Ignored by the media was that Senate Democrats blocked a resolution welcoming the Pope until “pro-life” language was removed from it. Yet several notorious, pro-abortion politicians brazenly received communion during the papal visit, though not directly from the Holy Father.
“God Bless America.” These words began and ended the too-short visit of the true man from Hope, Pope Benedict XVI. Before his arrival, many pundits predicted that his Holiness would rain down torrents of recrimination upon our country and its President on topics like the Iraq War, capital punishment or our failure to heed the hounds of global warming. They of course were wrong in thinking that the German Shepherd would bite the hand that feeds the world’s poor or chastise the most pro-life leader our country has ever seen. But what else is new?
The press in this country constantly exhibits disdain for our homegrown spiritual leaders, so it was no surprise that they would distort the Pope’s message and the motivation behind his visit. Rare was the media outlet that failed to note that the Pope was received by cheering crowds "like a rock star;" that most depraved symbol of all that is unworthy of worship in America. Contrary to the soul-stealing allures of sex, drugs and rock and roll, the Holy Father consistently spoke of faith, love and hope.
But the hope among our mostly secular media was that most Americans would see the Holy Father and instantly be reminded of the grave sins committed by a small percentage of Catholic clergy. And indeed, on the lips of most commentators and right next to the spinning papal graphics, were usually the words, “sexual abuse scandal.”
And his Holiness did indeed address the issue of priests disdaining their vows, acknowledging their "gravely immoral behavior" and saying: “[I]t is more important to have good priests than to have many priests. We hope that we can do, and we have done and will do in the future, all that is possible to heal this wound.” He later met with victims and reportedly prayed with them, and later asked all Catholics "to do what you can to foster healing and reconciliation, and to assist those who have been hurt."
Of course, no matter what apologies the Church makes, no matter how much money she pays, and no matter how many innocent and holy priests suffer because of the actions of a few, it will never be enough. In this country, there are some sins which are never to be forgiven; especially those that advance certain agendas. But, much to the dismay of the media (and mostly ignored by them), the Pope went further in his address to American bishops, on how to protect our children from sexual abuse:
What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. All have a part to play in this task – not only parents, religious leaders, teachers and catechists, but the media and entertainment industries as well.
Indeed, every member of society can contribute to this moral renewal and benefit from it. Truly caring about young people and the future of our civilization means recognizing our responsibility to promote and live by the authentic moral values which alone enable the human person to flourish. It falls to you, as pastors modelled upon Christ, the Good Shepherd, to proclaim this message loud and clear, and thus to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores. Moreover, by acknowledging and confronting the problem when it occurs in an ecclesial setting, you can give a lead to others, since this scourge is found not only within your Dioceses, but in every sector of society. It calls for a determined, collective response.
Also ignored by the media was that Senate Democrats blocked a resolution welcoming the Pope until “pro-life” language was removed from it. Yet several notorious, pro-abortion politicians brazenly received communion during the papal visit, though not directly from the Holy Father. One can only hope that they were paying attention at Yankee Stadium where he said:
Praying fervently for the coming of the Kingdom also means . . . overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness. It also means rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and political life, since, as the Second Vatican Council put it, "there is no human activity — even in secular affairs — which can be withdrawn from God's dominion."
Unlike his predecessor, John Paul II, who was a trained actor and a brilliant speaker, Pope Benedict’s innate sweetness and humility sometimes betray his deep intellectualism and the beauty of words, such as: “The spires of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral are dwarfed by the skyscrapers of the Manhattan skyline, yet in the heart of this busy metropolis, they are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God.”
But like John Paul the Great, he also uttered the words that the American media dread like the plague. For, far from bashing George W. Bush, he echoed to thunderous applause the President’s belief that all life is sacred:
May you find the courage to proclaim Christ, "the same, yesterday, and today and for ever" and the unchanging truths which have their foundation in him. These are the truths that set us free! They are the truths which alone can guarantee respect for the inalienable dignity and rights of each man, woman and child in our world, including the most defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the mother's womb.
The sexual abuse by a minority of priests was horrifying, of course, but it wasn’t the reason that the Church has drawn such criticism. It was the covering up of the abuse, which resulted in serial abusers, that was the real “sin” which is “never to be forgiven”.
Even in that area, the Church wasn’t solely at fault – there were therapists who claimed to be able to “cure” such proclivities, and the Church perhaps relied too much on their assertions. But despite being an organization with an orientation toward forgiveness and redemption, the continual recycling of abusive priests was reprehensible.
I was very disturbed by the letter that then-Cardinal Raztinger signed in 2001 ordering such cases to be treated under “pontifical secret” for 10 years “from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age”. I have a hard time understanding why that particular time limit was set except as a way to run out the clodk on the statute of limitations. Even if that wasn’t the intent, it shows a rather shocking lack of consideration for the victims.
The Church does seem to be improving in this area – but I haven’t really seen an unambiguous acknowledgement of the real problem.
Raymond Ingles
“I haven’t really seen an unambiguous acknowledgement of the real problem.”
It seems you are saying the “real problem” is cover-up, but that is no longer possible because victims are more than likely to come forth.
There is an on-going attempt to abolish the statute of limitations for sex abuse by Catholic institutions (of course, the proposals are worded without using the words “Catholic” or “priest”). That would target an identifiable group, which (I am told) is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
The Church objected, not to the proposal, but to its being limited to Catholic institutions and asked that such proposals include public institutions as well. Politicians, public schools and their teachers’ unions, all refused. Why? Because sex abuse of children is just as widespread in secular schools as religious ones, and they know it … and we can’t expose the public to the truth about its educational establishment, now, can we? This indicates to me the real problem is society’s failure to acknowledge how widespread sex abuse of children is.
Then again, perhaps there’s more to it: IMHO, part of real problem might include society’s failure to acknowledge a connection between increased sexual awareness (through media, etc.) and increased sexual activity, legal or otherwise, and also the liberal credo of tolerance über alles. A close friend subscribes to HBO, and I’ve noticed he watches a lot of “skin flicks”. He was convicted of sexually molesting his 5-year-old granddaughter.
Ms. Fabrizio doesn’t seem to understand that the Vatican’s open threats of religious sanctions on American officials who don’t toe its line has exposed JFK as a liar. In 1960 Kennedy said that this sort of thing wouldn’t happen to him, implying that it wouldn’t happen to any other Roman official in this country. As if. Despite this, most people are still pretending that interference in American policy is no longer an issue because JFK said it wasn’t.
Mr. Fabrizio appears to be so caught up in the anti-abortion crusade that she doesn’t recognize this affront to American sovereignty. Once the Roman Church starts coercing officials on the abortion issue it is likely to go on to other issues, such as matters of national security. Do we really want the Roman Church threatening American officials with religious sanctions if we don’t abandon Iraq or some other client?
The problem with the Roman Church is not a religious issue; it is a sovereignty issue. Far too many people have forgotten that we had a revolution so that Europeans would not be able to tell Americans what to do.
Ark Ashamed of Bill:
“Far too many people have forgotten that we had a revolution so that Europeans would not be able to tell Americans what to do.”
You mean like Ginsberg and Breyer?
sedonaman – I wasn’t aware that abused children “came forth” describing their abuse with any great frequency, even after publicity – at least, while they are still children. I do agree that clerical abuse is much less likely now, but that’s because parents will be much more alert for signs of trouble for many years to come.
Of course, the Church has not really acknowledged how revolting the cover-up was. Why isn’t Cardinal Bernard Law facing criminal charges in the U.S.? Because he was moved to Rome after resigning… that’s the “real problem” I’m talking about. Would the Church be open to extradition proceedings?
Do you have links to the Catholic-targeting bills you mention? I’d agree that specifically targeting the Church (or even clerics in general) is wrong, and I’m also opposed to ex post facto laws precisely because they are unConstitutional.
Why all the hand-wringing about abuse? Aren’t these proclivities natural? Weren’t these priests born this way? Who are we to judge what happens in the privacy of their bedrooms between consenting parties?
Ok, just make sure everyone understands, the above is sarcasm, not what I really believe.
Raymond Ingles:
“…the Church has not really acknowledged how revolting the cover-up was.”
Yeah. They were so anxious to avoid acknowledging it, the USCCB issued the following secret report, with corrective recommendations:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbreport2007.pdf
“I wasn’t aware that abused children ‘came forth’…”
I didn’t say they did. I said, “..victims are more than likely to come forth.”
Not only are parents “more alert for signs of trouble,” but the Church is formally training everyone working for it, including volunteers, to be more alert. Children are also given instruction to report suspicious behavior. This is also covered in the report above.
“Why isn’t Cardinal Bernard Law facing criminal charges in the U.S.? Because he was moved to Rome after resigning…”
No. Because the statute of limitations had probably run out. If the Church is as bad as you seem to think, it would have transferred all suspected priests to Rome. Do you know why there is a statute of limitations for most crimes?
“Do you have links to the Catholic-targeting bills you mention?”
Colorado, Massachusetts and New Hampshire:
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2006&month=March&read=1997
Although this one http://www.catholicleague.org/linked%20docs/colorado_lawmaker_letter.htm is about only Colorado, it has a lot of info like, “Arguably the nation’s leading student of sexual abuse in the schools is Professor Charol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University. … When asked how these statistics compared to priestly sexual abuse, Shakeshaft said, ‘the sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.’”
Like the Philadelphia city bus that had many more injured passengers following an accident than the bus had seats for, there is the inevitable rush for deep pockets:
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2005&month=November&read=1946 .
I anxiously await a public school report similar to the USCCB that acknowledges a problem “100 times” that of the Church’s. While waiting, however, I’ll not go without chocolate – the wait will kill me.
Mountain Man:
“Aren’t these proclivities natural? Weren’t these priests born this way? Who are we to judge what happens in the privacy of their bedrooms between consenting parties?”
Even if the kids weren’t consenting, it is still normal and natural, according to NAMBLA and the ACLU who is defending them. And who are we to question such wisdom?
Sendonaman,
Well said. What surprises me most is these “enlightened” ones who are issuing condemnatory commentary. I guess we get to pick and choose our moral outrage these days.
This is the natural result of divorcing morality from an absolute standard. After all, if God doesn’t exist, then we can make it up as we go.
Sedonaman – It seems reasonable to me that sexual abuse in public schools could be 100 times that of Catholic priests, though actual data rather than opinion would be nice. (Particularly when that opinion covers actions ranging “from sexual comments to rape”.) Public school enrollment is about 20 times that of Catholic school enrollment, and only a fraction of those teachers are priests. Other priests don’t get one-on-one time with children at the same frequency. By sheer numbers you’d expect higher abuse rates.
But that still misses the point – I’m not aware of an organized cover-up of serial abusers in public schools, and nothing I saw from the Catholic League has addressed that point, nor does the report you linked to – the closest I saw was that they are making “an effort to maintain transparency”.
My wife is Catholic and my children are going to catechism. I have some very precious irons in this fire and yes, I am going to have some very high standards for protecting them. Bad things can happen anywhere, despite people’s best efforts, of course. But organized cover-ups… well, that’s an example of ‘best efforts’ aimed in entirely the wrong direction.
Raymond Ingles:
From the report, Educator Sexual Misconduct By Charol Shakeshaft:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.doc
10.0 CONSEQUENCES OF ALLEGATIONS OF EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
The studies which include documentation of the consequences of educator sexual misconduct primarily focus on what happens after allegations are made. Most document the ways in which schools and districts fail to remove abusers from the classroom.
10.1 Consequences for abusers. In an early study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York, all of the accused had admitted to sexual abuse of a student but none of the abusers was reported to authorities and only 1 percent lost their license to teach (Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994). All of the accused had admitted to physical sexual abuse of a student but only 35 percent received a negative consequence for their actions: 15 percent were terminated or, if not tenured, they were not rehired; and 20 percent received a formal reprimand or suspension. Another 25 percent received no consequence or were reprimanded informally and off-the-record. Nearly 39 percent chose to leave the district, most with positive recommendations or even retirement packages intact.
Of those who left, superintendents reported that 16 percent were teaching in other schools and that they had no idea what the other 84 percent were doing. A recent report on sexual abuse in New York City indicates that 60 percent of employees who were accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs at offices inside schools and 40 percent of these teachers were repeat offenders (Campanile and Montero, 2001). In many instances, agreements are made to avoid legal battles with the alleged abuser (Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994).
Several investigative reports have publicized individual cases and the response by districts to allegations of educator sexual misconduct. For instance, O’Hagen and Willmsen report that of 159 Washington state coaches “who were reprimanded, warned, or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct . . . at least 98 of them continued coaching or teaching afterward.” (Dec. 15, 2003) Many school districts make confidential agreements with abusers, trading a positive recommendation for a resignation. …
11.0 UNION AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ROLES
11.1 Actions of teacher unions. Until recently, teacher unions in many states have actively opposed legislation that would require positive identification (e.g., finger-printing) of teachers convicted of sexual abuse of students. In most states, teachers who are already employed are exempt from regulations such as fingerprint identification. There is no research that documents teacher union attempts to identify predators among their members.
11.2 Actions of professional organizations. Administrative professional organizations have hosted workshops and talks at annual meetings on the topic of educator sexual abuse and the School Administrator, the official publication of the American Association of School Administrators, published an issue devoted to the topic. However, specific guidance and direction to members has not been formal nor did I find evidence that professional organizations for teachers have addressed the topic for their members. …
12.0 PREVENTION OF EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
Educator sexual misconduct has not been systematically addressed in schools. While the advent of money damages to targets of sexual harassment, a result of Title IX legislation, and newspaper and other media coverage have prodded some school district officials to acknowledge educator sexual misconduct, educator sexual misconduct is still occurring. Some believe that the rights of adults are favored over the safety of children (Sesame, 2003; Shoop, 2003).
*****
If this isn’t a cover-up, what is? I certainly doesn’t look like any attempt to “maintain transparency” comparable to the Church’s.
It’s worth noting that that study was apparently a ‘literature search’, and didn’t obtain new raw data itself. When that’s done to prove global warming, well, lots of people have trouble with that – certainly on this site.
The DOE has “some reservations about this study” and is “currently investigating ways to obtain more reliable evidence on the extent of sexual abuse in schools.”
Still, I’ll be looking into it. On the other hand, the fact that other people have done bad things – and may even have covered them up – does not mean that the Church didn’t do bad things and cover them up. For an organization that’s supposed to be a moral authority, that’s pretty, well, damning.
Raymond Ingles:
“…the fact that other people have done bad things – and may even have covered them up – does not mean that the Church didn’t do bad things and cover them up.”
I didn’t offer it up as a tu quoque argument. You asked for some evidence, and I linked to the study. Even though the DOE might have reservations, one thing is certain: unlike the Church’s investigation of itself, the Shakeshaft study was not commissioned by the folks who run the schools, and those who do obviously oppose any reform and, consequently, would never have commissioned it.
“For an organization that’s supposed to be a moral authority, that’s pretty, well, damning.”
So why don’t you pull your kids out of catechism if you think the Church is so lacking in moral authority?
Sedonaman – the reason I asked about evidence was because you brought up public schools, so far as I can see as a tu quoque argument.
As to why I haven’t pulled my kids from catechism – because, as I’ve stated already, “I do agree that clerical abuse is much less likely now”. That limits the harm it can do. Not that it’s a done deal. My wife’s diocese was one that had protected a priest, and when the letters came soliciting donations to help cover the legal costs of the settlements, she fumed for days. She thought very carefully before sending them to catechism. More scandals would probably have her shopping for a new church.
There are other benefits. My kids are quite aware that I don’t believe in God, and the fact that I’m still a nice person and obviously love them and their mother very deeply is a source of confusion to them. It doesn’t square with what they have been taught in catechism. I’m happy to give them a chance to think about these issues themselves; they may come to agree with me about the Church’s lack of moral authority on their own.
Raymond Ingles:
The only reason I brought up the public schools (see my Post #2 above) is to show the Catholic Church was being singled out by proposed laws to eliminate the statute of limitations for these abuses – laws that would exempt public schools – and not to offer an excuse for the Church.
“As to why I haven’t pulled my kids from catechism – because, as I’ve stated already, ‘I do agree that clerical abuse is much less likely now’.”
But how does that overcome the damage that’s already been done to its moral authority – authority that has already been “damned” in your mind?
I never thought the Church had any special moral authority, but my wife was raised Catholic and she wanted the kids to go to catechism. As I said, the abuse cover-up made her seriously question that – it certainly hurt their moral authority with her, and she, too, hasn’t been terribly impressed with the efforts since then. The fact that the scandal attracted so much attention indicates to me, at least, that it affected a lot of other people that way, too.
If I thought the chances of abuse were higher, I’d work to convince my wife to avoid catechism; I personally think it’s a waste of time. But, as I said, so far the Church is doing a decent job of making my case for me.
Raymond Ingles:
Let me get this straight. You are sending your kids to get moral training from an institution that neither you nor your wife think has any moral authority. I don’t think you really believe what you are telling me.
Um, they’re getting religious training from the Church, but – as I’ve pointed out – I don’t regard that as the same as moral training. And I didn’t say my wife thought the Church had no moral authority. There are plenty of areas she disagrees with the Church on, and she’s disgusted by the failings she’s seen, but that’s not the same as thinking the Church has zero authority.
She sends them more out of habit and tradition, I suspect. I think it’s a waste of time, as I said, but not actively harmful. Or, at least, not harmful enough to fight over. And, as I’ve also said (boy, I’m having to repeat myself a lot on this thread), it offers me a chance to illustrate alternatives for them to consider.
Does that help you add it up a little more easily?
Why do you let them teach your kids fairy tales? How can that be benign?
Mountain Man – we’re moving rather far afield from the topic of the article above, but since you asked:
Unlike many theisms, atheism doesn’t have to be evangelical. There’s nothing compelling me to share the “good news” or requiring me to colonize other minds with my ideas. (Of course I enjoy discussing and arguing about such ideas, but I’m polite – I confine such things to places actually devoted to discussions like that.)
Besides, I’m pretty sure my position is quite reasonable and defensible. People don’t (usually) need to be evangelical about gravity or the germ theory of disease or the findings of medicine. (And it turns out that kids notice that people don’t say “I believe in gravity”.) I don’t see a need to protect my kids from alternative views, I’m pretty sure they’ll be able to think things out for themselves. If I’m right, it’s pretty likely they’ll come to agree with me. If I’m wrong, then forcibly imposing that view on them would be wrong. I’m much more concerned about teaching them how to think than what to think.
Maybe I just have a higher opinion of my kids than most. Besides that, it’s important to my wife, and I respect her views. She respects mine as well, of course – we don’t hide my lack of belief from our kids, as I said. I don’t say grace at dinner, though I remain silent and respectful during it – and I help make sure our kids do, too.
I think maybe you have a few assumptions about me, and perhaps atheists in general, that you need to re-examine. I have a hard time understanding your question any other way.
Mr. Ingles,
If you are an atheist, then the inescapable concluions is that you are allowing your children to be taught fairytales as if they were indisputable truth. One does not have to be hostile to religion or disrespectful of religious people to recognize that if God does not exist, then the people who believe in him are 1) ignorant, 2) deceived, or 3) intentionally dishonest.
I make no assumptions about you, but your complicity in your childrens’ deception, given your personal convictions, is an appropriate question.
Touché, Monsieur Mountain Man.
Mountain Man – I’m roughly in the position of a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist in the U.S.; if I wanted to ‘protect’ my children from exposure to Christianity, how would I do it? Stuff them under a rock from November 1st to December 28th or so, and similarly sequester them for about two weeks every spring? Rigorously police their friends and classmates, individually approve the shows and movies they watch, etc.? (Leaving aside the small issue of their mother being Catholic…)
My kids are going to run into a wide variety of “fairytales” constantly; they might as well learn how to spot them now. As I’ve noted, they’re already questioning what they’re being taught, simply because they’ve seen that it doesn’t match up to the reality of their father and grandparents. Besides, we’ve got a family history of it – my parents are also not religious, but they sent me to a Catholic high school because it was the best private school they could afford. I have personal experience that religious instruction doesn’t have to equal conversion.
You assume I must look at it as ‘deception’, but it’s also possible to look at it as ‘inoculation’. Weakened forms of viruses are often used in vaccines, but we don’t say that parents who get their children vaccinated are ‘complicit in their children’s infection’.
Perhaps you protect your children from any idea you don’t agree with. That’s your right, I suppose. (Though I’m looking into how to change the laws – slightly – in light of the case I linked to before.) But don’t be surprised if their ‘mental immune system’ isn’t prepared to deal with new ideas once they’re out from under your wings.
Mr. Ingles,
I hope you dn’t mind, but I am going to be direct, perhaps too much so.
You have a history of redefining terms and sidestepping issues, and then pretending to be intellectual and magnanimous. Such is the case here.
No one here has suggested that you ought to be “protecting” your children from Christianity or the varieties of ideas, now have they? Your children are not just going about their day being exposed to a diversity of thinking, sir. They are being indoctrinated with direct, specific teaching. And it isn’t just generic religious exposure, it is christianity, specifically, catholicism.
Further, you seem to be suggesting that all ideas are equal on the one hand (“I don’t see a need to protect my kids from alternative views, I’m pretty sure they’ll be able to think things out for themselves”), but displaying contempt for all things religious on the other. So, if religion is dangerous, close-minded, etc., that means you have already concluded that some ideas are better than others.
Yet you seem to think there is some virtue in being ideologically absent from your childrens’ upbringing. By logical extension, if your family is out hiking, it would be far better for them to experience a snake bite and learn that is a bad thing, rather than warn them and keep them away, right?
Of course your children are beginning to question what they’re taught, because you are in fact influencing what their world view will be, despite your protestations to the contrary. The fact is, you either can’t or won’t supply them with good answers to their religious questions because you have already abdicated your responsibility in this area. But children can tell, even though you are pretending to be neutral.
And, based on the conversations I have read here at IC, you are ill-equipped to give good answers. You have yet to give satisfactory explanations on the nature of non-religious morality, the origin of existence, and other topics. If you can’t answer me, of course your children will begin to question their religious instruction.
Again, I am being direct, so I hope you understand that I am not trying to provoke you.
Mr. Ingles
It is not my intent to be sanctimonious, but to use the opportunity you present to explore parenting concepts.
You speak of preparing your children. Have you considered whether you are teaching your children how to handle that eventual moment in the future, when in despair and fear, when the incomprehensible makes the gut contract and heart skip wildly, they cry out for… , well, something? Something they realize is not within them because it was something that was not part of your “reality.”
It is in these moments, Mr. Ingles, that your children may realize that what is happening to them may not “match up with the reality of their father,” yet is happening nevertheless.
It is part of teaching our children how to think that we teach them how to think about what they feel, which prepares them for how to deal with moments when scientific conclusions and “rational” thinking, are, as my father would say, “as useless as teats on a boar hog.”
One day, perhaps when you are gone, they may find they are little prepared to deal with a moment when the answers are as inaccessible as your touch – as incalculable as the end of time. They will realize that your collection of data and logical conclusions are lacking – not because you didn’t give them everything you had to give and the most current science had to offer, just that you had nothing to give them as powerful and useful in such moments as faith – which is simply (or complexly) the understanding/belief that they are never alone in their despair.
In guiding our children on matters of faith and religion, whether we believe it a “fairy tale” or not, we have to be aware of the historical tangibles of faith and what it is we have to offer them in place of a faith. Is the usefulness of faith not as apparent as the usefulness of thumbs – a brilliant design that is none of our own doing?
It is quite true that there are no atheists in foxholes. That is because there simply is nothing that serves them better in that moment than having faith, and as expedient as it may be, its sincerity is undeniable.
Later, upon reflection and analysis of the data, it is up to the individual to determine if in a moment of despair he proved God. But when all is considered, he cannot escape that he established the truth and power and usefulness of believing in God. And that is precisely what God promises: a return on your investment for having faith in Him.
Is faith an irrational reaction that serves a rational and natural purpose that is scientifically/psychologically explainable? Maybe. But oh so powerful it is without science.
Science may have a duty to explain the tangible feelings faith creates, but what duty does it have to challenge the tangibles of faith, particularly when those tangibles can be scientifically measured, and particularly because science can state nothing more definite or more important than God is not science?
It is the notion that there is no basis in reality for the positive effects of having a faith, and further that we can do without those feelings – that Earthly substitutes are available – that is the stock and trade of the atheist belief system.
You may not be a militant, proselytizing atheist – though you do carry their water here, and with a frequency that belies any claimed dispassion.
Do you (does anyone) really live up to the claim that they do not teach what to think?
In teaching, parents who teach religion and the concepts of faith are unashamed when they do not exclude science (which is simply the knowledge God has made possible). Their children have full benefit and may pull from science or faith as they face life, reality and the unknown.
If these children are fools, they are well-rounded fools in possession of the tools needed to solve mathematical and spiritual equations, happier and less likely to struggle for meaning in their lives.
And if that is the case, how foolish is faith? How foolish is the father who passes it on?
Mountain Man – I’m really at a loss here. I didn’t suggest that ‘all ideas are equal’ at any point. The quote you gave could equally be phrased “I think my kids will be able to sort out the correct from the incorrect views.”
And I have ask you, very seriously, where I have ever displayed “contempt for all things religious”. Point out some examples. I think religion is wrong in many respects, and misguided in others. I think religion probably served a useful purpose in the past, though I question its utility in a modern setting – and I’ve said so explicitly on this very site. At most, you could accuse me of contempt of some things religious’ – but Criticism and disagreement are not the same thing as contempt – though not everyone seems to grasp the distinction.
And I also didn’t say I was “ideologically absent from [my] children’s upbringing”. Atheists don’t have catechism, but we do do moral and ‘ideological’ education just the same. One can teach without being didactic – e.g. by example. When I’m explaining why something is wrong to my kids, I don’t say, “because God says don’t do that.” I ask, “What if everyone did that? Would you like it if someone did that to you?” Of course I’m “influencing what their world view will be”. But influencing or advising is not the same thing as mandating and enforcing.
If your view of life is shaped by this website, it may be hard for you to believe that people can respectfully disagree, but I assure you that the disagreements my wife and I have in these areas are quite respectful. (She herself has said that we argued more about what to teach our kids about Santa Claus than about God.) Further, you may not be satisfied by my “explanations on the nature of non-religious morality”, but that may speak more to your criteria than to the merits of my case. I, for example, am not satisfied by your explanations of the “origin of existence”.
I’m not saying this to provoke you, but sometimes it really seems as if you’re not discussing things with me, but with some parallel-universe version of me… or at least, with your expectations of what I write rather than what I actually write.
Mr. Adams – what makes you think I haven’t experienced moments of terror and despair? But even if I hadn’t – well, I must point out that, on the contrary, it is “quite true” that there are, in fact, atheists in foxholes.
In the words of Mountain Man, “I am not trying to provoke you”, but imagine someone who’d been addicted to morphine from childhood. (I realize this analogy may seem insulting, but I ask you to accept it in the same spirit that you and Mountain Man ask me to accept your words.) They might have a hard time imagining how someone could make it through life – could make it through a day – without shooting up. How would they picture life without morphine? Sometimes it seems to me that that’s how religious people picture life without religion. The core of despair that they seem to impute just isn’t there, honest. (For an interesting counterpoint, you might look here.)
But there’s another problem with what you’re saying, and C.S. Lewis himself warned against it in “The Screwtape Letters”. He has his demon Screwtape advise his junior devil to try to convince his ‘patient’ to think only of the usefulness of beliefs. “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason. That’s the game.” I think truth matters. Another writer of fiction, David Gerrold, had one of his characters put it well. “We don’t necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is extraordinarily useful.”
(BTW – I really don’t like the term “militant” atheist. It’s applied in a totally inconsistent manner. To be called a “militant believer”, you actually have to pick up a gun and shoot someone. To be called a “militant atheist”, all you have to do is write a book. As to proselytizing – well, we already touched upon that here. As I pointed out then, there aren’t a large number of people asking that the Constitution be changed to be in line with “unicorn standards” or “Santa Claus’ standards”. What you seem to see as proselytizing, I see as advocating positions to help protect my rights.)
It’s true that ‘faith’ can have practical benefits. (For some examples, I recommend yet again David Sloan Wilson’s “Evolution For Everyone”.) But those benefits are not unmixed. Consider Jewish dietary law – there’s a rule against eating meat and cheese in the same meal. Orthodox rabbis take it as far as requiring a set amount of time between eating meals with dairy products and meat products, so that they don’t mix in the stomach. There’s a requirement that meat and dairy be stored absolutely separately.
Now, before refrigeration, storing meat and cheese together was a bad idea. Meat would spoil almost immediately when exposed to cheese. (Try it sometime.) So a rule that has the effect of rigidly separating their storage has good effects. But it does have downsides – like no cheeseburgers. Now we know about pasteurization and refrigeration, and the old rule isn’t needed anymore. Wilson makes the useful distinction between “practically realistic” beliefs that have useful effects but aren’t actually true, and “factually realistic” beliefs that are actually true.
I don’t think we have to give up factual realism for practical realism. And I’m sorry, but I haven’t seen evidence in my own life to disabuse me of that notion.
Nick Adams:
One additional thing you don’t do when raising children is send them conflicting messages.
sedonaman – My wife and I agree about all major things; finances, fidelity, child discipline, and so forth. We are both in quite close agreement about what’s moral. We may not arrive by the same route, but we’re in the same place regarding what we teach our kids.
Parents can disagree about a lot of things and not send ‘conflicting messages’ to kids. Republicans and Democrats can marry and raise healthy, happy children. People of very different cultures marry and find a happy mix all the time. It’s not always easy, of course, but I know from experience it’s possible.
Mr. Ingles,
There are no atheists in foxholes. Look it up.
But the bottom line is, if it is faith you do not have, then it is faith you are missing. With what or how you choose to fill the void, or if you choose to recognize the void, is up to you, and you may say what you like about what you have chosen.
My points were to “influencing” others to the degree, as you stated, they use you and your beliefs as a yardstick for reality. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, providing you have the ability to measure all things accurately. And if that is true, perhaps pilgrimages to your door are in order.
As it appears you have never been religious, I’m not sure what you have to say on the matter (of being religious) is any more valuable than what a person who knew nothing of science might have to say about physics or chemistry.
Also, it would be interesting to learn what morals atheists teach and if you can tells us the source of the authority behind those morals. Is it just your say so? Must someone have faith in you to accept your moral teachings? How do you convince?
Mr. Ingles,
Sorry, I did not answer your question.
Nothing makes me think you have not experienced terror or despair. In fact, as a person without faith, I suspect your experiences in terror and despair may have been more severe than they needed to be.
What makes you think you know the value (or lack thereof) of a faith you do not have?
As for your painfully obvious “opiate of the masses” reference, I would suggest you are spot on. Many religious people have a hard time conceiving of life without faith. And your point is … ? People have a hard time conceiving of life without water, as well.
I do not believe you suffer from “core” despair. But then I also believe you do not suffer from the kind of core happiness and contentment faith provides many.
Again, these are your choices, just don’t expect to get too far trying to sell the joys of being an atheist. Honest!
Raymond Ingles:
That’s not the kind of mixed message I meant. Certainly you send a mixed message if you say one thing and your wife says another, but you are also sending a mixed message, for example, by telling your kid not to have sex but giving him a condom. Likewise, you would also be sending a mixed message by sending your kid to church instead of taking him. In your case, you communicate a mixed message by sending him to catechism when you don’t even believe in God. As you yourself said, “One can teach by example.”
[Note that your wife need not be part of this for a mixed message to occur.]
Mr. Ingles,
Your writing must be the issue, because it certainly is a reflection of your thought processes. If you cannot write in ways that communicate your ideas, then people are going to misunderstand.
For example, “alternative views” and “correct vs. incorrect views” are not even close to meaning the same thing. “Contempt” vs. “criticism” vs. “disagreement” are only shades of meaning adding up to the same thing, that you find religious ideas inferior, wanting, un-useful… (fill in your word).
As far as your previous writings, your failure to communicate a cogent line of reasoning is not my problem. But again, when challenged to explain your reasoning, you focus on some minor side issue that has little to do with anything.
That is what is so irritating about dealing with many atheists. They’d rather split hairs on shades of meaning, employ misdirection and go off on rabbit trails than to ever reach a conclusion on any point.
But I don’t see for the life of me how this practice is in any way intellectually satisfying to atheists, unless the objective is to simply confound and irritate the questioner until they finally throw in the towel. I’ve had to do that myself, since you persist in refusing to step up and actually answer a direct question or explain how you reached your conclusions.
So in the final analysis, atheists never seem to win the argument, but only succeed in running off detractors with obfuscation.
Mr. Adams – if you click on the phrase “atheists in foxholes” in my comment #27, you will be taken to the website of Atheists In Foxholes, an organization of current and veteran soldiers who also happen to be atheists. I did “look it up”, and I found some, and I tried to provide with the opportunity to very easily look it up yourself. Apparently you didn’t.
I’m reluctant to continue this conversation when it doesn’t seem like you’re paying attention to what I’ve actually written. It’s not like we haven’t discussed “what morals atheists teach and if you can tells us the source of the authority behind those morals”. Follow the links in comment #26 and you can review.
Mountain Man – I’m not surprised that you’ve had trouble in your discussions with atheists in the past. Apparently, anything less than agreement equals contempt in your eyes. I suspect you find hostility when none is present.
There are actually two common factors in those conversations, you’ll note. One is of course that they all were atheists – but the other common factor is, well, you. Unwillingness to understand can be a potent barrier to communication.
Mr. Adams – It’s true that I haven’t experienced the joys of faith. But I’m reasonably sure neither of us have the relevant experience to judge the joys of alcoholism, cigarettes, or morphine addiction from the inside. That doesn’t mean either of us ‘has to say’ about them is valueless. Some things are better judged from the outside.
Consider – courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the ability to do what is necessary despite fear. Someone who doesn’t feel afraid simply cannot display courage. But note that, for any bold action, that means there are two factors to consider – how much fear someone experiences doing it, and how much courage they can muster. A person who runs into a fire to rescue someone is certainly brave, but they may not realize just how dangerous the situation is. They have the courage to do the job… but if they knew more, their fear would be increased, and they might reconsider. A firefighter with years of experience may know just how unstable a building is, and how likely a backdraft may be… and still run in to the rescue. They have greater fear, but also greater courage.
Faith may help palliate fear, and enable people to be bolder than they otherwise might… but it’s also possible for someone with less faith but more courage to do the same. There are atheists in foxholes, incomprehensible as you may find that to be. Perhaps, lacking faith, they have had to develop more courage. Someone who’s always had an ‘easy out’ to dispell fear would never need to develop their courage – they might not even believe it possible to do so.
(Oh, and BTW – why does someone have to be able to “measure all things accurately” for their words to have value? What if they can only measure some things accurately? Must everything be a package deal, neatly wrapped up in a bow with a thorough instruction manual? Or can we go with our best judgment and a willingness to learn?)
Mr. Ingles,
You keep missing my point. What I have been saying is, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” I am repeating the famous saying. I am surprised you have not heard it.
Pointing me to a web site put together for atheists serving in the military has no bearing on the saying. To point out the obvious, the conversion/realization is something that happens under fire. Your linked web site is a little like a site dedicated to guys who proclaim they don’t or won’t jump when they spill hot coffee in their laps.
According to Wikipedia, the meaning of the phrase is that atheists under fire abandon the “less substantial affectation of atheism” and accept a higher power.
To help you get your mind around the concept, most soldiers would never admit they desire to be held by their mothers(and in fact in normal circumstances, there is no need).
Yet wounded or in fear for their lives, there may be (and have been) uncontrollable cries for “mommy.”
What we really want; What we really believe; What we cannot deny, often is realized when the barriers we errect to protect our ideologies is broken down under duress.
Absent that duress, one is free to make intellectual argumens, cite science, parade about some reason – which is what you do here in towing the atheist line.
What I try to point out to atheists (who bring up their beliefs) is that they may want to consider that they are little different than the woman going through life who has never experienced an orgasim. They don’t know what they are missing because they’ve never had it to miss.
The irony is atheist will argue against something they’ve never experienced, have no personal knwoledge of and have no intention of seeking out.
I find atheists can be blissfully frigid.
Jumping in mid-stream, Nick, I have to ask about formerly religious people who become atheists. Here’s a group that has definitely “had the orgasm,” but then chose to turn their back on it. They know the ‘bliss,’ realize it to be false or irrelevant to their lives, transfer their morality from one based on God to one based on society and humanity, and then go on to live happy, productive lives. Kind of busts a hole in your argument, no?
Raymond Ingles:
Re: atheists in foxholes link
BTW, how do you do that? I mean create a link using text of your choice?
Chasm,
No. As stated, my criticism was directed at those who are critical of something they know nothing of from personal experience.
I think what you meant to ask, is what do I think of those who know both sides from personal expereince and choose atheism.
Also, you said “here’s a group.” Where’s a group? No link, if that’s what you intended.
It does raise interesting questions, though. Did faith not net a return? Sort of like a car wax that didn’t last the advertised 6 months?
Could be user error?
But no matter; we’re all God’s children. You are blessed whether you know it or whether you are thankful for it.
Then of course, you have to consider the concept of owing one’s happiness to society and humanity. If God made humanity and humanity made society, then you’re worshipping God by proxy. Fascinating stuff, isn’t it?
Fair enough. What DO you think of those who know both sides from personal experience and choose atheism?
I meant ‘group’ as in ‘set,’ as I’m pretty sure there’s more than one former worshiper in the atheist camp.
I don’t have a link to a ‘group,’ but only because I don’t feel like Googling “former Christian Atheist Group” or “ex-Mormon Atheists,” but I DO have a link to a very articulate person who “un-converted” during his(?) senior year at Wheaton Collage. It’s at http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/
This person doesn’t really go into the exact event or events that lead him to reject Christian teachings, but he sure writes honestly and perceptively about the differences in world perception that the two camps represent. I read his entire blog the other night (It only covers 5 months), and I could do nothing but admire his courage, intelligence and clear thinking.
I will ask you not to condescend to me during our discussion – it’s a ugly side-effect of this blog – and I hope you will refrain in following other writer’s examples. Do you really want me asserting that you are a fool and wasting your life for believing in magic men? Didn’t think so, so don’t tell me that I’m ‘blessed’ whether I like it or not.
And your last comment is fascinating in the “we could be just a molecule in the fingernail of a giant” sort of way. Your penultimate sentence could read “If God did NOT make humanity, and humanity made society, they you’re worshiping God for no reason at all” and it would re-join with your first statement just as well.
Mr. Ingles,
“Unwillingness to understand can be a potential barrier to communication.” So can be an unwillingness to communicate. Here is an excerpt from the link you provided, indicative of your clarity of thought regarding atheism and morality:
“The closest analogy I can think of are primality tests – algorithms for determining if a number is prime. Actually determining if a number is prime or not is computationally ‘hard’ – it takes a lot of analysis, essentially dividing a number N by every number from 2 to sqrt(N). But there are probabilistic tests that can determine, to an arbitrarily high likelihood, that a number is prime – but they aren’t perfect, and sometimes give false positives. (That’s a quick summary, see Wikipedia for the gory details.)
Overall, we agree on what’s moral (prime) but we have different algorithms for determining if something’s moral. I think your algorithm works most of the time, but tends to produce false positives – kind of like comparing Fermat’s test to the current Miller-Rabin test.”
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 5, 2007
Now, I ask you, is this quote from your writing a case of me being unwilling to understand, or of you not willing to debate ideas clearly?
So now, is there any possibility at all that I might be right about you having failed you make your case about atheists and morality?
Chasam,
Wow. “You” really is the most powerful word in the English language.
I would never take offense at being accused of believing in “magic men.” In fact, I think it interjects some humor.
My point is an obvious one. Becoming an atheist doesn’t erase God, only the atheist’s faith in Him. Life, and God, go on and blessings continue to flow per usual.
Why the sore spot?
As for those who have known faith and left it for the practice of no faith, I suspect they never really had it in most cases.
For some the hardest thing to do is count their blessings. Some people never figure out how to do it and are always looking for more. When it doesn’t come, they go looking for it elsewhere – like switching mates, their genitals or what have you.
Some people bail because they feel the weight of responsibility. Like parents who can’t handle child rearing leaving in the night. Removing the expectations God has for us, even our own expectations for ourselves, can be too seductive for some.
Still others get bored or don’t know what they want. Will Smith is on his fifth or sixth religion right now, I believe.
I suppose the point is, for people of faith, the notion of abandoning God is about as possible as claiming you have abandoned air, even as you inhale.
One can abandon their faith, because after all, it is “their” faith. But how does one truly rid themselves of God?
I think it is in us all. We know it. We feel it. I suppose how we internalize those feelings has a lot to do with how prickly we get when someone suggests God is real, and that He loves you and blesses you. It warms some folks all over, while others get really pissed.
So the bottom line always ends up the same: Those who have faith are wasting their time, while those who do not are missing something really great.
It is just part of the dynamic of the debate that urging people to believe and have faith to achieve happines and to become complete plays a lot better on what resides inside us than urging people to give up faith and stop believing as a way to happiness.
Sedonaman – you have to do a tiny bit of html coding. You wrap the text you want to highlight in a couple of ‘tags’. I will try to render them below, but I’m not sure if the comment form will allow it. If it doesn’t work, google for “html href tag” and it should be clear:
<a href=”the link with http colon slash slash etc.”> the text to be highlighted <a>
Sedonaman – whoops, that’s “/a” (forward-slash a) on the final tag, not just “a”: </a>
Mr. Adams – Of course I’m aware fo the phrase… and I don’t think it’s true, since counterexamples exist.
Basically, what you’re saying seems to boil down to, “Those guys may say that they remained atheists even in foxholes, but I don’t believe that’s possible, so they must be lying or deceiving themselves.” Of course, you also say that if you haven’t experienced something, you can’t really comment on it. Those people have actually been through combat; have you? I suggest you might consider the possibility that “there are more things in heaven and earth… than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Mountain Man – I’ve been assuming you’re willing to meet me halfway. Willing to maybe put some effort into learning new things, willing to try to figure out what someone is saying to you, or at least point out what’s unclear about what they are saying.
You quoted one of my responses, but never said exactly what you didn’t understand about it. Do you not know what a prime number is? What the terms ‘algorithm’, ‘probabilistic’, and/or ‘false positive’ mean? How to look up something on Wikipedia?
I’ll assume it’s all Greek to you, and try to express the concept in language I hope will be familiar to you. In Judges 12, the Gileadites defeated the Ephraimites. The Ephraimites attempted to cross the Jordan river back to their territory, but the Gileadites had secured the border. Other refugees were coming through, too, so the Gileadites had to figure out a way to identify the Ephraimites. They settled on a simple test – asking the refugees to pronounce a common local word, ‘shibboleth’, one that would trip up someone with an Ephraimite accent. See Judges 12:5-6 for the gory (in this case, literally) details.
Now, overall we agree on what’s moral (belongs to the ‘moral’ group) – but we have different shibboleths, or tests, for determining if something’s moral. I think your shibboleth works most of the time, but tends to produce false positives – like an Ephraimite who’d travelled extensively and could mimic a Gileadite accent.
Is that any clearer?
Mr. ingles,
You really don’t get it, do you? When you read what you wrote I’m sure it’s crystal clear to you, but it’s total nonsense to someone else. And that’s what you wrote, total nonsense. What you wrote does not illuminate, it does not explain, it does not simplify, it is not an attempt to reach out and make clear a concept or point of logic.
I know what all of those terms mean, I use them appropriately and in context. But I do not use them to demonstrate my intellectual superiority, to assuage my inability to communicate, or to pretend a sophistication not warranted by the situation.
I have met you more than half way an many occasions, and have tried repeatedly to pry some sort of clear presentation from you. But sooner or later, you devolve into some tangent, some minor point at the expense of the greater discussion, or some sort of irrelevancy like what was quoted above.
And now you want blame me for your failure. Fine. It’s my fault, you win. Feel better?
Once again I find myself having to bow out, again because you refuse to have a productive conversation. Oops, sorry, I forgot. It’s my fault.
Outta here.
Mr. Ingles,
Please, please, you flatter me. It isn’t “my” philosophy.
I know you get my point by now, though you seem to enjoy sidestepping it. From the perspective of believers, Atheist do not have the power to make God go away, though they certainly can operate under that delusion. And since God is with us all, atheism can be seen as sort of a denial that inside their bodies is a beating heart. Believers just know better than that. It goes back to the belief that there are temporal and physical realities as well as spiritual realities.
And you still have not answered the question regarding the authority behind the morals you teach your children. The exchange between yourself and Mr. Jackson last year (greatest thing I’ve seen here, by the way) unless I missed something, did not address that.
You state here that you question the utility of religion today, yet by most of your analysis, utility appears to be the most significant value you assign to it. I get where you are coming from, but you seem to be coming from two different places at times.
I bring that up because the principle utility of religion to anyone who gives it any thought would be to standardize and back the authority and rightness of moral precepts. Anything less runs the risk of being seen as nihilism.
The fatal flaw of “your” philosophy is that it is relativistic. It is the whole gripe with secular relativism. It is like laws without a Constitution.
When you and your teachings are at their best (as far as we can agree at this point) they mirror the basic precepts of the Christian faith, for example. But because what you teach and believe is not backed by any authority – just an understanding and acceptance of something man came up with on his own through a natural, earthly process – it is subject to challenge by earthly men and the alternatives “they” may come up with.
The usefulness and inherent value of the morality you teach may not be in question; it is lack of a foundation that is the problem.
You appear ready to declare the new power of truth is in science and is all that is needed in this age. Meanwhile, your new currency is not backed nearly well enough for a world where the vast majority believe in a divine deity.
Despite all the other issues in play, what in the world would ever bring you to the conclusion that there is no utility to faith today? Do you not recognize that it takes more than your reasoned mind, your scientific data and your working typing fingers to answer a planet full of people with very real spiritual needs?
Pardon the expression, but I suspect you would crap a brick if instead of advocating the minority scientific opinion to readers here or elsewhere using your set of currently known facts and hypotheses, you actually had to help manage six billion people as part of the newly formed Council to Assist with the Migration from Superstition to Science.
I understand your duty to science dictates that you not give credence to “magic,” but on the utility of a belief and moral system emanating from and overseen by none other than the omnipotent creator of all things, I am sure we can agree (even if you do not like the side effects).
The alternative is you and your fellow CAMSS council members struggling to issue hourly explanations to millions seeking truth, guidance and meaning to their lives.
Nothing personal, but based on the amount of time and number of words it takes you to offer a counter to even the simplest questions raised, (not to mention that like eating Chinese food, you find yourself just as hungry in an hour) I suggest you have real logistical problems to overcome.
I suppose one positive would be the construction boom made possible by collecting the copious bricks you and yours deposit in the undertaking of the task.
Mountain Man – if you can give a quick summary of the Euthyphro Dilemma and explain why it is, as you pronounced, “tangential” to a discussion of the basis of morals, then perhaps I’ll see what kind of explanation you’re looking for.