The Atheist and The Confederate Flag.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote how I had found myself in agreement with "a guy that sports a tattoo on his neck" in our mutual dislike of Pat Robertson. As I wrote then, atheist Dan Arel isn't a fan of the televangelist and founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and neither am I - albeit for different reasons.

After coming upon a post Arel had published on patheos.com, I learned that he and I share a similar disgust for the Confederate flag currently flying in South Carolina's capital. Although his post contained a bit of snark, we both agree that the flag is a symbol of racism and does not deserve our respect.

However, I don't understand why he is opposed to the Confederate flag. As a Christian, I know why I oppose it and I have no trouble explaining my opposition.

Christianity teachings us that we are all children of God, that we are all created in His image. I listen when Christ says, "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me". I believe when we mistreat our brothers and sisters we are mistreating Jesus as well.

I realize that some will counter that some Christians have used their misunderstanding of the faith to justify their racist beliefs. That does not, however, address the question I have for the atheist.

If one does not believe in any God - whether we're talking about the Christian deity, or Allah or even Vishnu, for that matter - if you do not believe in the existence of any Supreme Being or Creator, the only alternative is the belief that we are the product of a random collection of material "stuff" that accidentally came together without any "purpose" behind it all. If we were not created by a "creative intelligence" then we are the end result of a cosmic mishmash.

If the atheist view is the correct one, why does it matter in the least how we treat other human beings?

I know why I believe racism is sinful. I just don't understand why the atheist thinks so.

Pat Robertson:Baby Who Died Could've Been Another Hitler

It isn't often that I can say I find agreement with a guy that sports a tattoo on his neck, but I can say that this time, I do agree with atheist Dan Arel's dislike of televangelist and founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson.......just not necessarily for the same reasons.

As reported on more than one website, when a woman wrote in to The 700 Club asking what she should tell a grieving co-worker whose three-year old baby had died and who had asked her (the letter writer) how she can believe in a god who would take her child from her, Robertson replied,

"As far as God’s concerned, he knows the end from the beginning and He sees a little baby and that little baby could grow up to be Adolf Hitler, he could grow up to be Joseph Stalin, he could grow up to be some serial killer, or he could grow up to die of a hideous disease. God sees all of that, and for that life to be terminated while he’s a baby, he’s going to be with God forever in Heaven so it isn’t a bad thing".

Not believing in God, Arel questions why any God would create a child who would grow up to be any of those things, and comes to the further conclusion that Robertson is an "insensitive dickhead".

I can't argue with his assessment of Robertson, but my main problem with the televangelist is his corruption of Christian teaching. I don't believe Robertson will ever have much success winning over atheists with his particular brand of lunacy.

Taking Robertson's comments to their "logical" conclusion, one could even believe that God supports abortion........after all, the aborted fetus could have become an Adolf Hitler as well.

Greater men than Robertson (or Arel) have struggled with the problem of evil in this world and why the innocent must suffer. I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to satisfy either one with my answer. Unlike Robertson, I don't believe I can read God's thoughts, but unlike Arel, I believe God has the answer.

Writer Wants All Ten Year Old Boys Castrated.

It's funny, sometimes, how we get from point A to point B. The route we take isn't always the most direct.

This morning a found a spamish email in my inbox from the speroforum. I don't know why I've suddenly become the recipient of Speronews; to the best of my knowledge, I didn't intentionally subscribe to it. Be that as it may, thanks to the email, I learned of an open letter to Pope Francis being circulated by a group calling itself The Cornwall Alliance.

The group describes itself as,
"A coalition of theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen, the Cornwall Alliance is an evangelical voice promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles."

I've read their open letter, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. The letter, however, isn't the point of this post. The Cornwall Alliance website posts articles, originally posted elsewhere, which reference global warming - or climate change.

One such article is one written by Megan Toombs ,originally published on Townhall.com. In the article, Toombs rightly criticizes an article by Katie Herzog, Why I’ll never have kids, and why you shouldn’t either. As Toombs explains, Herzog's basic argument "is that Earth’s climate is in danger, it’s our fault, and something must be done—something drastic."

Herzog's solution?

"Ritualistically castrate all males at age ten, and destroy dams and other infrastructure, 'preparing the earth for the end of people' ".

Besides her view that reproducing human offspring is destroying the planet, another reason why she will never have babies is because she is "a tote-bag-carrying-nature-loving-gun-hating-child-free-atheist" Lesbian who has no maternal instinct.

Offhand, I can think of another reason why Herzog will never reproduce.

Parking Space, or Hate Crime?

When I first learned of the murder of three Muslims in Chapel Hill NC, I couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe that this was anything other than a hate crime. Yet, quite a few people seem to buy into the idea that Craig Hicks was enraged over parking spaces.

From huffingtonpost.com:

"Police in Chapel Hill said they have yet to uncover any evidence that Hicks, 46, allegedly acted out of religious animus, though they are investigating the possibility. As a potential motive, they cited a dispute over parking spaces at the condo community where Hicks and two of the victims lived."

I've been wondering......why are people arguing over the killer's motive? If convicted, Hicks is unlikely to ever be a free man again, no matter what his reason may have been for murdering the three execution style.

Surprisingly, Hicks' Facebook page is still online  and looking at it, I think I might have found the answer to my question.

His Facebook page reveals Hicks to be a typical, "progressive" Democrat. He's an atheist, he's anti-theist, he supports same-sex "marriage" and abortion "rights". He hates all the things Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow tell us we should hate (like religion). On Facebook, he "likes" anything Liberal and/or anti-Republican.

The same people who would have used his Christianity or conservatism - if he had been Christian and Conservative - against all Christians and Conservatives, are now telling us that Hicks' belief system is not the issue. They're telling us he was simply a gun-nut with anger management issues.

Liberal, Democrat and atheist? Move along, nothing to see here, folks.

The photo below was used by Hicks on his Facebook page. He doesn't want your baseless superstitions killing people, but I guess killing someone over a parking spot is OK.

Number One Comment on Reddit.com.

To Liberals, Being Called Racist is Worse than Being Called Murderer.

As a great philosopher once said, "Denial ain't a river in Egypt".

We can be certain of that bit of wisdom now, as Karen Hicks, wife of the man suspected in murdering 3 young Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,though certainly in denial, apparently isn't likely to have visited Egypt - or any other Muslim country - recently.

At a news conference Wednesday, Hicks said, "This incident had nothing to do with religion or the victims' faith, but in fact was related to the longstanding parking disputes that my husband had with the neighbors."

Karen Hicks is the only one who believes that.

When asked by a reporter why she believed the murders were not a hate crime, Hicks said that her husband often championed same-sex "marriage", abortion and race. You know, all the things Liberals and atheists believe are wonderful.

In the cnn video, the suspect doesn't seem to have a problem believing her husband could commit murder, but she draws the line at hearing that her husband is a bigot, 'cause, you know, being called a racist is worse than being called a murderer.

Finding Darwin's God.

Pat Archbold, one half of Creative Minority Report, recently wrote an opinion piece for Nation Catholic Register, entitled "They Call Them Theories For A Reason", where he discusses the Church's response or responses to "the origins of the universe, the origins of life on earth, or any other in vogue unproven theory".

Generally, I enjoy reading anything written by either of the Archbold brothers, but perhaps Pat should refrain from writing on "the origins of the universe, the origins of life on earth, or any other in vogue unproven theory" as well.

One person leaving comments on the post recommended we read a book written by Kenneth R Miller - Finding Darwin's God. I'm in the middle of the book and I'd like to recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of God and evolution.

Kenneth Raymond Miller is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University (Wikipedia) and a Roman Catholic. Miller does a fairly good job arguing that an acceptance of evolution is compatible with a belief in God. I must admit that portions of Miller's book go way over my head, but the fault is mine, not Miller's.

Miller's book isn't new.....it was originally published in 2000. That same year, was reviewed by the now late Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Science. Needless to say, Morris did not agree with Miller's defense of evolution. Morris, an Independent Baptist is critical of Miller because he (Miller) does not mention Jesus Christ in his book. The fact that Miller is a Catholic who repeatedly professes belief in God, is not good enough for Morris.

In 1996, Morris published an article on the Institute for Creation Science website, slamming what he called "public papal evolutionism" in general and Popes Pius XII and John Paul II in particular. I can't think of a greater compliment than to be put into the same category those two Popes.

You Go Uruguay, I'll Go Mine.

Checking bbc news and aljazeera.com, I learned that six Guantanamo prisoners have resettled in Uruguay. There was no mention of the release on CNN, Fox or Drudge. I was beginning to believe that the story was going to be completely ignored by America news outlets, until I discovered articles on the transfer on the Washington Post and the Washington Times.

Prior to this story, my knowledge of Uruguay was pretty much, well, nothing. So, wishing to increase my knowledge of the country, I searched for information about the current president of Uruguay, José Mujica. For the most part, he seems like a man after Obama's heart. Mujica has called Guantanamo a "disgrace" and has used Guantanamo to bash George Bush. Being a typical politician, Mujica delayed bringing the prisoners into Uruguay until after the country's recent elections - an October opinion poll showed 58% of Uruguayans were opposed to bringing in the prisoners.



On the plus side, Mujica does not live in the Presidential palace, but on his wife's farm where the couple cultivate chrysanthemums. Called by some, the world's poorest president, Mujica donates about 90% of his monthly salary to charities which benefit poor people and small entrepreneurs. This leaves his take-home pay inline with the average Uruguayan income - $775 a month. I can't imagine any U.S. President, Democrat or Republican, doing the same.

On the negative side, Mujica supports abortion.

Not surprisingly, Mujica has stated on a left-wing Spanish television station, that he is an atheist.

As for the photo, due to Mujica’s efforts to legalize marijuana in Uruguay, the president has won the praise of Aerosmith's Steven Tyler.

Dr. Death visits Auschwitz.

Dr Wims Distelmans, who practices euthanasia in a Brussels clinic, wishing to ‘clarify confusion’ (whatever that means) led a group, consisting of doctors, psychologists and nurses from Belgium, (most of whom also work in the area of euthanasia) to the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.

Naturally, Jewish and anti-euthanasia campaigners have reacted with horror, saying the trip, billed as a study tour, is ‘offensive and shocking’.

At one point during the trip, while in Krakow, the members of the group received name-tags. From Der Spiegel:

"Distelmans pins his name-tag to his T-shirt, places his scarf on top of it, and pulls his jacket over his scarf. 'I don't know if I have any opponents here,' he says. Before the trip, a picture of him appeared on Google. Someone had doctored the image and put an SS uniform over his sweater."

I was more than happy to locate the photo and post it here.

In a story overflowing with irony, one portion stands out. At one point, the group discusses "the case of a colleague in the group who asked if he is allowed to kill a Nazi. The patient in question is paralyzed on one side and is a former member of the Waffen-SS. In fact, a portrait of Hitler hangs over his sofa. The colleague refused to perform euthanasia because he doesn't feel the Nazi deserves a painless, gentle death".

All through the article, we were told that those advocating euthanasia wanted to give the patient control over his or her own death. Doctors shouldn't prolong life out of a sense of control and a desire for power over the patient, we're told. Yet, here we have the very same doctors maintaining that certain individuals don't deserve "a painless, gentle death".

Distelmans, however feels differently that his colleagues. "He says that he would do it out of respect for the man's pain and humanity -- as an act of unconditional love."

Some might say he simply would never pass an opportunity to kill someone.

Defending Life Without Cute Babies.

OK, I can understand the temptation to do a bit of photoshopping (or in this case- GIMPing) to make a statement.

At acceptingabundance.com PZ Myers face was pasted onto a pro-life billboard in response to Myers having pasted a photo of onto the same billboard.

I just wish the person putting Myers' face in would have spent a little more time and effort into doing it right.

I'm hardly an expert, but even my humble effort tops what was used.

An Atheist Reacts to Nurses' Lawsuit Victory.

Like other pro-life advocates, I took the news that New Jersey Nurses Don’t Have to Assist in Abortions in a positive way. Nurses who object to abortion on religious grounds should not be forced or coerced into assisting in any part of the abortion procedure.

Some in the, so-called, "pro-choice" community weren't so pleased with the results of the court decision. Many commenting on the story as reported in the Washington Post spewed forth so much hatred toward the nurses that it's obvious that the issue is not simply about "choice".

One such commenter, calling herself galerouth19521 was especially vitriolic. She referred to the fetus as "a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior of one organism (the fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body". Her rationale for calling the pre-born child a parasite is because the fetus obtains it's nourishment from the "host" without providing any benefit. She goes on to say,"so i will kill any unwanted, parasitic life-form that needs my body to live---including your precious fetus...period, get over it."

According to galerouth19521, she should be allowed to kill a fetus because "pregnancy causes women harm". She linked to a website which gave a list of these "harmful effects". One such effect is the "curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities".

OK, let me get this straight; a woman can kill her unborn child if being pregnant interferes with the woman's ability to play in certain sports.

Not surprisingly, a later comment by galerouth19521 revealed her to be an atheist. So much for the idea that Atheists Aren't Assholes. She tells us that "the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it". Her proof ? A Youtube video, 3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) .

I suspect that galerouth19521 was an atheist before she ever came across this video "evidence". I watched the video and saw nothing in it that disproves the existence of God. (I even took a look at part 2 of the video and I find it hard to take seriously the arguments of an atheist who doesn't know how to pronounce the word "pantheism").

A Google search lead to more comments by the same person at Huffington Post.

A further search lead to a post by Gale Routh - "Is the human fetus a parasite?" . As I write this, the votes for the fetus NOT being a parasite hold a slim lead. I'd ask anyone reading this post to follow the link cast a vote.

No Imagination.

Note to J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer-

If you're going to try and convince us that your opinions on God are worth considering, do not quote John Lennon.....particularly not his overrated tripe "Imagine".

Regular readers of this blog are aware of my opinion of Mr Lennon.

Seriously. Take a look at the song's lyrics -

"Imagine there's no Heaven
it's easy if you try
No Hell below us
above us only sky......."

This is what passes for genius?

Another Misguided Atheist.

The Foxnews story of atheist A.C.Grayling's new book, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, lead me to do a Google search on the British philosopher. The search produced an opinion piece by Grayling at The Richard Dawkins Foundation website entitled God and Disaster.

Written in response to the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the earlier earthquake in Christchurch in New Zealand, Grayling's argument against the existence of God can be summed up quite simply - the fact that bad things happen (like earthquakes and such) people die and life is not a bowl of cherries proves that there is no God. Grayling contends that if there is a God, It (Grayling can't bring himself to refer to God as He - or even She) is either powerless or uncaring.

According to Grayling's "logic", the world is not perfect in his eyes, so there is not - and never has been - a creator.

What would be the point of creating a universe where nothing happens? Would would be the point of creating a world where a handful of creatures live in eternal, blissful happiness?

If God had created a world where no one dies, it would certainly be pointless for we humans to reproduce.

In Grayling's world, there would be no hunger because an all caring, all powerful God would provide us with all our needs and wants. Seriously? God might just as well have created creatures that don't get hunger in the first place. If God were to provide us with all our desires, what would be the point of desiring anything?

The fact that God does not do things the way Grayling would like things to be does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that, if there is a God, He doesn't do things the way Grayling likes.

The God Within Documentary.

In a disappointingly short, exclusive interview, physicist Stephen Hawking tells The Guardian,

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

Not surprisingly, Hawking is like most modern scientists; an atheist. He is on record - in his book The Grand Design - as saying,

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

I've written on this before. If, as atheists believe, we are simply the product of chemistry and the laws of physics without need of a Creator, then the notions of right and wrong, morality and immorality are stood on their proverbial heads.

In a documentary that explains this view better than I can, Mike Adams (the Health Ranger) exposes the false philosophy underpinning most of modern science and by extension, atheism.

This link to naturalnews.tv will take you to part one of the documentary, The God Within. As I write this, part two has yet to come online. I will post the link to part two when it becomes available.

"A-Week" like No Other.

Somewhere, in the lower levels of my consciousness, I was vaguely aware that this week - March 20/26 - had been designated as A Week (otherwise known as Atheist Pride Week ). It wasn't until this morning, when I came across Jennifer Fulwiler's piece in The National Catholic Register that the subject came bubbling up to the surface.

As interesting as Fulwiler's article is, I found the comments following it more entertaining. As I write this, there are 75 78 81 82 comments. The exchanges between "Nora" and the Two Tims are worth the price of admission.

Comments from some others, however, are absolutely asinine - like Daynsby's comment that Christians had, at one time, killed people who believed the Earth revolved around the Sun.

In her article, Fulwiler linked to the Out Campaign website; a website dedicated to the proposition that Atheists Aren't Assholes.

"As more and more people join the OUT Campaign, fewer and fewer people will feel intimidated by religion."

Is that it? Is that the real reason behind the New Atheists becoming more vocal in their hatred of things religious? Intimidated by religion? God forbid.

"It is time to let our voices be heard regarding the intrusion of religion in our schools and politics."

Some might argue that is the atheists who are intruding in the schools. As for politics, people with deeply held religious beliefs will always participate in this democracy.

"We need to KEEP OUT the supernatural from our moral principles and public policies."

What moral principles do atheists embrace? If there is no God - if there is no Creator - if we are simply the result of a random coming together of atoms, molecules and other assorted material "stuff", then where does morality come from? Without God, I am just a collection of chemicals that happened to combine into this form. In the materialists' universe, I'm free to do as I please......after all, we're all just random collections of material, right?

As I said in in earlier post,

"Many atheists believe that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang show us to be the product of a random collection of molecules with no Creative Intelligence behind it all. If we are all merely a collection of chemicals, then it would follow that humans are no more valuable than any other collection of chemicals. An individual would be no more valuable than a whale or a worm or a water molecule.

Atheists may think they can be good without God, but if you take their atheism to its logical conclusion, there is absolutely no reason to treat your fellow human any differently than you would an insect."

Like nearly everyone else, the Out Campaign has a T shirt for sale. This one has "We Are All Africans" on the front, Out Campaign logo on the sleeve and "The Bible says modern people are the result of incestuous relations Cain and his brothers had with their sisters.Science says we are all descendants of Africans. I believe science" on the back.

If, as they say, we are the product of evolution, we are the result of incestuous relations between the offspring of the first "human". Besides, isn't being critical of incestuous relations based on a moral principle?

On the website, Dawkins claims to have invented the Scarlet A lapel pin. Stolen from Nathaniel Hawthorne might be a more accurate statement.

Geniocracy.

While reading the Raëlian manifesto,"Geniocracy: Government of the people, for the people, by the Geniuses," I thought it a bit odd that there was no mention, within the book's 148 pages, of Raëlian cosmology or their belief as to how man came to be created. It is not until reading the back cover do we read anything pertaining to the extraterrestrial creatures called the Elohim . It is only then that we learn that Geniocracy is the form of government practiced on the home planet of these advanced creatures.

No, while reading the book, seeing no mention of the Elohim , one might well suppose that you were reading the Democrat Party's political platform statement. Originally published in 1977, it is amazing to see how many of the ideas expressed in the book are perfectly in tune with the philosophy of so many Democrats today.

From the beginning, the book criticizes democracy, as practiced in our time - referring to the system as, rather, a Mediocracy where the votes of the intelligent are canceled out by the votes of the idiots. Of course, democracy does have its flaws (as even Raël's polar opposite, Michael Voris points out.) but I seriously doubt that his proposal that we be governed by "geniuses" is a viable solution.

Of course, in Raël's view, in order for this form of government to succeed, it must be a world government. We must have a "world language" in order to establish a true union of all the people of this planet (He points out that this would not be a Universal language, because the World is not the Universe).

After the geniuses take control, we will no longer need to work, nor will there be any need what so ever for money. All work will be done by machines, operated by robots and computers, created by these self same geniuses. The right to work will be replaced by the right to fulfillment. "Everyone has the right to receive everything necessary to live comfortably from birth to death, without preconditions ". With everything provided for us through the largesse of the geniuses governing the planet, we will be free to do whatever we wish to do in order to find personal fulfillment.

There will be no military. There will be no religious schools.

"Tolerance" will be the keyword.

Children as young as 14 will be encouraged to engage in sexual activity ....... a so-called freedom gained by contraceptives .... and laws prohibiting sex between those over 18 with those under 18 should be, in Raël's view, abolished.

In the book, Raël points out that many may consider his point of view Utopian. He says, however, that it is only considered Utopian by those of us who aren't intelligent enough to understand that this is obtainable.

The book ends with a list of Short-term, Mid-term and Long-term goals; none of which have been obtained by the Raëlian's in the thirty three years since the publication of the book. Obviously, Raël isn't a genius or we'd be there by now. He hasn't reached his goal, but at least, the Democrat Party in the United States has done it's best to implement his ideas.

Today's Assignment.

After reading today's actsoftheapostasy post -Keeping it Rael- I decided that my assignment (to myself) for today would be to download and read the Raelian manifesto, Geniocracy: Government of the people, for the people, by the Geniuses.

I had to register on the site in order to download the ebook (on pdf) but, it's easy enough with a seldom used yahoo email address.

So far, I've read 94 of it's 148 pages. I'll be going to work soon, so the rest will have to wait.
I'll write more on this in a day or two, but I have to say right now, that these folks are even further out there than I could have imagined.

More Thoughts on Burning the Qur'an.

Prior to writing yesterday's post ,I went to the website for Terry Jones' Dove World Outreach Center to get his take on burning the Qur'an. I had read innumerable articles voicing criticism of Dr. Jones and I wanted to get his side of the story.

While visiting the website, I sent an email to Jones - pointing out something which he may not have been aware of. As I told him, translated versions of the Qur'an (or Koran, as he puts it) are not considered to be the Qur'an by devote Muslims. An English translation, for example, is not the Qur'an ..... that book would be referred to as "the meaning of the Qur'an". For it to be considered authentic, the book must be written in Arabic. I explained to Dr. Jones, that should he wish to actually burn a Qur'an, he must use a copy written in Arabic.

I have no idea what, if any, reaction Jones had to this tidbit.

I went back to the Dove World Outreach Center website this morning only to find that the website is down.




Did it crash? Was it hacked or did Jones and his group take the site down intentionally? I doubt if Jones had anything to do with the removal of his website. He obviously likes the attention he's getting.

President Obama - who is not a Muslim, by the way - has now come out against the planned burning.


In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mr Obama called Jones' "stunt" a "recruitment bonanza" for al-Qaeda. Obama went on the say that, should Jones carry out his threat, it would endanger American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as innocent individuals in Pakistan. Obama worries that this could increase the recruitment of individuals who are willing to blow themselves up in American or European cities. The President said that Jones is engaging in a destructive act.

How can this be? We all know that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Is the President suggesting that Muslims would kill innocent people because of the actions of another individual? I do not recall Obama, or Hillary Clinton or Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking out so forcefully when P.Z.Myers (a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris) pledged to desecrate the Eucharist. Are they telling us that Muslims would react more violently than Catholics would under these circumstances?

Tell me it ain't so.

Anne Rice 'quits being a Christian'.

In an announcement on Facebook, former Catholic, turned atheist, turned Catholic again, writer Anne Rice has declared that she is leaving Christianity for Christ's sake. She claims she will "remain committed to Christ as always but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity".

Naturally, I have no idea how long this new conversion has been on her mind but, she names two issues (as she posted on Facebook) that have recently caused her quite a bit of distress .......namely, an American "punk rock ministry", called You Can Run (YCR) saying that "executing gays is 'moral'" and a report about the Westboro baptist church in Kansas, which "spreads the message that because the United States condones homosexuality, abortion and divorce, all Americans are going to hell".

I am, likewise distressed over portions of the message conveyed by these two, allegedly, "Christian" groups. However, I don't quite understand how distress over the action and views of two Protestant groups would lead one to quit the Catholic Church.

She says,
"I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

Is the Catholic Church anti-gay?

According to Catholic teaching, "Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life" and "They [homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

Rather than call this position "anti-gay" it would be better described as "love the sinner-hate the sin".

What of the charge that the Church is anti-feminist?
Feminists for Life would must likely say no. Authentic feminism is not defined strictly by being pro-abortion.

Anti-artificial birth control?
Guilty as charged. However, Rice, most likely, hasn't given much thought to the problems brought about by our society's contraceptive mentality.

Anti-Democrat?
Except in the area of abortion, the Church is hardly pro-Republican either.

Anti-secular humanism?
If by secular humanism we mean moral relativism, then the answer is yes.

Anti-science?
The Church supports scientific research except in those areas where the research is detrimental to human life.

Anti-life?
This is probably the most ridiculous charge of all. The Church's teachings on abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment and the just war theory put the lie to that.

It is my hope that Rice will one day reconsider her abandonment of the Catholic Church. Hopefully, she will seriously consider studying the Church's teachings as they are and not under a "progressive's" microscope.

Psalm 109

A few months ago, I received an email from someone I know to be no fan of President Obama asking we that we "Pray for Obama" - referencing Psalm 109:8 - "May his days be few; may another take his office."

When I read this, I immediately went to the USCCB website to find the entire 109 psalm online. After reading the psalm, it was clear to me that the person who came up with this email had little or no understanding of the Bible. He,or she, had taken a line out of context in an attempt to be funny or clever in his criticism of Obama. Using the 109th psalm in regards to the President actually has the opposite meaning to that which the email-er had in mind.

A footnote to the psalm shows that:
"[Psalm 109] A lament notable for the length and vehemence of its prayer against evildoers (Psalm 109:6-20); the cry to God (Psalm 109:1) and the complaint (Psalm 109:22-25) are brief in comparison. The psalmist is apparently the victim of a slander campaign, potentially devastating in a society where reputation and honor are paramount. In the emotional perspective of the psalm, there are only two types of people: the wicked and their poor victims. The psalmist is a poor victim (Psalm 108:22, 31) and by that fact a friend of God and enemy of the wicked. The psalmist seeks vindication not on the basis of personal virtue but because of God's promise to protect the poor."

Although no one can accuse me of being a fan of Barack Obama, I saw the use of this psalm as an improper use of scripture.

I had forgotten about this email until I read a link posted by an atheist I know on his Facebook wall. Christian Jihadists Call for Obama's Assassination.
In the article linked to, blogger Jerry Bowles quotes the lines immediately following 109:8 - ["May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.May his children be wandering beggars;may they be driven from their ruined homes."] and claims that this proves that the folks wearing T-shirts with the reference printed on it, are the "American version of the Taliban" who are, in his view, calling for Obama's assassination.

Bowles misses the point. If, by using, psalm 109:8, we can conclude those wearing the T-shirts also believe psalm 109:9-10, then we'd have to conclude that they also believe those portions which would show Obama as a victim of lies and slander. As I said earlier, using 109:8 in this way is to take the line out of context in an attempt to be funny or clever in criticism of Obama. In his ignorance, Bowles blows things out of proportion. He's certainly not the first atheist to do that.

Bowles ends his article this way;
"These are the same people who scream about how Islam is a religion of violence and Christianity is a religion of peace. If there is a hell, you f...ing hypocrites are going to burn in it." (I've cleaned it up a bit).

Does Christianity truly resemble Islam when it comes to violence?

Read these 3 stories:
Pakistani Christian couple refuses to convert: husband is burnt alive, wife raped by police -

Pakistani Christian burned alive to prevent reporting a rape -

Lahore: 12-year-old Christian domestic worker killed by Muslim employer-
then give me examples of Christians treating Muslims in the same manner.