Forgetting the Meaning of Sin

Read more »

When Christianity Stands Against Favored Causes

 

Introduction

The foundation of America was based on the premise that no person was naturally superior to another and that no group could coerce a person or group to do something they believed was evil. Of course, this premise also presumed some common sense responsibilities as well. If you believed a group believed the wrong thing (for example, believed that a religion taught error), you didn’t try to force that group to change because they had rights too. You simply didn’t associate with that group (either by leaving it or not joining it in the first place), and you used reason and politeness to explain the truth as you understood it, recognizing this as a civilized exchange that led to a greater understanding of what was true.

That’s not the case nowadays. Today we have favored causes and favored classes whose beliefs are given special treatment, imposed on all at the expense of those groups who believe they are wrong. It doesn’t have to be this way of course. It is possible that even if one way of thinking is recognized by a majority of a nation, that the minority can practice their beliefs without being hindered by the majority—provided they do not do harm on others. But that isn’t the way things are here in America. Here we take the all or nothing approach where if something is deemed favored, all must accept it.

Right now the denigrated class is Christianity—specifically Christianity which insists on moral values that the state has no right to alter. This is the belief in God who encounters the human person individually and as a group and teaches them the right way to live, and what acts are not compatible with this belief. It is reasonable that an institution that is established by a Christian denomination (like a University or a Hospital) will be run in accordance with the beliefs of this denomination and it will not act contrary to these beliefs. It is also reasonable that an individual who belongs to a religion (and takes it seriously) and owns a business will not run his business in opposition to what he believes. So a customer or an employee who wants a service which runs contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer should either do without or go to where the service can be provided—so long as it is not harmful to others. Otherwise that customer or employee is trying to violate the civil rights of the employer.

Now, if an employer does not have a philosophical basis, then the beliefs of the employee do not matter, and it would be unjust to take action against them because they hold a belief.

The History of Racism and Its Misapplication By Weak Analogy

The problem we have in America that is we have a legacy in this country of racism. It formally (that is, enshrined in law) extended from the founding of the country to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and informally (that is, held by individuals and some groups, but not recognized as acceptable government policy) even today. It was an ugly legacy with dehumanizing slavery and then attempts to keep an ethnic group separate and oppressed. Most people today recognize it was a shameful part of our history.

Unfortunately, Americans have a habit of using the fallacy of weak analogy which looks at two events and assumes they are identical when the differences are actually more significant than the similarities. For example, some have actually tried to argue that the opposition to "same sex marriage" is the same as the racist laws which forbade interracial marriage and conclude that opposition to “same sex marriage” is also motivated by bigotry. The problem is, this analogy is weak because it has only one point of similarity, laws limiting who can be married, but many points of dissimilarity.

For example, the laws against racial marriage presumed that reproduction between a member of a Caucasian ethnic group and a member of an African ethnic group would end up “diluting” the “superior” Caucasian ethnic group. “Same sex marriage” cannot involve reproduction. So, right off the bat, this is a major difference. Another difference is that the shameful laws of racism in America were based on the belief that the people of African origin were less human than Caucasians, while the opposition to “same sex marriage” is based on the belief that some behaviors must never be acted on. I could go on, but these two examples show that the motivation for the two laws were entirely different. Sure there could have been people who took a moral prohibition and treated the person acting on it with hatred, but the hatred by some of people with same sex attraction did not cause the laws against “same sex marriage,” but hatred did cause the laws restricting African Americans.

The Begging the Question Leads to Self-Righteous Justification

This Weak Analogy leads to the fallacy of begging the question. This is where a proposition which needs to be proven is assumed to be true without proof. Opposition to abortion and contraception is assumed to be based on “controlling women,” when that’s the point that needs to be proven. Opposition to “same sex marriage is assumed to be based on “homophobia,” when (again) that’s the point which needs to be proven.

The Supreme Court of the United States made this fallacy when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (United States v. Windsor), assuming the motivation was intolerance, when that was the point to be proven. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.” That the purpose was “to disparage and injure” is precisely what needed to be proven. Instead it was assumed to be true.

The Result Is The Attacking of Christianity For Opposing a Favored Cause

When Christianity opposes legitimizing something that is morally wrong, and that moral wrong is a favored cause, the result is that Christianity is accused of holding these views out of hatred and intolerance. Basically, the argument is:

• Nothing Good can Oppose X
• Christianity Opposes X
• Therefore Christianity is Nothing Good.

The problem is, the major premise (Nothing Good can Oppose X) needs to be proven, not assumed to be true. But because nobody is questioning the major premise, the conclusion is assumed to be true (falsely). This means that Christianity is viewed as a hate group that needs to be isolated from society, much as one would want to isolate a Klansman or a Neo-Nazi.

Conclusion

What we have now in America is a case where politicians and judges favor certain stances and promote them in law and judicial rulings. When they declare X good, they effectively declare those who oppose X to be enemies of the state. Because the favored causes today involve things that are morally wrong from the Christian belief, Christianity must be the enemy of the state. The problem is, the Constitution does not allow the government to decide Christianity is an enemy of the state. But so long as the branches of government set aside the Constitution to favor a cause, we can expect this attack to continue.

Thoughts on (Lack of) Separation of Church and State in Modern America

Read more »

Because of Belief? Or In SPITE of Belief?

Read more »

Because of Belief? Or In SPITE of Belief?

Read more »

Christians Behaving Badly? A Logical Reflection

Read more »

Christians Behaving Badly? A Logical Reflection

Read more »

You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

Imposition of Ideology, Not Neutrality

Introduction

One of the tactics used in seeking to displace Christianity is by making the alternative view seem to be neutral in the face of a "partisan" religion. Basically, the argument is that because the First Amendment forbids "establishment of religion," and Christianity is a religion, the First Amendment forbids the establishment of Christianity.

The problem is, the establishment of religion refers to the making a religion the official religion of the nation. In historical precedent, a state religion involved official sanction of one religion over another. It had the rights while any other religions were restricted in some way.

This understanding has been perverted into the sense that the practice of religion cannot be accepted on property belonging to government whether national, state or local... even to the extent that a memorial to the war dead which bears a religious symbol can be ordered torn down decades later.

The Contradictory Positions

Paradoxically, one cannot place a cross on public property as part of the freedom of religion, but one can burn a cross on public property as part of the freedom of speech (if not done to intimidate)... even though both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are part of the First Amendment.

This leaves us with a contradiction: One cannot have a display of religion on public property because it might offend those who do not share those religious beliefs. So why can people air political beliefs on public property without concern over whether it offends those who do not share that belief?

If allowing religious symbols or activity on public property means the establishment or endorsement of religion, then it follows that allowing political activity on public property is the government's endorsement of a political faction. Any political demonstration on the Washington Mall therefore imposes political views.

One can either argue that both religious and political symbols/activity can be allowed on public property or neither can, but one can't argue for one without the other without being hypocritical.

Oh wait... the First Amendment also informs us that we have the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," so one can't argue neither is allowable.

The Real Issue

The real issue here is the modern movement to restrict religion is not based on neutrality, but on restricting something that stands in opposition to an ideological position. It is an imposition of a position favored by political and social elites and the suppression of those that disagree.

In other words, what we have is the "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion in order to benefit a group that dislikes the calling of sin a sin.

When we see judges determine that so-called "gay marriage" is a human right against the widely recognized knowledge that marriage is between one man and one woman, we see a member of the elite imposing their views on others. When we see government officials refusing to defend just laws they disagree with, they are imposing their views on others.

The Reverse is Not True

Now some try to argue that Christianity is the one that imposes its view on others. This is false. Christianity is no ideology trying to force its way by courts and executive orders into a system of beliefs held across time and geography. Christian morality has long been recognized as being true by people of different lands and eras, and the laws which derive from Christian morality come from the conviction that laws must be in accordance with the truth.

This is important to remember: Christianity did not force itself on an unwilling public by unscrupulous judges and partisan laws. It is now under attack because malcontents dislike being opposed in their desire for their favorite vices.

Conclusion

Despite the media and political propaganda to label Christian morality as intolerant and calling for a "neutral" view, we need to recognize that the views expressed as an alternative are not neutral. They are adversarial to Christianity, thinking of it as a bad thing that needs to be contained or destroyed.

The secular rejection of Christianity is not a movement based on justice, but on partisanship. Once we recognize this we can see their actions for the injustices they are.

Imposition of Ideology, Not Neutrality

Introduction

One of the tactics used in seeking to displace Christianity is by making the alternative view seem to be neutral in the face of a "partisan" religion. Basically, the argument is that because the First Amendment forbids "establishment of religion," and Christianity is a religion, the First Amendment forbids the establishment of Christianity.

The problem is, the establishment of religion refers to the making a religion the official religion of the nation. In historical precedent, a state religion involved official sanction of one religion over another. It had the rights while any other religions were restricted in some way.

This understanding has been perverted into the sense that the practice of religion cannot be accepted on property belonging to government whether national, state or local... even to the extent that a memorial to the war dead which bears a religious symbol can be ordered torn down decades later.

The Contradictory Positions

Paradoxically, one cannot place a cross on public property as part of the freedom of religion, but one can burn a cross on public property as part of the freedom of speech (if not done to intimidate)... even though both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are part of the First Amendment.

This leaves us with a contradiction: One cannot have a display of religion on public property because it might offend those who do not share those religious beliefs. So why can people air political beliefs on public property without concern over whether it offends those who do not share that belief?

If allowing religious symbols or activity on public property means the establishment or endorsement of religion, then it follows that allowing political activity on public property is the government's endorsement of a political faction. Any political demonstration on the Washington Mall therefore imposes political views.

One can either argue that both religious and political symbols/activity can be allowed on public property or neither can, but one can't argue for one without the other without being hypocritical.

Oh wait... the First Amendment also informs us that we have the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," so one can't argue neither is allowable.

The Real Issue

The real issue here is the modern movement to restrict religion is not based on neutrality, but on restricting something that stands in opposition to an ideological position. It is an imposition of a position favored by political and social elites and the suppression of those that disagree.

In other words, what we have is the "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion in order to benefit a group that dislikes the calling of sin a sin.

When we see judges determine that so-called "gay marriage" is a human right against the widely recognized knowledge that marriage is between one man and one woman, we see a member of the elite imposing their views on others. When we see government officials refusing to defend just laws they disagree with, they are imposing their views on others.

The Reverse is Not True

Now some try to argue that Christianity is the one that imposes its view on others. This is false. Christianity is no ideology trying to force its way by courts and executive orders into a system of beliefs held across time and geography. Christian morality has long been recognized as being true by people of different lands and eras, and the laws which derive from Christian morality come from the conviction that laws must be in accordance with the truth.

This is important to remember: Christianity did not force itself on an unwilling public by unscrupulous judges and partisan laws. It is now under attack because malcontents dislike being opposed in their desire for their favorite vices.

Conclusion

Despite the media and political propaganda to label Christian morality as intolerant and calling for a "neutral" view, we need to recognize that the views expressed as an alternative are not neutral. They are adversarial to Christianity, thinking of it as a bad thing that needs to be contained or destroyed.

The secular rejection of Christianity is not a movement based on justice, but on partisanship. Once we recognize this we can see their actions for the injustices they are.

Implications of the Phil Robertson Incident

Read more »

Implications of the Phil Robertson Incident

Read more »

TFTD: Judgmental

One irony I see on the Internet is how the people most critical of the Church as judgmental and intolerant are actually judgmental and intolerant themselves when faced with different views in conflict with their own.

Whatever the cause they promote, they will not tolerate a view which contradicts it.  If they favor so-called "gay marriage", they will not permit a view defending marriage between one man and one woman.  In fact they attack the view with as much force as they have the power to use.  Certainly they will bully and intimidate. If they can, they will try to impose sanctions against those who hold other views.

Likewise the issue of abortion. The supporter will not accept the right of the view of the opponent to exist, seeking to bully and intimidate their opponent into silence.

What makes this mindset dangerous today is the corrupted political mindset which justifies any tactic used in favor of a position and any form of harassment against opponents.

What makes this kind of mindset alarming is history is full of regimes that used these tactics and eventually became a one party system when one part of the spectrum had the tools available to silence their opponents.

With that in mind, we should consider the current situation in America. People who publicly hold the views of Christian morality do risk loss of their jobs and perhaps risk legal action -- both of which have happened with businesses which won't recognize "gay marriage", hospitals which won't do abortions and pharmacists who won't sell abortifacient drugs.

That's just America. Canada and England can prosecute people for hate speech if they defend the Christian view of marriage.

But there is a difference between Christian morality and the opposition to it. Credible Christian leaders don't behave like their opponents. Blessed John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have never used slurs or insults in teaching. They have never threatened or bullied or sought to silence their opponents. Small extremist sects have done so, but small extremist sects don't represent the whole.

Yet their opponents have used all these tactics against Christians. This leads me to ask, Who is judgmental? Who is intolerant? Who is a threat to the freedom to do what is right?

Not the Christians.

TFTD: Judgmental

One irony I see on the Internet is how the people most critical of the Church as judgmental and intolerant are actually judgmental and intolerant themselves when faced with different views in conflict with their own.

Whatever the cause they promote, they will not tolerate a view which contradicts it.  If they favor so-called "gay marriage", they will not permit a view defending marriage between one man and one woman.  In fact they attack the view with as much force as they have the power to use.  Certainly they will bully and intimidate. If they can, they will try to impose sanctions against those who hold other views.

Likewise the issue of abortion. The supporter will not accept the right of the view of the opponent to exist, seeking to bully and intimidate their opponent into silence.

What makes this mindset dangerous today is the corrupted political mindset which justifies any tactic used in favor of a position and any form of harassment against opponents.

What makes this kind of mindset alarming is history is full of regimes that used these tactics and eventually became a one party system when one part of the spectrum had the tools available to silence their opponents.

With that in mind, we should consider the current situation in America. People who publicly hold the views of Christian morality do risk loss of their jobs and perhaps risk legal action -- both of which have happened with businesses which won't recognize "gay marriage", hospitals which won't do abortions and pharmacists who won't sell abortifacient drugs.

That's just America. Canada and England can prosecute people for hate speech if they defend the Christian view of marriage.

But there is a difference between Christian morality and the opposition to it. Credible Christian leaders don't behave like their opponents. Blessed John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have never used slurs or insults in teaching. They have never threatened or bullied or sought to silence their opponents. Small extremist sects have done so, but small extremist sects don't represent the whole.

Yet their opponents have used all these tactics against Christians. This leads me to ask, Who is judgmental? Who is intolerant? Who is a threat to the freedom to do what is right?

Not the Christians.

Reflections on Dualistic (Either-Or) Thinking

One of the problems with American thinking is that it tends to be dualistic – either X or Y – when it comes to criticism.  If one criticizes X it is assumed that one supports Y and vice versa.  That is a problem in America where as of late it seems that neither X nor Y is in the right and both must be opposed.  So, for example, Americans are given the argument of: Either pro-"gay marriage" or "homophobic" and opposition to one is automatically seen as endorsement of the other.

This is why one sees the Matthew Sheppard case invoked as a justification of so-called "gay marriage" while opponents of this are vilified as supporting his barbaric murder.  The assumption is if one does not support "gay marriage" one must be homophobic.  But if one rejects both homophobia and "gay marriage," then the accusation is false.

Unfortunately, this dualistic thinking seems to show up in people who observe the Church as well, where a thing can be both-and instead of either-or.  Praise Pope Francis and his simplicity, for example, and it tends to come off as a rebuke of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and his more formal liturgies – and vice versa.  It seems that not many people consider the possibility of both Popes doing what was right before God with different accents.  Neither one contradicted Church teaching nor lived in a way which demonstrated opposition to Christ and His Church.

Either-Or thinking can be fallacy if (among other things):

1. Neither Option is true (neither A nor B)
2. Both options are compatible (Both A and B)
3. There are more unconsidered options (I choose Option C)

In other words, we have to look at what is asked and consider whether A and B are contradictory (if one is true, the other must be false) and whether A and B are the only options to choose from (choose from only A or B).

This is a problem with how the political and media elites view the Church today.  They consider a certain policy to be essential for the good of mankind.  Thus any opposition to this policy must be considered hostile towards the good of mankind.  Thus the venom spewed against the Church over opposition to contraception, abortion and the like.

But the Church considers the good of man to extend beyond life on Earth and must look at our existence on Earth in light of our existence after death.  If certain behaviors will harm our life after death, it is reasonable she might oppose a behavior which may seem beneficial in the short term but harmful in terms of our ultimate goal.

Now some may object that this is imposing beliefs on a person who does not believe life extends beyond death.  But when one thinks about it, such an argument is actually an attempt by the person who does not believe life extends beyond death to impose their beliefs on the person who does.

If it is wrong to impose beliefs on others, then the person who attacks Christianity as "bigoted" is guilty of imposing their beliefs on others.  Why?  Because they argue Either-Or in such a way that one must be contradictory to the other.  If one argues "either you [tolerate views you disagree with] or you're [a bigot]" then under the argument they make, they must either tolerate the Christianity they dislike or accept the label of bigot.

Since they argue the either-or, they are caught up in the trap they make for the Christian.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not argue by the either-or fallacy (though some Christians do).  The Church recognizes that sin is contrary to following Christ and so every sin must be condemned as wrong.  But the Church also recognizes that Christ commanded that we go out to seek out the lost and tell them of the salvation Christ brings.  The individual sought out may accept or reject the message of salvation, but we're forbidden to just write off a person as being beyond redemption, and certainly the Christian who goes out to bring the Good News to people must consider his or her own behavior in presenting the Truth of Jesus Christ.

In other words, jerks exist among all groups of people – even among Christians.

So, we need to recognize that there is objective truth which we must live in accordance with to know, love and serve God.  Unfortunately, we need to be aware of the fact that some rejection of Christianity is the result of some Christians presenting the Christian message in a way that offends.  God knows the heart of the person and knows the motives for rejection of those who will not follow what He commands.  His judgments will take these things into account.

But despite the fact that some Christians are jerks in presenting the teaching of Christ, does not change the objective truth of His teaching of how we are called to live.

It would be an either-or fallacy to assume "Either [all Christians are nice] or [Christianity is false].

Reflections on Dualistic (Either-Or) Thinking

One of the problems with American thinking is that it tends to be dualistic – either X or Y – when it comes to criticism.  If one criticizes X it is assumed that one supports Y and vice versa.  That is a problem in America where as of late it seems that neither X nor Y is in the right and both must be opposed.  So, for example, Americans are given the argument of: Either pro-"gay marriage" or "homophobic" and opposition to one is automatically seen as endorsement of the other.

This is why one sees the Matthew Sheppard case invoked as a justification of so-called "gay marriage" while opponents of this are vilified as supporting his barbaric murder.  The assumption is if one does not support "gay marriage" one must be homophobic.  But if one rejects both homophobia and "gay marriage," then the accusation is false.

Unfortunately, this dualistic thinking seems to show up in people who observe the Church as well, where a thing can be both-and instead of either-or.  Praise Pope Francis and his simplicity, for example, and it tends to come off as a rebuke of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and his more formal liturgies – and vice versa.  It seems that not many people consider the possibility of both Popes doing what was right before God with different accents.  Neither one contradicted Church teaching nor lived in a way which demonstrated opposition to Christ and His Church.

Either-Or thinking can be fallacy if (among other things):

1. Neither Option is true (neither A nor B)
2. Both options are compatible (Both A and B)
3. There are more unconsidered options (I choose Option C)

In other words, we have to look at what is asked and consider whether A and B are contradictory (if one is true, the other must be false) and whether A and B are the only options to choose from (choose from only A or B).

This is a problem with how the political and media elites view the Church today.  They consider a certain policy to be essential for the good of mankind.  Thus any opposition to this policy must be considered hostile towards the good of mankind.  Thus the venom spewed against the Church over opposition to contraception, abortion and the like.

But the Church considers the good of man to extend beyond life on Earth and must look at our existence on Earth in light of our existence after death.  If certain behaviors will harm our life after death, it is reasonable she might oppose a behavior which may seem beneficial in the short term but harmful in terms of our ultimate goal.

Now some may object that this is imposing beliefs on a person who does not believe life extends beyond death.  But when one thinks about it, such an argument is actually an attempt by the person who does not believe life extends beyond death to impose their beliefs on the person who does.

If it is wrong to impose beliefs on others, then the person who attacks Christianity as "bigoted" is guilty of imposing their beliefs on others.  Why?  Because they argue Either-Or in such a way that one must be contradictory to the other.  If one argues "either you [tolerate views you disagree with] or you're [a bigot]" then under the argument they make, they must either tolerate the Christianity they dislike or accept the label of bigot.

Since they argue the either-or, they are caught up in the trap they make for the Christian.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not argue by the either-or fallacy (though some Christians do).  The Church recognizes that sin is contrary to following Christ and so every sin must be condemned as wrong.  But the Church also recognizes that Christ commanded that we go out to seek out the lost and tell them of the salvation Christ brings.  The individual sought out may accept or reject the message of salvation, but we're forbidden to just write off a person as being beyond redemption, and certainly the Christian who goes out to bring the Good News to people must consider his or her own behavior in presenting the Truth of Jesus Christ.

In other words, jerks exist among all groups of people – even among Christians.

So, we need to recognize that there is objective truth which we must live in accordance with to know, love and serve God.  Unfortunately, we need to be aware of the fact that some rejection of Christianity is the result of some Christians presenting the Christian message in a way that offends.  God knows the heart of the person and knows the motives for rejection of those who will not follow what He commands.  His judgments will take these things into account.

But despite the fact that some Christians are jerks in presenting the teaching of Christ, does not change the objective truth of His teaching of how we are called to live.

It would be an either-or fallacy to assume "Either [all Christians are nice] or [Christianity is false].

New Years 2013: Let's Be Prepared

Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. The God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory through Christ Jesus will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little. (1 Peter 5:8-10)

It is safe to say that Christianity is being treated as a hated minority by the political and media elites, regardless of what the majority of the population might think.  Whether the majority agrees or disagrees, it is this elite that calls the shots and says what is. 

If the population chooses to believe the slander of the elites, the elites will be able to make use of this support to justify whatever actions they want to carry out against Christians.  If the population does not, the elites will be able to employ the law to harm us, but will have to work harder to give a semblance of legality for their actions.

Let's be prepared.  America is at the point where real persecution against Christians can be expected.  In the name of the popular ideology, we have been declared hate filled people who make our teachings on the basis of hatred of our neighbors – a charge the Romans made against the Christians in the first centuries of its existence.

Christians can only counter the slander/libel of the charges against them by reasoned argument as to why the attacks against them are false and unjust.  We can expect to be shouted down of course.  We can expect to have our teachings distorted.  We can expect to have our explanations ignored.  All we can hope to do is reach out to the person of good will who might be observing what we have to say.

We can expect this because it is already happening.  Our elites attempt to force Christians to change their beliefs, and accuse us of being ignorant and intolerant because we believe the Christian teaching is reasonable and worthy of our trust.  As they grow in power, they can be more direct in their actions.

So we have to be prepared.

But our preparation is not to find bunkers, load up with guns and launch a revolution, or to hide away if America collapses.  As Christians, we know the truth of reality.  God exists.  Jesus Christ died to save us, He rose again and we are required to respond in faith to bring the Good News to the world until He returns.

That requires us to be in the streets, not in the bunkers.  That requires us to try to bring the truth to those who hate us.  It also requires us to refuse to bend when they demand we bow the knee to the altars of the secular.  A time may come when armed revolution may have to to be waged.  A time may come where we need to practice self-defense.  But that time may also not come.

The history of our Church is filled with martyrs who met the hatred towards Christ with love, recognizing that these persecutors are our brothers and sought to bring the Good News of Christ to them, letting them know that God loves every one of us, but also calls every one of us to repent.  This is not a duty for men and women dead for hundreds of years.  It is a duty of every person who professes to be a Christian.

We must be prepared.  Not for armed conflict with hostile human beings over the political direction of our nation, but for conflict over the souls of our people who are deceived to believe that God only suggests we all be "nice" to each other.  Every one of us, by our lives, are to be a witness for Christ.  Some of us may be called to be a witness for Christ by our deaths.  We have to be prepared for that too.

Finally, we must be prepared for battle for our own souls.  Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been people who weakened and compromised their faith and their witness.  Yet Christ has warned us in Matthew 16:25-26 that:

Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.  What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?

We can expect to be hated, because He was hated and no servant is greater than His master (see John 15:18-20).

In fear of the hatred any one of us can falter.  When you have angry people screaming vile hatred at you – ironically condemning you as someone hates and judges others – it is easier to stay silent, easier to compromise, to stall.  it is easier, but it is also forbidden to us.  If we love Christ, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15) and one of His commandment is:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

We must remember that to be strong Christians we must realize we are weak.  We must remember that we work with Christ and not on our own.  We must pray daily that whatever trials and challenges may be sent our way, that we may be given the grace to persevere and to live as Christ calls us to live, and maybe even to die as He calls us to die.