In my blog, "Yes Hillary - there are stupid questions!" (JimBlazsik.com) I covered the amazing show of ignorance made by Secretary of State Clinton on her unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

I just chalked it up to a continuation of Hillary's gaffes, but then I came across an article by Joseph P. Duggan at American Spectator that completely changed perspective on that event.

Could Hillary's stupid question be intentional? Is this a concerted effort of the Obama/Clinton team to directly attack religious faith and particularly the Catholic concept of the Culture of Life?

"MEXICO CITY -- Imagine an American Secretary of State one morning praying at Jerusalem's Wailing Wall and the next evening accepting a eugenics award named for Dr. Josef Mengele.

That is an apt analogy to the repugnant juxtaposition of gestures by Hillary Clinton during and following her brief visit to Mexico last week.

Color photographs and loud captions atop page one of the daily El Universal captured the Mexican public's sense of outraged bewilderment at Mrs. Clinton's visit March 26 to the Basilica of Guadalupe, Catholicism's second most visited shrine after St. Peter's in Rome. The Basilica rector, Monsignor Diego Monroy, stands with Mrs. Clinton and shows her the mestiza Madonna whose story is known to every Catholic schoolchild, an image believed to have been imposed miraculously on an Indian's cloak five centuries ago.

    HILLARY CLINTON: Who painted it?

    MONSIGNOR MONROY: God.

La Guadalupana is the archetypal icon of Latin American Catholicism. Catholics in the United States as well as in the Latin countries today invoke the Virgin of Guadalupe as the special patron of the pro-life movement.

Was Hillary's public diplomacy fiasco a calculated insult addressed to something she regards as a superstition, or simply the unrehearsed utterance of a person so soulless that she cannot fathom believers' sense of mystery?

A clue to the answer came in the traveling diplomat's next stop after Mexico, Houston, where she accepted the Margaret Sanger Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation.

In Houston, Hillary lauded the very evils that pilgrims to Guadalupe pray to overcome: liberalized abortion laws and making United States taxpayers pay for abortions and abortion propaganda in "developing" countries.

The comparison of Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) and Josef Mengele (1911-1979) is not overdrawn. Even a cursory examination of her life's work and pronouncements shows Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, as one of the most strident and inhumane racists of the eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In April 1932, for example, she wrote an article urging "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." Eugenics was a fashionable social policy panacea at that time not only in Hitler's Germany, but also among powerful elites in the United States and other Western democracies.

Hillary Clinton provides the latest manifestation of what Arthur Schlesinger Sr. called "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and "the only remaining acceptable prejudice" -- anti-Catholicism."

Duggan then ties Hillary's stupid question with President Obama's poor reasoning when he removed the ban on embryonic stem cell research:

"Secretary Clinton's words and actions in Mexico and Houston are elaborations of the disconcerting words of President Obama's Inaugural Address, his pledge to "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs" and his gratuitous, unspecific slam against "worn out dogmas."

Nothing is more clear-cut than the chasm separating the Obama-Clinton ideology and programs from Christian faith and tradition and what Pope John Paul II, whose towering bronze image stands beside the Basilica here, called the Culture of Life."

The Obama/Clinton agenda has pitted them against a formidable foe:the community of faith dedicated to the Culture of Life.  They know it, but will everyday folks understand that the gauntlet has been thrown down?

There is something wrong when a reporter, who is on your side -  comments on your inappropriate laughter. But when the reporter takes it up a notch, and actually asks if you are "punch drunk," you begin to think that there is a serious problem.

What makes it worse - you are the President of the United States!  

POLITICO:

His [Obama] remarks came in a“60 Minutes” interview in which he was pressed by Steve Kroft for laughing and chuckling several times while discussing the perilous state of the world’s economy.

“You're sitting here. And you're— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money—’ How do you deal with— I mean: explain. . .” Kroft asked at one point.

“Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft said.

“No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day,” Obama said, with a laugh.

I can't remember an interview like this with a President, especially with serious subject matter like folks losing their retirement and their homes. But then again, I can't remember a President displaying this type of inappropriate behavior.

"Punch Drunk" refers to a boxer's condition - dazed from or as if from repeated blows; "knocked silly by the impact"; "slaphappy with exhaustion."

With his behavior on 60 Minutes, coupled with his gaffe-fest last week, one may have to ask - is Obama just over his head, or is he losing it?

Maybe this is what happens, when a man who has no executive experience (and hardly any political experience) is elected President.

And yes, I wonder: what would the media do if it was George Bush displaying, "a little gallows humor?" Think about it: the President of the United States has admitted, that the way he deals with the seriousness of our nation's crisis - is to use "a little gallows humor!"

Did our president admit that he was being creepy?

jimblazsik.com

To honor Darwin’s birthday, I decided to share a blog I wrote last year.

Mother Teresa and the Atheists
 
I don't want atheists to feel bad but…Mother Teresa did not lose her faith. Atheists were gleeful and the mainstream press was in hysteria over comments made by Mother Teresa in the book, "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light" a compilation of letters and papers written by Mother Teresa and published 10 years after her death.

We know atheists get kinda hateful at times, but pick on Mother Teresa? I know one reason is that she is an icon of  charity, and that validates the goodness of Christianity. They hate that stuff. But to comment on matters of faith and spirituality they know nothing about?

Or do they? As we shall see later, atheists have their own spirituality.

But what about the statements by Mother Teresa that has created all this controversy? Here are several:

"There is so much contradiction in my soul, such deep longing for God, so deep that it is painful, a suffering continual — yet not wanted by God, repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal. ... Heaven means nothing to me, it looks like an empty place."

"They say people in hell suffer eternal pain because of the loss of God. ... In my soul I feel just this terrible pain of loss, of God not wanting me, of God not being God, of God not really existing. Jesus please forgive the blasphemy."

One must remember that it is Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, postulator for the cause of canonization for Mother Teresa, who released the letters and papers for publication. He wanted to inspire others by showing the depth of her relationship with God.

But how are we to look at her struggle of faith? Is Mother Teresa a different person in private, contrasted by the saintly figure of charity in the public eye?

The struggles of Mother Teresa doesn't question her relationship with God, it verifies it. Her relationship with God was not one of a mindless fool, or a mechanical robot. As Christians, we are all human, all struggling in our relationship with the Divine. The Lord knows and understands that we are made of dust, and wants us to express our doubts and fears to Him.

The very task that Mother Teresa dedicated herself, will lend itself to the struggles of the soul: the reaching of the poorest of the poor, and relieving the pain that is suffered in the worst conditions of humanity. The more deeper we reach to the lost and suffering, the more we will give ourselves to that suffering.

But it goes into a much deeper spiritual sense, what St John of the Cross calls "the dark night of the soul." We see this in the saints of the Scriptures. The panorama of Job in his sufferings and questions to God, David anointed king but a refugee away from his inheritance and the altar of God, John the Baptist in prison having his doubts whether Jesus is the Messiah, and Paul with his thorn in the flesh.

What is the dark night of the soul? I think it starts with:

" I want to know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death." Phil. 3:10.

It starts with Christ, and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings. It is the actual sharing of the experiences with Him in Gethsemane. Standing with Him before Pilate. Being with Him through His scourging, and the crown of thorns. Carrying His cross along side of Him, being stripped of all you trust in, and being crucified with Him.

I think the darkest part of the night is when Christ, hanging between heaven and earth, cries out: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" At this, one feels the agony of being separated from God, and abandoned by Him.

But why would anyone want to experience such a desert, such an agony?
There is a fellowship, a closeness to Christ that cannot be described. It is not the sublime, or the vision of the Heavenly Glory. In the dark night of the soul one becomes self aware of the reality of God, simply because everything else that you trust in is stripped away.

Mother Teresa expresses it this way:

"I have begun to love my darkness for I believe now that it is a part, a very small part, of Jesus' darkness and pain on earth."
"If my pain and suffering, my darkness and separation give you a drop of consolation, my own Jesus, do with me as you wish. ... Imprint on my soul and life the suffering of your heart. ... I want to satiate your thirst with every single drop of blood that you can find in me. ... Please do not take the trouble to return soon. I am ready to wait for you for all eternity."

For the Christian, the dark night of the soul dawns into the light, to the heavenly glory of Christ.
 
But what about the atheist? Is there an atheistic spirituality? An atheist's "dark night of the soul?"

The dishonest atheist is totally unaware that the decision to believe there is no God is just a rejection of the true God for another. We are driven to believe in something, and the dishonest atheist must trust in something in order to bring meaning.

The dishonest atheist believes in modern science as a god, and fanatically trusts in it to calm the fears that he may be wrong in all of this. But modern science does not satisfy the human heart: the dishonest atheist must also pursue other gods of self indulgence.

This is the great hypocrisy. The dishonest atheist believes in the gods of their own choosing, they just don't want to believe in...God. In the midst of insecurity, the dishonest atheist will hate anything that will remind him of God. They will even hate a Mother Teresa, a picture of faith and charity, because they see God in her.

It is when the atheist becomes an honest atheist, that he becomes self aware of what he believes and completely understands his plight.

The honest atheist will experience a unique dark night of the soul.
There is the realization that modern science will never answer the questions of how the universe came into being, or the origin of life. The honest atheist understands that without God the darkness is darkness. And, if we are the result of impersonal, random forces; there is no hope, no basis for right or wrong, and no purpose or meaning. There isn't any recognition of beauty, for beauty implies design. There is not even the assurance of the perception of reality, much more to define it.

In this dark night of the soul, the honest atheist finds himself alone, with the full awareness of always being alone, in the vastness of a stark impersonal universe. There is no one else in the prison of his own choosing.

And the million hells he experiences of loneliness, despair and hopelessness on earth will then slip into the darkest gloom of the Hell of eternity. And there he will be alone, trapped within himself forever.

Then any atheist will have to be the honest atheist, when the discovery happens: God was always there. Then the atheist will become completely self aware that he always knew there was a God, but hated him. But he couldn't face the reality of hating God, so the chosen way of getting back at Him was the denial that He exists. This truly is the Grand Delusion.
 
Earlier I asked the question: "why would anyone want to experience such a desert, such an agony?" I already gave one answer, is there an other?

This is Mother Teresa's response:

"I wish to live in this world that is so far from God, which has turned so much from the light of Jesus, to help them — to take upon myself something of their suffering."

Honest atheist, let Mother Teresa be a light to you, to lead you to the Light of the world. She walked through a dark night of the soul, but she wasn't alone.
She is showing you that you will not have to walk alone.




© Jim Blazsik 2009 JimBlazsik.wordpress.com  Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

Put yourselves on the ways of long ago and enquire about the ancient paths: which was the good way? Take it then, and you shall find rest. Jeremiah 6:16

Serfdom - a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner - Merriam-Webster


We are on the Obama Road to serfdom. This road will lead us to socialism - which will hand over our future over to the State, and thus to servitude. This servitude will be exemplified in the State’s attempt to solve the problem of poverty, and the caring for our poor.

Barack Obama and the Secular Progressives believe that they are the elites,  and they in turn exalt the State as the savior of mankind. This is the radical left, and they insist that all must capitulate to the will of the State. But they have a problem. There are folks who will relinquish their personal  freedoms to become serfs to the State - but most people will not. Poor Seculars - what are they to do?

The Seculars realize the importance of recruiting as many people as possible, to depend on the government for some type of assistance. Whether Social Security, healthcare, education, welfare, and the like. The poor in their need are easy pickings. In order to understand all of this, we must realize the issue is not the solution to poverty. The issue is dependence on the State.

Socialism is a failure. Liberalism is a failure. Progressivism is just liberalism progressively worse. Trickle down government is never the solution. Government programs will never solve the issue of poverty - government programs rarely solve any problem. The problem with the State in trying to solve problems is that it becomes full of itself. It creates a bloated bureaucracy, it's very impersonal, runs itself in a very inefficient way, wastes money, and because it's always political - politicians must always profit by it.

President Johnson's Great War on Poverty will illustrate this point. Intended to eliminate poverty, Johnson stated, "the war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others." Instead, the plan was to give the poor the behavioral skills and values necessary to escape from both poverty and dependence. Johnson sought to address the "the causes, not just the consequences of poverty." (1)

Unfortunately, Johnson's intentions were never realized. The War on Poverty became an Industry of Poverty, bent on self preservation by creating a whole new dependent class. More than thirty years ago, then President Jimmy Carter stated, "the welfare system is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable in its treatment of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers' dollars." (2)

What is the single most significant contribution of the Democratically controlled House, during the 30 years after the inauguration of the War of Poverty? The creation of a brand new group in America, a dependant class trapped in generational welfare. Instead of solving the problem of poverty, it institutionalized it.

While the perception is that liberalism/progressivism is compassionate to those in need, it actually is the greatest detriment to the solution of poverty. Take education as an example. We know that education is an essential step out of poverty. Parents who have children attending failing Public Schools, know their kids are at a great disadvantage. But instead of fostering competition through vouchers to open up the reality of a good education,  liberals/progressives oppose them.

Why? One reason is special interests of the teacher unions. Another reason is that the public schools are the clearing house for relativistic secularism. The State must control the thinking of our children. So, instead of freedom of choice in education for the poor to conquer poverty -  liberals/progressives will limit their choices, simply because they know better.  

But how do we help those in need out of poverty? The solution will never come from trickle down government - it must come through the grass roots where the poor are, and then proceed to the top. There must be a cooperation between local Churches, charitable organizations and education, (where the people are), business (where jobs are created), and then the Government (to provide assurance that help is given without discrimination).

1) The emphasis should be on personal responsibility and independence from the State. Help must come to those in need, to provide a safety net: but it must not simply be a hand out, but a hand up out of poverty. The old approach to poverty encouraged dependence. One of the significant steps toward this was welfare reform. "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the failed social program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform legislation had three goals: to reduce welfare dependence and increase employment; to reduce child poverty; and to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage."

One of the keys of this legislation is the requirement of 30 hrs of work or looking for work, without losing medical benefits. Under the old system, if one became employed -  state medical benefits were lost. This would give  incentive to stay on welfare, instead of leading a person to self reliance.

What were the results? Welfare caseloads have been cut nearly in half, and employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has increased from 50 percent to 100 percent. The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing  came to a virtual halt. The share of children living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share living in married-couple families has increased, especially among black families. (3)

2) In order to give our children tools for success, we must have freedom in educational choices. Instead of attending failing schools, competition must be fostered through the development of charter schools and vouchers. Open enrollment should be allowed in all public schools, so that children are not limited by the district they happen to reside.

3) The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives founded  by President Bush, is a good start in harnessing the full participation of faith-based organizations to help the poor. It was designed to prevent discrimination against them, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.

 We need to encourage more participation, uninhibited by government control in religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.

4) Business and free markets must be unshackled by high corporate taxes so that it may reinvest and create more jobs. Our free market economy creates  more jobs at a much lower price than Socialism creating jobs through the State.

5) We must promote the greatest solution to poverty - the family! A loving and stable marriage is the greatest gift that you can give to your children. The instillation of religious faith, the provision of love and discipline, the teaching of what is right and wrong, modeling a strong work ethic, and the development of integrity and character - will give children advantages that money can never buy.

Conversely, eighty percent of those in poverty are single parents and children from single parent homes. Divorce and having children while not married, are the biggest steps into poverty. How do we avoid poverty?  If you are going to have children - get married, and stay married. (Let me take a moment to assure everyone that the intention here is not to judge divorced folks and single moms! Please understand that the intention is to encourage marriage and family).


Conclusion

The solution to poverty has little to do with government programs, but it has everything to do with strengthening the family, increase educational opportunities, freeing business and the free markets to do what they do best by creating jobs, enable churches and private charities to reach the poor “where they are at,” and continual reforming of welfare to be a “hand up” from poverty.

The Stimulus Package has never been about stimulating the economy, it’s been all about creating a Socialist government, with a massive permanent expansion of the welfare state. It is a big step in nationalized healthcare, and the actual jobs it does produce are government jobs - more people who depend on the State.

The coming of Obamaworld means the coming of Socialism and the failure that accompanies it. The issue is not solving the problem of poverty, but the development of a dependant class to insure votes. If it can get as many people as possible dependent on government programs, it succeeds in making them serfs: subject to the will of its owner - the State.


But what do we do?

Be not afraid! Please remember: God really is in control - He has a plan, and it’s up to us to tap into it. In life, we are always presented with opportunities, and we have one given to us now. We will stand together as a salt and a light, presenting the Gospel of Life - in a world that has taken one extra step toward darkness.

1) Get serious about your faith. Be a person of love, truth, and healing. Have a good sense of purpose, and a strong set of priorities. It is important to build  intuitive and discerning skills, in determining what is the right thing to do in the times we are given.

2) Know your stuff. Be well informed about the issues, and find news and information sources that you can trust. Hint: it is not the “mainstream” media!

3) Ask yourself - what do I  really get into? Is it theology, family, politics, social issues, writing, the entertainment industry, music, art, gardening, etc? Become an expert of what you love, and then make it a point to use your expertise and influence in behalf of God’s purposes.    

4) Keep your heart at home. Strengthen your family.  Determine to have your home as a beacon of light, an agent of healing.

5)Be part of a community that is dedicated to being a beacon of light, an agent of healing. Stop being a wanderer, and be part of a local church. Build strong relationships with people you can trust, and do not “go it” alone.

6) Invest in the job you have now. I think there is a stat that 80% of folks are in a job they hate. But in times of higher unemployment, excel where you are at right now, so that other doors will be opened for you. You need to be a good example anyway.

7) Pray for wisdom when it comes to finances. Debt is not a good thing. A spendthrift, mindless spending of money in a materialistic lifestyle is disastrous. Bless those in need with your giving, and you will be blessed.

8) If you are in need, please get assistance where possible. If you have    exhausted all other sources, and need government assistance - humble yourself and get it. The key is to get back on your feet, and then back to independence from the State.

9) Enjoy life and be a happy person. There is nothing worse than worrying,  hand wringing, and being overcome by the evil in our culture. If you are not careful, it will consume you. Give yourself permission to be happy and enjoy life.

10) Take care of yourself! It’s time to give up smoking, the abuse of alcohol, quit drugs (illegal and the abuse of legal drugs), and overeating. End the pornography now - it will turn you into an animalistic machine.
 
11) Join the resistance, and be part of the loyal opposition! Yes, we all can do something - but you have a God given purpose, that only you can do. There are people that only you can touch, waiting for your expression of God’s love.

12) Call your Senators now, and voice your opposition to the Stimulus Package! Spector of PA and Snowe of ME would be nice to call - they are the two Republicans who voted "yes" for this bill for a test vote on Monday.

And even though it seems to be a sure thing in the Senate, there still has to be reconciliation with the House bill, and the President still has to sign it. But if it does go through as is - we have elections in two years for all of Congress!


1) Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth by Robert E. Rector March 7, 2001

(2) Quoted in Roger A. Freeman, Does America Neglect Its Poor? (Stanford, Cal.: The Hoover Institution, 1987), p. 12.

(3) The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform by Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan February 6, 2003



© Jim Blazsik 2009 Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.


Come by check out my blog, JimBlazsik.wordpress.com This is a daily blog providing news, entertainment and other personal articles by me. See what you think. Feedback is appreciated.

New Atheist Fundamentalism in it’s Twilight of History

…we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition…Richard Dawkins

I don’t want the new atheists to feel bad, but…they have their fair share of fundamentalism! Poor new atheists! The world has eclipsed from a modernistic worldview to postmodernism. Atheistic voices are regulated by relativism as one of many in the wilderness, just one of the many choices in the Pantheon of beliefs. There is such a disregard for it’s old, worn out polemic that there are those who are proclaiming the twilight of atheism. (1)

Postmodernism is just one of the factors indicating the twilight of atheism. With it’s main apologetic consisting of pointing to all the evils of religion, atheism blew it’s credibility with the advent of atheistic communism, being responsible for the most repressive societies in world history and the loss of over a 100 million lives. It is a little hard to swallow when you point the finger at others while ignore your own dirty laundry.

Also, with it’s certainty that religion would disappear after a time of education and scientific progress, atheism finds that faith in God has actually made a rebound in the world and looks stronger than ever.

But of all of the reasons to believe that new atheism is in it’s decline, the most import indicator to me is it’s fundamentalism. Now I am not saying that all atheists are fundamentalists. There are those who are tolerant of other religious beliefs and realize that the world can be interpreted differently from different viewpoints.

I am referring to the populist type of the new atheism promoted by Richard Dawkins, especially in his book, The God Delusion. His book seems to be more of a fundamentalist rant than a scientific statement, more of promoting a scientism than science itself. It is interesting that atheist philosopher and evolutionist Michael Ruse admits that, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”(2) Even William Dembski, the intellectual architect of the intelligent design movement, sent an e-mail to Dawkins stating, “I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God’s greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement, So please, keep at it!” (3)

Some examples of New Atheist fundamentalism:

1) Atheism is true, well, just because it’s true.

The new atheists insist what they believe is true but lays the burden of proof squarely on those who disagree. While demanding those who believe in God must prove their assertions, atheists believe they are not under the same scrutiny by proving there isn’t a God! This is the height of fundamentalism and hypocrisy, assuming a reality without giving a reasonable defense to assert that reality.

Before Dawkins, there was Antony Flew. He was the prominent atheist for decades and actually laid the foundation for the new atheism. He now admits this approach of the assumption of atheism was a mistaken apologetic. What is also interesting is that He now admits there is a God. (4)

Of course trying to prove their assertions places them at a disadvantage: it’s impossible to prove there isn’t a God.

2) The theory of evolution must be regarded as true without question and science must be understood within the context of atheism.

The issue is not whether evolution is or is not a valid theory. It does not have any bearing on the existence of God nor proves the validity of atheism. In the end, the theory of evolution is just a process - not an end all to understand the universe around us. (5)

The issue is the intolerance of atheists when they demand science must always uphold the validity of evolution without question, even when the evidence may lead them elsewhere. This is intellectual totalitarianism, a fundamentalist faith that is afraid of free and open inquiry. Even Dawkins admits, we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.(6) That’s all I’m saying!

Also, when the new atheism demands that science and evolution must be understood in atheist terms, is when it actually crosses over into the realm of faith. This becomes a scientism, a faith that demands a world and universe understood in it’s own terms to the exclusion of others. They are unable to be objective and fall into the trap of fundamentalism.

3) All religion is bad, everything that it does is bad, and, well, it’s just bad.

A blind fundamentalism believes what it wants to believe, even when reality shouts at it in the face. The new atheists have a hard time admitting that people of faith positively effects the world around them. They have even trashed on a deceased elderly woman who worked with the poor in Calcutta.

It ignores the work of churches and faith groups that help the poor, the homeless, the sick, people trapped in addictions, and provide for recovery in times of divorce or loss of a loved one. They give a sense of community and build family values. (9) By the way, where are the atheist groups that help folks in need?

Atheistic fundamentalism retells history in order to ignore the impact of the Christian faith in the development of reason and the sciences, law, literature, art, music, and our understanding of charity and care for the least of these. They ignore the fact that the Christian faith is the foundation of Western Civilization. (10)

I understand that religion can do evil things, we are in a war with Islamic fundamentalism and there have been times religion behaved poorly. But all religion all the time? How can people be so blind? The issue is legitimacy - with their main apologetic consisting at pointing towards other peoples faults, admission of the positive influence of faith gives legitimacy that faith in God is an alternative to faith in no God.

4) After a time of education and scientific progress, religion will disappear, because you know, it just will.

The reverse is true. Science in and of itself can never satisfy the longing of the human heart, nor the intellectual needs that supersede it. Science is not an all that ends all. This is a difficult reality for followers of the new atheism who insist that science has all the answers to reality.

Religion has far from disappeared and is strong as ever. Here is an interesting example: Back in 1916, active scientists were asked whether they believed in God - specifically, a God who actively communicates with humanity and to whom one may pray “in expectation of receiving an answer.” Deists don’t believe in God, by this definition. The results are well known: roughly 40 percent did believe in this kind of God, 40 percent did not and 20 percent were not sure. The survey was repeated in 1997, using precisely the same question, and found pretty much the same pattern, with a slight increase in those who did not (up to 45 percent). The number of those who did believe in such a God remained stable at about 40 percent. (10)

Let’s take a closer look at the polling question. It’s criteria consists of three different parts:

a) whether they believed in God
b) a God who actively communicates with humanity
c) to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer

This is a very specific definition and the above information has to shake new atheists to the core. After a century of the greatest advancements in science, 40% of scientists still believe in a personal God that actively communicates with humanity and answers prayer. I wonder if the definition of the polling question was simply some type of god or life force - would the remaining 15% still be unsure? This would make a majority of scientists who are not atheists!

5) It’s just not normal to believe in God, it’s got to be a virus or something in the air.

New atheists like Richard Dawkins believe that science and religion is not compatible and understands them to be at war with each other. He also takes it to another step - that belief in God and religion itself is illegitimate. When tolerance is not an option, fundamentalism does it’s work.

Instead of recognizing that belief in God is a natural thing for folks, he tries to explain it away. Of course there is the old stuff from Marx and Freud, but Dawkins gets pretty creative. He tries to tie belief in God and ideas of religion with a virus of the mind, where ideas of God can be transmitted by a biological virus! Of course there is no proof for this, and there is no scientific plausibility. But there is a problem for Dawkins - what if atheism is a virus of the mind?

But then he takes it a step further, and points to something in the air - enter the meme. While a gene is a biological replicator, a meme is a cultural replicator, the culprit in spreading belief in God. Of course there is no proof for this, and there is no scientific plausibility. While no one has never seen a meme, Dawkins seems to see this as a reality. Again, there is a problem for Dawkins - what if atheism is a result of catching a meme, or should I say a ameme?

For folks claiming to depend on reason and science, it is amazing what people will believe in order to justify their fundamentalist faith, even resorting to pseudo or junk science.

Conclusion

If the new atheism is to reverse it’s twilight in history and remain a credible choice in a postmodern world, it has to have more than the rationalization that it’s credibility rests on the faults of other worldviews. It has to stop it’s constant whining. Whining and complaining will always draw whiners, complainers and other malcontents - but it doesn’t inspire and after awhile, it gets just plain annoying.

Also, the new atheism’s intolerance of other worldviews is well, very intolerable! It is exhibiting a fundamentalism that it accuses others of having, demanding others to believe what they want them to believe, solely on the grounds that they believe it. Dawkins serves as an example. In the movie - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Dawkins actually admits that you can look at the universe and see a signature from some type of a designer. This is a startling admission. The problem is that he demands that it is not God, but some being that evolved somewhere else!

Instead of condemning other worldviews, a common respect towards others would be a breath of fresh air. And, instead of always pointing the finger at others, the new atheism needs to point the finger at itself. There is a world of need out there. There are children who go to bed hungry and need a home. There are those who experience loneliness and heartache and need a friend. The oppressed and persecuted wait for a champion.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: stop the whining - it’s time to put up or shut up.

(1) See Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism, Random House, 2004. An excellent work by an evangelical, former atheist and professor at Oxford.

(2) See Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion?, IVP Books, 2007,

(3) ibid, pg. 49

(4) See Antony Flew, There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, Harper One 2007.

(5) See Pope Benedict, Creation and Evolution, Ignatius, 2007.

(6) A Devil’s Chaplain, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003, pg. 81

(7) “Perhaps there is nothing greater on earth than the sacrifices of youth and beauty, often of high birth, made by the gentle sex in order to work in hospitals for the relief of human misery, the sight of which is so revolting to our delicacy. Peoples separated from the Roman religion have imitated but imperfectly so generous a charity.” Who gave this affirmation of Christian charity? Voltaire.

(9) See Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason, Random House, 2003.

(10) Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? 2007. Pgs 42,43.

Suggested reading from former atheists

There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, Antony Flew, Harper One 2007.

The Dawkins Delusion? Alister McGrath, IVP Books, 2007.

The Twilight of Atheism, Alister McGrath, Random House, 2004.

The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2004.

Additional suggested reading

Chance or Purpose?, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Ignatius Press, 2007.

Creation and Evolution, Pope Benedict, Ignatius Press, 2007.

What’s So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza, Regnery Press, 2007.

Check out JimBlazsik.wordpress.com/

© Jim Blazsik 2009 Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

The Obama Road to Serfdom

Put yourselves on the ways of long ago and enquire about the ancient paths: which was the good way? Take it then, and you shall find rest. Jeremiah 6:16

Serfdom - a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner - Merriam-Webster

We are on the Obama Road to serfdom. His call for change doesn’t lead us to  a new path, a new road, but a path that has led to failure. His new change is to visit failure again. Instead of following the flow of freedom in the West from a totalitarian state, to freedoms unheard of in world history, Obama’s Road to Serdom will creep us ever closer to socialism - which in turn, will hand over our future to the State, and to servitude.

Instead of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, that Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, Barack Obama wants us to bow our knee as a people of the government, by the government, and for the government. As a  radical leftist, his intention is to bring change. But he wants to change the very fabric of our free society, to remake it, into his and his fellow elite’s image. His goal - to remake the most free, most prosperous, most powerful,  most religious country in the world, and reduce it to a European secular socialist state.

The Democrats are now using our economic emergency to shove this agenda down our throats. The Stimulus Package is not about saving the economy, it’s all about saving liberalism and the progressive view of the future. This is a spending bill, and the only thing it is intended to do is stimulate the government. On top of it, this is wanton borrowing - we are not spending what we have, we are borrowing our children’s future.

President Obama has stated that this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In a sense, the constant rhetoric from the media, the Democrats and the President has helped hurt the economy - in undermining the confidence of the American people. It would do him well to remember the Great Depression, and that FDR’s socialist experiments were a disaster. After the first eight years of his administration, the Depression still loomed and the unemployment rate was still in double digits. World War 2, and a wartime economy pulled the U.S. out of it’s worse economic crisis in it’s history.

But the President is incorrect: this isn’t the worst economy since the Great Depression. All one has to do, is go back to 1982. In the aftermath of the disastrous Jimmy Carter administration, Ronald Reagan came into an economy with double digit inflation, interest rates as high as 21%, the unemployment rate reaching to 10.8%, and the GDP fell by 6.4%. Today? Inflation is near 0%, interest rates near .25%, the unemployment rate is 7.2%, and the GDP fell by 3.8%.

What did Ronald Reagan do? He believed that to revive the economy was to unshackle the free market. He believed in the American people. It was not up to the government to create jobs - government was wasteful, bloated, and self absorbed - in other words, government was the problem. It was the government’s responsibility to remove the obstacles to the free market, so that it could create jobs. How did he do this?

First: by cutting corporate taxes and interest rates, it made money available to the free market in order to start new businesses, expand existing companies - and create jobs.

Second: by cutting income taxes for everyone, it allowed the free flow of money into the market - contributing to the growth in the economy.

Ronald Reagan believed in the American people, that it was their money, and it was up to them in how to spend it. The result? The greatest expansion of a peacetime economy in our history. John Kennedy in the sixties and George  Bush after 9/11, followed the same path as Reagan - with the same result.

President Obama believes in the State, that tax money is the possession of the federal government, and the elites know better in how to spend it. The problem? The government spending tax money to get out of the recession has never worked. FDR followed this path, Richard Nixon followed this path, and both found that it was a path to failure.

My parents escaped from communist Hungary. I heard first hand, stories of their experiences in a oppressive atheistic society. The State, with a self designated elite ruling class, was in control of the church, the media, the economy, and healthcare. The State determined a person’s value and place in society - and self expression submitted to it’s will

I saw first hand in my father, what freedom actually means, after being shackled by a totalitarian State. The man never said much to me: but what he did say, expressed what freedom meant to him - deep down inside. “Jimmy, don’t ever let anyone tell you what you want to be, in this country, you can be whatever you decide to be. In this country, you don‘t have to afraid to say anything you want to say, and you can vote for whoever you chose to.”

My father and my mother left everything behind, to live in the freest nation on the face of the earth, to start a new life. They gave me the inheritance of freedom, and this freedom grew deep down in my heart and soul, as I saw my father proudly entering the voting booth, or as he stayed glued to the TV, watching free speech in action when he watched the news.

With the coming of Obamaworld, the storm has begun. The winds are blowing, and there is a flashing of light in the distance. We are in a turning point in history, we are at a fork in the road. Do we follow the Obama Road to Serfdom, in servitude to the State, or do we follow the path of freedom and prosperity?

The important thing to know: we can do something, we can make a difference! We are not a helpless lot. We are commanded in Scripture to overcome evil with good - this shows us that we are not a slave to the times before us.

The important thing right now in regards to this Stimulus Package, is to get the word out to as many people as possible, and encourage them to contact their U.S. Senators - and make their opinion known.

May I make some more suggestions in a call to action, and preparing for the coming of Obamaworld? I have written a blog, “Obamaworld Cometh - Prepare for the Storm” where I do this very thing. You can read it here.

What will I do? “The Obama Road to Serfdom” is a first in a series. It’s focus will be in getting to know the new President, and his agenda for our nation.

May I ask - what will you do!

© Jim Blazsik 2009 Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

How did we get here?

Barack Obama has declared war on the unborn. How did we get into this mess? Well, it’s simple: because Christians compromised and voted for a pro-abortion president. But what is even more shocking: it appears that they will compromise even more, by supporting him while he wages war on the innocent and defenseless. How did we get here?

I am used to the Religious Left selling out the unborn. When I say Religious Left, I mean folks who go by the tag of liberal, or I notice now that they like to call themselves Progressive. The tag Liberal does have those negative connotations, so I am sure a new name will help them feel better about themselves. But in the end, Progressivism is just Liberalism progressively  worse. It is much more secular, and it’s vision for the future is quite bleak.

Here lies the problem - the controlling elite of the Progressive Movement are the Seculars, who of course hate Christianity. The Seculars will allow religious folks like Jim Wallis as a court jester, as long he can recruit for them, and show Democratic Candidates how to do religious-speak to fool Christians. They will pat the Religious Left on the head and make them feel they really do matter, as long as they tow the party line.

That means if you are pro-life and try to use  legislation to protect the unborn - you don’t get to go to the back of the bus, you are thrown out of the bus. Abortion is a Golden Cow in the Secular Pantheon of beliefs. This is why I am unable to understand Bob Casey Jr., who by the way is one of the very few pro-life Democrats in office,  and supported Obama during the election.  It’s as if he forgot what the elites of the Democratic party did to his pro-life father, by throwing him out of the bus. It was a crying shame, and it should never be forgotten. But I am getting off the subject here.

The Seculars did have a religious problem - pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals. They were instrumental in electing pro-life candidates for President, who just happen to be Republicans. This makes them very angry. Why? You see,  the Seculars really believe that we can’t live without them. We need them to tell us how to think, what to do, and solve our problems. Our help must come from them through the State - for without the State we can do nothing. How dare they vote for a Republican instead of an enlightened Democrat!

They knew pro-life people defending the unborn is a conviction of what is right, and that certainty of right and wrong scares them. They also knew it is impossible to change their mind, but they needed their votes. Poor Seculars! What could they do, they could never justify voting for a pro-choice candidate, or could they? They needed a plan to persuade them to sell out the unborn, all the while thinking that they are helping them. Oh, those Seculars, they came up with a plan!

What was their plan? Just how did they persuade folks to sell out the unborn? First, they use the Religious Left to accuse Pro-lifers of being single issue folks, and that we must remember there are other important issues, like care for the poor and global warming. Bad pro-lifer! Silly pro-lifer, you are uniformed of other social issues and you should be ashamed! I find it curious that since they don’t know me and yet judge me so - I really do care about many issues, but that’s another thing.

Then, they tell us the way to reduce abortions is not by legislation, and that  it’s not possible to do that anyway. A careful use of untruthful spin. by saying the President doesn’t have anything to do with abortion, and the Republicans didn’t do anything anyway, is sprinkled in quite liberally (no pun intended). And then for extra good measure, it didn’t hurt to tell folks that the abortion rate didn’t go down during the Bush administration, or even better yet - tell them that abortion actually went up during the Bush years! It didn’t matter that the abortion rate actually declined to a thirty tear low, if you are going to sell out the unborn, a little deceit might actually help.

It is explained to us, that every enlightened person knows the way to deal with abortion, is by praying for the end of abortion and to show compassion. If we conquer the social issues that cause abortion, then abortion will be substantially reduced. So be content with passing some government program. Of course you want to say that it is not an either/or thing: we must pray, show compassion by providing education, health care, or counseling - and fight for the end of abortion. Abortion is the killing of a unborn baby, is it not? Can you imagine, if you use the same line of thinking regarding child abuse? How about murder or rape? Do we wait for Utopia and let all hell break lose?

How long will those social programs take to work? Twenty or thirty years? What if the social programs don’t work? The unborn deserve social justice too. So while we wait for some social program to do whatever it’s supposed to do, the unborn continue to die.

But now you have to watch their next step, because they get pretty tricky. They start talking about the other issues, focus entirely on those issues, and by a slight of hand - walk away from the unborn. They now feel very good about themselves, for they are the  enlightened ones, and as the Seculars pat them on the head with their approval, they feel themselves a very compassionate folk. And the unborn continue to die.

But it was a couple of comments made by regular people that set me back a little. I guess I was broadsided. Now I think they are regular people, meaning that that they are not ideologues with an agenda. Ideologues get sneaky sometimes, by acting like regular people, and then zap you with their agenda in a back handed way. But I am going to assume that they are regular people.

The first comment came from a woman who said she didn’t see anywhere in the Bible that Christians were supposed to run about changing laws, and we should concern ourselves with preaching the Gospel instead. Christ is coming soon, isn’t He? And anyway, isn’t it a woman’s business whether she chooses an abortion or not? Well, it does come to mind that Christians were deeply involved in the Abolition Movement, Susan B. Anthony happened to be a Christian, and we all know Martin Luther King was a Christian. I guess she meant that we should have turned our heads when it came to slavery, tell women that of course they should not vote, and civil rights legislation wasn’t all that important.

Now the second comment was much more penetrating, and pierced to the very core of our daily lives - he simply said, - there are much more important things than abortion. That did take courage, it’s what a lot of people feel, but would never have the courage to say. I applaud him for his honesty.

This cuts to the quick, doesn’t it? I mean, this really is the reason. This is why the unborn are still threatened by abortion for 35 years - because everything else is more important. I do want to point to Nazi Germany, and their concentration camps killing millions of Jews, Catholics and other Christians. I’m sure there were regular folks going to work each morning, drinking their coffee, watching the smoke raising from the camps, and tending to much more important things.

Maybe we have the other important things, such as the crisis in our economy. It was the number one issue for those who voted in this past election. We just  think there are more important things than protecting the unborn. Most folks agree that America will be judged for the killing of the unborn, and I wonder how long we can go on like this. Maybe Someone is trying to tell us something.

But I will consider that I should just preach the Gospel, Jesus will come back soon (probably tomorrow), and leave the issue of having an abortion up to the mother. I will tend to the more important things. It’s surely easier to walk away. I get worn down and fatigued in the fight, I’m tired of facing the hatred of folks who disagree with you, and tired of arguing with folks who should know better. And the lukewarm - well, you know how Jesus feels about them.

OK, this is what I am going to do - I am going to walk away. Why not just leave the heaps of aborted babies in the trash - who cares? They are just body parts and babies burned with a saline solution. A friend sent me an article, it was about how the abortion industry makes money from selling parts of aborted babies. Maybe it’s good for the economy - and it may create some jobs. There are the more important things - oh, well, hell with them!

You know, the next step is pretty interesting. If I don’t care about a defenseless unborn baby, why should I care about his/her mother? Remember, the decision was hers to take the life within her and destroy it. She was the one who felt that spark of life within her, knowing that she was a different person, a mother. There was a new person in her life, her child. If she threw it away, and her body is damaged by the procedure, and her heart is broken by the emptiness, why should I care? Hell with her!

I can see the progression here. If it’s OK to preach the Gospel without caring about killing unborn babies who are defenseless, then why should I be concerned helping folks, who should be helping themselves? This means I can also walk away from the hungry and homeless, I am sure it was their fault anyway. I can turn my head away from the widow and the orphan, they are not my widow and orphan. Forget about those in prison, it’s not my fault they’re in there. To hell with them too.

You know, it’s almost a relief. I don’t have to care anymore. I don’t have to fight anymore. I don’t have to debate about stupid stuff. I can do what I want to do. I can tend to the more important things.

It’s amazing when you get to tend to the more important things. You get to pick the things that are more important to you. I get to be the center of it all, doing what I want to do. It is interesting preaching the Gospel this way. You kinda know where those health, wealth and prosperity folks come from. It is a different way of looking at things.

Before you know it, your life begins to change. You find that you have made yourself the most important thing. And, it is as if, the other things I have chosen have become bigger than life, bigger than me, and have become gods. The people that I hang with now, seem to have the same gods too.

But as I sit here, I find myself alone. It’s pretty hard to be in the quiet - I find it harder to look at myself. And I really find it hard to describe the feeling of knowing, that God is also looking at me.

It gets harder to listen to that still small voice, and yet I do hear something:

Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
“For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

And then I realized - that I could not walk away from the unborn, for I began to see Jesus with them. And if Jesus was with them, then I needed to be there too. I can’t limit my reach just to providing education, health care, or counseling, just because a political party wants me to - trying to pacify me, and get my support in this War on the Unborn. If I want to change laws to achieve social justice for everyone, then I must not discriminate - I must also include the unborn.

I will not bow to a political party, the Seculars, or to a rabidly pro-abortion President - I will speak for those who are unable to speak for themselves, and I will stand for those who are unable to stand for themselves. I will stand with, and for the unborn.

And I pray that you will stop supporting Barack Obama’s War on the Unborn. You already have innocent blood on your hands - you will also bear responsibility of every baby that will be aborted abroad, because of Obama’s actions in reversing the Mexico City Policy.

What will you do when the President and the Democratic congress:

1) Fail to renew the Hyde Amendment?  The pro-choice lobby has been wailing about how many babies have not been aborted, because of withholding federal funds from paying for abortion. Do you want tax dollars pay for abortions in this country?

2) Reverse the Bush’s policy of withholding funds from the U.N., that provides monies for China’s one child policy? Do you want to fund forced abortions in China? Are you kidding me?

3) Pass the Freedom of Choice Act? Do you want every restriction removed, and make abortion a fundamental right in this country? Do you want killing an unborn baby a “fundamental right?”

I ask you, please, don’t close your eyes to the senseless slaughter of the innocents, continue to spin and deceive, and recite talking points like a mindless puppet. Please, open your eyes, your mind, and your heart - and speak for those who are unable to speak for themselves, and stand for those who are unable to stand for themselves.

What are you going to do? Will you stand with Jesus, who stands with each and every baby - who is born or not? Or, will you stand with the man who is waging his war against them?

May our hearts beat with the heart of Jesus.

© Jim Blazsik 2009

---