonished them to "go and sin no more."  Indeed the work of the Church with "Magdelines" was to help them escape from this lifestyle, and find a more decent lifestyle.

"Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood"

So what we have then are women exploited due to their desperate circumstances, whether poverty, addiction, lack of education or whatever.  Under the author's proposal, the women may now be legally exploited.

Legalizing prostitution will not help these women.  Helping them overcome their lack of education, addictions and poverty so they are not forced into this sort of lifestyle out of desperation will.

The author goes on to say:

I think the state of Nevada does a pretty decent job with the legalization of prostitutes. The kind of person who wants to purchase and the type of person selling is going to be far different from the normal person like me or you. If we provide safety and regulation it makes the "profession" cleaner and maybe not so "wrong".

The first sentence is an opinion and needs to be measured against the reality to see if it is reasoned or uninformed.  The women who are prostitutes there are generally the same type as those who practice illegally.  What the state has done is merely say "pass health tests and don't walk the streets."  However, this has not eliminated illegal prostitution.  Rather it has given sanction to certain pimps to operate legally for paying a fee.  Women receive no benefits, pay half of their take to the brothel (more, as a cab driver's bonus comes out of the woman's cut as well).  In the meantime, illegal "escort services" and child prostitution abound.  Legalization then only benefits some pimps and the women they hire.  It has no bearing on other woman unable or unwilling to enter into the brothel system.

Another item of concern, is whether legalization does improve the plight of these women or whether it makes exploitation easier.  Las Vegas has been identified as one of the top 17 places where sexual trafficking takes place.  This speaks against the "safer and cleaner" argument.  Safer for the "John" perhaps.  Not safer for the women.  Making it "not so 'wrong'" has done nothing to help these women.

The author continues:

Sure, we strive for our little girls to grow up to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, and ladies in the church choir. There will always be one girl that rebels, and we have to defend her right to make ends meet.

Or, to apply an Absurdum ad reductio, we could make the same argument that we have to defend their right to be a drug pusher.  A girl who rebels to do something illegal does not justify making that thing legal. 

The author finishes by saying:

Maybe we should focus our attention on making it a right to be a prostitute, but educate girls about the harms (mentally, socially, etc) and get these girls on a better track to greener pastures. If we are in a country where right now women have the right to abort their unborn, shouldn't women have the right to sell their bodies if they want?

Such is certainly the self-destructive legacy of Roe v. Wade.  Because society argues that a woman has the right to kill an unborn child, there is little reason for them to oppose other actions.  However, the fact something is legal does not make it right.  Once upon a time, slavery was legal and logical questions could be asked  based on the assumption that a slave was not a person.  However, if that premise was false, the conclusions would be too.

Likewise, if abortion was wrongly legalized, conclusions based on that legalization are necessarily false.

As to the statement itself, it does not support a point for legalizing prostitution.  Educating prostitutes to change their lifestyle does not need to be done in the context of legalization (her argument here is a non sequitur).  Legalization seems more likely to keep women in the lifestyle, not move on to "greener pastures."

This article shows the truth of the maxim  Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

On Partisanship

Partisan is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."  However, in terms of the modern usage, "partisanship" is used to accuse the other side of not being objective.

The implication is that the person who is a strong supporter of the wrong cause can't be objective or he or she would be agreeing with us.  The irony is the the person who uses the accusation of partisanship is often guilty of this in themselves.

So how does one avoid partisanship?  Ultimately the way we do this is to recognize that our loyalty to a party, to a cause or to a person can only be carried out to the extent that it or he promotes the truth. 

Ask yourself this.  Would you rather vote for a candidate who holds views directly condemned by your religious beliefs than to vote for a candidate of the other party?

If the answer is yes, then this is an example of partisanship.

Would you condemn something which was done by the other party, but tolerate the same thing when done by your own party, because it is "theirs" or "yours"?

This too is partisanship in the wrong sense of the world.

Now we have to clarify things here.  I am not talking about indifferentism.  I am not saying we need to consider all views equally valid.  There is a strong streak of relativism out there denying that there is any objective truth.  We do need to challenge what is wrong.  But the question is does one wish to deny others the right to protest while their own cause makes use of protests?  Does one think the police should lock up "them" but thinks they should be lenient with "us"… for the same action?

Truth should be everyone's goal.  We ought not to assume that an action is good or bad based on the party or cause which promotes it.  We should remember that what matters is if the action is based on truth or not.

Truth is objective: To say of what is that it is, and of that which is not, say it is not (to paraphrase Aristotle).  Yet all too often we hide simple truths in weasel words and evasions.  We don't say "killing the unborn."  They don't even like to say "abortion."  So they say "a woman's right to control her fertility."

This is not saying of what is.  It is trying to avoid saying what is.  Partisanship often comes into play here.  if the party or cause of our choice is at odds with what is true, we try to reframe it in a way favorable to us… but at the expense of truth.

Conversely, accusing a person of partisanship is wrong when it says that which is not, is or if it says that which is, is not.

There are many cases of Catholic bishops speaking out on moral issues today.  Yet they are often attacked as doing so in support of a political cause.  Are their accusers saying what is or are they saying that which is not, is?

The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion, has always been concerned with the innocent person in the world victimized.  In doing so, she must at times stand up against a world leader or a nation and say "This is wrong."

Yet when she does so, she is often accused of siding with the opponents of this leader or nation.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  To say something is either one thing or another ignores the possibility of a third position.  To argue that either Bishops support Obama or they are Partisan ignores the view that they oppose Obama due to their obligations to teach the moral obligations of the faith.

The world may want the Church to speak in rigid categories of either A or B.  However if neither A nor B is compatible with the Church view, the Church must say of what is that it is,  or of that which is not that it is not, without concern over whether the Party in power agrees or disagrees.

Another issue is that of confusing real issues with ways and means.  There is no political party in America which holds the view of "let the poor die hungry and without medical care."  However, our political parties do indeed argue of the ways and means of helping the poor.  One is not obligated to support one party platform to "help the poor."  It may be both parties can be wrong on an issue, in which case the believer needs to challenge the parties to change their way of thinking.

During the election season, some bishops were accused of partisanship for daring to associate one party with abortion.  After all, the other party "wasn't really pro life."  However, when one looks at the issue, one party had some members who supported abortion and some who wanted the issue to go away and a large portion saying it should be limited or illegal.  The other party publicly proclaimed abortion as a right to be defended.

To say what is, one would have to say one party has a divided view of life issues, but at this time generally opposes abortion.  The other openly sanctions abortion.

To say that the opposing of a party which openly sanctions abortion is "partisan," is to say of what is not that it is.

With Obama in the White House, there are many arguing over whether he is good or bad.  The answer is not to be defined by party lines and votes, but by the Law of God.  Where Obama does which is compatible with the Law of God, it is legitimate rule.  However, where his actions are incompatible with the rule of God, it is no law (as Thomas Aquinas said) and must be opposed.

We've now come to our ultimate consideration.  When Obama or Bush or Clinton does something, our first consideration should be over whether or not it is a good action.

If it is a good action (compatible with God's law), then there is no issue, and we ought not to oppose it, whether it comes from our own party or the other.

If it is not a good action, then we need to consider whether it is an indifferent action or a bad action.

If it is an indifferent action (one where specific behavior is not obligated under moral theology to act or not act), we are free to oppose or leave it be as we see fit.

However, if it is a bad action, we are not free to support it or leave it be, but must oppose it.

Moreover, we must oppose it regardless of whether this action comes from our own party or the other party.

If we only act based on our own political affiliation and set aside our own beliefs, we are not followers of the truth, but merely partisans.

On Partisanship

Partisan is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."  However, in terms of the modern usage, "partisanship" is used to accuse the other side of not being objective.

The implication is that the person who is a strong supporter of the wrong cause can't be objective or he or she would be agreeing with us.  The irony is the the person who uses the accusation of partisanship is often guilty of this in themselves.

So how does one avoid partisanship?  Ultimately the way we do this is to recognize that our loyalty to a party, to a cause or to a person can only be carried out to the extent that it or he promotes the truth. 

Ask yourself this.  Would you rather vote for a candidate who holds views directly condemned by your religious beliefs than to vote for a candidate of the other party?

If the answer is yes, then this is an example of partisanship.

Would you condemn something which was done by the other party, but tolerate the same thing when done by your own party, because it is "theirs" or "yours"?

This too is partisanship in the wrong sense of the world.

Now we have to clarify things here.  I am not talking about indifferentism.  I am not saying we need to consider all views equally valid.  There is a strong streak of relativism out there denying that there is any objective truth.  We do need to challenge what is wrong.  But the question is does one wish to deny others the right to protest while their own cause makes use of protests?  Does one think the police should lock up "them" but thinks they should be lenient with "us"… for the same action?

Truth should be everyone's goal.  We ought not to assume that an action is good or bad based on the party or cause which promotes it.  We should remember that what matters is if the action is based on truth or not.

Truth is objective: To say of what is that it is, and of that which is not, say it is not (to paraphrase Aristotle).  Yet all too often we hide simple truths in weasel words and evasions.  We don't say "killing the unborn."  They don't even like to say "abortion."  So they say "a woman's right to control her fertility."

This is not saying of what is.  It is trying to avoid saying what is.  Partisanship often comes into play here.  if the party or cause of our choice is at odds with what is true, we try to reframe it in a way favorable to us… but at the expense of truth.

Conversely, accusing a person of partisanship is wrong when it says that which is not, is or if it says that which is, is not.

There are many cases of Catholic bishops speaking out on moral issues today.  Yet they are often attacked as doing so in support of a political cause.  Are their accusers saying what is or are they saying that which is not, is?

The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion, has always been concerned with the innocent person in the world victimized.  In doing so, she must at times stand up against a world leader or a nation and say "This is wrong."

Yet when she does so, she is often accused of siding with the opponents of this leader or nation.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  To say something is either one thing or another ignores the possibility of a third position.  To argue that either Bishops support Obama or they are Partisan ignores the view that they oppose Obama due to their obligations to teach the moral obligations of the faith.

The world may want the Church to speak in rigid categories of either A or B.  However if neither A nor B is compatible with the Church view, the Church must say of what is that it is,  or of that which is not that it is not, without concern over whether the Party in power agrees or disagrees.

Another issue is that of confusing real issues with ways and means.  There is no political party in America which holds the view of "let the poor die hungry and without medical care."  However, our political parties do indeed argue of the ways and means of helping the poor.  One is not obligated to support one party platform to "help the poor."  It may be both parties can be wrong on an issue, in which case the believer needs to challenge the parties to change their way of thinking.

During the election season, some bishops were accused of partisanship for daring to associate one party with abortion.  After all, the other party "wasn't really pro life."  However, when one looks at the issue, one party had some members who supported abortion and some who wanted the issue to go away and a large portion saying it should be limited or illegal.  The other party publicly proclaimed abortion as a right to be defended.

To say what is, one would have to say one party has a divided view of life issues, but at this time generally opposes abortion.  The other openly sanctions abortion.

To say that the opposing of a party which openly sanctions abortion is "partisan," is to say of what is not that it is.

With Obama in the White House, there are many arguing over whether he is good or bad.  The answer is not to be defined by party lines and votes, but by the Law of God.  Where Obama does which is compatible with the Law of God, it is legitimate rule.  However, where his actions are incompatible with the rule of God, it is no law (as Thomas Aquinas said) and must be opposed.

We've now come to our ultimate consideration.  When Obama or Bush or Clinton does something, our first consideration should be over whether or not it is a good action.

If it is a good action (compatible with God's law), then there is no issue, and we ought not to oppose it, whether it comes from our own party or the other.

If it is not a good action, then we need to consider whether it is an indifferent action or a bad action.

If it is an indifferent action (one where specific behavior is not obligated under moral theology to act or not act), we are free to oppose or leave it be as we see fit.

However, if it is a bad action, we are not free to support it or leave it be, but must oppose it.

Moreover, we must oppose it regardless of whether this action comes from our own party or the other party.

If we only act based on our own political affiliation and set aside our own beliefs, we are not followers of the truth, but merely partisans.