Atheism and Miracles: Is It Really About Evidence?

Miracle, Fluke, or Not Enough Data?

My friend, Dave Armstrong maintains a very active apologetics blog, called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (which covers much more wide-ranging material than its title suggests). In one of his articles, Dave reports on an interesting occasion when he was the guest of 16 atheists who tried to poke holes in his Catholic thinking. I guess it was a friendly dialogue, and not a typical angry debate, as such occasions seem often to be.

[Addendum from 7-17-23: Dave has now written over 4,300 articles and 53 books: the latest of which, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023, 271 pages), addresses many biblical "miracles" and proposes possible and perhaps plausible natural explanations for many. On his Philosophy, Science, & Christianity web page he also has several articles about miracles]

The center of their discussion was whether or not miracles have occurred in the past or can occur.  In particular they were discussing the Resurrection of Christ. This particular group, and one person in particular (DagoodS) found it difficult to discuss the plausibility of miracles because the group defined a miracle as an event that defied or broke the laws of nature.  Dave pointed out that unless the group could get off it's "no miracles allowed" mind-set, there was no chance to have an intellectual discussion regarding the possibility of miracles. That is, the firm bias of "miracles are impossible" prevents any intellectual investigation into the possibility of the same. It's like saying, "I choose not to believe in it, therefore it doesn't exist." My anti-Catholic children will say to me, "That's not what I believe" ... as if their ability to believe or not was the criteria for reality.

The Atheists' Beef with Miracles

DagoodS put his "beef" this way. I'm editing to pull together his salient comments:

As to naturalistic presupposition [regarding miracles]…I agree that is a difficulty for the [Christian] apologist to [objectively] discuss the Resurrection. Alas, it is part of human make-up. We all have biases. As a naturalist, I am going to look for a natural  explanation. As a theist, [the Christian would look] for a supernatural explanation.

Many apologists...appear to claim the evidence (for the Resurrection) is sufficient to ... convince a naturalist. In those situations, I try to explain why the evidence is not enough. Why we have legitimate (often un-addressed) concerns regarding the evidence claimed.

If I can interpret and expand for DagoodS (he can correct me):

Producing evidence in favor of miracles is not sufficient because the atheist will have legitimate concerns about the evidence. 

Of  course this is short hand, but is it the whole argument? Because it sounds like DagoodS is shutting the door before there's even a knock on it. It sounds like this:

Any evidence presented in favor of miracles would be illegitimate because the evidence is flawed...and we don't even have to test the evidence to know it's flawed.

Such is the character of prejudice and fallacious argumentation. The fallacy has two names in material logic: (1) Ignoring the counter evidence, and (2) Denying the counter evidence. Under the color of logic the atheist claims "I don't see it, therefore it must not exist."

Ah, there is the rub...and the solution.

Miracles and the Laws of Nature
The problem atheists have with miracles should be the same problem Christians have with miracles. The common definition is fallacious: An event that breaks one or more laws of nature.  Such a definition, if not pure arrogance, is a fallacious assumption. What follows in an explanation.

Let's start with one of Dave's favorite priests, Fr. John Hardon. In his Modern Catholic Dictionary (Eternal Life Publishing, 1999) he has this definition:

MIRACLE. A sensibly perceptible effect, surpassing at least the powers of visible nature, produced by God to witness to some truth or testify to someone's sanctity.

I don't expect atheists or skeptics to accept Fr. Hardon's definition. I provide it here for Catholics to help them see the fallacious nature of their definition. To understand why the common miracle definition is wrong, let's parse Fr. Hardon's definition. Note he says, a miracle is:

• Something that is "sensibly perceived." That is, a miracle is not a vision or a dream that one or only a few see. A miracle is something that is commonly witnessed by everyone present at the time.
• Is an "effect" - that means it is physical, not an "affect" which refers to the psychological state of a person.
• The event or effect surpasses our understanding of the powers of visible  nature. That is the miracle APPEARS VISIBLY to contradict the laws of nature.
• It is produced by God (not mankind)
• It has a higher moral purpose. It's not just eye-candy or entertainment.

The important concept in Fr. Hardon's definition that applies to the current issue, is that the miracle visually appears to break the laws of nature.

Knowledge

As physicist (in part) and a Christian (hopefully, not in part) I have never believed that miracles need to break a natural law. The concept of "breaking a natural law" is that a contradiction has occurred. Natural Laws, however, are understood to be immutable and not exist in contradiction with one another -- something cannot be both TRUE and FALSE. Science would look at an apparent contradiction in nature and call it a paradox. That is, we just don't have all the knowledge about what is happening. Until we have most of the data we might call the event a phenomenon...and theologians and people of faith might call the phenomenon a miracle.  I submit, therefore, that miracles, which happen in the natural world, are paradoxes, not contradictions.  (BTW: The term contradiction is used in logic, for propositional statements that, to our thinking, are both true and false at the same time. )

In other words, when we "SEE" a contradiction we are mistaken, it is a paradox. The laws of nature cannot be broken, but they can be misunderstood.

Worlds in Collision

My thinking about miracles is informed by Worlds in Collision, a controversial book by Immanuel Velikovsky, in part, about the Plagues of Egypt (Moses). Velikovsky hypotheses that the miracles of the plagues were actually the natural result of Earth's collision with the tail of a comet. He explains them all as paradoxes. That does not make them less miraculous.

Another example is the fictional (but logical) account of the protagonist in "A Yankee in King Arthur's Court" who knows a solar eclipse is about to occur and uses it to his advantage. But such an event seems like a miracle or magic to the less knowledgeable characters around him.

Then there are the scientific and mathematical discovers of physical dimensions beyond the space-time continuum that can be described as 3 three physical (space) dimensions (length, height, and depth) and the thing we call the dimension of time, although we can only perceive a dot along the timeline, and not a full linear dimension as we do a ruled line on a piece of paper.  We cannot directly perceive the ten dimensions of space, but String Theory suggests they exists for certain mathematical and scientific observations to be true. Take for instance the spectrum's red-shift observations of deep space objects that indicate the objects are moving away from us a tremendous speed.  That movement is not in the three dimensions of space as we perceive it, but is on the surface of a 4th-space-dimension that is ever expanding. We see the effect but we can't see the dimension.

The existence of this 4th-space-dimension easily explains how Christ can seemingly appear to walk through a wall in the Upper Room, or how the Apostles and Christ can be appear to be transported instantly from one place to another. Or how the Red Sea is apparently parted. In all of these instances the laws of the natural universe are not broken, but rather we are allowed to physically experience what is always there. It's as if I go from bright sunlight into a dark room. For a while I can see nothing, until my eyes adjust, and then I see everything that has always been there. It's not a miracle. Things do not suddenly appear out of nothing.

All such "miracles" do violate our current understanding of Newtonian three-dimensions of space and time, but they obviously don't need to violate the laws of the universe when completely understood.

Monkeys and Witchcraft

This throws a monkey wrench into the atheist's arguments about needing "legitimate" evidence to "unanswered questions." In effect the atheist is demanding (or claiming) omniscience of the universe of knowledge. He is claiming to be, ironically, God. He is either claiming to know all or is expecting God to provide all knowledge. But that is something he will never have (unless he are "lucky" enough to get to heaven). Arrogance that he is important enough to have such knowledge cuts him off from God, who demands that we trust him for what our minds are too small to understand. "Now we see through a glass darkly..." Their illogical demand to be "god-like" in terms of knowledge (either now or at sometime in the future) cuts them off from the revelations that only faith and inform them about.

Did you see the "typo?" It wasn't. That last "and" was to be a "can". (See what mistakes and knowledge can impart?) Something does not make sense (like my last sentence) until new data is provided (it's a "can")  suddenly makes sense.  All human history is filled with such examples, especially in the history of science. What mankind thought was witchcraft of the 18th century is today "modern medicine" or "medical miracles."

Thus, the atheist, by his claim of of omniscience (there IS no God), and by his demand, "I need to know all to believe,"  errors on two fronts.  If he's honest, he "knows" he is not perfect, and that he is fully capable of making a typo.

Science Assumes Order

This leads "naturally" to the role of Christian Faith, without which few scientific discoveries would have been possible. Faith is irrevocably tied to scientific discovery because science assumes there is a natural order to be discovered. That is, science has faith that the universe is ordered and is not random or chaotic.  That order fulfills a mystical purpose is the scientist's assumption. That supposition allows science to use syllogisms to construct hypotheses, and then use logic to test them. The correct syllogisms lead to a constructive universe, not a destructive one. Without faith in a higher entity that designed and maintains the order, there is no purpose of the universe, and no hypotheses that can be tested.

Atheists are Logical Cowards

But we are sidetracked by all this talk of the need for evidence. What is really going on is this: Atheists hide behind the color of logic and evidence for fear of confronting the moral code of a just and gracious God. Atheism is a cowardly way to avoid natural law -- the natural moral code -- of the Creator. It's really not about evidence. Thus, the atheist isn't saying, "There are no miracles." or "There is no god," as if he was omniscient on that point. But he can say, and he has full right to it:  "There is no God -- Whom I will obey." Ah! Now that's evidence that makes logical sense.

Other References

C.S. Lewis is his book Miracles uses an argument similar to this, but different enough to be interesting. His premise is that due to humanity's lack of knowledge about the universe, natural laws should be perceived as laws about the way mater and time should normally interact, given our limited perspective of reality. But once new information or some new stimuli is put into the system of nature, natural law takes over and different (unnatural or supernatural) consequences result. Science is nothing more than the observation of nature and the construction of laws about what is observed. So, say we have a tank of fish, and we study them in this isolated situation and make up rules about their behavior. But one day we see something that is not "natural" in the fishes's world. That unnatural behavior, or supernatural behavior, may be the consequence of a new input to the system, and, after that new input, natural law takes over and we see the natural consequence. Thus, when Mary is impregnated by the Holy Spirit we have a new input into a natural environment...and Mary gives birth, according to natural law, nine months later.

Lewis makes the point I do above. No natural law is ever broken. Natural laws respond consistently to stimuli around them. What we see, which we call a miracle, is actually just a response of nature to a stimuli we have never seen before. 

The Books Are IN

I can't write much, there's too much to do. I have over a hundred books to ship tomorrow -- pre-orders for what finally arrived today. My video editing salon smells like a printing plant. Although packed in 139 boxes the 2,500 copies of WHAT CATHOLICS REALLY BELIEVE are still drying, after a 6 week journey by rickshaw, container ship, rail and truck -- from Malaysia to Michigan.  I conceived this book over three years ago, and I'm thrilled with how it came out. Thanks to Dr. Ray for helping it become a reality. It's the best looking and most readable educational book about Catholicism available anywhere. You bet I'm biased. See our inside the book and our specials HERE. Please tell your priests and religious education directors that we offer 50-60% discounts for quantity purchases for students. We ship around the world. Tomorrow I have orders going out to Australia, the UK, and San Juan, and there are already three copies in South Africa.

First Skid Off the Overseas-Transport Truck

 

Boxes stacked in the video edit salon -- warehouse is full.

WCRB Ready for Fulfillment

In Praise of Being Alone - Tanya Davis

Tanya Enjoying Being Alone

Here's a great video in praise of being alone -- not hooking up, not being married, not joining a religious order -- but being alone. Years ago I wrote an article titled "Eight Reasons for Being Single". It was in defense of being celibate, whether lay or religious, it doesn't matter. I'll post it under the video that is really wonderful to watch. It features poet Tanya Davis, who reminds me of our daughter, April... also a poet. The production is very good, as well. Enjoy.



YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs

Eight Great Reasons To Be Single and Celibate
Written in 2002 and published on Catholic Exchange
Copyright 2002, © Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.

A recurring objection to the Catholic priesthood is the requirement of remaining single and celibate. Our culture tends to look on singleness as a curse rather than a potential blessing. To bring some balance to the dialogue, here are eight great reasons to be single. As a Catholic you’ll find some of these reasons interesting, if not ironic, because they do not come from the pen of a celibate Catholic theologian, monk, or priest cloistered in a Mongolian monastery. Instead, they come from a Protestant-Evangelical minister, John Piper in his book RECOVERING BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD. John is married to Noel and together they have four children.

1. Marriage in not the final destiny of any human being.

Christ reminds us in Mark 12 that in heaven there will be no marriage, but we will be like the angels in heaven. If our ultimate goal is heaven, as opposed to marriage, then we must see that our ultimate state is as an angel who is not married.

2. Jesus Christ, the most fully human person who ever lived was not married, and he never once had sexual intercourse.

Modeling our life so completely after Christ’ singleness of life and purpose...in the words of Luci Swindoll “leads into a wide world of wonder and freedom and joy and love.”

3. The Bible celebrates celibacy because it gives extraordinary opportunity for single-minded investment in Ministry for Christ.

An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs —how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world —how he can please his wife.

An unmarried person cherishes his or her freedom for flexible scheduling and for the ability to take risks that you could not take if you were a husband, wife, mother or father. The single life-style enables one to get the most out of the time God gives for His work. One missionary said, “One of my chief delights is that I don’t have to fit my ministry around a family schedule. I don’t have to be home at a certain time each night. My time is the Filipinos’ time.”

4. The Apostle Paul and a lot of great missionaries after him have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of God as Jesus. (c.f. Mt. 19:12)

Ada Lum, a single woman working with an Evangelical mission in S.E. Asia tells of sitting next to a nun while flying from Rome to Munich. Ada was impressed by the youthful enthusiasm of this nun who had been in the mission fields of the Philippians for 30 years and spent part of that time in a political jail. For the first time this single Evangelical missionary, who had considered marriage, saw the plain gold ring that most nuns wear, inside of which was inscribed, “Wed to Christ.” To the Evangelical the concept was new and exciting. Imagine being married to the creator of the universe.

5. The Apostle Paul calls singleness a gift from God.

“I wish that all men were [single] as I am. But each man has his own gift from God." (1 Corinthians 7:7) Although God created all of us for relationships we can have many healthy and fruitful relationships without marriage.

6. Jesus promises that forsaking family for the sake of the kingdom will be repaid with a new family, the Church. (Mark 10:29-30)

Singles have discovered the hundreds of family members in the body of Christ. April, our single daughter who is now 28, always wanted to have a lot of children. She thought she could only do that through marriage. But April is not married, yet she has a rich relationship with 20 children that she nurtures and calls her own where she teaches elementary school. We are regularly inundated with pictures and stories about “her kids” which have in turn become our grandchildren.

 7. God is sovereign over who gets married and who doesn’t. And He can be trusted to do what is good for those who hope in Him.

The Psalmist says, “no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless” (Psalm 84:11). Ann Kiemel Anderson wrote this poem: Jesus -- if this is Your will -- then YES to being single. -- In my deepest heart, I want to marry, -- to belong to a great man -- to know that I am linked to his life -- and he to mine.-- following Christ and our dreams together.-- But you know what I need.-- If I never marry, -- it is YES to you.

8. Mature manhood and womanhood are not dependent on being married.

We are either man or woman by nature. God gives us sexuality and a temperament to match. Who we are is based on his creation, not on our vocational decision. We are not made more fully man or woman by being married, or having sex, or having children. Your role as a single person is different than as a married person. But, don’t confuse your role with your sexual identify. Regardless of marriage, you are a full creation, with unique and particular passions, gifts, skills and talents. God, through Christ and the Church, has promised you a full life. All you have to do is respond to his call and say yes.

Yoga Jesus

Yesterday I recevied this comment from a person who had heard about our new book "What Catholics Really Believe" on the radio, checked out our website, and wrote us the following:

I...thought the book was just what I should get for a family member who has very little understanding of the faith.  However, the picture on the front is just too weird for me to consider buying it.  It reminds me of the pictures that the yoga people have of their "saints".  The picture of Christ that you chose has that same look.  I'm sure the book is great but the cover is a turn off.

I wrote back:

Thank you for your opinion.  You might consider that the yoga people adopted pictures of their leaders that purposely looked like Christ because he was so revered.

Of course I don't really know this. Other responses later came to mind:

a. "But you know that the picture on our book is Jesus. Right?"

b. "If Jesus looked like Uncle Fred whom I hate, would I also hate Jesus?"

c. "Do all men with long hair and a beard look the same?"

d. "Jesus and Yoga masters do have somethings in common... they're Eastern mystics who didn't have a razor or many friends who were barbers. 

Then, I wondered, what if this person is right and if all the Yoga masters looked like the cover of our book. That would be, ah, strange. So, I decided to do an image search on Yoga Masters, and came up with the images below. I suppose some people would see a resemblance. Which looks more like Jesus?

And what if our book cover looked so much like Yoga masters that Yoga people started buying it and reading it? Would that be bad? Would we get sued for impersonating Yoga Masters? I can see the headlines now: "CATHOLIC PUBLISHER SUED FOR DEPICTING YOGA MASTERS AS JESUS... OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND...THIS REPORTER ISN'T SURE."

Ah, but then I found it. Yoga Jesus... in marble no less. Yep, that's Jesus alright. Well, okay, it's just a statute for you iconoclasts out there. It's not REALLY him. The website that has this picture claims:

The final marble statue which is of Jesus just arrived last week from India. Our line of masters or gurus is 5 deep (Jesus, Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya, Swami Yukteswar and Paramhansa Yogananda) and Jesus holds pole position as you can see from Yogananda’s comment above. He is viewed by Yogananda devotees worldwide as a great Master of yoga.

Okay, so, I suppose this does look like Jesus. 

GUILTY!

Let's buy these books and save all these Yoga masters.

The Pope, the Palins, and the Pursuit of True Happiness

Kathryn Jean Lopez in the National Review threads common themes from the Pope, the Palins, George Bush, Dan Quayle, the Pill, the Condom, and Katrina. Thank you Ms. Lopez, great thinking, great writing.   It's HERE.

Considering the backdrop of eternity somethings are probably not coincidence. One of those might be the release on the same day of Peter Seewald's long form interview with Pope Benedict XVI, Light of the World, and Palin's American By Heart.

New Book - Three Years - BEAUTIFUL!

2,500 copies of our new book WHAT CATHOLICS REALLY BELIEVE is in boxes in a shipping container somewhere in the Pacific Ocean aboard the container vessel NYK Argus v.49E42 headed for Los Angeles. Then it's customs and transport to Michigan for warehousing and sale. A few dozen preliminary copies are being sold to some anxious customers and sent out to reviewers and our wholesale customers as samples. 

This unique volume, three years in the making, has the following features:

• Edited for early teens through senior adults
• Full dialogue text from Dr. Ray and Fr. Fete's television series.
• Study questions for classroom or home study use.
• Comprehensive Answer Guide by apologist-author Dave Armstrong , one of the most accessible writers in America today.
• 127 Full color photographs by Fr. Gene Plaisted, OSC, of topical stained glass windows from churches around the world.
• Ecclesiastical approval for publication was granted by The Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron, Archbishop of Detroit, May 20, 2009.
• 52 Sidebar definitions of often misunderstood terms
• Flex-binding, that allows the book to lie flat on a study table
• Comfortable size (8.5" x 6.5") and unique flexibility for holding in hands
• Table of Contents with color keyed page-edge tabs.
• Each unit is shrink wrapped to guard against cover wear and moisture.

NATURAL LAW and then there's "natural law"

Just got my absentee ballot for the November election. If you're over a certain age in MI you don't have to stand in line for an hour to vote. I plan on voting next week. As I scanned the ballot I saw a few candidates for the NATURAL LAW party.

Now, if you've read much of my stuff, you know I'm a Natural Law kind of guy. But I had not idea that the practical applicaiton of "natural law" could be perverted so much until I read this on Wikipedia:

The Natural Law Party (NLP) was a United States political party affiliated with the international Natural Law Party. It was founded in 1992 and mostly dissolved in 2004. Leading members of party were associated with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, leader of Transcendental Meditation movement. 

I think I see where this is going.

The party proposed that political problems could be solved through alignment with the Unified Field of all the laws of nature through the use of the TM-Sidhi program. Its other policies were uncontroversial. 

This is funny stuff. Who wrote this? SNL?

"Natural Law" referred to "the ultimate source of order and harmony displayed throughout creation."

I like that. Catholicism is based on Natural Law... but this isn't the same. The question is how do you know what those natural laws are?  

Harmony with Natural Law could be accomplished by the practice of Transcendental Meditation and more advanced techniques. Due to scientific studies of these techniques, it considered this to be a science-based approach. 

The NLP proposed that a government subsidized group of 7,000 advanced meditators known as Yogic Flyers would lower nationwide stress, reduce unemployment, raise the gross national product, improve health, reduce crime, and make the country invincible to foreign attack. Hagelin called it a "practical, field-tested, scientifically proven" solution. 

Unbelievable. But it gets better. 

TM would be taught to the military, to students, in prisons, and to ordinary citizens. Hagelin predicted that implementation of the program would result in $1 trillion in savings from reduced costs for medical care, criminal prosecutions and prisons, national defense, and other government expenses.

Catholicism would do this if everyone just went to confession once a year.  Just teach people to live a morally chaste life and you've got it. Anybody got any ideas on how to do that? .... don't tell me, TM.

Slogans included: "Only a new seed will yield a new crop", and "bring the light of science into politics". Catchphrases included: "prevention-oriented solutions" and "conflict-free politics".

Love that last one, "conflict-free" politics. Would it really be politics, then?

LITURGY TO CULTURE

I have given up trying to articulate my many thoughts on this topic... at least until the mind melds in such a way that I can make sense. In the meantime, my good friend and editor a Catholic Exchange, Mary Kochan, sent me a link to an interesting and well written review of sociologist PHILIP RIEFF life work by David Lewis Stokes. I'll quote a bit then give you the link:

In antiquity the ideal of what it was to be truly human was to become either hero or sage. In the Middle Ages it was to become a saint. In our own time the best we can hope to become is — well-adjusted.

By the end of the 19th Century Jesus had ceased to be an apocalyptic rabbi or the God-man, and had become our primary therapeutic figure: Jesus is now the One who cares.

In 1965 Rieff’s “Triumph of the Therapeutic” was received as the work of a brilliant and urbane sociologist. Now with the posthumous publication of “Sacred Order/Social Order” — a three-volume meditation on art, history, religion and culture — we find ourselves confronted by a contemporary Jeremiah, who doesn’t hesitate to pronounce our most cherished cultural orthodoxies as “deathworks.” Rieff is a prophet of such subversive power that he’s sure to be sentenced to our equivalent of being hanged, drawn and quartered: He will be catalogued, shelved and ignored.

Whatever our own fate, we do well to commend Rieff to God. But may his soul, at least for the time being, never rest in peace.

Rieff's Search for a Way Beyoond our Therapeutic Culture

Nine Principles of Loving Discipline for Parents

by Dr. Ray Guarendi

Here are nine principles of loving discipline to remember and practice. They are sure to improve your home life.

1. Discipline is love in action. Loving Discipline is teaching at the most gentle hands a child will ever experience—a loving parent's. Discipline now, and the world will not have to discipline your child later.

2. Good discipline is grounded in good sense. It always has been. It always will be. New and improved parenting theories are new, but aren't always improved, and sometimes, are much worse than time-tested methods.

3. Good parents make mistakes and learn from them. Disciplining in fear of mistakes only erodes your self-confidence; and self-confidence is crucial to taking the hard but best stance.

4. Strong discipline isn't complicated.  It's founded upon a few basics, and the will to persevere with those basics. Discipline is easy, if you're willing work hard at it.

5. Discipline is action, not talk. Discipline with consequences, and you'll discipline less. Discipline with words, and you'll discipline more. Action discipline leads to calmer and quieter discipline. Wordy discipline leads to louder and meaner discipline.

6. All discipline interacts with a one-of-a-kind object—a child. Some kids require one-tenth of the average amount of discipline. Some kids require ten times the average. Regardless, good parenting is parenting up to the very level required. Do what it takes for as long as it takes. Your child deserves no less.

7. Kids are built to misbehave. It's in their essence. It's who they are. Expect misconduct for years. Expect to discipline for years. Time will reward you and your children.

8. Humans resist discipline—some a little, some a lot. Children are just better at resisting discipline than most. It's a fact of human nature what we often fight what is good for us. Resist your child's resistance. As he matures, he'll better understand and accept.

9. Good parents are misunderstood. Really good parents are really misunderstood.  No longer is it only the children who question and accuse good parents, now it is other adults who should know better. Strong parents face a lot of opposition these days. Not because they are wrong, but because they are right. Stand strong. Reality always wins and it is on your side.

-----

The BETTER PARENT DVD

Dr. Raymond Guarendi is a father of ten, a clinical psychologist, author, public speaker and Catholic radio talk show host. These "Nine Principles of Loving Discipline" are the basis for Dr. Ray Guarendi's 90-minute comedy television special, "You're a Better Parent Than You Think" presented before a S.R.O. crowd at a Catholic Home School Conference. The DVD version of the special, along with Dr. Ray's other parenting resources, can be ordered at http://www.DrRayDVD.com which features a free booklet plus a 20% discount on Dr. Ray's Television Special Packages. You can also call Nineveh's Crossing for a catalog of Dr. Ray's parenting and Catholic apologetic books, CDs, and DVDs — 877-606-1370.

2. Culture is Made Up of Repeats

We had just docked our sailing ketch at a Great Lakes village in the North Channel of Ontario. A local businessman we had known from a previous cruise was sitting in our cockpit visiting. Since our last visit to the area we had become Catholic and I asked John if he knew where the local Catholic Church was so we could attend Mass the coming Sunday. He chuckled and said he should, since his mother had been the organist at the parish his whole life. When we suggested we attend Mass with him the next day, a Sunday, he shook his head and said. "No thanks. It's too boring for me. It's the same thing, every Sunday, nothing ever changes."

We did go to Mass the next morning. John's mom was at the organ, but, of course, John wasn't there.

John's complaint is similar to what Pam and I heard growing up as Protestants. As Evangelicals we were proud that our church didn’t keep repeating the same boring service Sunday after Sunday like Catholics did with the Mass. Or so we had been told. Had we known that Mass was usually celebrated everyday we would have been surprised seven times over. No, our worship was much superior, we didn't have any of that mind-numbing liturgy, we had (drum roll, please) an "Order of Service."

Ironically, the "order" never changed. The order consisted of: a hymn, the pastor's prayer, another hymn, a responsive reading (from the back of the hymnal), special music, the offering, a sermon, a final hymn, and a closing prayer. As youth we jokingly called this the Free Methodist liturgy. But it was not liturgy, even thought there was a pattern that was repeated — religiously. 
We rationalized that although the order was the same the hymns, prayers, Scripture, and sermons always changed. Little did we know how much more there was to liturgy.

As Catholics, the liturgy is not just the order of the various events in the service but the repeated use of gestures, smells, tastes, and the repetition of physical actions like standing, sitting, kneeling, bowing and genuflecting. Altogether the Catholic liturgy is a barrage that stimulates all six of our physical senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and balance.)

Culture originates and develops from the repeated public practice of individuals. So both our Evangelical and Catholic experiences in regular public worship, have a profound effect on culture, simply because the patterns are repeated, and the content within the patterns is true.

To the extent that we repeat ritual actions and words in Christian liturgy the associated values naturally and organically seep from us and becomes part of the larger culture. We bow to Christ out of respect, and we nod our respect to those in secular authority over us. We eat and drink Christ's body and blood with great reverence, and so during a regular meal we act with careful reserve and respect to others eating with us. Proper etiquette in society has as one of its sources the rubrics of the liturgy. In Mass we repeated learn to sit quietly and listen, which prompts us to sit quietly and listen to our boss, or parents, or spouse. When we repeatedly enter God's house we don't run or yell, but control our actions out of respect for someone greater than we. So, we get in the habit of acting the same way when we enter a place of business or another person's abode.

Thus, the more we are exposed to the on-going repetition in liturgy of the sights, sounds, words, actions, smells, and actions toward God, the more likely we are to repeat the same in our daily live with others. And the more Catholics (and other Christians) do such things, the more we repeat them for others to see and hear. In that way repetition creates a culture that comes from our experience in the liturgy.

 ----------

Photo Copyright, Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS, used with permission, taken at Assumption Grotto Catholic Church Detroit.

Liturgy to Culture: 1. LIFE IS MADE UP OF FORMS

There is a direct correlation between what individuals and groups do on a repeated basis, and what the culture of the society becomes. 

If people in a metropolis repeatedly drive their cars to and from work at the same time of day, then as a metroplex society we learn to tolerate a culture of traffic jams. That along with the daily inhaling of vehicle exhaust and the honking of horns, create a fast-paced and high-strung culture.

In rural society similar but different regular events create a different culture. There slow moving hay wagons, beet trucks that dump their loads, and cattle crossing the road combine with the inhaling of organic smells and mooing of bovines to create a mellow culture.

Two families lived across the street from each other. The Libbys, like "freedom" loving people everywhere, never went to church on Sunday mornings but spent the time polishing their new Vette. But the Lentils, like clockwork and peas in a pod, were in the habit of putting on their Sunday best clothes and at 9:45 AM on Sunday mornings piled into their faded blue van and headed off to church. Of course, after a few years the Vette started to lose it's luster, the elbow grease started to mix with arthritis, and the Lentils kids seemed to do better in school and get the better jobs. The Libby's starting to go to church, too.

What we do on a regular basis, for whatever reason, can become the form and the habit of our life. When we do those things in public for others to see, we perform a "liturgy" which broadly defined is a public service, duty, or work. If we perform those liturgies on a regular basis that result in long-term desirable results, we create patterns and forms for others to follow. Our liturgy creates culture.

George W Bush Welcoming Troops Home

This man still knows how to lead. God Bless him, and our heroic troops.

Anne Rice's "Christianity"

This is my third post in a row about Anne Rice and the conversation about her relationship with Christ and Christianity.  This is a short discussion on linguist fallacies, with quotes from Anne Rice's website and links to a few other things.

I find this topic intriguing because as a part time logician the use of words is critical to good communication. Misusing words, or misunderstanding the words used, results in a slew of linguistic fallacies. The fallacies that most often confuse the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism are equivocation, distinction without a difference (what I call difvocation); and strawman. But Anne Rice has succeeded in using the same with Christian milieu in general and not particularly one institution toward another. She's lumped them all together. Which is easy to do considering the fallacious nature of so much of the communication in Christianity, even out of the Catholic hierarchy.

Equivocation occurs when the same word is used by two parties but the two parties have underlying definitions that are different. When an Evangelical Protestant claims to be "saved" it means something much different to a Catholic, who would reserve the term to mean their arrival for eternity in heaven. The term comes from the concepts of "Equal Vocalization".

Difvocation is the opposite of Equivocation. I coin it from the concepts of "Difference in Vocalization." When two different words are used but they have essentially the same meaning, but two or more parties claim there is a difference, there tends to be an argument over nothing.

Strawman is when an opponent raises an objection to someone or something by citing a false claim about it, and then striking it down. The argument is not real; it is made of straw.

All three of these fallacies are evident in the statements below that Anne makes. And when Christians and non-Christians try to interpret what she says, more of the same miscommunication occurs. Or worse, just because someone else is confused doesn't mean we need to politely respect their ignorant and misinformed opinion. Why should anyone be tolerant of evil or ignorance? Doing so is like asking people to put on blinders to be led around by the blind. (You don't want to act superior, do you? This person is blind, don't make them feel bad just you can see. Be humble. Pretend you're blind, too.  It's okay to fall down and hurt yourself; think how the blind person feels.)

Now, don't get me wrong. I like this woman, her romantic instincts, her boldness, her writing, and her marketing savvy -- a lot...to say nothing of the fact that she married a man named "Stan." She can't be all that bad.  I think, however, she's instinctively brought to the forefront a fabulous marketing scheme that has involved both her old fans, her confused fans, and her Christian fans. She's better at marketing her own books than her publisher, I think. And at the forefront of that expertise is controversy.

But the mistake she makes, in the long run as a writer, is that she has scarified honest communication about truth for hype. She is ultimately, as all authors are, most interested in what is true. If she doesn't seek truth in her writing, readers will stop reading her. Thus, she has herein stumbled. What I discovered in my own research and is revealed in The Moral Premise, applies to all story telling, not just movies. Perhaps she doesn't realize this at first, but eventually she must. I hope.

From Anne's website, AnneRice.com:

Anne's Statements Regarding Christianity as Posted:

For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
07/28/10

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of ...Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.
07/28/10

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.
07/29/10

I quit Christianity in the name of Christ on this page so that I could tell my readers I was not complicit in the things that organized religion does. I never dreamed others would be so interested, or that they would feel the need to talk about their own religious struggles. But they do. And the public conversation on... this is huge, and I think important.
08/08/10

A Bit of Analysis:

First, her beef is with organized religion, which is different than her persistent claim to still be a follower of Christ. She says "I quit being a Christian" and then says "I am a follower of Christ". This is difvocation. There is no historically difference; nor is there today in the usage of those two words/phrases. She can be justified (to some degree) in saying, "I quit being a named member of any organized Christian body, such as the Catholic Church." Even most of us in the Catholic Church can understand that sentiment, although not for the reasons she later states. I've had my run in with bishops and find some egomaniacs and not worthy of the office. But that doesn't seperate me from being a Christian, or a member of the Church. Because Judas was an Apostle did the other 11 leave Christ? (Well, shortly there after ten of them did leave Christ, for a time, but that had nothing to do with Judas. Indeed, In John 6:66 we read that many left Christ... but that had to do with protesting the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of communion. )

Second, let's take the terms "anti-gay," "anti-feminist," "anti-life," and "anti-Democrat." [I'll leave "anti-artificial birth control" and "anti-secular humanist" for another time. There is less misunderstanding of these latter terms, although what I say next may apply to them as well.] These are examples of equivocation, or can be. Being gay or homosexual can refer to a person's moral disposition (in theological terms concupiscence) or it can refer to an active life style lived without remorse. The Catholic Church is pro gay in the first definition, but anti-gay in the latter definition, just as it is loving and embracing of all sinners who recognize and seek redemption from any moral weakness.

The same can be said of the other phrases, but perhaps with some clarifications. There are as many different kinds of "feminism" as there are pant-suit designers. (Fewer every year.) A feminist in the classic sense is anyone that considers women equal to men in intelligence, ability, and dignity. Jesus Christ fits that mold. Jesus was a feminist. He talked with women and protected them when no other man would.  There are "radical feminist," on the other hand, who think women are the same in their primary physical characteristics and should have masculine physical identities, including he "right" to use urinals. I don't think the "Christians" Anne is upset with have a corner on the market for being for the former or against the latter. Women are different from men in primary and secondary gender characteristics and both should be celebrated for their values to each other and society.

With regard to the "anti-life" and "anti-Democrat" designations, I cannot guess what she means, but it seems the same sort of identifications and linguistic fallacies apply.

In short, there are very specific group of people, perhaps true bigots, whom she is upset with, or whom she seems to be upset with, and to make such general statements seem out of her character.

All of her statements, however, do easily embrace the strawman fallacy, and that this is so obvious is probably the reason Christianity Today published a short interview with her without comment. The confusion of terms and identity is gross, not subtle. She criticizes perhaps the Catholic Church, but she over generalizes (another fallacy) all of Christianity, with it tens of thousands of belief systems. Certainly there are Christian organizations who believe as she would want them to believe, who call themselves Christians and a part of Christianity. Yet, she rejects them as well. Very strange behavior for an author. Who knows maybe this will start yet another Protesting denomination, the Church of Anne Rice.

It is a false understanding, and therefore a "strawman argument," to say of Catholicism that it is anti-any human being, and particularity "anti-life." It's easy to say that the Catholic Church does not endorse a number of planks in recent Democratic platforms, especially in regard to abortion and artificial birth control. But there's no general logic (as she claims it) that applies to the concept of being Democrat.

Oh, one more -- "anti-science." Dang this is strange. Catholicism (and thus Christianity) established science. What many of us Catholic scientist types object to is how many in the science community have become political and irrational, throwing out the scientific method and ignoring clear scientific evidence that refutes their political agenda. Last I checked the Vatican was the only established religion that has a working cosmological observatory. And the hosts of world-renowned Nobel prize winners who were Catholic is astonishing. Indeed, Christian's who are scientists have an discover advantage over atheists. The atheist believes in random disorder, and the Christian believes that the universe follows an understandable order and structure imbued by benevolent intellignece. When a scientists makes a hypothesis to test, he or she assumes an order that can be known. By definition every scientists that makes a hypothesis based on past patterns and knowledge is proclaiming there is an intelligent design(er) to the universe. To discard the benevolent intelligence behind nature is to make one incapable of forming a hypothesis.  Q.E.D.

Moral Relativism

That Anne is embracing moral relativism is almost too obvious to even mention. If she is a follower of Christ then she either must follow what Christ taught which included a number of charters to individuals to lead a Church infallibly. That she certainly does not understand. It may well be that she's hanging around with, was hanging around with, a lot of protesters in both the Protestant and Catholic resistance. Such friends can be very confusing.   Pray that she sees, and begins to understand the difference between what people do, in the name of Christ (as she is even doing), and what Christ has commanded in the infallible charter He gave his Apostles that those that followed.

Anne, there's a huge difference between what people of "faith" do and what the Church infallible "teaches." The biggest mistake you can make is saying, "I love Christ and guess what, He taught exactly what I believe."

Anne Rice, Catholicism, and Dave Armstrong's Defense

Is Anne just a marketing genius, or has senility set in. And yet the juxtaposition of vampires and Catholicism has some intriguing and "novel" possibilities.

Last week when the news broke about Anne Rice "leaving Christianity but still embracing Christ," I wrote that I thought someone had hijacked her Facebook blog. We had enjoyed all three of her post-vampire Christian books and I had read some of her vampire fare. And the announcement and other words attributed to her do not sound rationale.

For you that don't know, Anne Rice is the popular author of "The Vampire Chronicles," and other such books from which several successful motion pictures have been made. She's a master at marketing as much as writing, with a personal staff larger than her publisher employs on her behalf.

A few years back she returned to the Catholicism of her youth. Her re-conversion made headlines in both vampire and Catholic/Christian circles. After her re-conversion she swore off writing vampire novels although she still justified their promotion because they honestly chronicled her journey in the dark looking for the light. Indeed her later vampire stories are about her vampire protagonists searching for redemption, something they cannot find by virtue of the story genre to live eternally as the damned. They are cursed monsters needing salvation. Viewed from that perspective there's value in Anne's books that came out of her period of atheism.

SIDEBAR - CATHOLICISM, VAMPIRES, AND ZOMBIES

The juxtaposition of Catholicism and vampire lore has some intriguing story potential. I've been involved as a consultant on a movie project that examines the "origin" and eventual redemption of vampires one step further than Ms. Rice's effort. The movie effort attempts to correlate the vampire's thirst for blood with the Christian's thirst for Christ's real presence in the blood of The Eucharist. The image of a vampire drinking human blood in search for life -- juxtaposed with a Catholic drinking Christ's redemed blood in Mass seeking eternal life, is poignant to say the least.  In John 6:53-56 we have these shocking words of Christ:

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (Jesus)

So shocking was this teaching that many of Christ's followers left never to follow Him again (John 6:66). Historians suggest that Jewish law which forbade eating meat  that was bloody, was the reason so many found this teaching repulsive.

It's not without purpose that Vampires (human blood suckers) and Zombies (human flesh eaters) are the two most popular horror genre in film. There are a lot of confused Catholics out there looking for meaning to the ritual of the Mass. Catholic teachers have done a poor job explaining it so it's up to filmmakers, I guess.  

Allow this sidetrack to continue for another paragraph. Jon Springer is the Catholic horror filmmaker form St. Paul, MN. Back in 2003 he produced a short B&W film called LIVING DEAD GIRL. The film begins with the typical zombies going crazy, biting people, and turning them into the living dead, walking around town looking for another human to bit and spread the curse. But then, this particular zombie girl comes upon a strange man standing on the street corner. It's Jesus. She attacks, taking a bite out of his arm. She, rather than He, falls to the ground. And a moment later she's resurrected as back to normal, healthy human, again. The message is clear. Society, in general, is like the living dead. But when we take a bite of Christ, and make him (literally) part of our life, we find life. It is Christ's flesh and blood that gives life.

BACK TO SCENE - ANNE RICE AND DAVE ARMSTRONG

Anne followed her re-conversion by three wonderful Christian books. "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt" was her first person telling of 7-year old Jesus' trip with his family from Egypt back to Roman occupied Galilee. "Christ the Lord: Road to Cana" was the first person telling of 32-year old Jesus' beginning of his public ministry.  Both are great reads, I recommend them, highly. During this time Anne also wrote a personal book about her childhood as a Catholic youth in New Orleans, her lapse into atheism with famous husband and intellectual Stan Rice, and then her reconversion to Catholicism. It's titled "Called Out of Darkness". The book is most valuable for her description of Catholicism through the eyes of a young girl in romantic and mystical New Orleans.

Then, suddenly it seemed, a week ago, Anne announced that she's given up Christianity and the Catholic Church... but she still loves Jesus Christ. (Huh!?)

Her reasons were the typically, trite, irrational tripe about being fed up with hypocrites and transferring their misguided comments and lifestyles on the whole of Christian thought and philosophy.  Or, in her case, misunderstanding Church teaching about loving sinful persons at all costs but hating the sins that such persons commit. Anne's son is a gay homosexual author. And as she should, she loves her son. But she can't seem to separate the sin of humankind from the teachings of Christ and his Church. Or, as Dr. Ray Guarendi says in his popular DVD, WHY BE CATHOLIC? the scariest religious position today is not the atheist, or new age, or other fringe groups, but the mainstream Christian who says, "I love God, and he's just like me."

Now, this is a "smart" woman, or so I thought. Well, upon her "anti-Christianity" announcement (or "deconversion") , the blogosphere was awash with stories, praise, condemnations, Monday quarterbacking, and debate about this "turn of events". Especially of interest is the strange and irrational reasons this celebrated author gives for rejecting Christianity but still embracing Christ. Frankly, I still think her Facebook page has been hijacked (because I expect more intelligence from her), but evidently she appeared on The Joy Behar Show in person to discuss this whole thing. (Joy Behar... makes "sense.")

ENTER DAVE ARMSTRONG

Dave Armstrong (and wife, Judy), is a friend(s) and author of a number of fine books on Catholic apologetics that I sell on Nineveh's Crossing, and one I'm editing for publication. Dave was not familiar with Anne Rice, but he caught wind of her "reasons" for "leaving Christianity" and... well, Dave can't turn down an easy Internet post when Catholicism can be defended. (It'll be a chapter in a future book of his, no doubt.) His website was perhaps the first Catholic apologetic website in the world (goes back to the mid-1990s), and he's making a writing career out of the fodder. Dave's writing is thoroughly organized,  accessible, smart, and relevant. I've hired him several times to write material for Nineveh's Crossing (our study guides all have his touch).

So, Dave did his usual thorough job at refuting the several irrational arguments against Christianity and Catholicism that Anne takes, and posted a thorough defense of Catholicism and Christianity on his blog. . You can read his initial blog entry in a post titled: The Deconversion of Novelist Anne Rice: Straw Men, "Baby/Bathwater" Mentality, Sexual Liberalism, and an Irrational Held, Apologetics-Free Faith   LINK HERE

Then the drama sets in. Anne reads Dave's post, or part of it, and writes on her Facebook blog:

Here's a rather critical, and well written discussion of my leaving organized religion for Christ. 

And then she gives a link to Dave's post (as I have give you above)

Within 24 hours Dave is besieged by comments (pro and con) on his blog,  as is Anne on her Facebook page. Dave has posted some of the comments at his post: Anne Rice's Facebook Followers Irrationally and Intolerantly Attack Yours Truly for Criticizing the Lack of Adequate Reasoning for Her Deconversion.   LINK HERE

All of this I'm very happy about... for Dave and for Catholicism. There's nothing like controversy to get people thinking or talking about what is true.

And there's nothing like Dave's very clear, easy to read defense of the faith. I can only hope that Anne (and thousands of others) take Dave's arguments to heart, and perhaps read a few of his books. All of which are on sale (15% off) at Nineveh's Crossing, naturally. HERE: http://www.ninevehscrossing.com/DALibrary.php 

Best to all of you.

Stan

Anne Rice's Blog is Hijacked

Anne Rice's blog's claim of her "deconvesion" from Christianity is one of the most stupid explanations of not being something I have ever read. She claims she's done being a Christian and at the same time saying she loves Christ. It would make sense if she'd disclaim and trash the hypocrites in Chrisianity, but that is not what these posts are saying.  It's as if someone has hijacked her blog.


I have read a great deal of her writings both before and after her reconversion to Catholicism. And nothing in these recent posts of hers makes any logical sense. It's almost as if she had someone close to her write these posts who is totally ignorant of Christian doctrine and most of all Catholic teaching and wants to lash out.   I heard recently that she was bedfast with illness. Perhaps her her delusion or incapacity someone is taking advantage of her blog. Time will tell.

For anyone of her "intelligence" to create such obviously inaccurate strawman arguments is childish if not adolescent. She's lauded for her research in the many books she's written. So, it's hard to figure that she's done no research into Christian or Catholic teaching before she came back to it.  Is she so dumb as to listen to "Christians' on the fringe and embrace their ideology as if it was an accurate reflection of Christian or Catholic theology?

If you claim to love Christ, Christ says "You will obey me." Christ also said to his Apostles, the first Church elders, "He who is against you, is against me." People have a choice, they can choose to follow God's will as expressed by the moral teachings of the Church Christ left in charge, or they can be their own little God. 

The quote most open to question, if it came from her at all is this:

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.

As a simple critique, let's stick with Catholic Christianity since Protestant theology is all over the map on these issues.

Christianity teaches us to love gays, but not their sexual perversion. We are to love those that hate us. Christianity is not "anti-anybody" but it is "anti-sin."

The most renowned feminist (moderate, not radical) was Jesus. He gave women their status of equal value to men before Western laws did. Christianity is "feminist" at its core, as long as you eliminate the fringe of the feminist movement that think women should use urinals.

Christianity isn't against birth control when used naturally, but it is against disrupting the natural working of marriage and life. It is a contraction to be FOR artificial birth control and FOR life. Why? Because artificial birth control can induce abortions of an embryo.

Christianity isn't anti-Democrat, although it is against some of the planks in the current Democrat platform, like the right to abortion. But Church teaching steers far clear of anything that is political. It's just that politics and state laws sometimes infringe on the God given human rights and the dignity of life.

Christianity may be against "secular humanism" if by that term she is referring to a philosophy that expressly excludes God.  The Church is an articulate support of humanism in it s Christian form.

Christianity invented science. The Vatican is the only faith with an astronomical observatory active in research. It's the "secular humanism scientists" and their egos that dislike God that claim Christianity excludes science.  All the great science discoveries of the past came from practicing Christians and most of those were Catholic. And don't get me into the Gallieo controversy; that was a person thing, not a doctrine thing--dig below the surface to understand that.  Truth comes by FAITH AND REASON the Church has proclaimed all its existence. REASON includes science by definition.

And her final salvo, "I refer to be anti-life".  Right. Who really wrote this? Not anyone with a brain larger than a walnut.

Anyway, I don't want to take anymore time to do again what my good friend Dave Armstrong has done wonderfully.  Check out his detailed analysis of this with all the links you could want. GREAT JOB DAVE.

Entitlement Programs Need Some "Behavior Modification"

"Spend-Spend-Spend" is the mantra typically bandied about by fiscal conservatives to describe pro-entitlement liberals. The rationale often cited to justify entitlement programs is that it's the Christian thing to do. The government is simply trying to meet the needs of the disadvantaged, so the argument goes. Christians who are staunch Democrats argue that the rich have an obligation to house, feed, and care for the poor. It's what Jesus would do; and there are plenty of Bible verses and even Catholic social teaching texts to back it up. But keeping the argument at that shallow depth is fraught with logical fallacy and danger.

The situation government usually finds itself in reminds me of Dave Lewis Crawford's song "BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION BLUES" about a little girl whose parents drop her off at grandma's house for the weekend, and the kid is spilled rotten. One of the verses goes like this:

She'll have Cheese Puffs for breakfast
and Gummy Worms for lunch
She's gonna have chocolate cake for supper
Drink up all of that fruit punch
She can wear a hundred dresses
She can do her grandma's hair
She can run the remote control
And She can sit in any chair
She'll be princess for the weekend
Mom and Dad won't have a clue

You can imagine how to modify the lyrics for government spending.

I've heard that employment suddenly rises where unemployment benefits run out. Now there are some folks that are just unemployable. I have a friend that seems normal, graduated from a prestigious engineering school with honors, is kind, and smart. But he's mentally unstable and can't keep a job. But there are many who as long as there's a check coming in that allows them to be lazy, they will. And then there's the "help" in the form of cash that can be spent for DVDs, alcohol and lottery tickets instead of food. When a Child Protection Services agent enters a home to investigate child abuse, the first thing they look for is "food" in pantries and refrigerators.  "What is the priority in this home?" the CPS lady is asking. Is the home secure (is the roof patched), and are the inhabitants dressed in a clean, protective clothing?

Our little girl visiting her grandmas is like a lazy citizen running to the government for "help." The kid doesn't need help, she needs some behavior modification, which is just what she gets when the weekend is over.

It's a long short ride from her grandma's house today
Now she's got to get used to not getting everything her way
There'll be no cheese Puffs for breakfast.... 
She's got those coming home from grandma's
Behavior Modificationary Blues.

Dave Armstrong's 150 Reasons I'm Catholic

I'm publishing a book; "Dave Armstrong's 150 REASON'S I'M CATHOLIC." We're months away from sending it to the printer. But I advanced the cover design because we need to print new "catalogs" (actually just a 3 fold brochure), and I wanted Dave's book in it. Rather than write a long post about this, which I would not have done until the book was out, Dave did it for me. So, H E R E' S DAVE.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/07/150-reasons-im-catholic-book-covers-and.html

If you think the cover at right is strange, wait until you see the Protestant version... Dave has an image at the bottom of his blog.