Putting Communism to the Sword

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

In the upcoming month, I've decided to devote a good number of postings to exposing communism, socialism and democratic socialism, and I've decided this for a few reasons:

-Poll after poll show people in my age group and younger are more likely to have a positive view of socialism than any other.
-Many in my age group and younger have no idea what they're asking for when they're promoting socialism...or as one article puts it, Millennials are socialists until they get jobs.
-This is also personal for me because I do have a friend who is otherwise well-meaning, level-headed and likes his life...but for some reason he supports Bernie Sanders. So as much as I'd love to, I can't call all Sanders supporters stupid, but I can call them misguided.
-Many admitted socialists are actually trying to lecture people who have lived under communism/socialism about how great both systems are.
-Most of all, communism is the sworn enemy of the Catholic Church, and thus I am duty bound to fight communism wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head.

And since May is also the month dedicated to Mary and St Joseph the Worker, what better time of year to take down godless, atheist communism?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gets Devoured!

A Nebraska inmate who has professed his allegiance to the divine Flying Spaghetti Monster lost his bid demanding that prison officials accommodate his Pastafarianism faith.

A federal judge dismissed the suit (PDF) Tuesday brought by Stephen Cavanaugh, who is serving a 4- to 8-year term on assault and weapons charges at the Nebraska State Penitentiary. US District Judge John Gerrard ruled that "FSMism" isn't a religion like the ones protected under the Constitution.

"The Court finds that FSMism is not a 'religion' within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argument—but that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a 'religion,'" the judge ruled. (PDF)

For the uninitiated, Judge Gerrard gives some explanatory background on Pastafarianism:

FSMism is a riposte to intelligent design that began with a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education when it was considering intelligent design. See, Bobby Henderson, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 111-13 (2006) (FSM Gospel). The primary criticism of intelligent design—and the basis for excluding it from school science classes—is that although it purports to be "scientific," it is actually "an interesting theological argument" but "not science." Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 745-46. The conceit of FSMism is that, because intelligent design does not identify the designer, its "master intellect" could just as easily be a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as any Judeo-Christian deity—and, in fact, that there is as much scientific evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster as any other creator. See FSM Gospel at 3-4. 1 As the FSM Gospel explains, "[w]e are entering into an exciting time, when no longer will science be limited to natural explanations. . . . Propelled by popular opinion and local government, science is quickly becoming receptive to all logical theories, natural and supernatural alike."

In his lawsuit, the inmate sought $5 million and claimed he has "several tattoos proclaiming his faith" and demanded that prison officials afford his "faith" the "ability to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, the right to meet for weekly worship services and classes and the right to receive communion." Corrections officials determined FSMism was a parody religion and rejected his requests. (The religious clothing at issue is "a pirate costume," the judge notes.)

According to the ruling:

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction. A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds. 6 See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ'g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line.

Nebraska, in seeking to have the case dismissed, told the judge that there was no constitutional violation. "The essence of this action," the state wrote, "is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created 'a mountain, trees, and a midget.'"

(For the link, click here)

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

You see, atheists? Courts are NOT buying your FSM claim. They understand it for the garbage that we know it is, and if you had any brains, you'd realize it too. 

A Rant Against Ellen

                                                           +AJPM+


THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

I must admit there is so much atheist stupid in the world that sometimes it just takes a rant to tear it to shreds. In this case, so-called "comedian" Ellen DeGeneres took time from her talk show to speak out against a new law in Mississippi targeted against gay people..or so she claims.

Here's the brass tacks of what she said with me pointing out in the red lettering why her statements are so dumb.

"I am not a political person. This isn't about politics. This is about freedom."

[Really? You're not a political person? How come you're close friends with only liberals? And if it were about freedom, how come you never spoke out when a baker gets sued for not catering a gay wedding? Isn't it their freedom to deny service to people?]

This is something the Supreme Court has already ruled on."

[You mean the same court that said Japanese people belong in internment camps? Since when is the Supreme Court a standard for morality?]

They [the US Supreme Court] said the same thing Diana Ross said. "Stop in the name of love."

[You mean the same love gay activists show Christians?]

Imagine if two cupcakes walk into a flower shop but the owner doesn't want to sell them any because the cupcakes don't have any money. Well, gay people do have money so sell them the damn flowers.

[That makes no sense. I can't speak for each florist or baker but does she honestly think this is about money? It's jokes like this that make me conclude she just isn't funny. And don't hand me any of that bull about her having a talk show. If I can have an opinion of her not being funny, then florists can have their own opinion on who they sell flowers to.]

If you live in any area and you're judged by who you love, don't despair.

[If gay activist actions are any indication, you will be judged if you love Jesus.]

I was fired for being gay and I know how it feels like.

[This goes back to her claim about it saying businesses can deny employment to someone for being gay. Too bad for her I have read the law and all it says concerning employment is whether the employee follows the company standards, one of which is employees can only wear clothing appropriate to their gender. Companies are allowed to set their own standards.
Speaking of company standards...no, Ellen was not fired from ABC for being gay. She was fired because of low ratings. 
Besides Doesn't she voice Dory in Finding Nemo and the upcoming Finding Dory?Aren't those both Disney productions? Doesn't Disney own ABC?
So no...she doesn't know what it feels like and she needs to stop pretending she does.]

I can buy the governor's mansion, flip it and make millions in profit.

[I've been meaning to ask...how are those sky-high taxes working out in California?]

Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #7

                              "Jesus didn't invent the Golden Rule"


THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

To most Christians, that sounds a little confusing because Jesus said it first, right? Well, allow me to write out the atheist thought process on this:

You see, to the atheist, Jesus is no one special. In order to justify that notion, they'll look for whatever they can to uphold that notion, no matter how little sense it makes. 

So how do they do that with the Golden Rule? First, they point out the teaching exists with other philosophers or moral teachers such as Confucius, and Laozi and an early version can even be found in ancient Egyptian writings.
So to the atheist, at best Jesus is just repeating what others have already said and at worst Jesus just stole from other people. So case closed, right?

Not exactly.

Three traits must be present in order to prove an idea was stolen:

-One came before the other
-The two ideas must have numerous traits in common
-One must have known the other existed

I'll do the first one last since I found something interesting about it, and start things off with the second one.

While some Eastern thinkers say something similar, all of them say it with key differences. Laozi speaks of a neighbor's gain; Mozi speaks of actions in terms of how to treat other's families. Sanskrit tradition does somewhat better by giving an objective standard to how to treat others (which is more than can be said about Zoroastrianism), but the teaching is directed towards a king, not an everyday person.

This then begs a good question: with all these others touting similar things, did Jesus actually know they existed? If we factored in His human knowledge, I don't see how. Historical rumors not withstanding, there's no evidence Jesus ever traveled to India or China, and even if He did, as a devout Jew, He would have had nothing to do with the pagan culture. Even if we factored in divine knowledge,  one mark by itself does not prove plagiarism.

So what of the first trait? Clearly, some did come before Jesus began preaching, right?
Not quite.
You see, when Jesus makes the statement, He also includes a side note where He says the teaching is a summation of Moses and the OT prophets. How is that important? Because the core teaching comes from Leviticus...a book most believe was written between 1440 and 1400 BC, LONG before any of these Eastern thinkers came along. Couple that with the fact Jesus is God Himself, that then means...

Jesus thought of it first and the other teachers are just a coincidence.

The "Amazing Grace Argument"

                                               +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

First off, what is the "Amazing Grace argument"? It is a stance that argues Catholics need to avoid certain works and productions that might appear to promote Christianity but are in fact subtly trying to insert Protestant theology. It comes from the fact that if one were to listen to the lyrics, one will find Amazing Grace promotes "once saved, always saved", a notion incompatible with Catholicism.

I'll give some more examples.

EXAMPLE #1: Gospel music

This may come off as an odd statement from someone like me but…I hate Gospel music.

Worse yet, I hate when someone (usually a Protestant) takes a pop song and tries to make it into a Gospel song. While some songs can be interpreted as talking about God, not all of them fit that profile. Yet none of that compares to when someone (again, usually a Protestant) takes a pop song, tries to make it into a Gospel song but ignores both the un-bibilcal and anti-biblical words in the song.

Two more reasons why I hate Gospel music: there's truth to the South Park joke that Gospel music is just pop music with all instances of "baby" being replaced with "Jesus." Furthermore, while I don't remember who said this, Gospel music always comes off like the singer has the answers to everything. It's so annoying and arrogant.

EXAMPLE #2:

My Twitter followers will note that this Palm Sunday, I tweeted about my attempt to watch Fox's The Passion but I gave up after five minutes. Having since gone back and tried watching it again…I wish I gave up sooner. This is the most bland, scrubbed-clean, watered-down take on the Passion I've ever seen.

In fact, what is it supposed to be? At first I thought it was going to be a Passion play, but it included segments I don't recall being included in classic versions. I then thought it was going to be a Christian rock concert, but they included a bit with a cross being carried through New Orleans.

What irked me the most was towards the end when host Tyler Perry said "it doesn't matter what you believe."
Uh…yes it does matter. If it didn't matter, why did you go on for about two hours about the death of this one guy that you're so quick to say you believe in? And didn't this very same guy say "no one goes to the Father except by me?"

EXAMPLE #3: Easter being celebrated in any church not connected to either Roman Catholicism, any Eastern Rite, or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yeah, all the other churches can go on about how Jesus's sacrifice overcame death, but how do any of them know when Easter is supposed to be celebrated? Of the few that still do the Eucharist, do any of them get the deeper meanings behind everything?

EXAMPLE #4: Any film made by Pure Flix or any film part of what critics are now calling the "Christsploitation" genre.

This includes (but is by no means limited to) God's Not Dead,  War Room, Fireproof, Heaven is For Real, and Saving Christmas. All these films turn over massive profits in spite of being blasted by critics. Saving Christmas, for example, is one of a handful of movies that have a 0% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes; that means it's worse than the average Adam Sandler movie.

I can cite others that don't require much explanation but in every case, the Catholic production not only gets better reviews but it winds up more sought-after.

Want my advise?

Stop giving people Fox's The Passion; give them The Passion of the Christ.
Stop giving people Easter jam-sessions; give them the link between the Resurrection and Genesis.
Stop giving people Pure Flix; give them The Lord of the Rings.
Stop giving people Bibleman; give them Daredevil.
Stop giving people Gospel music; give them Gregorian Chant.

If that last one sounds odd, consider this: a group of nuns named the Benedictines of Mary. Queen of Apostles in Gower, Missouri have recorded several albums of chant that have won far more distinctions than any Gospel group anyone can name.

The message is clear: substance leads to belief and feelings alone lead to atheists, and atheists are idiots.

In Loving Memory of Mother Angelica

                                                +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

Eternal rest grant onto her, O Lord.

Quick Responses to Atheist Objections #2

                                                         +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

Welcome to part 2 of answering atheist objections. If you missed part 1, here's a link to get you up to speed.
Now, off we go:

2. "God's existence is proven by scripture."

This argument presupposes its premise. People believe in scripture and place value in the words because they already believe in the religious principles the text describes. There is no inherent value to the Bible, Quran or any other religious text; these documents are not self-authenticating in any way.

(Since when does proving something's existence or non-existence depend on whether written documents can authenticate themselves? If I were to tell you America broke away from England and I presented the Declaration of Independence as proof, why would you ever reject it on the basis the document itself can't prove  that's what it actually says? Even if you could, does that mean I should reject what he just said because his words are not self-authenticating?

As far as this "people place value on what they already believe", how do you explain the Bible's call to be skeptical of claims, including [but not limited to] Jesus calling on people to test the Scriptures to check what He says, to test the spirits, and in some cases even states not everything in it is self-explanatory?)

In fact, many factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies can be found within religious texts themselves. For example, the Bible contains two separate creation stories, each of which provides a very different explanation. Similarly, there is no historical, archaeological or scientific evidence to support many of the stories in the Bible and the Quran.

(While I can't speak for the Quran, I do know the claim of the Bible having inaccuracies and inconsistencies has been debunked long ago. In fact, all--and I mean ALL--claims along those lines are ALWAYS a result of either poor translations, taking the verses out of context, or poor scholarship. 

To prove this, here's a link that helps explain some common supposed contradictions.)

Ultimately, religious texts are infinitely fallible because they are man-made products of whimsy, poetry, mythology and some history woven together into a new whole. The texts in the Bible have been gathered from many oral sources over thousands of years and compiled arbitrarily into a single document; it's hardly surprising that the narrative would be so inconsistent. Other religious texts have similarly convoluted histories.

(Then doesn't that mean an equal and better case can be made his stand is also fallible, especially since experts don't agree with his reason, and furthermore don't think the thousands of years is a hinderance? Doesn't it seem like his is just chronological snobbery and nothing more?)

Aside from the problems with individual texts, there's also the obvious issue that the very presence of multiple scriptures negates the authenticity of any single religious document. It's impossible for every religious book to be true; it's highly presumptuous to assume that one's own preferred scripture is the single "true" scripture while all the others are false accounts. It's far more likely that every religious book is equally fictitious and unreliable.

(How does it negate it? Do fans of every NFL or NBA team claiming their team will win the championship negate the fact only group will be proven right? How does "impossible for all to be right" equate to "all are equally wrong?" Since when is it illogical to conclude if your stand is right, then others must be wrong? Isn't that what the author is doing? 

And how come no library or book store or online shop puts religious texts in the fiction section? Could it be the rules governing book genres don't agree with him? I'd love to hear a good answer to this, but out of the 800 atheists I've asked, none of the 800 could come up with a believable answer.)