SCHIP: A solution

President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion has Democrats complaining that he and other conservatives simply don't care about poor children. Republicans reply that the expansion costs too much money. I think I have the ideal compromise:

As I understand it, the vetoed proposal would expand, among other things, the age limit to include children up to 25 years of age. Leaving aside the question of whether a 25-year-old can reasonably be considered a child, I actually think the age expansion doesn't go far enough. Expand the age criteria just another 9 months - in the opposite direction - and the bill would probably garner plenty of Republican support. Heck, President Bush might even sign such an expansion. Such a nine-month expansion would not only save millions of children's lives every year, it would actually reduce the overall price tag, since federal policy now allocates a sizable chunk of tax dollars for the express purpose of removing health benefits for these very young children.

The reduction in expense might persuade some hard-hearted Republicans to go along with the new plan. And the compassionate Democrats, desiring above all to save children's lives, should also eagerly embrace the additional expansion. It's a win-win scenario!

On taking offense

I'm sure you have noted, as have many others, the increase of victimhood in our culture. Probably the most common type of victim is the individual or group who claim to be offended about something, inferring that that constitutes a crime against some inalienable right of theirs.

To ask whether one has the right to never be offended is a question that pretty much answers itself, at least for most reasonable folks. The fact that lawsuits are being filed, and won, on the basis of someone's manufactured offense over holiday decorations or a school mascot, is a sad indicator of rampant irrationality.

But beyond that, it occurs to me that taking offense is a sure sign of immaturity, something that the well-adjusted adult ought never to experience. Or if he does, it ought to signal something that he needs to work on. Not to advocate for the insensitive jerk who goes about deliberately insulting others, but to suggest that the mature adult ought not let such behavior rattle his cage, so to speak. Easier said than done, of course.

If I am insulted or ridiculed or criticized, it is either 1) for something over which I have no control (e.g. my race, height, age, etc.), or 2) for something I could change if I wanted to (e.g. my faith, values, political opinions, etc.)   If it's for the former, as a mature adult, I ought already to be at peace with those factors outside of my control, in which case I can simply shrug off the insults or criticisms as pointless and moronic, and think no more of them.

If the criticism is for the latter, for something I can change, then there are two further possibilities: either 2a) the criticism is valid, or 2b) it is not. If not, I can again just shrug it off. If it is valid, then I ought to take it to heart. To be insulted in such a case is to say, in effect, that I prefer to cling to my inferior opinion and feel insulted, rather than adopt the better view.

And how to tell which criticisms are valid? Weigh the opposing views against one another, and use the faculty of reason to sort it out. Easier said than done. But it can be done. Therefore it must be done.

If you can keep your head when all about you
 are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
 but make allowance for their doubting, too,...
   - from "If", by Rudyard Kipling

Easier said than done. But, really now, isn't it pitiful that a lack of mature strength be treated as an inalienable right?

Pink deception

There has been a recent spate of 'pink' promotions in support of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. In the grocery store or discount mart, a brand-name product will sport a pink ribbon on its package, with the promise that a percentage of sales will go to this foundation. Baseball players swing pink bats and NFL teams promote pink memorabilia, all for this same promotional goal.

Now, promotions of this sort may be noble and laudable. The problem is with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The days when charitable organizations could be counted on to be simply charitable are, sadly, days long past. In this case, the Susan G. Komen foundation is a significant sponsor of Planned Parenthood, which is, of course, the world's leading abortion provider and advocate for legalized abortion. The pitiful irony here is that there is significant evidence linking procured abortion and breast cancer - that is, that women who end their first pregnancy by abortion set up conditions in their body that highly elevate the risks of developing breast cancer. Yet SGK has chosen to ignore or facilely dismiss this research. One may legitimately ask whether its alliance with Planned Parenthood has derailed the SGK foundation from its pure stated goal of seeking cures and preventive measures for breast cancer.

I encourage you to research this for yourself. Some relevant links can be found at this Abortion and Breast Cancer site. You may also want to run a Google search on, say, breast cancer abortion to find many more links, both pro and con, regarding the possible connection between abortion and breast cancer, and a search on Susan G. Komen Planned Parenthood for links regarding the alliance between SGK and PP. The honest folks at Life Decisions International have also researched this alliance in a very accurate and balanced manner.

Taste and See

O taste and see that the Lord is good!" -Ps. 34:8 [RSV]

One final thought on the theme of atheism vs. faith:

If a key point is free will, then an even greater point is simple experience. What I mean is this: The atheist proclaims that God does not exist, or that God is dead. The believer replies, "I'm sure you are mistaken, because I just talked to Him!"   God has become, not a feeble wish or a cerebral notion, but as real as any human friend, perhaps the Realest Friend of all.

Sound logic and reason may lead one to the brink of faith, to the valley of decision. In the end it takes a raw act of the will, a deliberate choice, to make the leap. This leap, regardless of how reasonable, is often rather frightening. Sort of like jumping out of the moving airplane. You're pretty sure the parachute will open, and yet your heart is in your throat as you take the plunge.

What happens when you take the plunge is what I mean by experience. You jump, half doubtful and frightened, and -- you are caught safely in the Everlasting Arms. Once that happens, you can never be the same. You may turn aside, (backslide, as the Baptists say), you may doubt, you may end up rejecting the love once keenly and joyfully received. Or you may grow daily in that love and in the depth of your faith. For most believers, life becomes a messy quagmire of sometimes rejecting and sometimes growing. But once you've had an experience of God, you're never the same. You walk with the Lord, not just because it's logical and reasonable, and not merely because you've chosen to. You simply know that it's real, beyond raw will and beyond rational cogitation. You just know. You no longer know about God; you've met Him, and know Him as a person.

They say the proof is in the pudding. The Psalm verse cited above is an invitation to taste the pudding. Go ahead, take the plunge, and see for yourself.

40 Days for Life

Two different Pro-Life organizations have sent flyers promoting the 40 Days for Life campaign of prayer, fasting, and vigils in cities across America for an end to the abortion holocaust. This program seems like the real deal. I haven't heard whether there is anyone organizing for this specifically in the Superior, WI area, but, whether or not that is the case, it strikes me as an effort worthy of individual participation. The 40 days are from September 26 to November 4, 2007. I will keep the link up in the top of the left side bar as a reminder.

Reason and volition

Pseudo-atheism and pseudo-intellectualism aside, the possibility of true, rational atheism should be allowed as well. Since my last blog post, I have spent some time in perusing and cogitating and writing about the relative merits of atheistic vs. Christian/theistic systems of thought from within the discipline of logic. But the writing part, while still just the hint of an insignificant beginning, soon became much too long and involved for a blog post. If you are so inclined, you may read and judge for yourself at http://www.bmi.net/~dogpatchnorth/atheism1.php. This may be a work in progress, as I think of more to say, or respond to critical review.

Cutting to the chase here on the blog, I believe that a key point in favor of theism is the issue of free will, or volition. In the atheistic paradigm, man is composed solely of physical stuff; there is no spiritual component. This means he is driven by a combination of genetics and environment, determinism is the rule, and free will cannot exist. The theistic system allows for free will, and the Christian system positively affirms it.

Ironically, this rational point reveals the relative unimportance of rational argumentation. Sound reason may lead to faith, but if we have free will, each individual has the ability to choose whether or not to believe, whether for rational reasons or otherwise.

The opposite also applies. If we lack free will, rational disputation is pointless. The determinist says that everyone behaves in a determined way. He says to the Christian, "You believe because of your genetics, upbringing, and environment." The Christian replies, "You choose to disbelieve." It's a rational stalemate.

My earlier point still applies (see "Pseudo-atheism" below). Within the system of materialism and determinism, evangelism is absolutely pointless. Within the free will system, rational disputation may not sway many minds, but, together with other means of evangelistic outreach, it does at least make some sense.

I, for my part, have chosen to believe that I have the freedom to choose. Why? Because it's more reasonable.

Pseudo-intellectualism

In a similar vein as the previous post, there seems to be an abundance of illogic posturing as intelligence.

One prime example of this is the individual who smugly dismisses religious faith as irrational. The presumption seems to be that folks who believe in God must be gullible fools, lacking either the intellectual competence or the honesty to question the tenets of their faith, who blindly cling to the comforts of religion. The pathetic irony is that the reverse appears to be the case. At least, I have yet to hear an avowed atheist present a rational argument for his lack of faith.

Most of the supposed arguments for unbelief end up being little more than contrived diatribes. Some priest or minister or devout Christian was guilty of such and such scandalous behavior. Or the stereotypically distorted versions of the Inquisition or Crusades are presented as somehow proving the insincerity or hypocrisy of believers. Never mind that these are ad hominem arguments. Never mind that the facts are usually distorted beyond recognition. Never mind that authentic Christians invariably admit their own sinfulness, and the sinfulness of their Church. What is perplexing is how anyone can jump from the problem of human sinfulness to an atheist conclusion, as if God's existence depended upon man's perfection. Huh?

Another tack is that of science; it is suggested that scientific advances have made religion obsolete. The mysteries that in the past confounded man and made him turn to religion are now within our grasp; we have only to discover via the scientific method that which we still do not understand. But this is also childishly simplistic, and wholly unscientific. Science can only concern itself with empirical data, with the observable traits of matter and energy. Science can never address such non-material realities as love, truth, or beauty. It is obviously beyond the competence of science to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

On and on it goes. Turns out, atheism appears to be the fragile and irrational system, depending upon blind, unthinking adherence. If there is an atheist out there who can present a cogent syllogism for his system of thought, I would love to hear it, I really would. If I could convince myself that God was just the invention of humans, life would become much more convenient. I could make up my own rules, readily justify my own behavior, and, best of all, condescendingly pity those poor foolish believers. Trouble is (sigh!), the sheer illogic of this idea stops me every time.