Atheists Protest Mother Teresa Stamp.

First, I want to thank Al at Is Anybody There? for the heads-up regarding this story from Fox News.[ Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp]

Earlier this month, Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation issued an "Action Alert" asking that the Foundation's supporters boycott the upcoming commemorative stamp honoring Mother Teresa.

Gaylor writes;
"Of course, you can vote with your pocketbook, and boycott these stamps by selecting other 2010 releases for purchase (such as Katharine Hepburn, whose views are publicized in the Foundation's freethought bus campaign. Hepburn said: 'I'm an atheist and that's it. I believe that there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.' )"

That's an odd quote to put into the alert. As I mentioned in an earlier post, [Atheists Aren't Asshole.] if you take the atheist's philosophy to it's logical conclusion, we human are merely the random collection of chemicals that happened to join together, so treating people differently than any other creature is a logical absurdity. In the atheist's philosophy, there is no reason why we "should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people".


Gaylor's action alert is simply an excuse for her to trash the Roman Catholic Church. Her paranoia extends to what she sees as "America's disproportionately powerful Roman Catholic influence".
Gaylor claims "Mother Teresa is on the fast-track to sainthood and the Catholic Church is pulling out all the stops to beatify one of their own." And the atheists believe we live in a fantasy world.

Gaylor has absolutely no idea how canonization works and what it means to be a saint. Why would the Church need to have Mother Teresa on a stamp to put her on the "fast-track to sainthood"? The Church can canonize anyone she sees fit to canonize. There is no need for public approval. It's not a popularity contest. To comment on something she knows nothing about shows us how ignorant Ms. Gaylor is.

Then again, what can you expect from the winner of the American Moron of the Day Award for April 07, 2004?

Michael Voris mixes it up with Protestants.

Regular readers of this blog know that, when it comes to cafeteria Catholics, I am proudly intolerant [The Fundamental Question.] . You either believe the teachings of the Church or you don't. You can't pick and choose which teachings you'll accept. It's all or nothing.

I have problems with the various Protestant denominations too, though I haven't spent much time writing about just how dangerous I believe Protestantism to be.

I received a link to the following video from RealCatholicTV. This video is not going to make the Protestants I know very happy. That doesn't alter the fact that this needs to be seen.

As Michael Voris says in the video, Martin Luther opened a "Pandora's box" five hundred years ago.
The most dangerous proposition of the Protestants is their insistence that we do not need an over-riding authority regarding Biblical teachings.....that we can, each one of us, interpret the scriptures in our own way.
That idea has lead to thousands of Protestant denominations - each one with it's own unique interpretation of God's word; it's also lead to the notion that we can pick and choose our own morality as well.

As Pope Benedict XVI has stated;
“We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

Protestants may not be willing to recognize this, but the ideas of Martin Luther, Calvin and a host of others - up to and including the modern Protestant teachers [Jerry Falwell - Pat Robertson] - have contributed much to this dictatorship of relativism.

Our Loser- in- Chief.

Barack Obama is such a wonderfully, magnificent orator than he needs to use teleprompters when speaking in front of 6th grade students at Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Va.

Atheists Set Up 'Religion-Free' Fund for Haiti.

World famous atheist, Richard Dawkins believes that, when in comes to caring for their fellow human beings, non-believers have been given a bad rap. For Dawkins, you don't need God to be good.

"Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) has joined forces with 15 other freethought groups or associates, to collect donations to non-religious relief organizations."
The organization founded by these groups is called Atheists Aren't Assholes.

OK. I made up the name. It's really Non-Believers Giving Aid.

You see, Dawkins and other "freethinkers" would like to help the suffering masses but, heaven forbid, they should donate money to any organization affiliated with a religion.

According to an article from christianpost.com, Dawkins argues that moral action is rooted in biological evolution.

"On Dawkins's schema, one is kind to his neighbor because he's been preprogrammed by his genes to do so (at least some individuals have been so preprogrammed; others perhaps not), and he's been so programmed because acting this way confers evolutionary advantage," Meister summarizes. "It's not that it is a universally binding moral value to be kind. We simply call it 'morally good' because our genes have, through eons of evolutionary struggle, gotten us to believe that it is so."

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.

Also from the christianpost article;

"No one is arguing that atheists cannot utter ethical statements or live good, moral lives. Of course they can," Meister writes in God is Great. "Believing that something is right or wrong and justifying one's belief that something is right or wrong are two very different matters."

Atheists cannot justify their belief that any particular action is right or wrong using their own belief system and logic.

A Few Thoughts on Scott Brown.

Very nearly immediately after Scott Brown had won the Senate seat for the State of Massachusetts, Drudge had this question;
"Now.....will he run for President?"



Where is this coming from?
I know this is a stunning defeat for the Obama administration - and for that, I'm very, very happy. Scott Brown's victory is a proverbial thumb jammed into Obama's eye.
But, are we ready to see another relatively unknown politician elected President of the United States? Haven't we learned anything?

I received an email recently from CatholicVoteAction.org with a link to a column entitled Is Scott Brown good for us?

Good question.

There has been a general euphoria in the Conservative camp since Brown's victory, with some of his flaws going unnoticed. Rush Limbaugh has, of course, spoken highly of Brown, but I haven't heard Rush comment on Brown's less than ideal views on abortion. Scott Brown supports legalized abortion ( but not partial-birth abortion).
The Massachusetts Citizens for Life endorsed Brown over Coakley because he does favor some restrictions. While that may be good enough for the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, that's not good enough for me.


Quite rightly, CatholicVote did not endorse Brown, or urge voters to elect him. The group does, however, see one ray of hope shining through. CatholicVote described Scott Brown’s win was a victory for subsidiarity. They write:

"Subsidiarity simply means that issues ought to be solved by the smallest and least centralized competent authority. Families, charities, churches and local communities, and even states ought to be the primary instruments of political change — as opposed to a massive bureaucratic centralized federal government.
And thus, while Scott Brown is ultimately wrong about abortion, he is definitely right in urging us to think anew about the proper size and role of government in a free society. And for this reason, CatholicVote is happy he won."

and:

"Make no mistake, we need leaders willing to stand for the principle that every life is sacred. Scott Brown is not that candidate. At least not yet!"

No question about it; we definitely do need to "think anew about the proper size and role of government in a free society."
Smaller government. More power in the hands of the people on a more local level.

No, Scott Brown is not the ideal Presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2012. He would be, however, far and away better than the current occupant of the Oval office.