IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT GOD

Imagine a world without God.

There is no Being to help guide the actions of man.

How are we going to establish right from wrong?

One might argue for Natural Law but that is a slippery slope.  Once you argue that there is inherent right way to live and wrong way to live in nature, then you start sneaking in an intelligence to nature and that will just ruin everything.

But wouldn’t it be good to not kill?  Could we not begin there?  Possibly.  But even there is a dangerous pin upon which to stand.  If this marvelous, complicated universe just happened, like snow flakes falling from the sky accidentally forming a snowman but WAY more intricate, then life really has no meaning except to the person who happens to have it.  Why should life be better than no life? Why should your life be important to me if you have something (land?) that I really want?  There can be no inalienable rights because that implies order, intelligence and meaning, which leads us to a discussion of God, which is something we want to avoid.

There can only be one answer in this type of universe:  The one with the most power decides what is right and wrong.  It could be an individual dictator, or committee, or even a whole voting nation.  We could vote in many of the dictates of any particular religion if we want.  And we could vote them right back out again.  It will, of course, lead to even greater meaninglessness with a thin covering of legitimacy.

Take, for example, marriage.  Back to the true pagans, it had to do with fertility and child raising.  In our modern age we have removed that definition completely so our brothers and sisters, or brothers and brothers could experience a type of permanent relationship, legaly binding, that we call marriage.  This particular route seems compassionate but this idea of marriage is destined to disintegrate.  If a desire to be married is the only requirement for being married and we have removed any ties to our history, then why stop at two people?  Why worry about a brother and sister who want to marry?  Why shouldn’t all the religious brothers of a monastery be recognized as one giant marriage to give them all of the protections that others have?  

The argument can’t be, “That just wouldn’t happen.”  What are you going to base a “This far and no further” law on other than right makes right?  (There are already legal attempts at similar scenarios of the above to this.)  In the end then, marriage will cease to mean anything unless the individuals want it to and have the freedom to do as they please by those in charge.

Now imagine we have formed a society that has bought into a meaningless universe.  Imagine further that you are frustrated young man who does not happen to be part of the society that makes decisions and has a voice.  You think culture is wrong and you see those you love and their ideas abused.  You have no power except to conform.

You are angry, powerless, and have no hope even in a next life.  What is to stop you from grabbing a gun or a knife and going on your college campus . . .

GIVING THE DEVIL THE BENIFIT OF THE LAW

First, I come before you with biretta in hand, to give praise where praise is due.  I do not think that a newspaper (or any news outlet) is good only if it agrees with me, but is good if it informs fairly on all sides.  (A tricky thing to do when you have your own personal beliefs as an editor and you have to make advertisers happy I realize.)  So after yesterday’s rant, I must offer praise to the Akron Beacon Journal for printing another Letter to the Editor in today’s edition written by the Rev. David Durkee, our fair neighbor to the south, that gave a more thorough view of what took place in Washington D.C. this past week and the titled it, “A Message of Life.”  Kudos to you.  Both.

 

IN OTHER NEWS:

 

A while back another article appeared in the paper in which the author, in a passing way, made reference to Scientology (of Tom Cruise fame) and said that it was a fraud and an abuse of the laws of this country that protect religion.  That may or may not be the case (I have no real idea only having a shmattering of an insight about Scientology.)  But we must be careful about deciding who should be afforded benefit of the law.  If they have not broken the law, even if we very much disagree with them, it is dangerous for us to say, “But they are undeserving of this law.”  That may be true.  But what recourse will we have then when a large group of people (we see this happening already) decides that we are unreasonable and that the law written to protect us should not apply to us?

 

Said much better, here is some dialogue from “A Man for All Seasons” in which St. Thomas More is engaged in a conversation with idealistic young man named Roper who would have another man arrested who has not yet broken the law.  (Wife and Daughter are More’s)

 

Speaker	Dialog
Wife	Arrest him!
More	For what?
Wife	He's dangerous!
Roper	For all we know he's a spy!
Daughter	Father, that man's bad!
More	There's no law against that!
Roper	There is, God's law!
More	Then let God arrest him!
Wife	While you talk he's gone!
More	And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper	So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More	Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper	Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More	Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Quote taken from this site.