Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Evolution vs. Creation: The Wrong Battle Waged

Someone notified me recently I was being cited as a source against the claims of an atheistic individual who holds to Evolution and rejects Creationism.  While I am flattered that someone considers me authoritative, I think it is important to spell out what I do hold, lest someone think I am championing a cause I do not.

As I have stated in the title, I do believe the laying out of battle grounds between evolution and creation is the wrong battle for Christians to fight, putting some allies on the "enemy" side of the fence.  The issue is not whether to take the account of creation in Genesis literally or figuratively.  The issue is whether the creation of the universe is on account of an uncontrolled undirected cause or on account of God.

Unfortunately I think some Christians choose to fight the wrong battle on account of believing that science (as opposed to some erring scientists) must teach in opposition to the Christian faith.  The problem is the confusing a belief that God could work through evolution as His means of creation with the atheistic belief that claims of science means God does not exist.  The Christian who fights the "evolution vs. creation" battle when they think they are fighting the "God vs. atheism" battle do not assist in the battle against atheism.

The result of this wrong battle being fought is we see certain groups of Christians accusing other Christians who accept the possibility of evolution as the means God used to create as being heretical or being secret atheists or being deceived by atheists.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  Arguing that unless a man believes in creationism, the man is not a believer ignores the possibility of a faithful Christian who does not hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture.  The argument in this case is missing the point.

The point is whether or not God created the universe or whether the universe came together by chance.  If it was created by God, there is indeed purpose in the universe, and life has meaning.  If it was created by chance, there is no meaning to the universe and it is a matter of indifference whether we live in a manner called evil or a manner called good.

The issue of evolution is misused by the atheist to argue that because evolution happened, God is not necessary and therefore does not exist.

The problem is, the evidence pointed at to claim evolution is true does not prove the non-existence of God.  The other side of this coin is to show that the cell or the embryo is complex beyond imagining does not mean it could be done by God only through directly acting.

Now the problem with relying on the physical explanation of evolution alone and denying the existence of a creator is it cannot provide proof to explain certain steps (which is Begging the Question):

• From no life to life
• From single cell creatures to multi cell creatures
• from creatures without organs to creatures with organs they did not need before but now cannot exist without
• From non-sentience to sentience

The law of casualty holds that we cannot get a result which is greater than the sum of causes.  For example, we do not simply go from Acorn –> Tree.  We have acorn + water + soil + nutrients + sunlight –> Tree.  The believer tells us God –> Universe (with the "—>" being whatever means of creation used).  The atheist needs to explain: no life –> Life, Single Cell –> multi cell and so on, and why the law of casualty does not apply (or how it does apply).

Thus going from the so-called "primordial soup" to a single cell animal cannot be explained.  (The amino acid experiment was based on a false idea on what the primordial atmosphere was based on).  The evolution theory can say it did happen, but the atheistic view does not say how it happened.

Really this is the issue here.  If the atheist wishes to assert evolution sans God is true, the question is how do we know it is true, given the practical impossibility of proving a universal negative and the lack of scientific evidence showing these transitions taking place?

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1. God does not exist
2. The Universe exists
3. Therefore the Universe was not created by God.

This is where I come in to the dispute.  Science is claimed to be logical and reasonable.  Religion is accused of being irrational and illogical.  Yet the claims of scientists who argue science proves there is no God cannot put together a logical and rational argument to establish their claim.

The argument that since God cannot be studied scientifically means there is no God is in fact a bad logical argument.  It is based on the unproven assumption that only that which is observable exists.  (All A is B).  The problem of course is that no matter how much we know about A (things that are observable), it does not prove there is not B (something that exists) which is not in B.

As a syllogism:

1. All things which are observable exists (all A is B)
2. God is not observable (Not A)
3. Therefore God does not exist (Therefore not B)

We can show the error of this argument by replacing what A and B stand for:

1. All people in Los Angeles are in California (All A is B)
2. Bill is not in Los Angeles (Not A)
3. Therefore Bill is not in California (therefore not B)

(If Bill lives in San Francisco, the argument is false)

In this case "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A." (All people in Los Angeles are in California does not mean all people in California are in Los Angeles).  In fact (going back to the syllogism of existence and observation), since we do not know what we will be able to observe in the future, we cannot even say we know everything currently in A (things observable) is all that will ever be in A

To challenge this is the "Emperor has no clothes" comment we should be presenting to the world against atheism.  In contrast, to argue the "Creationism vs. Evolution" is a distraction from the truth to be evaluated at this time.  Whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution as a Christian, the individual is still saying "God did this."  (Not as a way to avoid complex explanations as Dawkins so ludicrously put it, but because if the existence of God is true, we will eventually wind up with the "Uncaused cause" of Thomas Aquinas). In contrast atheism says "All this was set into motion by purely physical causes," with no basis but a faith that someday science will find the answer.

Science can validly look at evolution from a purely physical point, without being wrong per se, when it asks "how it works."  However when it looks at the purely physical and says "this is all there is," it goes beyond what Science can say and the proponents of such a view are in fact leaving reason and logic behind.

Evolution vs. Creation: The Wrong Battle Waged

Someone notified me recently I was being cited as a source against the claims of an atheistic individual who holds to Evolution and rejects Creationism.  While I am flattered that someone considers me authoritative, I think it is important to spell out what I do hold, lest someone think I am championing a cause I do not.

As I have stated in the title, I do believe the laying out of battle grounds between evolution and creation is the wrong battle for Christians to fight, putting some allies on the "enemy" side of the fence.  The issue is not whether to take the account of creation in Genesis literally or figuratively.  The issue is whether the creation of the universe is on account of an uncontrolled undirected cause or on account of God.

Unfortunately I think some Christians choose to fight the wrong battle on account of believing that science (as opposed to some erring scientists) must teach in opposition to the Christian faith.  The problem is the confusing a belief that God could work through evolution as His means of creation with the atheistic belief that claims of science means God does not exist.  The Christian who fights the "evolution vs. creation" battle when they think they are fighting the "God vs. atheism" battle do not assist in the battle against atheism.

The result of this wrong battle being fought is we see certain groups of Christians accusing other Christians who accept the possibility of evolution as the means God used to create as being heretical or being secret atheists or being deceived by atheists.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  Arguing that unless a man believes in creationism, the man is not a believer ignores the possibility of a faithful Christian who does not hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture.  The argument in this case is missing the point.

The point is whether or not God created the universe or whether the universe came together by chance.  If it was created by God, there is indeed purpose in the universe, and life has meaning.  If it was created by chance, there is no meaning to the universe and it is a matter of indifference whether we live in a manner called evil or a manner called good.

The issue of evolution is misused by the atheist to argue that because evolution happened, God is not necessary and therefore does not exist.

The problem is, the evidence pointed at to claim evolution is true does not prove the non-existence of God.  The other side of this coin is to show that the cell or the embryo is complex beyond imagining does not mean it could be done by God only through directly acting.

Now the problem with relying on the physical explanation of evolution alone and denying the existence of a creator is it cannot provide proof to explain certain steps (which is Begging the Question):

• From no life to life
• From single cell creatures to multi cell creatures
• from creatures without organs to creatures with organs they did not need before but now cannot exist without
• From non-sentience to sentience

The law of casualty holds that we cannot get a result which is greater than the sum of causes.  For example, we do not simply go from Acorn –> Tree.  We have acorn + water + soil + nutrients + sunlight –> Tree.  The believer tells us God –> Universe (with the "—>" being whatever means of creation used).  The atheist needs to explain: no life –> Life, Single Cell –> multi cell and so on, and why the law of casualty does not apply (or how it does apply).

Thus going from the so-called "primordial soup" to a single cell animal cannot be explained.  (The amino acid experiment was based on a false idea on what the primordial atmosphere was based on).  The evolution theory can say it did happen, but the atheistic view does not say how it happened.

Really this is the issue here.  If the atheist wishes to assert evolution sans God is true, the question is how do we know it is true, given the practical impossibility of proving a universal negative and the lack of scientific evidence showing these transitions taking place?

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1. God does not exist
2. The Universe exists
3. Therefore the Universe was not created by God.

This is where I come in to the dispute.  Science is claimed to be logical and reasonable.  Religion is accused of being irrational and illogical.  Yet the claims of scientists who argue science proves there is no God cannot put together a logical and rational argument to establish their claim.

The argument that since God cannot be studied scientifically means there is no God is in fact a bad logical argument.  It is based on the unproven assumption that only that which is observable exists.  (All A is B).  The problem of course is that no matter how much we know about A (things that are observable), it does not prove there is not B (something that exists) which is not in B.

As a syllogism:

1. All things which are observable exists (all A is B)
2. God is not observable (Not A)
3. Therefore God does not exist (Therefore not B)

We can show the error of this argument by replacing what A and B stand for:

1. All people in Los Angeles are in California (All A is B)
2. Bill is not in Los Angeles (Not A)
3. Therefore Bill is not in California (therefore not B)

(If Bill lives in San Francisco, the argument is false)

In this case "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A." (All people in Los Angeles are in California does not mean all people in California are in Los Angeles).  In fact (going back to the syllogism of existence and observation), since we do not know what we will be able to observe in the future, we cannot even say we know everything currently in A (things observable) is all that will ever be in A

To challenge this is the "Emperor has no clothes" comment we should be presenting to the world against atheism.  In contrast, to argue the "Creationism vs. Evolution" is a distraction from the truth to be evaluated at this time.  Whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution as a Christian, the individual is still saying "God did this."  (Not as a way to avoid complex explanations as Dawkins so ludicrously put it, but because if the existence of God is true, we will eventually wind up with the "Uncaused cause" of Thomas Aquinas). In contrast atheism says "All this was set into motion by purely physical causes," with no basis but a faith that someday science will find the answer.

Science can validly look at evolution from a purely physical point, without being wrong per se, when it asks "how it works."  However when it looks at the purely physical and says "this is all there is," it goes beyond what Science can say and the proponents of such a view are in fact leaving reason and logic behind.

On the Errors of Obama

Source: The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner

Many people are of the impression that Obama is really friendly and willing to listen to people of faith.  Then Obama does something which shows this faith in this impression is groundless.  That what he really stands for is light years away from what the Christian faith requires.

In this address, posted on the White House web page and not on some right wing blog, Obama tells the audience that those of us who believe in the authenticity of Christian teaching are the intolerant bigots which he is trying to save America from.

He starts off by telling his audience:

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I've made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you've advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That's not easy. For despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference.

The fact is, homosexuals have the same rights as Heterosexuals in America.  They can vote, can own property, can hold jobs.  They can even marry… people of the other gender.  The issue of course is what marrying someone of the same gender means.

Obama makes use of a logical fallacy right off the back, that because an argument is old, it is invalid.  This is a false and dangerous way of looking at things.  What matters is whether the argument is true.  Obama is operating under the following reasoning:

1. Marriage is about sex
2. There is no difference between enjoying heterosexual or homosexual activity
3. Therefore anyone opposed to homosexual marriage does so out of intolerance of homosexuality.

Except the proponents of traditional marriage would reject proposition #1.  Marriage is not about sex.  It is about family and unity of two spouses.  Laws about marriage are to protect the institution of the family, the right of the spouses to generate life from each other and to raise children according to their beliefs.

The so-called "Homosexual marriage" carries none of these elements.  Without an outside third party, procreation is not even biologically possible (which differs from the infertile heterosexual couple who can at least perform the act of procreation as it was intended to be), which means both the elements of procreation and unity of spouses would be absent in a homosexual "marriage."

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized the fact that the marriage act required marriage to be valid:

Now the marriage goods are the cause of rectitude in the marriage act. Therefore the marriage act cannot be excused without them.

Further, the aforesaid act does not differ from the act of fornication except in the aforesaid goods. But the act of fornication is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused by the aforesaid goods.

I answer that, Just as the marriage goods, in so far as they consist in a habit, make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest, as regards those two marriage goods which relate to the marriage act. Hence when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another (which pertains to faith) they are wholly excused from sin. But the third good does not relate to the use of marriage, but to its excuse, as stated above (A3); wherefore it makes marriage itself honest, but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. otherwise it is always at least a venial sin. (Summa Theologica: Supplement Q49 A5)

We would be wise to consider the 13th century, and not make the fallacy of the argument from time as Obama does.  Certain acts, such as Rape, Child Abuse, Prostitution and fornication etc. do indeed involve the same physical act as the marriage act but they are not under the same meaning of the marriage act.  St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that what makes these acts good are the openness to life (one cannot help if one is infertile, but one needs to be open to the possibility of life) and as an act of love for the spouse (which is what "marriage debt" means).  Acts of lust, using one's spouse for sexual gratification etc, are an abuse of the marriage act.

Obama acts under the assumption that opposition to homosexual marriage is the same thing as opposition to the civil rights of racial minorities in America, but this is a false analogy.  The racial laws of America were unjust because they denied to a person of a different ethnicity to do the same things as another ethnicity.  It is quite possible for a white man and a black female to marry and to raise a family, and laws denying this are in fact unjust.

However, Gender is not the same as race and homosexual marriage is not the same thing as interracial marriage.  Whether a man be Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic or Black, he is still a man.  Whether a woman be Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic or Black, she is still a woman.  A man of one race and a woman of another race are still a man and a woman.  Two women "marrying" or two men "marrying" are not a man and a woman.

As I said above, homosexuals are free to vote regardless of their sexual orientation.  However during America's racial discrimination, blacks were not free to vote.  The opposition to interracial marriage was unjust because it restricted which men could marry which women.

A ≠ B

Since A does not equal B, Obama's attempting to equate opposition to homosexual marriage to opposition to civil rights is fallacious.

The problem we as Christians now face with Obama is that he stands in opposition to what we in fact believe.  Now he is free to reject the teachings of the Christian faith of course.  But since he has set himself in opposition to what we believe, we do need to stand up for our faith as Christians and withstand him to his face.

We believe that what God commands, He does not for a sense of being nasty or petty but for our own good.  We believe that what God commands is rational, and can be understood from reason.  We must pray for his conversion of course, but we must also be willing to suffer for the truth.  If Obama calls us intolerant, if he equates us with segregationists, it is of course a slander of us.  We may be persecuted, or we may not.  However, we know who our Lord and Master is, and our duty is to Him first, and to the state only to the extent that the state does not contradict God.

On the Errors of Obama

Source: The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner

Many people are of the impression that Obama is really friendly and willing to listen to people of faith.  Then Obama does something which shows this faith in this impression is groundless.  That what he really stands for is light years away from what the Christian faith requires.

In this address, posted on the White House web page and not on some right wing blog, Obama tells the audience that those of us who believe in the authenticity of Christian teaching are the intolerant bigots which he is trying to save America from.

He starts off by telling his audience:

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I've made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you've advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That's not easy. For despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference.

The fact is, homosexuals have the same rights as Heterosexuals in America.  They can vote, can own property, can hold jobs.  They can even marry… people of the other gender.  The issue of course is what marrying someone of the same gender means.

Obama makes use of a logical fallacy right off the back, that because an argument is old, it is invalid.  This is a false and dangerous way of looking at things.  What matters is whether the argument is true.  Obama is operating under the following reasoning:

1. Marriage is about sex
2. There is no difference between enjoying heterosexual or homosexual activity
3. Therefore anyone opposed to homosexual marriage does so out of intolerance of homosexuality.

Except the proponents of traditional marriage would reject proposition #1.  Marriage is not about sex.  It is about family and unity of two spouses.  Laws about marriage are to protect the institution of the family, the right of the spouses to generate life from each other and to raise children according to their beliefs.

The so-called "Homosexual marriage" carries none of these elements.  Without an outside third party, procreation is not even biologically possible (which differs from the infertile heterosexual couple who can at least perform the act of procreation as it was intended to be), which means both the elements of procreation and unity of spouses would be absent in a homosexual "marriage."

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized the fact that the marriage act required marriage to be valid:

Now the marriage goods are the cause of rectitude in the marriage act. Therefore the marriage act cannot be excused without them.

Further, the aforesaid act does not differ from the act of fornication except in the aforesaid goods. But the act of fornication is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused by the aforesaid goods.

I answer that, Just as the marriage goods, in so far as they consist in a habit, make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest, as regards those two marriage goods which relate to the marriage act. Hence when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another (which pertains to faith) they are wholly excused from sin. But the third good does not relate to the use of marriage, but to its excuse, as stated above (A3); wherefore it makes marriage itself honest, but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. otherwise it is always at least a venial sin. (Summa Theologica: Supplement Q49 A5)

We would be wise to consider the 13th century, and not make the fallacy of the argument from time as Obama does.  Certain acts, such as Rape, Child Abuse, Prostitution and fornication etc. do indeed involve the same physical act as the marriage act but they are not under the same meaning of the marriage act.  St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that what makes these acts good are the openness to life (one cannot help if one is infertile, but one needs to be open to the possibility of life) and as an act of love for the spouse (which is what "marriage debt" means).  Acts of lust, using one's spouse for sexual gratification etc, are an abuse of the marriage act.

Obama acts under the assumption that opposition to homosexual marriage is the same thing as opposition to the civil rights of racial minorities in America, but this is a false analogy.  The racial laws of America were unjust because they denied to a person of a different ethnicity to do the same things as another ethnicity.  It is quite possible for a white man and a black female to marry and to raise a family, and laws denying this are in fact unjust.

However, Gender is not the same as race and homosexual marriage is not the same thing as interracial marriage.  Whether a man be Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic or Black, he is still a man.  Whether a woman be Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic or Black, she is still a woman.  A man of one race and a woman of another race are still a man and a woman.  Two women "marrying" or two men "marrying" are not a man and a woman.

As I said above, homosexuals are free to vote regardless of their sexual orientation.  However during America's racial discrimination, blacks were not free to vote.  The opposition to interracial marriage was unjust because it restricted which men could marry which women.

A ≠ B

Since A does not equal B, Obama's attempting to equate opposition to homosexual marriage to opposition to civil rights is fallacious.

The problem we as Christians now face with Obama is that he stands in opposition to what we in fact believe.  Now he is free to reject the teachings of the Christian faith of course.  But since he has set himself in opposition to what we believe, we do need to stand up for our faith as Christians and withstand him to his face.

We believe that what God commands, He does not for a sense of being nasty or petty but for our own good.  We believe that what God commands is rational, and can be understood from reason.  We must pray for his conversion of course, but we must also be willing to suffer for the truth.  If Obama calls us intolerant, if he equates us with segregationists, it is of course a slander of us.  We may be persecuted, or we may not.  However, we know who our Lord and Master is, and our duty is to Him first, and to the state only to the extent that the state does not contradict God.

What the Vatican Congratulation to Obama Means

Sources: Catholic Culture : Latest Headlines : Vatican congratulates Obama on Nobel Peace Prize; http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=27125

I figured I'd post this preemptively as I know some people will try to spin this as "Vatican loves Obama… US bishops out of touch" or else as an accusation that the Pope "betrayed" faithful Catholics.

This is not a carte blanche endorsement of the Obama administration.  This is an acknowledgement of one area where the Obama administration and the teaching of the Catholic Church coincides (peace and the opposition to war).

It makes sense in context when one reads the Pope's statement on war, from yesterday:

POPE TO YOUNG PEOPLE: NEVER YIELD TO TEMPTATION OF WAR

VATICAN CITY, 9 OCT 2009 (VIS) - Yesterday evening in the Auditorium on Rome's Via della Conciliazione Benedict XVI attended a concert entitled "Young people against war (1939-2009)", played by the "InterRegionales Jugendsinfonie Orchester" conducted by Jochem Hochstenbach. The programme included compositions by Gustav Mahler and Felix Mendelsshon-Bartholdy and texts by Johan Wolfgang Goethe, Heinrich Heine, Paul Celan and Berthold Brecht, as well as two poems by children imprisoned in the Theresienstadt concentration camp, read by Michelle Breedt and Klaus Maria Brandauer.

The concert, called to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, was organised by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism, the German embassy to the Holy See and the European "KulturForum" of Mainau.

At the end of the concert the Holy Father made some brief remarks, expressing his joy at having been able participate in this initiative which, he said, "using the universal language of music, ... seeks to encourage young people to build the future of the world together, drawing inspiration from the values of peace and the brotherhood of man".

"This evening the tragedy of World War II returns to our memory, a terrible page of history steeped in violence and inhumanity which caused the death of millions of people, leaving the winners divided and Europe to be rebuilt. The war, instigated by National Socialism, affected many innocent peoples in Europe and on other continents, while with the drama of the Shoah it particularly affected the Jewish people, who were victims of a planned extermination. Yet calls for reason and peace were not lacking from many sides. Here in Rome, the heartfelt cry of my venerated predecessor Pius XII rang out. In his radio message of 24 August 1939 - on the very eve of the outbreak of war - he decisively proclaimed: 'nothing is lost with peace. Everything may be lost with war'. ... May the recollection of those sad events be a warning, especially to the new generations, never to yield to the temptation of war".

Pope Benedict then went on to mention the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, "an eloquent symbol of the end of the totalitarian Communist regimes of Eastern Europe", he said. "Europe and the entire world thirst for freedom and peace. Together we must build true civilisation, not founded on force but on the 'fruit of our victory over ourselves, over the powers of injustice, selfishness and hatred which can even go so far as to disfigure man'".

"The ecumenical movement", he concluded, "can help to build [this civilisation], working together with the Jews and with all believers. May God bless us and grant humankind the gift of peace".

BXVI-CONCERT/WORLD WAR II/...

War may at times be unavoidable when another party seeks aggression and we have no choice but to fight or suffer a great injustice, but war should never be sought out.  If a just and peaceful path can be found which avoids war, it is the way Christians are called to follow.

So for those out there seeking to claim "abortion isn't as important as other issues," for those who want to accuse the Pope of "betraying the Church," you speak falsely.  We have a great body of work of the Church, including that of the current Pope which stands firmly for the right to life.

It merely means, as I said above that the reason Obama was awarded the peace prize was an issue which is compatible with Church teaching. 

No more, no less.