Obama’s use of the bully pulpit here is no different than his recent attempts to steamroll the First Amendment by requiring the insurance providers of religious organizations to cover contraception as a component of health care. A “living, breathing” Constitution is one where any policy or law is ruled constitutional, so long as certain higher powers think that policy or law will be beneficial. At this point, it’s time to slowly reread the last two sentences of Washington’s quote above.

The Obama administration first ordered that Roman Catholic sponsored organizations would have to provide birth control to their female employees as part of their health care programs. This was, of course, in contradiction to their policies of conscience on the matter. When the church hierarchy balked at this power play, Obama revised the policy so that the insurance companies themselves would have to pay the freight–a clear distinction without a difference, since the insurance companies obviously would pass on the costs.

The way the issue has been described by the media and political pundits, gives us a perfect example of an “Orwellian reversal”—describing things opposite to what they actually are. This isn’t the church imposing on the government, but the federal government trampling the conscientious objections of the church, making a law respecting the establishment of religion.

This is a flagrant example of violation of church and state separation, unlike nativities at city hall, which don’t even involve the federal government.

The liberal understanding of church and state separation is more ideological than jurisdictional. Under no circumstances can there be a relationship between legislation and religiously informed moral precepts in this paradigm. However, they have no problem evoking Jesus, and biblical passages, when the issue is conflation of wealth redistribution governmental policies, with admonitions to help the needy through voluntary, heart-felt charity. Additionally, there is never a problem with government nullifying church policies of faith, if they are the means to a state imposed “greater good.” This restores the doctrine of Erastianism, a state of affairs where the state is superior to the church, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy is merely an arm of the state. Ironically, this is the very type of church/state configuration that the founders rescued the American experience from, in contrast to the colonial imposition by The Church of England.

What appeared to be a case of religious liberty, has morphed into a bogus national argument over contraception. Many people have voiced concern that they will be forced to subsidize others’ sexual activities. That concern has been turned on its head, being twisted into an accusation that conservatives are trying to take away birth control options from women.

We have heard about the proclivities of the “98%.” Do we suppose policy should be based solely on majority opinion–the democratization of truth and doctrine? If 98% of women dissent and fail to observe a contraceptive edict from their church, that is their prerogative under personal liberty of conscience, but not a reason to force change in the church’s’ moral perspectives. It does demonstrate though, that most women already have easy access to birth control without new insurance provisions, contrary to the popular talking points.

The church serves as a vanguard for culture, not a pawn manipulated by moral libertinism and cultural drift.

The issue has festered all the more, because of the comments talk-show host Rush Limbaugh made about the testimony given by Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, favoring the government’s policy. Limbaugh’s irreverent and unfortunate comments, have made Fluke into a heroin darling of the left, removing focus from the real issue. She even got a call from Obama himself. Fluke points out that law students can’t afford the contraception they “need.” That seems like a reasonable complaint to the “enlightened” among us. One of the many problems with the secular humanist perspective, is that it talks the talk about moral progress, but then functionally balks at personal responsibility, on the basis that people cannot master their impulses. Therefore, the costs of their behaviors must be subsidized. It seems like the objective is to make questionable behavior devoid of consequences. Why should a person who knowingly affiliates with an organization holding particular policies, be allowed to come in and force the organization to change its policy? “Pro-choice” gets chucked right out the window. Hillsdale College is an institution of higher learning that will not accept financial aid, in order to avoid government interference. Suppose some student enrolls, knowing the policy, then tries to get student aid after being accepted. We would consider such a demand crazy.

The late Christian theologian Francis Schaefer suggested that what was unthinkable yesterday might to thinkable today, and normal, if not common-place tomorrow. In a couple generations, we have gone from a practice being taboo–to it being tolerated–to it being a the subject of a benefit right. We clearly have arrived at Schaefer’s tomorrow.

It’s indisputable that Hitchens was a writer of enormous talent and wit, appreciable by anyone venerating style over specific substance. But, I know less of Mr. Hitchens from his magazine contributions, than from his crusade against religious belief, particularly Christianity, as articulated from the various debates with Christian theists in which he participated. On the basis of that specific substance I critique him.

Hitchens was among the fraternity known as “The Four Horsemen of New Atheism,” which asserts that “religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.” I find that an intriguing philosophical posture, considering a chief criticism of religion is it lacks tolerance for differing perspectives–a defect supposedly avoided in non-theistic humanism. In addition, such an assertion begs the question by assuming without proof New Atheists have cornered the market on rational discourse.

The writer asserts “In truth, Hitchens defined himself as an antitheist, asserting that an atheist doesn’t believe but wishes he were wrong, while an antitheist, in his own words, ‘”is relieved that there is no evidence for such an assertion.”‘

This quotation says it all, and it comports well with a companion quotation from professor Thomas Nagel from his 1997 book The Last Word.

“…I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” The antitheist is captivated by his own wishful thinking.

The term ‘antitheist’ is apropos, because often objections to the existence of God aren’t intellectual objections, so much as they are volitional ones. That’s apparent while listening to debates where Hitchens was a participant. An observation made by one of his opponents(Dr. Frank Turek)was that Hitchens seemed more intent on cleverly articulating a litany of complaints, then debating. It is unlikely a person of such a mindset would yield to evidence contrary to his perspective. Hitchens epitomizes the oxymoronic slogan that “There is no God and I hate him.”

How different and disingenuous is this perspective in contrast to the late Anthony Flew, a renowned atheist turned theist, who vowed to go wherever the evidence took him.

The writer comments on the behaviors that contributed to Hitchens death. “With smoking and drinking habits as uncompromising as his writing, he developed the same disease that claimed his father — esophageal cancer.” I don’t believe in piling on here, but I find it ironic that someone as intelligent and enlightened as Hitchens–enough so that he could critique God himself–couldn’t muster the common sense and discipline to moderate the habits that were destroying him physically, even after seeing what happened to his father.

A theme common among those who experience a religious conversion, particularly in the Christian tradition, is a record of testimony referencing deliverance from destructive habits. In addition, it is expected that as one renews their heart and mind, that one will reshuffle their priorities to suppress hedonistic appetites. It seems that among humanists there is no similar expectation of internal regulation and temperance.

The columnist was correct that many Christians were praying for an 11th hour statement of contrition from Hitchens. But when Hitchens died there weren’t any back flips, ticker-tape parades among Christians, laden with gleeful singing of the alleluia chorus, or any other such gloating. The attitude was generally somber, if not respectful. That was because they believed Hitchens had irrevocably lost the opportunity to change the bottom line on his spiritual ledger, leaving nothing to celebrate.

The writer expressed admiration for Hitchens’ uncompromising disposition. She says that unrepentant vigor beats hypocrisy any day. Perhaps so, but why are those the only two choices we’re accorded? In Hitchens’ own words “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my —.”

What is this really, but a contemporary rendition of Frank Sinatra’s anthem to the caprice of vanity and individuality I Did It My Way. Is such a response a thoughtful examination of one’s life, or merely the ultimate salvo of defiance?

Our Mothers warned us never to say anything about a person, unless we could say something good. Call me judgmental, but I say Hitchens’ callous bravado is not worthy of adulation despite his elegant gifts of communication. As a distinct and substantive alternative, I recommend the writing of the late Christian philosopher Frances Schaeffer. Those who appreciate his contribution, just celebrated the 100th anniversary of his birth on January 30th.

In addition, there has been much discussion about a recent article from the November issue of Atlantic Monthly magazine, which enumerated Tim Tebow on the ledger among the top 15 Most Divisive Athletes in Recent History. He was there along side of Michael Vick, Barry Bonds, Dennis Rodman, Pete Rose and O.J. Simpson. that list includes various offenses such as cruelty to animals, obstruction of justice, being banned from the Hall of Fame for wagering money on baseball games, standing trial for the murder of his ex-wife, and a history outrageous behavior. So why is Tim Tebow considered to be so divisive? Putting Tebow in that category isn’t merely a mistake, it’s a pervasive, ugly bias, that hasn’t been deterred by the indignation reserved for other forms of bigotry. In reality, he is about as controversial as Mother Theresa. People hate someone who is genuinely squeaky-clean, partly because they don’t look good by comparison. People generally don’t hide, or refrain from talking to others about the things that really excite them. So why should Tebow hide the light of his enthusiasm in his closet?

But for everyone who takes their spiritual convictions seriously, a microcosmic version of Tebow’s saga is par for the course. There are more pejorative canards that revolve around devout religious people, than those that orbit any other issue. Over the years, I have catalogued scores of irreverent and hateful responses to pieces I have written. The one below is part of one of the more memorable examples.

“..what you need to know is that all atheists see you as a delusional, intellectually inferior, weak-willed, gullible sucker who’s incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality, and we laugh at you because of it. I would never hire an evangelical Christian. They believe in nonsense and as such can’t be trusted with things of importance. If I were a customer prospect, I’d never buy a thing from you. (I wouldn’t trust your ability to support your customers in an effective and intelligent manner.) If I were a loan officer, I’d never put a dime in your hand. (I wouldn’t trust your ability to manage your finances or maintain a job through which you could repay me.) If you were a daycare owner, I’d never leave my child with you. (If I couldn’t trust you with money, how could I possibly trust you with my child?) In fact, I wouldn’t even trust you for the time of day if I had to catch a plane. Your intellect, and that of people like you, is sorely compromised, and I’d never allow your kind to affect me personally in any way shape or form…”

What’s interesting is that the person sending this is an atheist, yet his response pertains to my analysis of a scriptural passage which is one of the most abused texts in the Bible. Imagine, an atheist who gets indignant about a theology perspective, of which he claims to lack a belief in to begin with! Rational thinker? Not even in his dreams.

The point here is obvious. The anti-religion cabal is always running around praising their rationality and self-enlightenment. I have heard them yakking tirelessly about the actualization of their own iteration of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Yet, when we observe their behaviors, what do we see but caricatures, of the types of ignorance, arrogance and intolerance, that they falsely condemn people of faith for having. Some of these people are so obnoxious as a nominal minority, that I shutter to think of hostility that would exist if their numbers grow to a small majority.

If you are looking for genuine examples of destructive hatred, focus your sights on those condemning people like Tim Tebow.

This was sort of an “empire strikes back” response to a family values organization which had earlier been allowed to place a traditional nativity scene on Capitol property. In addition, Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker had stoked their ire by insisting that the Wisconsin “holiday tree” will once again be referred to as a Christmas tree, just like it was in the past, and just like the one in Washington D.C. is today.

It should be noted that the religious clauses of the First Amendment and Christmas displays on public property coexisted with little conflict for many years, until a few disgruntled secularists discovered they could get the masses to bow to their selfish whims, if only they complained enough. Tolerance is no longer about tolerating what you don’t like about the other guy, but about forcing them to embrace what they don’t like about you.

If contemporary militant atheists tend to define their position as an “absence of belief in any deity,” why acknowledge the winter solstice, when the solstice itself is linked to pagan supernatural beliefs? Does the FFRF actually have their own message, or is their “message” merely a mission to mock Christianity? Do they have a thoughtful objective, or are they a disgruntled mob trying to legitimize their host of angry voices?

There are many who argue that this whole controversy is so much fuzz over nothing. Some people are so obtuse, apathetic or blind as to deny there is really any assault on the traditional meaning of Christmas. Such folks would probably argue that there is no genuine infringement on religious liberty as long as people are permitted to pray secretly in their bedroom closets, without the knowledge of the state authorities.

I frequently hear their explanations. They think they are providing us a history lesson by telling us that Christ wasn’t really born on December 25th, and that the time of the year surrounding the winter solstice is festooned with pagan superstition and imagery. It’s always good to learn something new and significant isn’t it?

One wonders then, why the FFRF is such an advocate for celebrating the winter solstice? And why is the FFRF so worried about people celebrating public Christmas trees, if they are really just deceived Christians who have appropriated and customized pagan holidays for their own convenience? All the better if they are confused and self-defeating. People are always worried about “hand-wringing” by Christians over the controversy surrounding the Christmas. Yet nobody seems to criticize religion suppression organizations, such as the FFRF for their petty protests and counter demonstrations. How do we account for the imbalance of concern? You tell me and we’ll both know.

If the central theme of Christianity is to turn the other cheek, the parallel theme for the FFRF is never to resist the opportunity for ridicule and mockery. In this fashion, the FFRF has clearly established itself as the anti-theistic counterpart of the gang from Westboro, Kansas. Does the FFRF really work to promote freedom of any kind, or is their objective merely one of suppressing the public remnants of popular religious beliefs? They believe in accentuating the tyranny of the vocal minority.

By even the most optimistic reckoning, atheists represent scarcely more than 15% of the population. Theists of varying faith commitments are an overwhelming majority of the population, and a large part of that group are at least nominal Christians. Yet even in a predominantly Christianized milieu, atheist activism in the public square not only flourishes, but their media stunts draw considerable attention, and even some support and sympathy from the general population.

In considering the assertions above, one can only imagine the intolerance and discrimination that would take place routinely, if the statistical situation were reversed. In true Orwellian tradition, we often discover that people who anoint themselves “enlightened,” are frequently the most arrogant and intolerant segment of society.

One individual challenged me by asking “Does not your faith speak against greed in your book of scripture?” Of course it does, but Christianity is not one-dimensional or monolithic in it’s critique of improper states of mind. Christianity also tells us that envy is one of the seven deadly sins, and reminds us that coveting breaks a commandment. If anything, this movement is built on a foundation of envy, coveting and entitlement. Such an edifice is doomed to fall like a house of cards.

So while the Occupy Movement may have some legitimate gripes, and even make points that are otherwise valid, I can’t agree with its philosophical grounding and methods of operation. One cannot justify lawlessness and violence to protest greed, anymore that you can destroy the village to save it. A saying attributed to Winston Churchill was that “If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you’re 40 and still liberal, then you haven’t got a brain. Obviously Churchill was pointing to the tendencies in forsaking blind liberal idealism, which waxes colder as people acquire life experience and gradually change their views about what is fair and just.

Expanding on that theme is the great Greek philosopher Aristotle. His ancient analysis below reads like a synopsis characterizing the worldview and mindset of the Occupy Movement.

“They [young people] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things – and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning – all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything – they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.”

Again Aristotle tells us why so many young people were mesmerized with Obama in 2008.

“Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope.”

No doubt Obama was very calculating in using that keynote theme “Hope and Change’ during the 2008 presidential campaign. Interestingly enough, while the teeming throngs protest on Wall Street, saying they want a renewed implementation of financial regulations, such as Glass-Steagall, few have come to Pennsylvania Avenue for a redress of grievances. Is it any coincidence that the president and liberal members of congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, have given “Occupy” their ringing endorsements?

Another person only half jokingly suggested to me “It’s time to storm the Bastille again.” Now those sort of sentiments may well warm the heart of a revolutionary, but we shouldn’t joke about that sort of thing if we understand history. I thought about how the French peasants overthrew their aristocracy and Crown. And this lead to The Reign of Terror, with kangaroo courts, blood in the streets and the guillotine for thousands, all in the name of “reason.” It then ushered in the rise of Napoleon, and his wars across Europe as the byproduct. I don’t find much romance in that kind of scenario.

The point is that violent means of overcoming injustice often lead to a greater injustice than the one vanquished. At this point, how can we help thinking about the refrain of the 1971 anthem by the rock band The Who, entitled Won’t Get Fooled Again. The lyrics of the refrain follow…

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again

The youth of four decades past had wisdom expressed in music conveying the probable unanticipated results of their labor of dissent. I couldn’t help thinking of the reformed radical of the ’60s, daring to ask what sort of government would exist after the overthrow of the current order. He was told “We’ll worry about that after the revolution.” That’s kind of like shooting the captain, removing his body from the cockpit, then expecting the aircraft to land itself.

One should not entrust those who wilfully pollute the park, with saving the planet. It also occurs to me that if I am unemployed, and need a job, it can only get more difficult to find one if I’m protesting and not actively pursuing employment. To me a rally is where you meet like-minded folk, have stirring speeches, make posters, but then pick up your trash and go home or out into society to influence others.

Of course some pundits hoping to legitimize this celebration of chaos, have quickly labelled the movement as a liberal cousin of the Tea Party. But that is clearly a slur to the Tea Party, since there are actually few similarities. For example, how many people were arrested in all the Tea Party rallies nation-wide over the past Two-and-a-half years? I find it amazing that we recently had an inquisition where detractors were inspecting Tea Party rallies with a fine tooth comb, looking for isolated incidences of racism or other objectionable elements. When in comes to coverage of the “Occupy” movement, there is more than ample evidence of bazaar and hateful perspectives. Yet these are ignored as isolated occurrences, while the media goes beyond the call of duty attempting to lionize and give a patina of credibility to the movement.

The whole concept of the “1% and 99%” is the latest symbol of contemporary urban mythology. Warren Buffet may be a billionaire, but he should know better than to make the ridiculous argument he did in favor of higher taxation. If Buffet and his rich cohorts want to contribute to the nation debt, they have every right and opportunity to do it voluntarily. So why doesn’t Buffet use his influence to promote that among those in his economic circles? If Buffet is paying a smaller percentage of taxes than his private secretary, it is only because he takes a small salary, and most of his income comes from capital gains. Capital gains are currently taxed at a lower rate because the returns come from money at risk in investments, not from salaries and wages. Most likely, much of Buffet’s personal wealth is in trust funds that he can control, but which is sheltered from taxation. There is nothing in the tax-rate schedule that would allow the rich to pay less on ordinary income. Perhaps this is an argument for an entirely new tax structure, which is being currently promoted by some conservatives.

In circles among conspiracy theorists, it was sometimes asserted that the Rockefeller’s were behind passage of the federal income tax nearly a century ago. The presumption was that “John D.” already had the loopholes figured out, so it was a “hurt the competition” strategy. One only wonders if Buffet’s comments aren’t riding on the coattails of that mindset. I can’t believe Buffet really thinks the government would be able to spend money more effectively than he could direct his own assets toward philanthropy. If he actually does, he should give me his money, because I know that I can. But, after all the debating is through, how does having more tax revenue insure the federal government will spend the money more wisely than in the past? Aren’t the federal bail-outs part of what has caused the current accelerating debt problem?

Turning the page, Jim Wallis, the leader of Sojourners has offered praise for the Occupy movement. Wallis is known as a “Social Justice” Christian. The Christian social justice movement is little more than a witches’ brew of selective biblical passages quoting Jesus, coupled with collectivist economic philosophy. The finished product is an Orwellian type deconstruction of the genuine gospel message, (wherein Christ provides spiritual salvation for humanity from its fallen state), and converts it into a collective economic salvation.

Of course, one can hardly miss that the Occupy movement is entirely unbiblical in its approach, despite the support of Wallis. While Christ emphasized the duty of the wealthy to help the poor, what he never did was attempt to organize the poor to revolt against the wealthy by demanding entitlements and economic equality procured by governmental edict or otherwise. While Christ emphasized the godly act of personal philanthropy, he never entrusted the federal government with enforcing The Beatitudes. Neither should we fall for the implication that government taxation and transfer payments are the contemporary incarnations and substitutions for personal charity.

As one poster wrote irreverently, in apparent antithesis with social justice clichés attempting to channel the WWJD theme, “I didn’t know Jesus smoked dope, screamed, cursed and urinated all over his followers? These anarchists are nothing like Christ and neither is Wallis.” The problem is that while it is appropriate and legitimate to criticize greed and abuse among the wealthy, we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that this movement is built on an edifice envy and covetousness, that ignores Christ’s admonition to get the log out of one’s own eye. Why is it that only greed is condemned, while envy is justified or ignored? We should also remember that greed is a state of the human condition that knows no economic bounds. It is a spiritual disease of rich and poor alike.

I won’t say the Occupy movement isn’t a legitimate political force. I will say that I can’t support it.

To set up the first theme, it is usually a negative response to someone who bemoans some aspect of the trend in cultural morality. The rejoinder is that Christians are not supposed to judge others. That assertion is taken from Matthew chapter seven in the NT. But the context reveals an entirely different message. The point being make is that if one judges others, they will themselves be judged by the same standards they use in their own evaluation. Jesus then teaches his followers how to make a “righteous judgment” in order to avoid this liability. First take the impediment from your own eye.

The real issue is about the condemnation of hypocrisy, not the forbidding of discernment or legitimate criticism. Jesus concludes the section of instruction by telling his followers not to give holy things to dogs, or cast pearls before swine. The dogs and swine are metaphors for people who will not embrace spiritual things. Obviously Jesus himself is rendering a judgment against certain people, and requesting others to do the same.

The implication of the “Judge not” admonition, is that people, particularly Christians, are not permitted to criticize what they perceive as immoral. Such an assumption is patently absurd. The point Jesus made is that we should not condemn anyone when we are even more guilty of the same offense. The actions of Jesus himself were replete with judgment against those he discerned as doing wrong. One example would be his act of overturning the tables of money-changers in the temple.

If we actually extended the “judge not” philosophy to its logical conclusion, it would make folly of our law enforcement and courts of law, where people are arrested, judged and punished by other persons as a matter of course.

What this is really about is marginalizing and silencing the critique of social trends or behaviors, if the objection is informed by traditional moral precepts. We couldn’t survive as functioning humans, if we could never make judgments about people’s characters, based on their visible conduct. This is yet another example of a Christian beatitude distorted under the iron boot of political correctness.
The second canard involves economic policy. Persons of liberal political persuasions offer the rebuttal to those opposing excessive government spending, and forced wealth redistribution, by alluding to Jesus’ frequent requests for the wealthy to give to the poor. They will quote scriptures to make their point. This reasoning is so obtuse, I thought it was an obvious spoof the first few times I noticed people making a connection between the Sermon on the Mount, and government entitlements.

As I frequently point out, nowhere can we presume or infer that requirements to help the poor are anything but personal mandates imposed by the moral conscience. Charity is always what one does voluntarily to help another. And it should be noted that while all of us could do more to help our fellow man in need, surveys show that religious conservatives are the most generous of any group in the study when in comes to giving their own money for charity. So much for the stereotypes of conservative greed.

It is quite an extrapolation to assume that policies of economic collectivism are the contemporary equivalent to The Beatitudes. At no time did Jesus solicit the government in implementing his demands to aid the needy. This is really rendering unto Caesar what is God’s, violating the functional separation between church and state.

I am one convinced that theoretically church organizations and public charity can more adequately fulfil the social contract assuming a few qualifications listed below. Even if that is unreasonably optimistic, I believe we need to migrate in that direction.

Too many churches have moved away from their core social responsibility of helping the needy, toward a prosperity gospel and/or wasting money on constructing palatial buildings.

The responsibility of helping one’s fellow man has been crowded out and obscured by government taking that role and increasing taxes to expand on it further.

The concept of fulfilling need isn’t tantamount to providing people who won’t work with a living. The Christian idea that if a man will not work(not those who cannot work), he should not eat, expresses an ethic that condemns freeloading, and promotes moral and financial responsibility. Thus taking on more individual responsibility reduces legitimate need.

In Jesus’ time, the concept of providing for need was more basic. Supposing that meeting needs implies providing all people with there own dwelling, transportation and health care insurance without qualification, goes way beyond what was ever mandated in the scriptures.

These two concepts, seem to be the extent to which these editorials invoke the authority of Christian precepts. That’s hardly a legitimate approach. The latter economic stricture, is really the effort of people with socialist economic ideologies, to hijack the ethics of Jesus, thereby leading a throng of useful idiots into their corner.