Posted by
t.m. vecchio on Monday, December 08, 2008 4:02:00 AM
"There you go again" now translates to "Here we go again." Every year after Thanksgiving (the day) ends, the Christmas season, the one with all the shopping and buying and running around, begins. Of course this is not all that begins. For some odd reason a great many people want to put up (and see put up) various decorations celebrating the season. No, it is not the winter season or the month of December they wish to celebrate. They wish to celebrate that, according to their religious beliefs, the birth of God's only begotten, not made, Son has happened, that the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us. Whether this occured in the month of December is quite irrelevant; that is happened at a point in time--that it is historical--and deserves to be acknowledged and celebrated, even proclaimed, is the important aspect. This Jesus of Nazareth was sent by God, his Heavenly Father, to save the people (humanity) from their sins and liberate them from the clutches of the devil (or, as he or she is better known to his or her more devoted followers, Satan).
For as long as this country has been a nation there does not seem to have been any (or many) problems with the celebration (or at least acknowledgement) of Christmas as not only a religious holy day but a legal, secular, state-sanctioned holiday. The fact that the majority of American citizens claim to be Christians--followers of this Jesus the Christ--seemingly fits well into line with regard to the reason for the government, be it on the federal, state or local level, declaring it an official holiday. Certainly the retailers need this holiday and the roughly thirty days (between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day) it gives them to keep afloat their businesses, at least until the next Christmas season. Up until fairly recently--say the 1960s, if not the 1970s--few people or groups openly complained and moaned about how Christmas displays--with overly Christian themes--were erected on the grounds of various city halls, county courthouses, state capitals and federal buildings (not to mention the Capitol itself). But then a few special interest groups started complaining about the separation of church and state and how this violates it, meaning, I guess, allowing non-secular Christmas decorations to be displayed on federal, state, county or local government land and/or in buildings was nothing more than a sure sign that the First Amendment was being ripped to shreds by such an ostentatious and sectarian establishment of religion (much like the phrase "In God We Trust" does).
The Supreme Court, acting with great ambiguity and capriciousness since the 1940s on such isssues, wisely decided that certain religious decorations and displays can be put up ... provided, of course, they fit certain parameters and pass certain Constitutional tests as ruled by the majority of sitting Supreme Court Justices. Of course the fine folks at the ACLU, their coffers overflowing with greenbacks (thanks to certain Supreme Court decisions), are ever vigilant when it comes to such things, ready to pounce with their legal eagles on red alert, should some aggrieved victim or duely offended non-Christian (or Christian) person or group notices something amiss. To that end, I'm sure, mayors, city managers and governors everywhere across the fruited plane walk a tight rope on pins, needles and eggshells around this time of year. This leads us rather nicely into Mr. Bill O'Reilly's column, dated Saturday, December 06, 2008: "Jesus Versus the Atheists." The venue is the state of Washington, and one of the main characters happens to be the esteemed governor of the great state of Washington, Christine Gregoire, who, as governors are sometimes forced to do, plays a part that would do Solomon himself proud.
In order to be fair and just and tolerant and toe the line, the good governor had to allow one of those victimized and offended groups equal access and opportunity to rebut the Christians and their overtly religious (as in non-secular, non-watered down, non-vanilla-like) displays. Thus this group of freethinkers, rationalists and enlightened ones were allowed to put up their own display, one that can only celebrate and elevate themselves by tearing down and denigrating those narrow-thinking, irrational, superstitious and appallingly unenlightened theists. So the a-theists--really anti-theists, of course--erected some kind of sign or poster that read thus: "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Gee, with a fine and dandy statement like that they would have done folks like Protagoras, Leucippus, Democritus, Hobbes, Hume, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Dewey, Russell and Sartre, all of whom are quite dead, very proud; and others, still in the land of the living, such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens (in no particular but alphabetical order). I'm strangely confident that such a statement would have greatly pleased most members of the ACLU, secular humanists, neo-Marxists, Leftists, deconstructionalists, pagans, Wiccans, anarchists and, naturally, most members of the anti-religious elite found in academia, the entertainment industry and the drive-by, albeit slowly, media.
The statement of the atheists is as ludicrous as it is non-sensical. They failed to define "gods," "devils," "angels," "heaven" or "hell." They write of a "natural world," but neither define what is "natural" or what is meant by "world." They don't bother to define "religion," "myth," "superstition," "hearts" or"minds." It would seem that they've surrendered the definitions of those terms, at least most of them, to their opponents, the Christians (followers of this Jesus they speak and write about). So in allowing the other side to define the terms, they have most unwittingly (and probably unwillingly) played into their hands. Since existential statements are never subject to demonstration, the existential statements of the atheists fail in reference, especially considering they are all couched in negative terms. "There are" (existential modifier) NO gods/devils/angels/heaven/hell. Well, it certainly logically follows that IF there are no gods or no God, THEN there are no devils/angels/heaven/hell, since all those entities, places and conditions would be thoroughly contingent on there being gods or one God. "There is" (existential modifier) only our natural world. But one does not prove a natural world exists any more than one proves a stone exists. One simply labels something a natural world or stone, that is, one points to something and gives it a name. Existence is never subject to proof. But proving the existence or non-existence of God is far more trickier, complex and intricate, since "God" is not a subject or object in the world or universe. "God" is not subject to space or time and does not exist in space or time. (This is why Kant knew no proofs for God's existence would do, for the categories of space and time that condition our thinking are not subject and do not apply to a being outside such categories. This is even more so if one views God as the ground of all being and being itself.)
As far as stating that religion is a myth, that is great, except that word is not defined or placed with a context (much like the words "gods," "devils," "angels," heaven" or "hell"). It is not clarified whether or not they are referring to natural or revealed religion. In all myths there is some or a great deal of truth, for myths, properly understood within a given context, are not to be taken literally. The word "supersitition" is an odd choice as well, since it is equated with both the word "religion" and "myth," which would mean that it is being used univocally, which does not make much or any sense. "Superstitione tollenda religio non tollitur," was Cicero's observation on the durability of religion. "Religion is not abolished by elminating superstition" is the fairly rough but accurate translation. It was Edumnd Burke, I believe, who gave us the aphorism, "Religion, not atheism, is the true remedy for superstition." While many religious people, maybe even most, are superstitious, it is certainly not logically valid to conclude that religion and superstition are one in the same (thing). Strangely enough, there are non-religious people who happen to be quite superstitious.
The "hardens hearts" and "enslaves minds" conclusion may be the toughest to figure, even for a dimwitted fool like me. Again, there may be a great many "religious" people that have had their hearts hardened and their minds enslaved by religion--or their take, interpretation or application of religion--their religion--but it does not follow, of course, that religion, as generically and widely understood, therefore necessarily causes hearts to harden and minds to be enslaved. I would only suggest the obvious here, namely, that a great many other things may indeed cause people's heart to harden and their minds to become enslaved. Interestingly enough, many atheists, agnostics and anti-theists suffer from hardened hearts and enslaved minds. Given they have no (or no need or desire for) religion, what is their excuse?
I want to end with a beautiful quote from someone not me, for I don't quote myself well or beautifully. Taken from a USA Today article dated 20 August 2007, it is by Tom Krattenmaker and is entitled "Secularists, What Happened to the Open Mind?"
"Critical thinking might be to secularism what faith is to devout religious believers. Thinking rationally, questioning assumptions, embracing complexities and eschewing the black-and-white--these habits of mind are, to the champions of non-belief, a keystone of the secular worldview and a crucial part of what separates them from religious people. So why, when it comes to matters of religion, do secularists so frequently leave their critical thinking at the door?" Mr. Krattenmaker, however, did not indicate whether this was the front or back door. But what does it matter and what is the difference?