Why the mores and efforts of the Catholic Church are relevant in the modern world:
“The government has many necessary and indispensable functions to play, roles that cannot be accomplished by individuals acting alone or even by smaller groups in society. Yet states and governments often exceed their legitimate role and infringe upon individuals and groups in society so as to dominate rather than to serve them. To combat this tendency, Catholic social thought emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity. Non-Catholics also have discovered this principle. Abraham Lincoln wrote: "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or cannot so well do, for themselves—in their separate and individual capacities."
Government should be as small as possible...government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or "nanny" state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity. Pope John Paul II explained:
'Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or welfare state] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the state. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus 48)'”
Without the Catholic Church the modern world welfare state would collapse in one week.
Why the modern 'Liberal' [Socialist, Marxist, Communalist] is a Statist opposed to free-will and individuality which is championed by the Church:
This explains why the liberal is far more likely to insist that the world will be a better place if only we comprehensively impose the best (i.e., the latest) social policies. Here we see the instinctive reliance of the liberal mind on enlightened government, as if government and even alleged enlightenment are not subject to the same human deficiencies which have already led to the problems they seek to correct.
At the level of specific policy, of course, support or opposition is not always ideologically determined. What one person might endorse as the key to the future of mankind, another might endorse as the best we can make of a very bad business indeed. But unlike Catholicism, which bears within it a preferential option for the poor, liberalism clearly entails a preferential option for bureaucracy. Because liberalism holds perfection to be within the natural human grasp, it necessarily includes a powerful streak of utopianism. The predictable liberal response to whatever stands in the way of “utopia now” is to turn to the State as the agency most likely to be able to effect the comprehensive change needed to remove such impediments.
Why evolution is just a theory [no, no Christian believes that the world is 4000 years old....] The utter silliness of calling evolution 'science' [please explain the evolution of Dinosaurs and say the Whale]:
“We were gratefully shocked when New Scientist ran a four-page article by two serious evolutionists questioning the power of natural selection. The subheading of the article is
|
Darwin was only half-right about evolution: evidence against natural selection is mounting up, argue Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. 1 |
We know from passing comments in the professional literature that many scientists question the power of natural selection to be responsible for all the variety seen in all the various forms of life. Survival of the fittest might not be any more significant than survival of the luckiest. It isn’t necessarily the slowest gazelle in the herd that unfortunately wanders past the lion crouching in the tall grass; but it certainly is the unluckiest. Nevertheless, it was surprising to us that two evolutionists would devote an entire book 2 to exposing the inadequacy of natural selection to do all that the theory of evolution requires it to do.
The only thing more surprising to us than the fact that two “real” scientists would write a book exposing the weakness of natural selection is the fact that New Scientist would give those two authors four pages in which to promote their book! That took a lot of courage, too.
|
We feel it is high time that Darwinists take this evidence seriously, or offer some reason why it should be discounted. Our book about what Darwin got wrong reviews in detail some of these objections to natural selection and the evidence for them; this article is a brief summary. 3 |
We have, from time to time, said that teaching the theory of evolution uncritically in the public schools is harmful to science. It teaches students that opinions can have the same status as facts, if the opinion comes from a scientist. In particular, we recently argued that mindless acceptance of evolution encourages mindless acceptance of the opinions of scientists on other topics, such as global warming. 4 The tactic of smearing anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution as being anti-science led to the tactic of smearing anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming as being anti-science. The same justification for presenting only facts supporting evolution while censoring facts disproving evolution can be used for presenting only facts supporting global warming while censoring facts disproving global warming.
Species have of course appeared fully formed, and disappeared en masse. There has been no DNA changes in most species including the Ape [37 million years] or the Shark [340 million years]. Evolution is not science, and the 2 main premises of Darwin's theory – endless climate and earth stability and natural selection have been proven wrong.
Why the Church of the Narcissist is the holy congregational vehicle of Marxists:
“Moral Relativism is the precarious philosophical position that moral judgments are different across different people and different cultures. The terms "good" and "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions, rather they are relative to the traditions, practices and views of the group or society in which they are constructed.
Consistent with the utopian, radical egalitarian core of their belief system, liberal/progressives believe that no group or society is better than any other, and that the different moral views held by others cannot be judged as superior or inferior, or right or wrong. Furthermore, they believe that one must tolerate the behavior of others even when one disagrees about the morality of that behavior.
The egalitarian appeal of moral relativism is exemplified in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who stated that the problem of morality is that those who were considered "good" were the powerful nobles who had more education, and considered themselves better than anyone below their rank. They determined the standards to perpetuate their values and status. This theory nicely reinforces the narrative of class warfare between oppressors and the oppressed that so animates the liberal/progressive impulse.”
From Nietzsche to Obama. Easy to comprehend in the light of the Marxist culture which now controls the media, education, 'activism as science' and government.