Well it has happened again. Some "heathen upstart" has dared to question my "divinely appointed authority to brainwash you all."
Joking aside, regular readers of The Signal know I don't believe this and would never dream of indoctrinating anyone.
Yet for some reason, there exists a group of people who don't believe in God the same general way Mr. McCaffery, Mr. Carter and I do and feel that that gives it the right to brand us as close-minded and offensive, not to mention just plain stupid.
Usually I don't respond to comments about my articles, but Mr. Susnick's comments last week were nonsensical, and insulting to Carter and those who share his views.
They do however, bring up some good points on morality and make my own case rather good.
The next time you want to make fun of theists, Susnick, I suggest choosing your words more carefully. I'm sorry but when you denigrate Socratic logic (questioning and answering to obtain information or make a point) to mere "banter" then why should we even listen to you?
So we should just throw out foundations of law and justice, philosophy, mathematical reasoning, and science because you say so? That's absurd!
Socratically speaking, Susnick is wrong on many points. First, his implication that McCaffery's suggested reading of C. S. Lewis was something akin to indoctrination is ridiculous.
McCaffery was simply pointing out a reference source for Christians or others interested in Christianity when dealing with spiritual debates, not trying to brainwash anyone.
Secondly, Carter was arguing that God was uncreated and therefore self-caused which is a major stumbling block in mortal understanding.
By some jump of logic beyond me Susnick then argues that Hitler's ideas came from "pure sources or is outside natural understanding."
This is simply not true. Hitler in fact based Nazism off other men's ideas. Marx provides the framework by legitimizing violent revolution and Nietzsche kills off God and creates the Superman giving Nazism a twisted soul. Add vicious nationalism and old-fashioned anti-Semitism and you have a good percentage of the Nazi movement. Gee, I guess we can understand it!
Turning then on yours truly, Susnick tries to catch me in a logical contradiction after having derided logic itself.
Flip-flopping aside, he makes the point that the Declaration of Independence was written by politicians cashing in on time-held traditions, two entities which I argued earlier could not have been sources of rights.
If one looks more closely at the Declaration however, it becomes clear that the statement is a belief not a tradition. The American colonists had the tradition of having a king not believing in God.
True belief is something more personal and deeper than manmade tradition. In the same way the Declaration did not delineate rights as the Constitution does, but is rather a philosophical statement about beliefs.
Having defeated Susnick's illogical/logical argument, I will now call for a written apology regarding his statements concerning Carter. Susnick states that Carter's belief "in a freedom of religion that allows people to a freedom of conscience that allows them to understand God in whichever way they wish" is narrow-minded, self-righteous, elitist and comparable to Nazism.
Just because you don't like the mention of the name of God doesn't mean that a person is narrow-minded or self-righteous.
Where did Carter say that his way is the only way? Where did he say that everyone needs to believe in God? Where did he say that only the smart people understand what he's talking about? Where is your tolerance Mr. Susnick?
That comment was unfounded, irresponsible, hypocritical and insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Despite his best efforts to the contrary, Susnick actually brings up some good points for discussion. Almost everyone seems to agree that Hitler was wrong. However if you believe that morality is relative then there's no way you can say that.
Let me explain further. If you think that people can and should be able to decide what is right for them, you have condoned Nazism.
One can't logically tell a Nazi that he's wrong to hate everyone who is not like him when that person believes all views are equal.
With moral relativism, Christ and Hitler are equal. If you are being robbed or assaulted there's no reason to call the police because you'd be disrespecting the robber or the adulterer's world view. If you sue someone, don't expect the court to side with you unless your opponent shares your views.
How do we get out of this terrible situation? The alternative means adhering to a position of moral absolutes.
Yes, my friends, it is called saying that your moral views are right and anything contrary to them is wrong. I know this may be a new thing but it works.
Without an absolute morality of right and wrong there is no way to look at life sensibly.
Who then is to decide this absolute morality? I believe no imperfect man can be trusted with such a task. I believe we must again rely on a fully divine, benevolent higher power separate from man for moral guidance.
Without a God who sets the standards, justice, human rights and morality are all simply optimistic illusions.
My friends, we need tolerance for different kinds of people and political views but having tolerance for every moral view in the world is ridiculous and very dangerous.
