The CWR Blog
c
To criticize someone for engaging in immoral activity is not to "h**e" that person; in point of fact, it is an act of love
June 16, 2015 12:49 EST
Fr. Robert Barron
Are you able to distinguish between these two men?

Last week, I wrote a piece on Bruce Jenner's t***sformation into Caitlyn Jenner. I argued that the manner in which Jenner spoke of his t***sition reflected a Gnostic anthropology, which is repugnant to a Biblical view of the human being. I didn't say a word about Jenner personally; I urged no violence against him/her; I didn't question his/her motives. I simply made an observation that the moral and spiritual context for t*********rism is, from a classically Christian standpoint, problematic.

Not surprisingly, the article garnered a fair amount of attention and inspired a lot of commentary, both positive and negative. Among the negative remarks were a number that criticized me for fomenting "hatred" against Jenner and against the t*********r community. Though I've come to expect this sort of reaction, I find it discouraging and the fruit of some pretty fundamental confusions.

My great mentor Robert Sokolowski long ago taught me—in one of those lapidary remarks that strikes you immediately as right and important—that philosophy is the art of making distinctions. He meant that what brings together Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein is a gift for clarifying how this differs from that, how one aspect of an idea profiles itself against another, how seemingly similar concepts are in fact distinct. In executing these moves, the great philosophers made muddy water clear. What strikes me so often as I listen to the public conversation regarding moral issues is the incapacity of so many to make the right distinctions.

Some of the muddiest water surrounds the concepts of love/h**e and tolerance/intolerance. In the spirit of Sokolowski, I would like to make what I hope are some clarifying differentiations. For the mainstream of the Catholic intellectual tradition, love is not primarily an emotion, but an act of the will. To love, Thomas Aquinas says, is to want the good of the other. Consequently, hatred is not primarily a feeling, but desiring evil for another, positively wanting what is bad for someone else. Given this, when is hatred called for? When is hatred morally permissible?

The simple answer: never. God is nothing but love, and Jesus said that we are to be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect. This is precisely why he told us to love even our enemies, to bless even those who curse us, to pray even for those who maltreat us. Does this mean that our forebears were obliged to love Hitler and that we are obliged to love ISIS murderers? Yes. Period. Does it mean that we are to will the good of those who, we are convinced, are walking a dangerous moral path? Yes. Period. Should everyone love Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner? Absolutely, completely, unconditionally.

But here is where a crucial distinction has to be made: to criticize someone for engaging in immoral activity is not to "h**e" that person. In point of fact, it is an act of love, for it is tantamount to willing good for him or her. Once the sense that there is objective good and evil has been attenuated, as it largely has been in our society, the only categories we have left are psychological ones.

And this is why, in the minds of many, to question the moral legitimacy of t*********rism is, perforce, to "attack" or "h**e" t*********red people. A very real danger that flows from the failure to make the right distinction in this regard is that moral argument evanesces. If someone who disagrees with you on an ethical matter is simply a "h**er," then you don't have to listen to his argument or engage it critically. You are permitted, in fact, to censor him, to shut him down.

Sadly, this is what obtains in much of the public arena today: the impugning of motives, the questioning of character, and the imposition of censorship. Just a few weeks ago, two Princeton faculty members, Cornel West and Robert George, had a public debate regarding same-sex marriage, West arguing for and George against. What was so refreshing was that both men, who are good friends, actually argued, that is to say, marshalled evidence, drew reasoned conclusions from premises, answered objections, etc., and neither one accused the other of "hating" advocates of the rival position. May their tribe increase.

Distinctions are called for, furthermore, regarding the word "tolerance," which is bandied about constantly today. Typically, it has come to mean acceptance and even celebration. Thus, if one is anything shy of ecstatic about gay marriage or t*********rism, one is insufficiently "tolerant." In point of fact, the term implies the willingness to countenance a view or activity that one does not agree with.

Hence, in the context of our wise political system, each citizen is required to tolerate a range of opinions that he finds puzzling, erroneous, repugnant or even bizarre. There are lots of good reasons for this toleration, the most important of which are respect for the integrity of the individual and the avoidance of unnecessary civil strife, but it by no means implies that one is obliged to accept or celebrate those perspectives. Thus, one should certainly tolerate the right of a person to become t*********red without feeling, at the same time, obliged to exult in that person's choice.

The ethical conversation has become, in the last fifty years, extraordinarily roiled. It would serve all of us to adopt an intellectual instinct of Thomas Aquinas. When he was confronted with a thorny question, he would typically begin his response with the comment "distinguo" (I distinguish).



Fr. Robert Barron is the founder of the global ministry, Word on Fire, and the Rector/President of Mundelein Seminary. He is the creator of the award winning documentary series, "Catholicism" and "Catholicism:The New Evangelization." Learn more at www.WordonFire.org.

Where are there solutions.
There still talking about Emails, birth certificates, posting Obama lies, there still talking about bill Clinton. Obama is not running.

I guess the lunatic right have not noticed we are in an e******n cycle and there candidates have started to campaign.

But like the right wing on OPP I have not heard one solution to any of our nations problems. There running on the same foolishness that Mitt ran on lies, conspiracies, war, and corporate tax breaks and takers. That's all they have these are not problem solvers there problem creaters but they run on the same old garbage.

Corporate tax breaks to further increase the income in e******y.
Repeal public education in favor of for Profit schools.
War in Syria,and Iraq
Bomb Bomb Iran
Repeal or deregulate all Federal Agencies
Privatize SS, voucherize Medicare
Absolutly no gun Control
No Immigration bill
No Comprehensive Tax reform
Defund Food stamps and Medicaid
Defund School lunch program
Repeal affordable housing
V**er suppression

But as these candidates hit the Campaigne trail they talk about non of this why are they hiding from there own agenda.

I watched these candidates in Iowa and they just used phony or outdated attacks, no solutions except to say I have the leadership capabilities to run this country, but no solutions. So all it took to win the Iowa straw poll was to jump on a motorcycle and take a ride with a Hog castrator. How do we as American citizens can actually take any of these candidates serious

One is a hypocrite Disaster relief for his state but nobody else.
Two potential candidates under indictment
Two 100% owned by the Koch Brothers
One 100% owned by Sheldon Adelson
One if you don't want to go to war in Iraq,Syria, and Iran.

We need a reason to v**e republican. But we need solutions not insults, h**e, and r****t comments.

I was talking to a friend who says that there are a group of scientists who are close to disclosing a drug, a v*****e to both prevent and cure homosexuality. If you are gay, would you take the drug? If you are a woman, would you give the v*****e to your new born child?

I do not want to get into the religious aspects of God's intention. I am rather looking for your thoughts, if you could be "cured" would you and if you knew your child had the "gene" would you provide them with medication to change or put that gene to sleep. We all have genes that are sleeping, or broken. http://www.livescience.com/18518-humans-broken-genes.html Cancer genes, dependency (for drugs) that show a predisposition, and others.

As there is more in the world that can be explained to the general populace, as there is greater understanding of the power in the natual world there is less need to gather together to listen to far out explanations of occurrences. That is one explanation for the droves of people running from religion.
Here is more information about the mutiny.

THE STATE OF RELIGION: DECLINING BELIEF IN GOD WORLDWIDE



Home
Latest Issue
Contact Us
Syndicate HNN


By Brian Magee

Two recent studies released almost simultaneously provide more hard evidence that religion is slowly losing its grip on humanity, even in the United States.

First, a report from the University of Chicago called “Belief About God Across Time and Countries” looked at survey data from 30 countries, reaching as far back as 1991. While many of the news stories about this report focused on figures showing a tendency for numbers of religious believers to increase with age, the figures also showed the overall percentage of religious believers declined in most countries, showing an increase in only three:

“…the % saying they were atheists increased in 15 of 18 countries from 1991 to 2008 with an average increase of 1.7 percentage points. For 1998 to 2008, atheists grew in 23 of 30 countries for an average gain of 2.3 points. Conversely … certain belief in God declined in 14 of 18 countries from 1991 to 2008 with an average decrease of 2.4 points and from 1998 to 2008 loses occurred in 24 of 30 countries for a similar average decline of 2.4 points. Likewise … never believing in God rose in 14 of 17 countries from 1991 to 2008 for an average increase of 1.6 points and increased in 20 of 29 countries from 1998 to 2008 by an average gain of 2.2 points.”
Second, a study called “The State of the Bible 2012” done by the Barna Group for the American Bible Society found that Americans are losing interest in the Bible. In just one year, the number of people who said they read the Bible to be “closer to God” dropped 9 percentage points from 64% in 2011 to 55% in 2012. Results show a drop from 75% to 69% of people who said “the Bible contains everything a person needs to know to live a meaningful life.” Those people who agreed that the Bible has “too much influence” in U.S. society increased from 13% to 16%, while those who thought the Bible had “too little influence” dropped from 54% to 47%.

While these figures are only for the span of a single year, the changes indicated are not small for such a short period of time. Additional surveys will need to be done to show a permanent trend, but other recent studies have given us similar results. For example, the ongoing State of the States survey by Gallup found in 2011 that 40% of Americans are “very religious,” down from 65% in 2008. And new research on the Millennials—those between the ages of 18 and 29—show a 20 percent decline from those who were raised Christians and now no longer consider themselves such.

What’s happening here? Because results of surveys like these show a great deal of variation based on age and geography, reasons to explain overall trends will be varied. But the results raise some interesting possibilities to consider, including something as simple as bad behavior, hypocrisy, and outlandish assertions on the part of those who claim most publicly and proudly to be religious believers. The areas that those who claim to be religious fail to shine include child abuse scandals, open L**T discrimination and support for bullying, attacks on women’s rights, support for war, pushing for religion in science classrooms, prayer-led public meetings, denying the separation of church and state, withholding medical care in favor of prayer for children … and the list goes on.

Religious-based bad behavior is not limited to the U.S., of course. We’ve been witnessing a worldwide phenomenon of bad behavior coming from adherents of all of the world’s major religions. Everything from death for blasphemy to claims of seeing religious figures in everyday objects only ads to a growing worldwide skepticism about religion as a valid framework for humanity to consider. Cases of bad political and criminal behavior from people who are aligned with those in religious groups are also part of the mix that drives people away from religion. The recent rants of Ted Nugent and mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik are prominent examples.

One thing’s for sure: humanists are poised to reach out to the growing number of “nones” and show humanism as the reason-based alternative to traditional religion. It’s an opportunity that all of us working for the freethought movement can’t afford to miss.

Brian Magee is the communications associate for the American Humanist Association.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-04-the-state-of-religion-declining-belief-in-god-worldw

What eyewitnesses would those be?
You are aware that there is not even a suggestion that anyone SAW Jesus of Nazareth "resurrect", correct?
You consider accounts that are t***slated and t***slated again after supposedly being written by people (who may or may not have been present) nearly a century after the events as the renderings of witnesses?


And no, Dear Sir, while law enforcement LOVES to use eye witness testimony and television shows like that strategy even more than people IRL it is universally accepted that people make crappy witnesses.

Christians put faith in a story about a holy spirit coming to earth to tell a fifteen yo who was supposedly a virgin engaged to a man twice her age that she was going to give birth to God.
We already know all the ugliness that God has been guilty of so PLEASE don't act like the poor behavior is Muhammed matters.
After all, he is not the God, he is the messenger.
You do understand that, right? He is a Matthew, John the Baptist... not Jesus.
He is not the God who destroyed the world through floods and fires.
God turned (haha, I love this story) a woman into a pillar of salt.
Muhammed was a thug?
Why did the Jewish hierarchy want to be rid of Jesus?
He was a l**ter and destroyer of temples.
He was a "mystic"...T***slation: mentally ill charismatic.

White Christian Former Congressional Candidate Arrested For Massive Plot To K**l Muslims (VIDEO)
Author: Wendy Gittleson May 18, 2015 1:38 pm

A former congressional candidate from Tennessee was arrested on April 10th for his alleged plan to commit mass murder using an M4 rifle, explosives, a machete, and snipers.

Now, you’d think the charge would at least mention the word “terrorism,” since that’s clearly what it is, but alas, the intended victims were Muslims (he wanted to blow up a mosque and an Islamic school) and Robert Doggart is white.

Doggart’s target was a planned Muslim community in Upstate New York called Islamberg. Islamberg has long been called a terrorist training ground by the right, but in t***h, it’s a community of Muslims of America, a group that describes itself as:

Members of The Muslims of America primarily consist of African American Sunni who are indigenous Americans with Islamic roots spanning four generations. The first generations were mainly converts from various branches of Christianity. Adult residents work in professional and trade jobs while the children participate in local youth sports programs. Contrary to some claims, local, state and federal law enforcement and neighbors have nothing negative to say about the Islamberg community.

Contrary to being a training ground for ISIS or other terrorist organizations, on their website, Muslims for America posted that they agree with the President that ISIS and other extremists “betray Islam.”

A spokesman for the group said:

“Doggart is an example of the results of unchecked and rampant Islamophobia which has spread lies for years about our peaceful community. This man plotted to mercilessly k**l us, k**l our children, and blow up our mosque and our school. All would agree, if a Muslim did this, the perpetrator would be immediately identified as a terrorist then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The examples are numerous. Therefore, we call on all branches of justice to see to it that this man is prosecuted for planning a heinous h**e crime and terrorist act.”

Source: WBNG.com

Here’s the video:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/18/white-christian-former-congressional-candidate-arrested-for-massive-plot-to-k**l-muslims-video/

Heavy.com went fairly in-depth into who Doggart is. Read it. It’s frightening. If he’s not on the no-fly list, I’d be shocked. Oh, wait, I wouldn’t. He’s white and Christian.

Doggart was on the FBI’s watch list for some time. In fact, one of the reasons he was caught was wiretaps. Just like suicide bombers, Dogcart thought it would be worth it to die for his cause.

“If there’s a gun fight, well there’s a gun fight. And I want to come home ’cause I love my family and I want to see my kids again. But I also understand that if it’s necessary to die then that’s a good way to die,” Doggart said during a March phone conversation with an unnamed m*****a member from South Carolina.

The Signal Mountain, Tennessee resident said in a recorded phone call that, “When we meet with this state, the people that we seek will know who we are. We will be cruel to them. And we will burn down their buildings.” He said if anybody attempts to “harm them in any way, “our standoff gunner will take them down from 350 yards. The standoff gunner would be me.”

While Doggart is clearly delusional, he’s not a stupid man. He’s an engineer and he has a Ph.D. He also won third place in the 2014 Tennessee Fourth Congressional District race.

Featured image via Hamilton County Jail mugshot.

Will Asian American Political Influence Grow as V****g Population Doubles?
There are currently 5.9 million v**ers of Asian-American descent. And according to a report from the UCLA Center for the Study of Ine******y and the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies, that number will double to 12.2 million by the year 2040.

The rapid increase in population will bring up new questions and challenges for political parties and governing bodies as e*****rate power is expected to rise along with Asian-American populations.

The study breaks down the projected growth by multiracial Asian compared to Asian alone identities, generational differences and U.S. born versus naturalized citizens.

Those that identify as having Asian and another racial identity mixed parentage will likely have the largest percentage increases due to their current small population size. As intermarriages continue to increase, how mixed-race v**ers will view their own ethnicity within the context of the overall American e*****rate will challenge monolithic views.

There are also marked differences in populations by birth origin and age groupings. According to the study, the population of U.S. born Asian-American v**ers will nearly equal the foreign born population by 2040, presenting a distinct challenge for political outreach even before distinguishing between multitudes of ethnic subdivisions.

“The Asian American v**e is not a monolith,” said Elena Ong, co-author of the report. “It’s important to look at the underlying demographic characteristics — Asian American registered v**ers by age, and by where they were born.”

As noted in an earlier study by the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development regarding economic data about Asian Americans, it’s important to disaggregate the information to get a clearer picture of the reality of the racial group’s requirements and wants when dealing with such issues as finance or politics. Views regarding language resources, i*********n l*w and domestic versus foreign policy will vary between age groups and place of origin. Stereotypes of the model minority can only hinder a nuanced look at the emerging v****g bloc.

The Asian-American e*****rate looks to be nearing 7 percent of the total v****g population in 25 years, which does indicate the growth of a significant voice in American politics.

However, as the study also points out, in the time that the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the V****g Rights Act were established in 1965, (legislation that paved the way for an influx of Asian immigrants and allowed them to enter the political process), Asian-Americans haven’t gained as much political representation in comparison to their numbers:

A half-a-century after the 1965 Acts, in 2015, Asian Americans comprise 6% of the nation’s population, but only 1% of the US Senate and 2.3% of the US House of Representatives (10 of 425-435). Three-quarters of a century later, in 2040, where will Asian Americans be?
Though projections can be made based on population figures, the influence the growing e*****rate can bring to the U.S. is still heavily dependent on what issues will unify or divide them going forward. Getting ahead of that curve will certainly be advantageous.

Though projections can be made based on population figures, the influence the growing e*****rate can bring to the U.S. is still heavily dependent on what issues will unify or divide them going forward.

In the most recent midterm and p**********l e******ns, Asian American v**er turnout lagged behind that of other groups like white and Black v**ers, while being equivalent to that of Hispanic turnout. According to Pew Research, the reason given by survey respondents stated that they were “too busy” to participate.

Getting ahead of the coming curve and engaging the e*****rate could certainly be advantageous to political parties and activists.

“Cultivating Asian American v**ers and gaining their loyalty is pivotal to a political party’s future,” said S. Floyd Mori, CEO and President, Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies. “Securing the Asian American v**e in areas with large concentration, and in swing v**e states, will be a political game changer.”