"Being Human In An Age of Unbelief"

Here is a great lecture given at the University of Pennsylvania by the new archbishop of Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput.  He pretty much leaves no stone unturned.  Basically, he's talking about what it means to create a culture of life in the broadest sense of that phrase and not just with respect to the lives of the unborn. Chaput's lecture helps to understand why the battle is so pitched at this point in time and why the stakes are so high. The battle comes down to the nuts and bolts of what we believe the human person is, where he came from and what we believe to be true about him.   That's why BOTH sides --the culture of life vs. the culture of death, the moral relativists vs. the believers in objective Truth, the culture of belief vs. the "culture of unbelief" (Chaput's phrase, see below)--  are in full battle mode.

So, to arms!  Here are a few quotes: 

When Christians and other people of good will talk about "the dignity of the human person" and "the sanctity of human life," they're putting into words what we all instinctively know – and have known for a very long time. Something elevated and sacred in men and women demands our special respect. When we violate that human dignity, we do evil. When we serve it, we do good. And therein lies one of many ironies. We live in a society that speaks persuasively about protecting the environment and rescuing species on the brink of extinction. But then it tolerates the killing of unborn children and the abuse of human fetal tissue as lab material. 

There's a proverb worth remembering here: "To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail." If modern man is scientific man, technology is his hammer. But every problem isn't a nail. Knowledge without the virtues of wisdom, prudence, and, above all, humility to guide it is not just unhelpful. It's dangerous.

Science involves the study of the material world. But human beings are more than the sum of their material processes. Trying to explain the human person with thinking that excludes the reality of the spiritual, the dignity of the religious, and the possibility of God simply cripples both the scientist and the subject being studied – man himself. To put it another way, we can destroy what we mean by humanity while claiming, and even intending, to serve it.

Most of us here tonight believe that we have basic rights that come with the special dignity of being human. These rights are inherent to human nature. They're part of who we are. Nobody can take them away. But if there is no Creator, and nothing fundamental and unchangeable about human nature, and if "nature's God" is kicked out of the conversation, then our rights become the product of social convention. And social conventions can change. So can the definition of who is and who isn't "human." 

The irony is that modern liberal democracy needs religion more than religion needs modern liberal democracy. American public life needs a framework friendly to religious belief because it can't support its moral claims about freedom and rights with secular arguments alone. In fact, to the degree that it encourages a culture of unbelief, liberal democracy undermines its own grounding. It causes its own decline by destroying the public square's moral coherence.

Christophobia

This article is a good follow-up to the previous one.  It's about Tim Tebow and the controversy about his public displays of faith.  I've been hearing about it on sports radio, but George Weigl does a much better job of sorting out the issue.

Religious Liberty

I thought this Zenit article contained a good summary of some of the infringements on religious liberty going around.  In particular, the article summarizes six problem areas since June of 2011 as noted by Archbishop Dolan, president of the USCCB.

In his letter, dated Sept. 29, Archbishop Dolan listed six major problems regarding religious liberty in the period since June.
-- Federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations that oblige all private health insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization. This will oblige church employers to sponsor and pay for services they oppose.
-- The HHS request regarding refugees that Archbishop Gomez referred to.
-- The U.S. Agency for International Development is increasingly requiring condom distribution in HIV prevention programs, as well as requiring contraception within international relief and development programs.
-- The Justice Department's attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking DOMA's constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice.
-- The Justice Department recently attacked what is known as "ministerial exception," a constitutional doctrine long accepted by courts that allows churches to make employment decisions concerning persons working in a ministerial capacity.
-- A new law in New York State allowing same-sex marriage with only a very narrow religious exemption.

Note also the comments regarding the so-called problem at Catholic University (CUA) regarding a Muslim student being discriminated against.  Even the attorney who's filing charges against CUA on this and the suppposed illegality of single sex dorms admits that no complaint whatsoever was filed by any student!  

Parents' Rights

In light of the new sex education mandate in the New York City public schools, Robert George has written this in an op-ed piece in the New York Times.  (By the way, a middle schooler in New York City is a sixth, seventh or eighth grader.)  Among other problems, this mandate victimizes most those parents who don't want their kids to participate in this so-called 'education,' but who can't afford private school.  Mr. George writes:

But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?        

The right to parent is rather like the right to exercise one’s religion. Like parental duties, religious duties are serious and highly personal. This is why, absent the most serious reasons, it would be a grave violation of individual rights if the state prevented people from honoring what they regarded as their religious obligations. To subject children to indoctrination in deeply personal matters against their parents’ consciences is no less a violation than forcing Muslim parents to send their children to a Catholic Mass.       

More on Same Sex "Marriage" in New York State

Several sources are reporting on the four New York state senators who delivered the vote on same sex 'marriage' for Governor Cuomo here in New York state.  It seems that they're receiving some handsome campaign funding from Republicans who want to send the message that the Republican party supports same-sex 'marriage.'

The four wayward senators are Mark J. Grisanti of Buffalo, James S. Alesi of Rochester, Stephen M. Saland of Poughkeepsie and Roy J. McDonald of Saratoga County.  Their mentors in the Republican party are gay rights activist Tim Gill along with Paul E. Singer,  Daniel S. Loeb and our own Mayor Bloomberg.      

Allen West on Fatherhood and Black Family

Marriage and Race; Marriage and Prison

I've just read a couple of articles that  mention marriage and its significance in two different contexts.  One of the articles is in the current issue of National Review and the other is an old clipping that I had squirreled away in a folder.  Taking the latter first, the author is George Gilder writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1995.  He's drawing a connection between a book that he wrote, Visible Man:  A True Story of Post Racist America, and a book that Dinesh D'Souza wrote, The End of Racism.  Apparently, both writers come to the conclusion that white racism was not a "significant problem" for blacks in recent American history.  

What Gilder says is a problem for blacks is the fact that young black men are not socialized through marriage.  To quote:  "The key problem of the underclass--the crucible of crime, the source of violence, the root of poverty--is the utter failure of socialization of young men through marriage.  The problem resides in the nexus of men and marriage."  Gilder goes on to point out that attempts to  address the problems of the underclass all focus on the women!  That leaves the men to indulge in being "predators" rather than "providers," and, in many cases to languish in prison.  He gives the statistic that 40% of young black males between ages 17 and 35 are in prison or on probation.  

Writing some 15 years later, Mitch Pearlstein  says that research shows that married men are less likely than single men to break the law.  He isn't concerned with race.  Some of his statistics:

Across the country, studies consistently show that more than 40 percent of low-income men who father a child out of wedlock have already been in jail or prison by the time their first son or daughter is born.

One in four black men born between 1975 and 1979 had experienced imprisonment by 2009. The comparable ratio for white men was one in 19. The chance of having been imprisoned for black men in this cohort who had not graduated from high school was two in three.

As of 2000, about 25 percent of black men between the ages of 22 and 30 were married. Among incarcerated black men, the marriage rate was less than half of that, 11 percent.

With praises for the book, he references The Case for Marriage, citing a study which showed that marriage was a significant factor in the lives of those men who "reduced" their criminal activity.   Pearlstein is looking for solutions, especially in the area of hiring and jobs, so that criminals can get back on their feet without being condemned forever by their past  records.  That makes sense--save as many as you can--but we also have to tackle the root of the problem which, whether pertaining to black or white, is a welfare society, a feminized society, a libertine society  that has permitted the so-called wonders and privileges of sexual liberation, secularism and feminism to trump the institution of marriage.