Wednesday, June 12, 2019


New atheists claim to be rational people. They express disgust with childish belief in the spirit in the sky and (Christian) religion that for centuries has been foisting its morality on others. Yet they react to criticism as a vampire to garlic. Their fanatism is often on par with the worst religionists. So what's going on? An investigation in progress. 

Article on Free Beacon. (Source) (Link)

The law and the courts are forcing Catholic organizations to pay for the contraception and abortions of their employees. Apart from the question if these requirements should be covered by health insurance in the first place or whether the employees in question actually want this cover, the matter we must answer here is, is this correct, just or even moral?

The Catholic position is, that contraception and abortion are evil. The atheist position is not that contraception and abortion are good or bad in themselves (yet they may be, but that is not the point). Rather their stance is that these services should be available to those who wish it without paying for it themselves.

Are they not foisting their morality on these Catholic institutions in this quest for altruism at the expense of the collective? The problem here is not, what is the moral, but rather what is the nature of rights?

Let us begin by distinguishing positive from negative rights. Negative rights are the liberty to act without impediment of others. Positive rights is the requirement of others to provide something for you. There's is thus a very big difference.

To the Enlightenment thinkers on whose brilliant ideas we base our modern, liberal states, rights were by definition negative in nature. This is how we ended up with limited government, so as to prevent them from interfering with the people's negative rights. This in short, is the core principle of Liberty.

In the course of the last century the idea of positive rights has taken shape. The universal principle of human rights that man is born free and equal was violated; man became a helpless creature that depends on the state's positive welfare rights for his survival.

This is the core problem in question when nuns are forced by law to pay for services they deem evil. The atheist, supposedly morally neutral stance, is a fake. The morality of religionists have been replaced by the morality of atheist statists. It is, in effect, reverse tyranny.

The issue of a Christian-owned bakery 'discriminating' against gay marriage by refusing to bake a 'Bert and Ernie' cake (source) is resting on the same principle. Positive rights against discrimination require Christian bakeries to produce cakes they find morally repulsive. It is easy to miscast this as a 'hate crime', which is a total misrepresentation.

If rights were applied properly and the law was truly morally neutral, the problem would not even exist. The rights of the Christian baker would be respected and the gay couple would go to a bakery that is willing and able to product the 'Bert and Ernie' cake. Everyone happy, end of story.

Regrettably there are those who gladly impose tyranny on the free world in their crusade for total 'equality'.