Professor Richard Dawkins is in Australia again.

He’s promoting his new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth”, which, he says, sums up the evidence for the fact of evolution.

His previous book, “The God Delusion”, sold well and the new one will doubtless be a clone of it.

Professor Dawkins will be addressing whoever turns up at Sydney Opera House next Sunday, 2pm.

* * *

Most Australians aren’t enthusiastic about evolution. They doubt whether intelligent human beings emerged from the mud of prehistoric swamps without some kind of a “guiding hand”.

Most Australians aren’t very enthusiastic about organised religion, either.

In this latter fact Dr Dawkins sees his chance of marketing yet another “pro-evolution, anti-God” book.

* * *

But both Dr Dawkins and the Aussie punter are making the same fundamental error of logic which renders any conversation between them worthless, logic-wise.

 *  the average evolution-skeptic probably doesn’t know that his/her thoughts are illogical

 *  Dr Dawkins probably does know – but he doesn’t care. He’s on a mission to stigmatise God and everybody who believes in God. He intends to succeed, no matter what tactics he must stoop to.

So what is this logical boo-boo that both sides of the debate (non-debate) have fallen into?

* * *

Both parties assume that if the evidence shows that we developed from the same ancestors as other animals (apes etc.) then there cannot be a God.

Once you put this down in simple words like that, it’s clearly nonsense.

* * *

A few days after the destruction of the New York World Trade Centre, this Professor Dawkins blamed the disaster on “religion” — calling religion “a ready-made system of mind control which teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end”.

He was referring to how young persons can be persuaded to blow themselves up if convinced it is a certain way to enter heaven.

Another dishonest argument:

What he says may or may not be true about the “religion” of Islam.

It is NOT true about the religion of Jesus Christ.

An American lady aged 90-plus recently had a stroke which left her unable to swallow.

She had previously signed an “advance directive” specifying that no artificial hydration or nutrition be given her if she wasn’t going to recover.

But her nephew, her designated proxy, insisted that Catholic teaching be practised in her case, and that a feeding tube be installed anyway.

* * *

Father Thomas Weinandy, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, confirmed that Catholic health facilities have “an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically-assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally . . . you can’t just starve them to death. It’s hard to know whether someone will regain consciousness or not.”

A feeding tube was not, he said, required if it wouldn’t prolong life, or would be “excessively burdensome for the patient” or would “cause significant physical discomfort.”

In this case, doctors believed the patient had, at most, a few months to live, but would die sooner unless a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy ( PEG ) tube was surgically inserted.

* * *

A rumpus ensued when the nephew made his decision – but as it happened, in the midst of it all, the patient died.

So did that solve the problem? Not entirely. This particular lady has gone to her judgement. But there are going to be thousands (millions?) more, just like her, about whom similar decisions will have to be reached.

We seem to have reached a turning-point in human history. Some questions can no longer be avoided.

What is a human being? Who decides what is “burdensome” and what isn’t? Burdensome to whom?

* * *

The key point, for Catholics, is that you cannot do evil so that “good” may come of it.

Some people, including some doctors, don’t really distinguish between good and evil – when using those words they really mean more convenient or less convenient. For somebody.

Mr Rudd says Australia’s new education system will be “back to basics”.

More science, more mathematics, more history?  

Nothing “basic” about that.

More basic to ask: “Do these children know how to behave themselves?”

And: “Do they know why they should behave themselves?”

Leading to the truly basic questions:  “Is there a God? What has God put us here on earth for?”

Postpone increasing maths/science/history. Boost religion classes.

* * *

The questions above are answered on one single page of your Bible – in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans:

“The just man shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who suppress the truth of God: because that which is known of God is manifest . . . for the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable . . . .”

(comment: Godliness (religious gusto) is basic to justice, and the two of them are basic to everything worthwhile — so obviously so that there’s no excuse not to know it)

* * *

 “Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these not having the law are a law to themselves: the law written in their hearts . . . .”

 (comment: Even people not brought up knowing any religion know right from wrong. Woe betide educators who twist young minds into “rights/self-esteem” mentalities)

* * *

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . .”

(Comment: Every child must learn the supreme importance of what the Church offers, especially Baptism, Holy Communion and the Sacrament of Confession)

* * *

If you doubt that your local school will teach your children these basics, don’t send them.

In today’s Australia, a decision to send a child to school is a grave decision. Perhaps the normal/default practice for thinking parents should be home schooling

.

.

Last weekend, Sydney streets were occupied by people “celebrating” their  involvement in homosexual practices.

The media gave them un-critical coverage, with headlines like “Police praise Mardi Gras behaviour”. (Bigpondnews.com)

The Police, in fact, attended 140 incidents, arresting 35 people for drug possession, assault, offensive behaviour etc. One man was reportedly “seriously” assaulted, two others stabbed. One police officer fell during a brawl and suffered head injuries.

But none of that is probably the point . . . .

* * *

Would one be a spoil-sport to mention that everyone knows that homosexual acts cause disease?

We’ve known for ages that oral sex, as practised by over 90% of homosexual males, is a major means of the spread of hepatitis A and hepatitis B. (1)

Anal sex, as practised by over 90% of homosexual males, is a leading cause of gonorrhoea, syphilis and AIDS. (2)

Then there is the question of whether homosexually-active persons are more inclined than others to sexually assault children.

In Victoria, 20% of sexual assault victims are males, 83% being aged under 17. (3)

The proportion of Australian men identifying as homosexual is 1.6%.  The number identifying as “bisexual” is 0.9% (4)

If a category of less than 3% of the male population commits more than 20% of male sex crimes, isn’t that a bit of a worry?

* * *

Homosexual people must be treated respectfully. That’s true.

But that’s no excuse for media (and schools) to misinform children and to condone dangerous behaviours.

Most adolescents experiencing same-sex-attraction will lose the tendency by age 25.

Adolescents that way inclined are sometimes told that “coming out” will solve their problems.

It will not. It puts their lives in danger.

 .

 (1) The Lancet 399:938, (2) Journal of the American Medical Association 251: 237, (3) Victoria Police Crime Statistics 2000-2005. (4)  Aust NZ J. Public Health 27: 138-145

What seems to make Christianity unique among religions is its claim that Jesus Christ was God incarnate (“in the flesh”).

Not just a good man, but literally divine.

This annoys atheists, agnostics etc.

It annoys also many others who just want to get on with their lives, un- bothered by religion.

Christ’s divinity is also disturbing for his believers.

It tells them that God wants us to hand our lives over to supernatural forces — to give up conforming with the materialistic, distraction-seeking mentalities that our neighbours and friends expect of us.

* * *

Today is the Second Sunday of Lent.

Today’s gospel reading is exquisitely discomforting to those who don’t want Jesus to be divine or to make demands of them.

It describes a mysterious, awesome and unsettling event:

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain apart: And he was transfigured before them.

His face did shine as the sun: his garments became white as snow.

And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias, talking with him.

(They spoke of his decease that he should accomplish in Jerusalem.)

And Peter said to Jesus: ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make three tabernacles, one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elias.’

As he was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And a voice out of the cloud, saying: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him.’

The disciples hearing it, fell upon their faces, and were very much afraid.

Jesus came and touched them, saying, ‘Arise, and fear not.’

And they, lifting up their eyes, saw no one but only Jesus.

As they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: ‘Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead.’

* * *

The disciples learned a lot from this event:

 * that Jesus is/was truly God

 * that to please God we must be willing to suffer

 * that to live pleasing to God we must depend on him giving us the strength

 * that Jesus alone speaks with God’s full authority

.