I "Unfriended" Someone Today - The Failure Of Logic And Reason

About a year ago I reconnected with a high school friend on Facebook.  While we have some common interests, it became quickly apparent that we did not agree on religious, social, and political issues.  The social and political issues which we tended not to agree stemmed from religious beliefs - he is an atheist and I am a Catholic.  I entertained discussions with him because it gave me a chance to grower deeper in my faith.

The discussions would be on the role of religion in the government and moral issues.  We would have a few good exchanges on a topic and then insults were thrown at me because he perceived a comment of mine to patronize him.  He did not like it when I would remind him of something from history in response to his criticism of something the Catholic Church has done.  His response would be something like "don't patronize me, I've studied history for the last 10 years and have a Masters Degree in History" or "I studied the Bible and Church Fathers and learned a lot."  I do not doubt that those statements are true, but that does not excuse his comments or even suffice as a logical response.  Rather than giving me a reasonable or logical argument, he chose to give me his credentials and expected me to give up.  If one really has the credentials the cite, then they should be able to give an answer rather than shoving the credentials in another's face.


For a while I ignored this and tried to continue with the discussions.  He would either drop out of the discussion or come back to the beginning of the discussion.  Either way, the discussion basically came to an end.  Then another topic would come up and we would go through the same discussion points.  I really tired of this as he would continue with the same comments that I already refuted.  Without fail he would bring up  priest sex abuse and make that out to be a problem unique to the Catholic Church.  Despite many refutations regarding the frequency of allegations compared to the general population, the time period from which most of the alleged abuse occurred, and the Church following the norms of society when dealing with abusers, he continued to use this as an argument against the Church (Note that I do not think any actual abuse by anyone is acceptable).  He even went as far as claiming that the real reason the Church opposes abortion is because every abortion is one less child for a priest to molest.


Despite having to restate my arguments, that is not why I chose to "unfriend" him today.  About six weeks ago I was in a political discussion with him and he reminded me that the President of the United States is elected by the people.  I know that is code for some people that believe that Congress should approve anything the POTUS wants simply because he is elected by the people.  I reminded him (and anyone else using that argument) that Congress is also elected by the people and they have a responsibility to their constituents, not the POTUS.  He does not like it when I remind him of that and feels that I patronized him by doing so.  If he really know how the different branches of government work, he would not think that the POTUS should get whatever he wants.  Anyhow, during this particular discussion he chose to deactivate his account.  This is a habit I had noticed of his when he would get upset about a discussion.  Perhaps he has another reason to leave Facebook, but it always seemed to be in the middle of an especially heated discussion, one in which he felt it necessary to throw his credentials at me rather than continuing in discussion.  If you are going to claim there is no God, make attacks against my religion, claim to use logic and reason instead of God, refuse to give logical arguments to defend your beliefs, and even runaway or hide instead of continuing a discussion, then I have no use for you.  This happened too many times and I had decided to "unfriend" him when I realized he deactivated his account.  I could not do this at the time because I cannot "unfriend" someone whose account is not active.  Since I saw some posts from him today, I knew this was my chance to "unfriend" him as I intended.


This is part of what I have noticed with many atheists online, Facebook or elsewhere.  They claim to be the group of people that use logic and reason when it comes to god and morals.  Many of them focus their attacks on Christianity, especially the Catholic Church.  They have canned responses to many issues and I have come across many of them.  When it comes to morals, they will eventually bring up a Levitical law.  They do not understand how certain laws no longer apply because of the new covenant given to us by Jesus Christ.  Any claim to that will question why some laws still apply and they simply will not accept that moral laws from the Old Testament still apply.  They just state that they do not interpret the New Testament that way and will not give a reason why.  If these people are really the people who use logic and reason instead of god, they should be able to give an answer to this.  They would rather point out where they think religious people are not following the teachings of their religion rather than understand the basis for such teachings.  When it comes down to defending their interpretation of the Bible, they fail because their logic and reasoning is wrong.

Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown and My Response (2/17/2012)

This is my first post in this blog.  The name "Les Expos" comes from my long time love of the Montreal Expos.  Most of my posts will have little to do with the Expos and I do not intend to claim that my views are those of the former team or their fans.  It is a name I have used elsewhere and rather than coming up with a catchy name that may eventually lose its meaning, I went with a name that likely has no meaning to the content I post.

Anyway, I recently sent an email to our Senator, Sherrod Brown, regarding the mandate imposed on religious employers through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding health insurance.  What follows is his form letter email response and the questions I sent to him in reply in red.

Dear Mr. Gissel:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding health insurance and contraception coverage.  Like most Ohioans, I believe we must respect both religious institutions and the interests of women in receiving affordable health care.

Through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), young adults under 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan while in college or looking for their first job.  Seniors who reach the Medicare “donut hole” receive discounts on their prescription medication and have improved access to preventive care screenings.  In Ohio, that meant that 185,000 seniors saved $95 million in prescription drug costs last year.  And in 2014, small businesses and individuals will be able to purchase affordable insurance on the new health insurance exchanges.

Another goal of the act was to eliminate insurance coverage discrimination against women.  Prior to the passage of the ACA, it was legal in nine states for insurance companies to deny coverage to women who were victims of domestic violence because it was considered a pre-existing condition.  For the 14 million women who purchased health insurance in the individual market, pregnancy could have been considered a pre-existing condition, thus excluding maternity coverage.   And in most states, women were charged higher premiums — sometimes 150 percent more than men — especially during their reproductive years.  

In light of the discrimination women face in the health insurance market, the ACA requires all health plans to cover comprehensive women’s preventive care [This comment is being added for the blog.  From what are the women being prevented with this care?  Women's preventive care keeps them from being women] and screenings at no additional cost to women.  The preventive care covered by the ACA is based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a panel of 15 medical experts, and includes domestic violence screening and counseling, gestational diabetes screening for at-risk women, postpartum counseling, lactation counseling, HIV- and sexually-transmitted infection testing and counseling, contraception coverage, and an annual well-women visit.

In keeping with the IOM’s recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation requiring most employers to provide these services in their health insurance plans.  Under the department’s initial criteria, a church or other house of worship that is opposed to contraception on religious grounds would not have been required to provide contraception coverage under its insurance policy.   Because they educate students, treat patients, and hire individuals regardless of their religious beliefs, universities and hospitals affiliated with a religious order would need to provide this coverage.

However, after hearing from interested stakeholders, President Obama announced an expansion of the religious exemption.  Under the new rule, religiously affiliated institutions — such as universities, charities, and hospitals — will not be required to cover contraception services in their health plans. [Did the law actually change?  If so how?  Secondly, what about businesses that are not religious, but who are morally against providing such coverage?  What about employees of non-religious companies being forced to pay for a coverage to which they are morally opposed?] Instead, women working for these institutions will be able to access contraception coverage directly from their insurance companies.  The insurance company, not the employer or employee, will be responsible for the costs associated with this coverage.  Insurance companies should not need to raise premiums due to this new rule.  For example, insurance premiums did not increase after contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit system.

[Were any insurance companies contacted for input on this?  How do they feel about providing coverage for free?  If the cost of providing contraception coverage is that minimal, why not have the manufacturers of contraception provide this for free?

Secondly, insurance is regulated by the states.  Is the Federal Government going to step into the regulatory process and insist that the State Departments of Insurance allow companies to provide a coverage for free?]

The Catholic Health Association supports the revised policy [Are you aware that the Catholic Health Association does not speak for the Catholic Church?  The bishops of the Catholic Church speak for the Catholic Church and every one of the bishops of the United States has spoken out against the mandate from the HHS and the so-called compromise.  Why have they been excluded from conversations?] — stating that a “resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.”  By requiring insurance companies, rather than religiously affiliated employers, to provide contraception coverage, the exemption protects both the interests of religiously affiliated employers and the right to access to health care of employees.  More than half of women between ages 18-34 struggle to afford contraception, which they often need for medical purposes not related to contraception.  As such, all women — regardless of their place of employment — should enjoy full access to preventive health care.

Some Ohioans have told me that the IOM’s recommendations require that abortion services must be included in insurance policies and that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions.  This is incorrect.  The IOM recommendations do not require any health insurance plan to cover abortion services.  Additionally, the IOM recommendations regarding contraception coverage only apply to insurance plans; they do not require hospitals or health care professionals to provide such services.

I appreciate your taking the time to voice your thoughts on this important matter.  Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

                         Sincerely,

              

                         Sherrod Brown

                         United States Senator