It's Iimi!

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

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:

The unborn is not a human life and we know this to be true
The unborn is a human life and we know this to be true
The unborn is a human life and we do not know this to be true
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"

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.

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:

The unborn is not a human life and we know this to be true
The unborn is a human life and we know this to be true
The unborn is a human life and we do not know this to be true
The unborn is not a human life and we do not know this to be true

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

How This Applies to "Imposing Beliefs"

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."

Monday, September 21, 2009

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)

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."

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."

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 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):

²⁰If 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. ²¹And 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’? ⁸Will 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’? ⁹Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? ¹⁰So 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:

Sorrow for our sins
Admission of our guilt
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. ¹¹The 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. ¹²I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ¹³But 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!’ ¹⁴I 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.

Pages

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Friday, September 25, 2009

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

Monday, September 21, 2009

Kmiec Fundamentally Misses the Point

Kmiec Fundamentally Misses the Point

Reflections on the Feast of St. Matthew

Pages

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Friday, September 25, 2009

The Myth of &quot;Imposing Beliefs&quot;

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

Monday, September 21, 2009

Kmiec Fundamentally Misses the Point

Kmiec Fundamentally Misses the Point

Reflections on the Feast of St. Matthew

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"