Nature has a way of taking revenge on those who mess with it. For example, in Egypt and China, for millenia the major rivers of these nations have seasonally flooded, creating flood basins that were incredibly rich in soil and provided the people a consistent source of food. In the 20th Century, "modern" leaders attempted to control nature by building dams. Now, those countries are in crisis, most notably Egypt, because the people haven't stopped farming on the banks of the rivers, but the rivers aren't providing the soil they once did. Thus food supplies are diminishing. Thus, it can be stated that when humans work with nature (including natural moral law), their endeavors will have a greater rate of success than when they attempt to change or control nature. Using this maxim, then, when we undertake actions that are inline with human nature, we can be reasonably assured that our endeavors will be relatively successful.
In the introduction to the volume of Wealth of Nations I am reading, the editor says that Smith's economic theories reflected a concept of man that was foreign to the "longstanding traditions of absolutism and trancendentalism with their view of human beings as inherently wayward, sinful and therefore in constant need of strong secular and ecclesiasiastical authority." I am almost instantly drawn to Jean Calvin's depiction of man as "totally depraved" and Martin Luther's assumption that we are as dung-heaps when the editor claims this. Certainly he is not referring to the millenia-old cry of Pope St. Leo the Great: "Christians, remember your dignity!" St. Leo based his exhortation on two facts: man is created in the image and likeness of God, and God chose to become fully man. According to St. Leo's logic (which is indicative of the Christian Tradition, up until the time of Luther), God is inherently Good, and if we are made in the image and likeness of that which is Good, we cannot be inherently bad (which is what Luther and Calvin claim). In addition, God chose to become one of us, thus raising our fallen dignity even more. What is at issue here is an accurate understanding of human nature. Are humans totally depraved, as Adam Smith's contemporaries believed, or are they inherently good, as Adam Smith presupposed?
Remember that Smith "calls it as he sees it." His depiction of the fruits of division of labor is not simply philosophical or speculative, but through observation. Through these observations, he is keenly aware that when "manufatures" are broken into simpler tasks (which are then called peculiar businesses), the quantity and quality of everything that is produced increases tremendously. He uses several easy examples, for instance, a smith is used to making many things out of iron. However, due to circumstances, many smiths excel at making, say, hammers, but don't make many nails. If asked to make nails, they could do it, but their nail production, because of a lack of experience, would make say a couple hundred in a day. Another smith, due to circumstances, has extensive experience in making nails, and indeed has it down to a science, and therefore makes a couple thousand a day. Smith argues that if we simply let the hammer-producing smith make hammers and the nail producing smith make nails, there are more hammers and more nails to go around than if every smith had to make both items. This is an easy observation to make, and is, quite simply, common sense. What is most compelling for our purposes, here and now, is the implication this has for human nature.
Smith goes from simple manufacturing to philosophy, and from philosophy to the rest of society. He says, "Each individual becomes an expert in his own peculiar branch [of philosophy], more work is done on the whole, and the quantity of science is increased by it." So, if division of labor and specialization can work for industry, it stands to reason, then, that it would work for other things as well: arts, sciences, politics, even religion. St. Paul talks about the different roles and different gifts that the Faithful have. In his body analogy, he makes it quite clear that when each member of the Church assumes the responsibilities of his/her roles/gifts, then the Body as a whole is made stronger, and Christ is glorified. This is akin to what Smith is saying, and he says it explicitly at the end of Book I Chapter 1: when everyone completes their specialized tasks in a cooperative manner, everyone benefits, from the peasant to the prince. Smith is not simply referring to material benefits here, but to arts, sciences, architecture, etc. The principal of using one's gifts in a cooperative manner (as opposed to purely selfish manner) means that society as a whole benefits.
Smith's admonition that people could, on their own devices and without coercion by the state or the ecclesiatical authority, work together for the betterment of all harkened back to the view of mankind held by St. Leo the Great and St. Anselm. His observation that people will cooperate on their own volition (without coercion by the state or church) is directly opposite to the contemporary practice of creating government-sponsored monopolies (which restrict free cooperation among individuals). This is why, I believe that the English and Americans were able to quite quickly create wealthy societies without the use of government sponsored monopolies. Their economic policies were based on an accurate understanding of human nature, and because of that, they succeeded. When we contrast the economic policies of say, Spain, with those of 19th Century England, we see some remarkable differences. While Spain was a Catholic nation, and as such was no stranger to Pope Leo the Great's understanding of humanity, its political structure embraced the ideas of Hobbes and the de facto his assumptions of human nature, especially when it came to non-Catholics and natives in their colonies. By 1830, England's national wealth far surpassed that of Spain's.
When the Reformers assumptions of a totally depraved and dung-heap humanity are put into action, people are oppressed, and, at least economically, people's standard of living are poor. When Catholic assumptions of an inherently good, but fallen humanity are put into action, people are free, and at least economically, people's standard of living are higher. If we accept the earlier postulation that adherence to nature will reflect in "success", then we can assume that Calvin's and Luther's assumptions of mankind are flawed, and while Smith's (and by extension, those of St. Leo the Great) assumptions are more accurate.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Commonplace Book
If you took the time to read the children's book series A Series of Unfortunate Events (which I recommend, by the way, if for anything else, it is a pleasantly humorous series), you would have come across the term "commonplace book". In the series, it is a collection of things that a certain individual had learned and when they had learned it. This practice harkens back to educational practices of the late 1700s, in which a student, while reading selected texts chosen by his mentor, would construct essays concerning themes they discovered or thought about while reading. This commonplace book would be read by the mentor, and the two would discuss the themes mentioned in the text and the commonplace book.
In schools today, teachers assign journals, which in part harkens back to this practice of a commonplace book. However, these journals are not spontaneous on the part of the student, like commonplace books were. Commonplace books were meant to be read, and meant to be discussed, and reflected what the student was learning during their reading.
This is where I come in. I have undertaken to begin reading several classic texts that I have always wanted to read, but never did. Of course, while reading such works, I will learn something and think about things. When this happens, the best thing is to write it down. So, as I muddle through these classics, I will use this blog as my commonplace book.
In schools today, teachers assign journals, which in part harkens back to this practice of a commonplace book. However, these journals are not spontaneous on the part of the student, like commonplace books were. Commonplace books were meant to be read, and meant to be discussed, and reflected what the student was learning during their reading.
This is where I come in. I have undertaken to begin reading several classic texts that I have always wanted to read, but never did. Of course, while reading such works, I will learn something and think about things. When this happens, the best thing is to write it down. So, as I muddle through these classics, I will use this blog as my commonplace book.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Sometimes "conventional wisdom" is neither conventional, nor wisdom
I have been following the whole "Pope approves condoms story" and I came across the phrase "conventional wisdom" somewhere in one of the articles. If I recall, the author was attempting to say something like "everyone knows that condom use prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS". But does it really? Is the "conventional wisdom" actually wisdom at all, or is it our wishful thinking, hoping to convince ourself of a desired outcome so we can have "it" our way?
In America education, the definite "conventional wisdom" is that the more money you throw at schools, the better they will educate their students. This is categorically false. According to some, those countries that produce more educated kids spend less on education than we do. More locally, however, is the staggering case of Washington, DC schools. Almost every year, DC schools spend more money per student than any other district in the nation...and its students still underperform. There are a lot of factors in how a school educates its students. Money isn't really that high on the list. All you need to do is look at Catholic schools, which on average spend $2-3K less per student than their public counter parts, and whose students routinely perform at levels equal to or higher than public schools students (I won't even get into homeschooling, where families spend many, many times less with better results). However, its easy for us to say that schools need alot more money, because throwing money at a problem is easier than buckling down and actually fixing it.
Similarly, conventional wisdom is that the government must somehow be the impetus behind making sure that everyone has healthcare. On paper, it sounds great. You know, "free" health care, that everyone can get, insured by the government. But that is not the reality. As is evident in the UK and other government health-care systems, care is rationed due to lack of resources (be they financial resources or medical resources). In practice, not every one is covered. On this end, I remember sitting through one of my pointless grad classes, in which the professor (no conservative, that one) proceded to ask us what the biggest tragedy over Princess Diana's death was. I was about to raise my hand and say "A real humanitarian, Mother Theresa, was overlooked because of Diana's death", when he answered his own question: it took the ambulence--in downtown Paris--three hours to reach the scene of the accident because of all the red-tape. He then went on to say that if it happened in NYC, she'd have been in the hosptial in 20 minutes, and would have lived. It is easy for us to say let the government fix it, because then we don't have to actually think about what to do. It just doesn't work that way.
In a related example, in 2009, the Holy Father went to Africa, and on the plane trip there, he made some discouraging remarks concerning condoms (I believe he said that they actually made the AIDS problem worse). The press lambasted him on it the entire trip (never mind that the Africans rejoiced at his messages and he was roundly hailed as a hero in all the countries he went to). What was missed in the one sided conversation were actually pieces of information: the only country in Africa with and AIDS epidemic that has seen some improvement is Uganda, which adopted an abstinence and fidelity based education system, which was hugely successful. Contrast that with the other nations, which have used an internationally-sponsored condom-based approach. These nations have seen their AIDS rates increase, despite handing out prophylactics like they were food. How is this happening when "conventional wisdom" shows that condoms stop the spread of diseases? Well, as Professor Rhonheimer (a Catholic priest who is an expert in moral theology) points out, the perception that the risk is mitigated leads people to engage in more risky behavior could lead some people to engage in more risky behavior, negating the "benefits" of the condom. This would make matters worse. So, why is condom use to prevent illness such "conventional wisdom"? Just like prior examples, condom use is the easy way out. It is much harder to have to abstain from your lusts than give in. Thus, we need to find a way to overcome that problem (not getting HIV/AIDS while still giving in to your lusts).
What do all these examples have in common? To me it is simple: the proponents of these tidbits of "wisdom" have failed to look at human nature. Government largess creates ample possibilities for bribery, theft, kickbacks, and pork-barrel spending that grossly inflate the amount spent on any given program. This is true in education and government-run health-care. The same is true with the whole condom thing. You can't tell me that some guy is going to get this piece of latex with the promise "you won't get a girl knocked-up, or get HIV, 99% sure" and not say "I best be responsible in how I use this amazing piece of human ingenuity". No, human nature says that he'll indulge in his every lustful desire, because he can (and not get punished for it).
What is ultimately ironic about these bits of "conventional wisdom" is that they are relatively new in origin: prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish proverbist once wrote: money is the root of all evil. Governments before the 1800s never took it upon themselves to do the job of local entities, because it was obvious that private entities were more effective, a concept that St. Thomas Aquinas called "subsidiarity", but which in reality goes back to Augustine and possibly Plato or Aristotle. From the time of Constantine, "conventional wisdom" held that all forms of contraception, including barrier methods, were evil because they encouraged intrinsically evil behaviors (like fornication, adultery, and homosexuality). There is nothing "conventional" about them.
In America education, the definite "conventional wisdom" is that the more money you throw at schools, the better they will educate their students. This is categorically false. According to some, those countries that produce more educated kids spend less on education than we do. More locally, however, is the staggering case of Washington, DC schools. Almost every year, DC schools spend more money per student than any other district in the nation...and its students still underperform. There are a lot of factors in how a school educates its students. Money isn't really that high on the list. All you need to do is look at Catholic schools, which on average spend $2-3K less per student than their public counter parts, and whose students routinely perform at levels equal to or higher than public schools students (I won't even get into homeschooling, where families spend many, many times less with better results). However, its easy for us to say that schools need alot more money, because throwing money at a problem is easier than buckling down and actually fixing it.
Similarly, conventional wisdom is that the government must somehow be the impetus behind making sure that everyone has healthcare. On paper, it sounds great. You know, "free" health care, that everyone can get, insured by the government. But that is not the reality. As is evident in the UK and other government health-care systems, care is rationed due to lack of resources (be they financial resources or medical resources). In practice, not every one is covered. On this end, I remember sitting through one of my pointless grad classes, in which the professor (no conservative, that one) proceded to ask us what the biggest tragedy over Princess Diana's death was. I was about to raise my hand and say "A real humanitarian, Mother Theresa, was overlooked because of Diana's death", when he answered his own question: it took the ambulence--in downtown Paris--three hours to reach the scene of the accident because of all the red-tape. He then went on to say that if it happened in NYC, she'd have been in the hosptial in 20 minutes, and would have lived. It is easy for us to say let the government fix it, because then we don't have to actually think about what to do. It just doesn't work that way.
In a related example, in 2009, the Holy Father went to Africa, and on the plane trip there, he made some discouraging remarks concerning condoms (I believe he said that they actually made the AIDS problem worse). The press lambasted him on it the entire trip (never mind that the Africans rejoiced at his messages and he was roundly hailed as a hero in all the countries he went to). What was missed in the one sided conversation were actually pieces of information: the only country in Africa with and AIDS epidemic that has seen some improvement is Uganda, which adopted an abstinence and fidelity based education system, which was hugely successful. Contrast that with the other nations, which have used an internationally-sponsored condom-based approach. These nations have seen their AIDS rates increase, despite handing out prophylactics like they were food. How is this happening when "conventional wisdom" shows that condoms stop the spread of diseases? Well, as Professor Rhonheimer (a Catholic priest who is an expert in moral theology) points out, the perception that the risk is mitigated leads people to engage in more risky behavior could lead some people to engage in more risky behavior, negating the "benefits" of the condom. This would make matters worse. So, why is condom use to prevent illness such "conventional wisdom"? Just like prior examples, condom use is the easy way out. It is much harder to have to abstain from your lusts than give in. Thus, we need to find a way to overcome that problem (not getting HIV/AIDS while still giving in to your lusts).
What do all these examples have in common? To me it is simple: the proponents of these tidbits of "wisdom" have failed to look at human nature. Government largess creates ample possibilities for bribery, theft, kickbacks, and pork-barrel spending that grossly inflate the amount spent on any given program. This is true in education and government-run health-care. The same is true with the whole condom thing. You can't tell me that some guy is going to get this piece of latex with the promise "you won't get a girl knocked-up, or get HIV, 99% sure" and not say "I best be responsible in how I use this amazing piece of human ingenuity". No, human nature says that he'll indulge in his every lustful desire, because he can (and not get punished for it).
What is ultimately ironic about these bits of "conventional wisdom" is that they are relatively new in origin: prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish proverbist once wrote: money is the root of all evil. Governments before the 1800s never took it upon themselves to do the job of local entities, because it was obvious that private entities were more effective, a concept that St. Thomas Aquinas called "subsidiarity", but which in reality goes back to Augustine and possibly Plato or Aristotle. From the time of Constantine, "conventional wisdom" held that all forms of contraception, including barrier methods, were evil because they encouraged intrinsically evil behaviors (like fornication, adultery, and homosexuality). There is nothing "conventional" about them.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Why I can't stand Mark Shea
I don't know why I do it to myself. Perhaps I hope that it won't be as infuriating as it always is. Anyway, I did it again. I saw an article penned by Mark Shea, and read it.
I guess what infuriates me about Mark Shea's writing style is the words he chooses to not only make his point but also get to it. In the article referrenced above, Mr. Shea's supposed argument was that its asinine for Conservative Catholics to think that someone's pro-life stance absolves them from their ideological errors, while its asinine for Liberal Catholics to assume that someone's opposition to the Iraq War absolve them from their ideological errors. At least that what he says in the comments. The article, however, is not about that.
Its quite clear that Mr. Shea is against the war in Iraq. In fact, his writings have been laced with invective and insinuations that now, whatever happens in Iraq is murder (you see, because Mr. Shea says its unjust, then not only is it objectively unjust, but therefore, now it is murderous). Thus, he can equate support for abortion with support for an unjust war. Moreso, however, is his harping about those on the Catholic Right disregarding the "voice of the Church" on the war (and this is, I think the main point he is trying to make). He equates statements made by John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB with the "voice of the Church". There are several problems with these things.
First, his article cites three pieces as the "voice of the Church": an address the Holy Father (John Paul II) gave to the Diplomatic Corps, Cardinal Ratzinger's speech after receiving the Trieste Liberal Award, and the US Council of Catholic Bishops (at least their website). On the surface, those sound like pretty formidable forces to reckon with. So I checked them out.
The Holy Father, it turns out, is against war. Of course, the Holy Father says nothing concerning the Iraq War, but simply says that war is bad, and we should avoid it all costs. His speech is directed at giving his diplomats marching orders: what policies and attitudes they are to press for as diplomats for the sovereign state (the Vatican) they represent. The mere venue means that this speech is an issue of state, not an issue of Church (you see, even the Vatican can separate Church and state...although its hard). To use this speech as evidence of the "voice of the Church" is riduculous.
The article on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's address was actually counter-productive to Mr. Shea's point(s). Mr. Shea cites the statement by the Cardinal that "preemptive war is not in the Catechism" and links us to the article from which he got the statement. It is as if he didn't even read the article. The very next line is "One cannot simply say the Catechism does not legitimize the war." So while the Catechism doens't mention preemptive war, it also doesn't rule it out either. This is not was Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. He wants us to hear that the Cardinal thinks that because preemptive war isn't in the Catechism it is immoral, but that is not what the Cardinal said. In addition, the Cardinal did say that it was hard to justify unilateral war under the present circumstances...and then goes on to say that it should be the UN's decision. According to the article, the Cardinal wasn't concerned about the invasion of Iraq in and of itself, but the unilateral invasion of Iraq. The article's lede even makes this abundantly clear...Mr. Shea just failed to notify his readers. Likewise, the Cardinal said that policy issues weren't his specialty, inferring that he leaves matters like war up to the states. This is not what Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. , as it is antithetical to his point.
Finally he cites the USCCB's Iraq statements. These statements firstly include the "unilateral" myth again (26 nations does not "unilateral" make). Then the bishops go on to say that "Based on the facts that are known...it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq." They have a point: based on the facts that the public knew from the Mainstream Media, one could conceivably have a hard time justifying invading Iraq. This opens the door for the possibility that the public didn't really know the whole story, perhaps the media wasn't giving us all the information (like the fact that Saddam had actually asked bin Laden to station himself in Iraq, but bin Laden refused the offer). This, of the three, is the most useful for his purposes...but it still isn't a tight match.
That however, is not my only beef with Mr. Shea. Another one is his clain that Conservative Catholics will hold moral proclamations of the Magesterium to be true (when according to him, the Magesterium hasn't defined any moral teachings as infallible), but call issues like torture and war "prudential decisions". Firstly, Mr. Shea, who supposedly knows Catholic doctrine well, misses the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary Magesterium. Those moral teachings that he talks about have been constantly proclaimed by popes, bishops, and councils, thus making them part of the ordinary Magesterium, and thus infallible (according to Lumen gentium and the Catechism). This makes those teachings binding on the faithful (at least in terms of obedience, if not assent). The two popes' opposition to the Iraq War is not on the same plane as these moral teachings (indeed, one could argue that their statements are not part of the Magesterium). Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a letter to the US bishops in 2004 that support for abortion is not the same as support for a war that could be unjust. One could support a war that is unjust (despite what Church leaders have said about the war), while one could never support abortion.
Maybe one day, I'll stop reading Mark Shea. It'll save us all agony.
I guess what infuriates me about Mark Shea's writing style is the words he chooses to not only make his point but also get to it. In the article referrenced above, Mr. Shea's supposed argument was that its asinine for Conservative Catholics to think that someone's pro-life stance absolves them from their ideological errors, while its asinine for Liberal Catholics to assume that someone's opposition to the Iraq War absolve them from their ideological errors. At least that what he says in the comments. The article, however, is not about that.
Its quite clear that Mr. Shea is against the war in Iraq. In fact, his writings have been laced with invective and insinuations that now, whatever happens in Iraq is murder (you see, because Mr. Shea says its unjust, then not only is it objectively unjust, but therefore, now it is murderous). Thus, he can equate support for abortion with support for an unjust war. Moreso, however, is his harping about those on the Catholic Right disregarding the "voice of the Church" on the war (and this is, I think the main point he is trying to make). He equates statements made by John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB with the "voice of the Church". There are several problems with these things.
First, his article cites three pieces as the "voice of the Church": an address the Holy Father (John Paul II) gave to the Diplomatic Corps, Cardinal Ratzinger's speech after receiving the Trieste Liberal Award, and the US Council of Catholic Bishops (at least their website). On the surface, those sound like pretty formidable forces to reckon with. So I checked them out.
The Holy Father, it turns out, is against war. Of course, the Holy Father says nothing concerning the Iraq War, but simply says that war is bad, and we should avoid it all costs. His speech is directed at giving his diplomats marching orders: what policies and attitudes they are to press for as diplomats for the sovereign state (the Vatican) they represent. The mere venue means that this speech is an issue of state, not an issue of Church (you see, even the Vatican can separate Church and state...although its hard). To use this speech as evidence of the "voice of the Church" is riduculous.
The article on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's address was actually counter-productive to Mr. Shea's point(s). Mr. Shea cites the statement by the Cardinal that "preemptive war is not in the Catechism" and links us to the article from which he got the statement. It is as if he didn't even read the article. The very next line is "One cannot simply say the Catechism does not legitimize the war." So while the Catechism doens't mention preemptive war, it also doesn't rule it out either. This is not was Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. He wants us to hear that the Cardinal thinks that because preemptive war isn't in the Catechism it is immoral, but that is not what the Cardinal said. In addition, the Cardinal did say that it was hard to justify unilateral war under the present circumstances...and then goes on to say that it should be the UN's decision. According to the article, the Cardinal wasn't concerned about the invasion of Iraq in and of itself, but the unilateral invasion of Iraq. The article's lede even makes this abundantly clear...Mr. Shea just failed to notify his readers. Likewise, the Cardinal said that policy issues weren't his specialty, inferring that he leaves matters like war up to the states. This is not what Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. , as it is antithetical to his point.
Finally he cites the USCCB's Iraq statements. These statements firstly include the "unilateral" myth again (26 nations does not "unilateral" make). Then the bishops go on to say that "Based on the facts that are known...it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq." They have a point: based on the facts that the public knew from the Mainstream Media, one could conceivably have a hard time justifying invading Iraq. This opens the door for the possibility that the public didn't really know the whole story, perhaps the media wasn't giving us all the information (like the fact that Saddam had actually asked bin Laden to station himself in Iraq, but bin Laden refused the offer). This, of the three, is the most useful for his purposes...but it still isn't a tight match.
That however, is not my only beef with Mr. Shea. Another one is his clain that Conservative Catholics will hold moral proclamations of the Magesterium to be true (when according to him, the Magesterium hasn't defined any moral teachings as infallible), but call issues like torture and war "prudential decisions". Firstly, Mr. Shea, who supposedly knows Catholic doctrine well, misses the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary Magesterium. Those moral teachings that he talks about have been constantly proclaimed by popes, bishops, and councils, thus making them part of the ordinary Magesterium, and thus infallible (according to Lumen gentium and the Catechism). This makes those teachings binding on the faithful (at least in terms of obedience, if not assent). The two popes' opposition to the Iraq War is not on the same plane as these moral teachings (indeed, one could argue that their statements are not part of the Magesterium). Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a letter to the US bishops in 2004 that support for abortion is not the same as support for a war that could be unjust. One could support a war that is unjust (despite what Church leaders have said about the war), while one could never support abortion.
Maybe one day, I'll stop reading Mark Shea. It'll save us all agony.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
You--a disease to be irradicated
I just read this, by Diogenes over at Catholic Culture. Obamacare is supposed to, now, cover contraceptives as "preventative medicine". As Diogenese points out, "preventatvie medicine" prevents diseases and illnesses. Contraception prevents babies, and according to ob/gyns, contraception is preventative medicine. What contraception prevents is new life. So, using this logic:
1. " Preventative medicine" prevents disease.
2. Contraception prevents new life
3. Contracepion = "preventative medicine"
**4 GIVEN 1 and 2, and IF 3, THEN new life=disease.**
So, Obama and his flunkies, especially formerScreacher Speaker of the House and Sen. Boxer, view new life as a disease.
This actually makes perfect sense. Consider China, a socialist country. China's government strictly controls and "cares for" its populace. This is a huge burden. So, how do you lessen the burden? Reduce the number of dependants you have...its not that difficult. China's abuse of humanity is perfectly consistent with the atheistic socialism of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Obama. If Government is responsible for people, it wants as little people as possible to take care of. There are two ways of doing that: killing what you've already got (naturally or artificially), or making sure nothing new comes your way. In either case, life is the enemy, pure and simple.
Each of us were babies. Obama now thinks of each person, especially babies, not only as "punishments", but also diseases, diseases to be irradicated. This is why he pushes for state funded abortion, this is why he pushes for state funded contraception.
With a thought process like this, it makes it really difficult to believe the President when he says he's a Christian (although I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt). After all, GOD created life, it was HE that blew Life into our dusty bodies. By rejecting Life, we reject GOD. By rejecting GOD, can we really consider ourselves "Christian"?
1. " Preventative medicine" prevents disease.
2. Contraception prevents new life
3. Contracepion = "preventative medicine"
**4 GIVEN 1 and 2, and IF 3, THEN new life=disease.**
So, Obama and his flunkies, especially former
This actually makes perfect sense. Consider China, a socialist country. China's government strictly controls and "cares for" its populace. This is a huge burden. So, how do you lessen the burden? Reduce the number of dependants you have...its not that difficult. China's abuse of humanity is perfectly consistent with the atheistic socialism of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Obama. If Government is responsible for people, it wants as little people as possible to take care of. There are two ways of doing that: killing what you've already got (naturally or artificially), or making sure nothing new comes your way. In either case, life is the enemy, pure and simple.
Each of us were babies. Obama now thinks of each person, especially babies, not only as "punishments", but also diseases, diseases to be irradicated. This is why he pushes for state funded abortion, this is why he pushes for state funded contraception.
With a thought process like this, it makes it really difficult to believe the President when he says he's a Christian (although I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt). After all, GOD created life, it was HE that blew Life into our dusty bodies. By rejecting Life, we reject GOD. By rejecting GOD, can we really consider ourselves "Christian"?
Monday, November 1, 2010
Blog II
Often, I get the urge to write religiously themed items. So, I've decided not to burden you involuntarily with them and thus created the RottinApologist.
Head on over to see what I've written. Who knows, it might be interesting.
Head on over to see what I've written. Who knows, it might be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)