Civility - Some People May Surprise You

I was told about a comment made by someone who read my blogs. Although the comment was made by an agnostic, he actually said some nice things about me and my blogs. That surprised me. I was expecting a hostile reaction since I perceived that agnostics or atheists wouldn’t like my blogs about religion. I guess my perception was wrong. Unfortunately, this is the common perception we developed, due to the hostility or animosity that we hear about, from the media, between Christians and atheists. I read somewhere that G.K. Chesterton (a convert to Catholicism) was a friend of George Bernard Shaw (an atheist). Although they debated about God and religion, there was no animosity between them. In fact, when Chesterton died, Shaw had only nice things to say about him. I was just wondering if it was ever possible someday for people to discuss things, whether religion, politics, or other topics, with civility once again. There seems to be a shortage of that nowadays.

Why Talk About Political Issues?

Others have asked me why I include political issues in this blog. What's the connection between politics and living a meaningful life? In order to live a more meaningful life, one would need the freedom to pursue a meaningful life. So if this freedom is denied to a person, then an injustice is being committed against that person. Such a person would not be happy. For example, when African-Americans were sold as slaves, their freedom to live genuinely human lives were denied to them. When a child is aborted, the child's right & freedom to live a meaningful life is denied to that child. When a disabled person's life is terminated, such as Terri Schiavo's life, then her freedom to live a meaningful life is also being denied. There are several cases of people, in similar or worse condition than her, who were able to recover with rehabilitation. Terri was denied rehabilitation. In conclusion, freedom and justice are required in order for people to pursue a more meaningful life. These issues happen to be considered "political" issues also. Therefore, it becomes necessary to address these "political" issues if they interfere with a person's legitimate pursuit of a meaningful and purposeful life.

Anti-Christian Hatred: The Only Bigotry That's Still Acceptable

We sometimes hear about Christians being persecuted in other countries. But did you realize it happens here in the USA? I just read an Internet article where Bill Maher, host of the talk show "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO, made offensive and insulting remarks against Christians, esp. against Catholics. Time-Warner, owner of HBO, issued no apology. Isn't it strange that Don Imus was penalized and criticized by the media for his remarks, but Bill Maher got away with his? Furthermore, you won't hear anyone attack Jews or Muslims because that's considered politically incorrect. According to the American Family Association, "For the mainstream media, Christians are the only religious group in America against whom such bigotry is allowed." The Anti-Defamation League warns against the media's influence in putting down other groups of people, which may lead to prejudice and discrimination against those groups. Remember what happened to the Jews during WWII as a result of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels' influence on the German people? We must not let that happen again, neither to Jews nor to Christians. What can we do? We can stop watching shows that promote such hatred. And we can let Time Warner, Bill Maher, or anybody else, know how displeased we are with these kinds of shows. Let's remind the media that we should respect others, even if we disagree with them. That's the definition of true tolerance.

Does the End Justify the Means?

I read an article about a priest who ran for political office, in another country, to eliminate political corruption. This is forbidden for priests, but he did it anyway. So he believes it's OK to break the rules if he has good intentions. This way of thinking is common in that country. But it leads to the same corruption he wants to eliminate. What if someone offers him a bribe, & tells him to think of the poor he can help with this money? A priest is not immune from temptation. So what will stop him from justifying acceptance of the bribe, if he believes that something "good" can come out of it? Wouldn't this be the same kind of rationalization he used to run for office in the first place? And if he's willing to break any rule he wants, what kind of message is he sending to others? Is he behaving differently from corrupt politicians, who also break any rule they want? While I can understand his frustration, I think it would be more beneficial if he rejects the idea that the end justifies the means, and sets a good example. How? By doing his duty as a priest, & living the virtues, such as obedience. Maybe then, others may emulate him & obey the law, rather than come up with justifications to break it.