It’s Iimi! Fractured!

People think differently on how to best handle topics. That alone doesn’t

make them evil. But if they support an evil cause or an unjust means to

achieve a good end, we cannot go along with it. What will Iimi, her family,

and her friends face what happens when people begin supporting what

they cannot.

Post-Comic Reflection: Yes, people do behave in an ugly manner in this one. Unfortunately, that is how extremists act. There is no interest in trying to understand the other side. So, people like Iimi, Thea, and Anne viewed with suspicion for trying to be just. However, regardless of what one thinks of the actions of another, we must still treat them as fellow human beings, loved by God. Will Iimi and her friends remember that? We’ll have to see.

It’s Iimi! Problematic Assumptions?

Iimi-tan is involved in a symposium discussing whether the opposition to same-sex “marriage” and transgenderism by the Catholic Church is motivated by bigotry or hatred. She shows the assumptions used to make that claim are fatally flawed.

This is part one of a series.

Part II can be found HERE.

Part III can be found HERE.

The symposium is a new format for the comics. Instead of two people debating, we have multiple people with different perspectives coming to the discussion.

Love and Truth Will Meet—and Apparently Say "See Ya"

¹¹ Love and truth will meet; 

justice and peace will kiss. 

¹² Truth will spring from the earth; 

justice will look down from heaven. (Psalm 85:11–12).

Introduction

There’s an ugly battle flaming up between Catholics when it comes to the Orlando mass shooting. it’s a battle over how to address the people who have a same sex attraction when it comes to condolences. Are they a community? Or are they not? The dispute is over whether one should send condolences to the “LGBT community” or whether that would look like an endorsement of sinful acts. This seems like something which they can resolve charitably. Unfortunately, it’s gotten to the point where the two sides are practically throwing anathemas at each other, assuming the other side is guilty of bad will or even malice.

Setting Up the Situation

To sum up the two positions briefly (and hopefully, fairly):

1. Those who think we should use term “LGBT community” say this is no different than referring to “the black community” or the “Jewish community,” and nobody should take offense or think this is an endorsement of sinful behavior.
2. Those who oppose the use say that grouping people by their inclination or behavior is not the same as real ethnic or religious communities, but instead equates people with their behavior. Also, given the tendency of the media to present such things as “CHURCH TO CHANGE TEACHING” headlines, it does matter whether or not Catholics use this term.

So the question is over whether calling people with a disordered attraction a community is in keeping with the command to love the sinner and speaking against the sin.

There’s no official teaching on the proper form here. The official statement from the Holy See said:

The terrible massacre that has taken place in Orlando, with its dreadfully high number of innocent victims, has caused in Pope Francis, and in all of us, the deepest feelings of horror and condemnation, of pain and turmoil before this new manifestation of homicidal folly and senseless hatred. Pope Francis joins the families of the victims and all of the injured in prayer and in compassion. Sharing in their indescribable suffering he entrusts them to the Lord so they may find comfort. We all hope that ways may be found, as soon as possible, to effectively identify and contrast the causes of such terrible and absurd violence which so deeply upsets the desire for peace of the American people and of the whole of humanity.

The Pope did not use the term, but there’s no doubt he was clear in condemning an evil act and showing love and compassion for victims and their families. So, unless wants to condemn the Pope, there is nothing wrong with avoiding the term. On the other hand, some bishops did use the term in sending condolences and Catholics dispute whether this was right.

Here’s the Problem

The problem with this debate is many debaters are openly insulting of the other side, accusing them of being bad Catholics. Hotheads among Catholics who support using the term “LGBT community” accuse those who don’t like it of bigotry and a lack of compassion for the victims and their families. Hotheads among Catholics opposed to the term accuse those who do use it of heresy and sending a false message to the world. Neither side is free of inflammatory rhetoric (So don’t go pointing fingers at the other side).

But people are assuming that a dispute proves a lack of love or a neglect of truth. Yes, we want to show compassion to the victims and their families. Yes, we want to condemn the mass shooting as something evil regardless of how the victims lived. But we also must make clear (where fitting) that our moral beliefs are not going to change because of the evil some do.

So, we have an obligation. Before we condemn a Catholic for being heretical or hateful, we have to know the intentions the speaker or writer had. Does the person who uses the term “LGBT community” mean to endorse something against Church teaching? Or is this a case of simply not thinking about the potential meanings people might draw from it? Does the person who does not use the term mean to show hatred to the victims? Or is it a case of wanting to be clear about where the Church stands?

What gets overlooked is the fact that a person may not intend what the listener/reader believes it the point. We should strive to speak clearly. But not all will have the same talent in doing so. We have to realize that condolences phrased differently than we like may not mean support of evil. It is possible the speaker is unclear or we have simply misunderstood because we give words meaning that the speaker does not intend. If the speaker uses the term, but does not mean to support sin, we must not condemn him for heresy. if the speaker does not use the term, but does not act out of hatred in doing so, we must not condemn him of bigotry. It is only when we know the person acts from a bad motive, that we can offer a rebuke.

Conclusion

It’s hypocrisy to love the person far away and hate our brother. God, who told us to love our enemies, also told us to love our neighbor as ourself. So if we call for love and compassion for the victims, but will not show it for the fellow Christian who we argue with, we are doing wrong. It’s time to stop accusing each other of bad will and time to start understanding what the other person meant, accepting different views as valid when they are compatible with Catholic belief and gently guiding them back when they are not.

Savaging each other over disagreements because we assume the other is deliberately choosing to do evil is rash judgment and we become hypocrites if we refuse to love our fellow Christian.

Trapping Oneself by Clinging to False Ideas

But on the day before I was to be shipped home my favorite nun, Sister Patrice, pulled a chair up to my bed. 

“Andy, I have a story to tell you. Do you know how natives catch monkeys out in the forest?”

My face lit up at the thought of a monkey story.

“No. Tell me.”

“Well, you see, the natives know that a monkey will never let go of something he wants even if it means losing his freedom. So here’s what they do. They take a coconut and make a hole in one end just big enough for a monkey’s paw to slip through. Then they drop a pebble into the hole and wait in the bushes with a net. “Sooner or later a curious old fellow will come along. He’ll pick up that coconut shell and rattle it. He’ll peer inside. And then at last he’ll slip his paw into the hole and feel around until he gets hold of that pebble. But when he tries to bring it out, he finds that he cannot get the paw through the hole without letting go. And, Andy, that monkey will never let go of what he thinks is a prize. It’s the easiest thing in the world to catch a fellow who acts like that.”

Sister Patrice got up and put the chair back by the table. She paused for a moment and looked me straight in the eye.

“Are you holding on to something, Andrew? Something that’s keeping you from your freedom?”

And then she was gone.

Andrew, Brother; John Sherrill; Elizabeth Sherrill (2001-10-01). God's Smuggler (pp. 34-35). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

A common trend lately, whether in debates on politics or moral concerns, are people who are so convinced they are right, that questioning their premises is “proof" of either bad will, by supporting what they define as the opposite position, or ignorance on a subject because you’re “too deluded” to see the truth. The only way to disprove these charges of your being a foe is accepting what they claim as true. They won’t accept the concept that they’re in the wrong.

This seems to be the case with the reaction to Pope Francis. Certain people believe he intends to overturn Church teaching in favor of a more liberal-friendly version. Some of them want it. Others dread it. Either way, they cling to this belief that they’ll find vindication for rejecting authority, refusing to consider the possibility they had it wrong all along. If it happened once or twice, we could understand this kind of mistake. But when it happens every time, and every time it turns out the Pope has no intention of changing Church teaching, then we know the problem is not with the Pope. 

Rather than accept that fact, they make all sorts of other explanations justifying their misinterpretations. Defenders of the Pope “explain away” his words. The Pope “speaks unclearly.” “Ambiguous documents” mean people will be able to do what they want. These arguments all depend on them proving their clung-to belief is true, but instead, they insist we just accept their claim as proven. They might even go so far as demanding to be disproven and, after refusing to consider your challenges, claim that nobody could refute them.

But, they’re not the last man standing. They simply refused to show up for the bout.

Another example is slander/libel against Christians for rejecting the ideology of gender and sexuality sweeping America today. People cling to the belief that opposition to morally bad actions is a hatred of people who do those actions. It doesn’t matter how reasoned the argument. They simply will not hear any refutation to the “moral opposition = bigotry” claim. The only way to avoid the charge of bigotry is to agree with them. But they will not prove the allegation that they have to prove—that moral opposition is bigotry.

In both the case of the charges against Pope Francis and the accusation that our opposition to arbitrarily changing morality is bigotry are a case of clinging to a belief that they can’t let go without admitting they were wrong. So they offer elaborate arguments why they’re in the right and their opponents must be malicious or deluded. Then, refusing to consider whether they might be wrong, they construct elaborate views of things that ignore inconvenient facts and treat those who disagree as enemies. In refusing to let go of this idea, they’re trapped into holding increasingly obvious falsehoods that prevents them from finding the truth.

I believe that the common denominator between my examples and other examples in the world is this: The false idea we cling to is “I cannot be wrong!” Until we realize we can err about something, we trap ourselves like the monkey in the story and will wind up captured by error. It’s only when each individual asks the question “Am I wrong?” that we can begin determining the truth and follow it.

In saying this, I say each of us must start by looking at ourselves. Not at others holding beliefs we dislike. If we skip that first step, if we assume we can’t be wrong, then we cling to the pebble like the monkey until we cannot escape. Perhaps we should start by looking at that area where we think “everybody else is an idiot!” Are we factually wrong about the issue? Are we wrong about the mindset of the people we think are idiots? Are we wrong about what they really think?

If we find we are wrong in one of those areas, then we need to let go of the error and seek the truth.

Thoughts On Bigotry and Bigoted Defenders of "Tolerance"

Doing a word search of the word bigot and its variants is a pretty useless activity. The word exists of course, but it is defined so broadly in modern dictionaries as to be meaningless—the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.” But when you think about it, anything could be considered bigoted if you have a strong view (favorably or unfavorably) about it. For example, if you refuse to consider the point of the Nazis as valid, and go out of your way to oppose them, you are a bigot under this definition.

Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as, “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” But such a definition is very subjective. Who defines what is obstinate or intolerant? Who defines whether a view is a prejudice or not? Remember the comment I stated above? How do you distinguish a moral repugnance for Nazism from bigotry? The problem with these definitions of bigot is they make it impossible to distinguish between holding a belief from conviction and holding a view out of hatred of any view which does not come from a preferred view. 

That leads us to another problem—that a large portion of people who throw the word around “bigot” do appear to be obstinately devoted to their opinions to the extent that they want to silence people with different views on a subject—that is, the irony of this position is that this attitude by the self-appointed champions of tolerance against bigotry fits the description of bigotry.

For example, the Christian is targeted for saying “X is morally wrong,” and people who disagree will not even consider the actual position of the Church. The fact that the position exists is considered proof of bigotry while the only way of getting away from that label is to abandon any beliefs that the cultural elites dislike. The champions of tolerance find Christianity to be morally offensive when it teaches that something must not be done because it goes against what humanity is called to be, both naturally and in relationship to God. 

Personally, I think we can start to understand the term bigotry through a statement by GK Chesterton:

The difficulty was expressed to me by another convert who said, "I cannot explain why I am a Catholic; because now that I am a Catholic I cannot imagine myself as anything else." Nevertheless, it is right to make the imaginative effort. It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong. [Chesterton, G.K. The Catholic Church and Conversion (Kindle Locations 137-140). Kindle Edition.

He makes this statement to demonstrate that he has not refused to consider other positions—only that he will show that he has considered them and found them to be wrong in some aspect. So, I think that to have a proper understanding of what a bigot is, it is a person who refuses to admit the possibility of getting something wrong when he or she opposes the view. So, it is not bigotry if a person investigates Islam or Mormonism and says, “I’m sorry, but I have investigated this and believe this is not true, so I will not accept it and will counter it with the truth when needed.” But it is bigotry when someone says “I don’t see how someone could be so stupid as to believe this!” If you don’t look into the reasons as to how a person could believe something, how do you know they are not right?

So, this is the point of contention here. First, do you understand what it is you are opposing (that is—do you actually know what they stand for)? Second, do you understand why you oppose that position as being wrong? If you don’t understand the position in the first place, it requires investigation. For example, I have a clear idea what I am opposed to and why I oppose them things like racism, nationalism and the like. It doesn’t change my views of the people who espouse these things (they still deserve to be treated as human beings), but I know that what they hold is wrong. I also know why I hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church—because I have tested them and found that they had answered my objections (at first) and then laid down solid reasoning for why we were obligated to avoid X and to do Y.

A person is free to use the word “bigoted” as a club, bashing all people he or she disagrees with, but the term is an ad hominem attack (marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made) in this context. But this is a case of the person who accuses another of bigotry is the one actually guilty of the charge. Unless a person understands what an informed (as opposed to those ignorant louts the media likes to point to) Christian believes (as opposed to what people wrongly attribute to us) and why we hold to it in the face of such hostility, such a person is unable to imagine how he might possibly have gone wrong—which is to say, bigoted, prejudiced against the views of others.

Thoughts on Growing Radicalism and Our Responsibilities

I’ve been seeing some articles recently about college professors and entertainers—who are self-professedly liberal—expressing a growing concern that college students today are becoming more extreme. These individuals have expressed a concern over the need to self-censor themselves because the students will not consider(or even hear) any views other than their own, and in fact, tend to become hostile to hearing ideas which conflict with their own. We Christians should not hold an attitude of schadenfreude however. If today’s students are so intolerant of even liberals of previous generations, then we should take seriously how will they then deal with us who have to say to one of their cherished views that, “No, this is wrong and must be condemned."

Personally, I am reminded of the French Revolution. An extremely partisan affair that once called for “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," it grew more and more extreme, turning on those who once were the radical leaders until nobody felt safe and the Revolution was eventually destroyed because those acting for the “good of the people” eventually saw these people as an enemy. “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," turned out not to have so much liberty, equality or fraternity if you did not share the views of those in charge.

Watching this from the perspective of being a Catholic, I see parallels between them and now. Not so barbaric of course. We don’t have the guillotines and the constant death sentences to live in fear of. But we are seeing the growing radicalization of a generation which considers anything which is not in line with what they see to be “fair” to be “fascist,” and carried out in malice. Under such a viewpoint, the Catholic Church is the enemy of the generation who must be co-opted or destroyed—and either one is an acceptable option.

So, the question is this—is there a limit which will be the breaking point before society revolts against the revolutionaries? Or will we continue to see things get worse and worse here until they are throwing us into prisons as enemies of the state in fact instead of just in rhetoric? Ultimately, from the Christian perspective, it cannot triumph forever. We know God will ultimately triumph over evil. But that doesn’t mean we can just sit in our bunkers and wait for the rest of the world to go to hell in a hand basket. We have to take concern over the fate of these individuals. True, we don’t want them to destroy us. But more importantly, we don’t want them to damn themselves. Our Lord uses the parable of the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep to find the one lost sheep and return him to the fold. We have to follow His example.

Now, obviously, we cannot take a humanistic view that, if we work hard enough, we will correct all errors on our own. God gave His Church the mission and authority to bring the Gospel to all nations and people—but that does not mean they will listen to us. But on the other side of the coin, we have to take an active role so that God’s will may be carried out through us. We can neither argue that it is impossible to change our opponents nor argue that because our opponents have not changed that it means the magisterium has failed in her role. The former is shirking, the latter is shifting the blame, denying that our own actions and inactions may have a role to play in the opposition to the Christian mission.

Regardless of whether society becomes even more extreme or whether it bottoms out and starts rising again, we have a role to play. We have to prepare for persecution in some form, whether it be mild harassment or whether it be martyrdom or (most likely) it is somewhere in between. We also have to keep in mind our role in times of hostility. Even when Christians were persecuted, the Church continued to carry out her mission. Persecution hinders the mission in some ways, but does not make it impossible. We can witness by our lives that Christianity is not the demonized institution it is made out to be, but is the relationship between God and man. Our task is to be God’s means of reaching out to others so that they might be saved.

Our task is clear, regardless of who the radicals are and what ideology they embrace. We are called to preach the Gospel in season and out of season, even when it is difficult—and it will get more difficult.

TFTD: The Scary Thing Is These People Are Serious

(One Government Which Had the Same Idea as Rep. Emily Virgin)

Someone I know shared this article on Facebook: (Oklahoma Democrat Wants to Require Christian Businesses to Post Notice of Anti-Gay Discrimination | Alternet). I find it to be sickening. In response to a proposal to allow businesses to be protected from lawsuits if the owners refuse to participate in things contrary to their religion, Oklahoma Democratic state Rep. Emily Virgin wants businesses who want to opt out of having their business participate in “same sex marriage” put up a sign to “post a public notice of discrimination if they intend to claim that they have a religious right to refuse service to LGBT people.” Comments in the article show people wanting these signs to go up so they know what businesses to boycott.

It is not excessive rhetoric to point to the similarities between this proposal and the boycotts of Jewish businesses in Nazi Germany. Now the supporters of the amendment resent that comparison and claim that this is not the same as the behavior of Nazi Germany “because Jews didn’t have a choice, but Christians do.” But that’s to miss the point.

The point is that certain politicians who find the existence of a religion or the exercise of the rights of religious freedom not to be compelled to do what one believes is morally wrong offensive is trying to make the people who belong to a religion and feel obligated to follow the practices of that religion and not participate in what a religion calls evil are being made public so that those who disagree with their faith can organize boycotts and other forms of harassment. This amendment is not based on the public good, but is aimed at harassing those who are unpopular.

(Another Group Which Had the Same Idea as Rep. Emily Virgin)

While its proponents seem to be citing examples of gas stations and restaurants arbitrarily denying people with same sex inclinations from entering, that’s basically a lie. In every case where a business has been sued, the circumstances have been that people wanted the business to actively participate in a same-sex “marriage.” A florist, a hotel owner, a wedding chapel, a photographer, a bakery—all of them were engaged specifically for the purpose for providing services for a same sex marriage, not for ordinary purposes.

So the basic intent of this amendment was to target Christians who believe marriage can exist only between one man and one woman and believe their business cannot cooperate with anything that goes against that belief. Proponents use terms like “discriminate” and “bigot” to justify this. Some want to go further. For example, Blue Nation Review blogger Daphne Zhang writes “This applies to websites, too. So run, bigots, run! Before the Virgin slaps that scarlet anti-gay badge on you!"

I imagine Daphne Zhang would like to put a badge on me.

Let me do it for her:

We are Christians and will not cooperate in what our faith says is wrong. Nor will we be silent in the face of wrongdoing.

     ¹⁷ Son of man, I have appointed you a sentinel for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. 

¹⁸ If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. ¹⁹ If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life. 

 

²⁰ But if the just turn away from their right conduct and do evil when I place a stumbling block before them, then they shall die. Even if you warned them about their sin, they shall still die, and the just deeds that they performed will not be remembered on their behalf. I will, however, hold you responsible for their blood. ²¹ If, on the other hand, you warn the just to avoid sin, and they do not sin, they will surely live because of the warning, and you in turn shall save your own life. 

TFTD: Well Said Holy Father

Full transcript of Pope's interview in-flight to Manila :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

The Holy Father has spoken about the Charlie Hebdo murders in a way that makes a lot of sense, but will probably not win him support from those who believe there can be no restrictions on speech and press. He makes a two prong statement that addresses both issues:

1. Using violence in the name of God can never be done.
2. The freedom of speech is not an absolute that can justify saying anything offensive.

Basically, the Pope said that people have the right and obligation to speak the truth, but freedom is not absolute. One cannot be grossly offensive, especially when it comes to people’s religious beliefs. Even when people are grossly offensive, others don’t have the right to turn to violence in response. However, anger at having something important being attacked is not wrong in itself. (Which is a very useful point—too many try to twist Christians being offended by attacks as if it was “unchristian.”)

Unfortunately, some are beginning to accuse the Pope of supporting the terrorists—never mind the fact that he has continually condemned terrorism and clarified any possible ambiguities in what he said. They look at it as Either-Or, ignoring the fact that condemning both is a legitimate option.

But what he said makes perfect sense. Even if a non-Christian does not share our values, his words can be understood in terms of respect for others. When we make use of the freedom of speech or the press, we have to be respectful of others. When we speak about things we believe to be wrong, we do so with charity. If someone with a large audience does something grossly offensive and millions are offended, there will probably be a small group among them who would be willing to make an extreme response. It would be wrong of them to do so, but they may be motivated to act in spite of the their moral obligations not to murder.

Ultimately, that’s what happened with Charlie Hebdo. Millions of Muslims were angry, and they had a right to be angry by the offensive antics of this magazine. Tragically, some of these Muslims believed it was acceptable to murder. They were wrong to murder, regardless of what offensive garbage the magazine chose to publish. We believe that Charlie Hebdo did not have the right to be grossly offensive, regardless of their convictions.

So, as I see the Pope’s statement, he sees two wrongs: The wrong of people murdering those they disagree with and the wrong of being deliberately offensive. Both of these are condemnable. The Pope is not siding with the terrorists, but he is not Charlie either.

TFTD: They Revile What They Do Not Understand

But these people revile what they do not understand and are destroyed by what they know by nature like irrational animals. (Jude 1:10)

A couple of days before Christmas, I was involved in a combox discussion on the issues over the satanic counter to the Nativity Scene in Florida. My own thesis was that the putting up a “religious” display with the intent of protesting religious displays was a self-contradiction. What struck me was a comment from one of the atheists. It was a tu quoque claim that the Bible was full of contradictions. Today, there seems to be a lot of atheists on Facebook and in the comboxes bashing Christianity over Neil deGrasse Tyson and his tweet in celebration of the December 25th birthday of Sir Isaac Newton (the actual tweet struck me as being more pathetic than offensive, apparently trying to imply Newton was more important than Christ).

Basically, the theme is that Christians are stupid for believing in God while blaming Christianity and religion in general for every crime in the history of humanity (denying the role of the atheistic ideology in the worst atrocities of the 20th century). These things are pretty tiresome, and fairly frustrating. The bashing is basically illogical and factually wrong. They would actually be easy to refute—if people took the time to listen and investigate whether what they say is true.

Ven. Fulton J. Sheen expressed things very well when he wrote:

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.” (Radio Replies vol. 1)

Ven. Archbishop Sheen makes a good point. The Catholic Church is not really hated for what she teaches, but for what people think she teaches, and when people run afoul of the Church teachings, we are told that these teachings were made out of hatred of women, of people with same sex attraction, of divorced people, the poor, the rich, sexuality etc., simply because we have a teaching on the morality of certain actions.

People don’t even ask what we teach, let alone why we teach it. People assume that the worst possible portrayals of the Church in history are true, never realizing that even in past centuries there were people with ideologies and axes to grind who had no problems denigrating the Church to build up their own agendas. Because they know nothing of Catholic teaching and history, but assume the Church is capable of the worst, they assume that the horror stories they hear must be true and done out of sheer malice—never mind facts and the context of the times.

Sometimes I wish people couldn’t post on a subject online unless they could demonstrate they understood what they were bashing.

But we shouldn’t expect that. Our Lord did warn us that we could expect hatred from the world if we sought to be faithful to Him:

¹⁸ “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. ¹⁹ If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. ²⁰ Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. ²¹ And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. ²² If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. ²³ Whoever hates me also hates my Father. ²⁴ If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father. ²⁵ But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without cause.’ (John 15:18-25)

So we endure hatred and try to reach out to the person of good will who wants to learn the truth, praying for all of them.

Unpopular Speech is not Hate Speech

One popular tactic in the American Kulturkampf (yes, it's here—no longer a case of if) is the argument that the freedom of speech and religion only mean you can't be arrested for saying it. People who use this argument claim that a person can't be arrested for saying something is wrong, but they still can be fired, sued, fined or re educated for doing so.

It scares me that people are falling for this spurious reasoning. Effectively, it is saying that if an employer dislikes your morals, he can fire you over them . . . BUT only for certain moral stands: The Christian employee can be forced out because he thinks homosexual acts are wrong, but the secular employee can't be fired by the Christian employer for thinking them right.

What it boils down to is that America is willing to tolerate restrictions on unpopular speech. If the powers that be (political, media, cultural) don't like a position, the person holding it can be ostracized for holding it. But if a business or religious based school or hospital tries to operate according to their beliefs, they can be forced to tolerate behavior they believe is wrong.

Guess which one is accused of forcing their views on others?

Basically, the whole tactic allows the media, government and political elites to decide what speech and belief is legitimate and what is not. That's not free speech. That's censorship worthy of the former Eastern Bloc. Whether or not you remain free after you speak depends on whether the elites approve of what you said.

But legitimate limits on free speech come into play when the speech causes harm. I'm not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I'm not free to plan a felony. I'm not free to incite a riot. Nobody disputes that these are legitimate limits on the freedom of speech.

But the fact is, the Christian moral teaching is not hate filled and is not discriminatory—it is unpopular because it tells people that some behaviors are wrong and people don't want to hear that they are doing wrong and have to change.

To Discriminate, properly speaking, is to:

make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

But if God exists and He has condemned behavior that is contrary to how people should live, then informing people that this behavior is wrong is not discrimination any more than the Cal Trans worker with a sign saying "Bridge Out" is discriminating against which road you can choose to use. It's informing people of reality before they suffer harm.

The Christian who understands the obligations of the faith knows he or she cannot hate a person who sins. Correction must be given when a person does wrong and endangers his or her soul:

You, son of man—I have appointed you as a sentinel for the house of Israel; when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them for me. When I say to the wicked, “You wicked, you must die,” and you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. If, however, you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, but they do not, then they shall die in their sins, but you shall save your life. (Ezekiel 33:7–9).

(In this verse, God is speaking to the Prophet Ezekiel on the obligation to warn people endangering their souls).

The problem is, many people assume that opposition to a behavior must be based on the hatred of the person who does the wrong act.

Certainly a Christian can sinfully hate someone who does wrong. A Christian can misuse speech to cause harm if he actively promotes violence. Nobody denies this . . . but the fact is, those Christians who do these things (and that number is much smaller than the rhetoric would have you believe) are opposed by most other Christians who fully understand their faith and are aware of this twisting of the Christian faith. So to use the examples of extremists to attack the Christian belief in general is basically no different than to use the fact that some members of an ethnic group are felons to denounce all members of that ethnic group.

The important thing to remember is that America has lost sight of the fact that there is a major difference between Unpopular Speech and Hate Speech. Unfortunately, people nowadays believe that the use of coercion is a legitimate tactic to silence a person who says something they dislike.

So long as people are willing to accept this tactic, we cannot hope to become a free nation again.

Asking the Wrong Question: A Reflection

The Wrong Question

I came across a headline which asked if Christians were out of step with the mainstream. I found that question to be very saddening. It indicates that for a certain portion of the population and the elites think that going along with the preferred position is more important than determining the truth of a position... because the two are not the same thing.

As I have cited many times in the past in my blog, Aristotle once defined truth as saying of what is, that it is and saying of what is not, that it is not. In other words, we need to explore the nature of a thing before accepting the mainstream view of it.

Why? Because the mainstream of a country can go very far astray in what it favors. The extreme example, of course, is the example of Nazi Germany. The Nazi Party came to power legally and achieved things that were popular -- righting perceived wrongs that came from the Treaty of Versailles. While the party did some things that made people uncomfortable, these tended to be dismissed as being less important than the perceived good. The opponents of the regime tended to be dismissed or attacked.

The point here is not to equate America with Nazi Germany (so spare me the flames). The point is to show that what the mainstream accepts is not necessarily good. Whether it is the acceptance of National Socialism or whether it is the acceptance of modern sexual morality in the West, the acceptance of things by the mainstream of a society is NOT an indication that the thing is good.

The Right Questions

So what are we to do about this? We have to start by asking the right questions. We don't start by asking whether Christians are outside of the mainstream. We start by asking whether the assumptions held by the mainstream are true. Truth must be the criterion for accepting or rejecting values.

Unfortunately, this is precisely what people fail to consider. When the cultural elites assert that those who champion the traditional understanding of marriage are "homophobic," they are making an assertion that needs to be proven and not assumed to be true. Very few Christians who understand the obligations of their faith properly actually hate the people who live in opposition to what God commands.  But instead of investigating what they believe, it's easier to attribute a motivation that makes the opponent look bad.

What Reason Tells Us

The result is a slew of logical fallacies which don't prove the point. It provides spurious reasoning to claim that boils down to, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot."

I find it ironic that the definition of bigot, "a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others," fits the champions of tolerance much better than it fits the people who believe some behaviors are wrong.

As GK Chesterton pointed out, "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." In other words, the bigotry doesn't exist in believing right and wrong. The bigotry comes from refusing to question whether you properly understand what you oppose.

The Dilemma

Now, if one believes in the existence of objective good and evil, it is not bigotry to refuse to accept a view deemed evil as valid -- provided that you understand the nature of the issue you reject. Nor are you hypocritical to say that a sin is wrong while still loving the person who sins.

The same cannot be said for the one who takes the position that there is no objective good and evil.  If you insist others must tolerate views they disagree with, then you must also tolerate views you disagree with. If you refuse to accept the views of those you disagree with, you are guilty of what you accuse your opponents of being: bigoted (refusing to accept different views) and hypocritical (denying there are moral absolutes while holding moral absolutes). But if you actually follow what you claim to champion, you have to tolerate people who support views you believe to be wrong. If the persecutors of Brendan Eich were truly tolerant, they would have left him to his own views and not sought to oust him.

But, on the other hand, if one sees the acceptance of abortion or homosexual acts as objectively good and believes others are morally obligated to accept this, then he or she is under the same onus of proof that he or she demands from opponents. After all, if opposing abortion is "imposing values," then so is promoting it!

Conclusion

Asking if someone as being "outside the mainstream" ultimately ignores the more pertinent question: Is it good to be part of the mainstream? History tells us that oftentimes it is not.

Any Way You Look At It, It's Still Bigotry

A news report tells us of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) objected to Bibles being placed in the guest rooms of a university.

The interesting thing is the fact that the FFRF objects to the presence of religion in the public sphere, and believe that nobody should have to be exposed to it... so to prevent exposure, they take a stand when religion makes a public appearance.

Some people may think it is reasonable, but consider this.  Would anyone consider it acceptable if somebody decided that because they thought someone's political beliefs were offensive and dangerous, it should have no presence in the public sphere? (A Freedom From Liberalism Foundation could close most of the universities in America).

No, the FFRF behavior is not about religious neutrality as they claim. It's based on the intolerance of beliefs other than their own.

People of good will should consider whether groups that want to block religion in the public sphere are any better than any other groups which try to hinder the public activity of those they dislike.

Brief Reflection on "Science Saved My Soul"

Someone on Facebook shared the video, Science Saved My Soul, the upshot being the video makes the claim that science saved his soul from religion.  Watching the video and reading the transcript, I was struck by how bad it was.   So what is wrong with it?

The man has minimal knowledge of religion and assumes it to be an enemy of science.  He asks:

If God exists, God made this. Look at it. Face it. Accept it. Adjust to it, because this is the truth and it’s probably not going to change very much. This is how God works. God would probably want you to look at it. To learn about it. To try to understand it. But if you can’t look—if you won’t even try to understand—what does that say about your religion?

The funny thing is, many scientists were Catholics who believed that because God created the universe, the universe must be reasonable.  The myth of Galileo aside, it was the Catholic Church who did the most to advance Astronomy (35 craters on the Moon are named for Jesuit astronomers).   Cathedrals were built to function as observatories. 

Consider that.  Now consider the narrator's words:

Religions tell children they might go to hell and they must believe, while science tells children they came from the stars and presents reasoning they can believe. I’ve told plenty of young kids about stars and atoms and galaxies and the Big Bang and I have never seen fear in their eyes—only amazement and curiosity. They want more. Why do kids swim in it and adults drown in it?

Now consider that the founder of the theory which would become to be known as The Big Bang Theory was Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître – a Catholic priest from Belgium who was an astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain.  He founded it in 1927.  He was the one who demonstrated the expansion of space was shown by the red shift of galaxies.

(Religious person – must be ignorant of Science according to the video)

The person who says Science and Religion are in conflict may know a great deal of Science – but he or she is demonstrating a profound lack of knowledge of religion.

Thought for the Day: Trolls

I really wonder what trolls hope to accomplish when they post links to anti-Catholic articles in the comments for the blog.  If it's to sway me, I'd say it fails completely. The link leads to a blog which sounded like completely irrational hatred filled with four letter words, spewing venom at the leaders of the Church.  If it was intended to intimidate me or cause me to lose hope it also failed.  If this is the best the individual can argue, its hardly worth bothering with.

The only sense I can make of it is that the author holds an irrational hatred for certain things and feels the need to attack people who defends what the author hates and slanders.

Just remember if the author sounds like Todd Unctuous… or worse, makes him sound reasonable compared to the author, the author isn't doing their faction much good.

Dealing With Intolerance

A day after I post on the incident in Florida, I found an incident which hit closer to home in which an individual thought he would take a none too subtle swipe at Catholic beliefs in response to an article by another blogger (who is innocent here… let me make that clear).

The comment was none too insightful.  It was the usual hysterical claims from an ex-Catholic that Catholic practices are really barely disguised pagan worship contrary to the Scripture.  Ironically, this individual failed to notice that what he was calling pure Christianity was in fact a heavily culture-influenced version of early 20th century Fundamentalist Protestantism which he adopted.

I suspect such individuals tend to be converted because they do not understand what they believe, and then when confronted with an anti-Catholic challenge they assume that because they do not know the answer there is none

The question which comes to mind is how does one deal with this type of uninformed intolerance?

It cannot be silence.

One of the minor saints whose memorial is today (the major memorial is for St. Monica, mother of St. Augustine) is Saint Poemon, who once said “Silence is not a virtue when charity calls for speech.”  This is a very real issue.

There are times when I just want to throw up my hands and say “To hell with this, it isn’t worth it…”  But when calumnies are made, we must speak out for the truth, lest someone think that our silence means there is no answer.

The hysterical anti-Catholic belief holds that Catholics follow a corrupted Christianity introducing pagan customs in and making them into doctrines and dogmas.  They will make use of the post hoc fallacy, claiming that because a certain pagan culture followed certain forms and the Catholic Church followed certain forms the Catholic Church must have adopted these things from pagan culture.

In contrast, they claim they follow the Bible pure and simple as it was meant to be followed.

Now sometimes, when dealing with an individual of reason, even if disagreement remains, they will be respectful and say that even though they disagree.  The bigot will assume that everything contrary to his belief is wrong, and if you knock down one point, will move on to the next, and will never consider the possibility he misunderstands what he hates.

Quiet and reasoned discourse is the optimal response.  However, this won’t work with a verse slinger.  They operate under the principle that pagan belief X is similar to Catholic belief A.  Therefore they apply Bible verse Y to Catholic belief A and say this proves Catholic beliefs are false.

Against such a mindset, one will not convince an individual to reconsider.  All you can do is to point out the errors and hope others will not follow the anti-Catholic into the ditch.

Most importantly we can pray for them.