www.freethoughtperspective.net

The Pope’s Visit, One More Complaint

Don Havis

On the front page of all the local and even nationally distributed newspapers, over the last few days, there usually appears a story about the Catholic Church’s Pope Benedict XVI’s six day visit to the U.S. Stories describe with great excitement the gathering of about 9,000 folks on the White House lawn, a fancy East Room dinner in the Pope’s honor, including a 21 gun salute and the performance of the U.S. Army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps. (Cost?)

Many of the articles also mentioned, in the last paragraphs, a number of “problems” which many “aggrieved Catholic activists” have raised. These include, of course, such things as the Church’s staunch opposition to female priests, the banning of the use of condoms even to prevent AIDs, the Church’s vigorous denunciation of gay marriage, and the ever-popular and continuing massive sexual abuse scandal.   

I am not an “aggrieved” Catholic activist.” I am an ”aggrieved non-believer…an atheist, if you will. I do, however, fully agree with their complaints expressed above, and I have one more complaint to add. In elaborately honoring this head of one Christian denomination among many — admittedly the largest and oldest — our president even had the gall to speak of our tradition of “separation of Church and State.” My complaint is why in the world are we spending even one penny of taxpayers’ money to elaborately and obsequiously fete this religious representative of an ancient, sexist, homophobic, scandal-ridden, anti-science superstition? 

The Seven Secular Sins

Don Havis

In early March, 2008, the Catholic Church announced they were updating their original “seven deadly sins,” established in the sixth century by Pope Gregory the Great: lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy, and pride. Frankly, I feel a little “left out,” and I think we freethinkers should advance our own set of proscribed behaviors. In response to the Catholic Church’s new list. I offer the following Seven Secular Sins.

It is hereby considered a Secular Sin…

(1) To believe that the religious word ‘sin” intrinsically carries with it a special burden of guilt/shame which can than be used by the sin list-controller as a powerful tool for behavior control. That is, the enforcer of the consequent following-on punishment for the “sin’ has the power — if the guilty party performs certain redeeming acts, avers certain beliefs, etc. — to forgive or expiate the guilt formerly placed on the “sinner” by the religious authority or text. (This is, of course, the “nut” of the religious idea of “redemption.”)

(2) To believe ANY solemn pronouncements or dogma promulgated by ecclesiastic authorities without a shred of empirical evidence of their certainty or moral value. This applies, especially, to heads of churches, prophets, or any of those who are believed to have direct knowledge of “god’s word,” no matter whether such an infallible source is named Smith, Dobson, or Ratzinger.

(3) To advocate voluntarily giving up one’s most precious faculty — one’s ability to reason and to think critically.

(4) To accept the ancient religious claim that there are actually two sources, or words, from which the seeker can gain certain knowledge or wisdom. One of these sources is the unseen, spiritual, or supernatural world; knowledge of which is gained through simple belief, known as “faith,” and/or “revelation,” derived from “holy scripture.” the second source is the natural or material world, known through careful observation and application of the empirical methods of science. Hint: There is only one trustworthy way to observe and/or to come close to accurate information/knowledge.

(5) To remain willfully ignorant — usually at the urging of religious leaders and/or the teachings of a particular religion — of the most basic facts, commonly advanced through the process of education, particularly in the fields of Biology, including the theory of evolution, Cosmology, and History, at a minimum. (Religionists have not recently argued against learning Mathematics.)

(6) To attempt to legally, and in other ways block or restrict the research and/or implementation of scientifically sound, humane, medical procedures aimed at improving the general human condition. Stem cell research, and well-crafted assistance with the dying process, are two examples that come immediately to mind. 

(7) To meekly acquiesce to the prevailing cultural imperative to be properly respectful of patently absurd religious claims, and to be quietly tolerant of hateful religious dogma.

—————————————————————————