Paul Ryan: Now Hoist on Multiple Petards

OOPS! He Must have smooched Ayn Rand! Or maybe her corpse!



Guys like Paul Ryan, now hailed as some kind of great thinker and leading light by the Reeps, have always been a dime a dozen. You most often see their kind on college campuses bloviating to their small groups of faithful, and usually extolling the virtues of deranged icons like Ayn Rand. (Ryan himself even admitted giving copies of Rand's novel, 'Atlas Shrugged' to his staff as a Christmas present, as reported in TIIME, Sept. 3rd, p. 36. One wonders what his staffers ever did with those copies. )

But now that he's in the spotlight - it's not even for telling eight straight lies in his convention speech about Obama. No it's about his Rand worship and claims to also follow St. Thomas Aqinas. Now that this much has come out, others are taking him seriously and fact checking.

When several Catholic groups, including nuns from the Leadership Conference for Women Religious, pointed out that Ayn Rand had nothing but contempt for religious faith, i.e. asserting 'The Virtue of Selfishness'', p. 38):


"Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate with impunity, and the man who succumbs to it, will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs reason the most. "

Ryan smugly responded (ibid.):

"I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy."

Which, of course, is bollocks. Her philosophy is called Objectivism and reduced to its basic message, devoid of bilge and baloney, comes down to people - when developing a self-sufficient economics - for example, relying only on objective evidence. Hence, faith or belief plays no role. Moreover, it's an extreme economics that issues from it, pivoting primarily on national and individual self-sufficiency.

Hell, as I noted in a blog last month, Rand in her pristine Objectivism doesn't even accept the military ought to be funded from the taxpayer's purse! Her solution (On Government Financing in a Free Society, p. 116) is for the Pentagon, law courts, police, firemen and others (who are fed off the taxpayer dime) to instead set up co-op insurance companies! In this way, she observes that: "Men would voluntarily pay for insurance protecting their contracts." She also allows for the military to use "lotteries" to get their money, though I can't think of a single person who'd wish to buy one of these tickets. I mean, what is the prize? One of the F-17 Stealth fighters that loses cloaking ability when it rains?

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan - while he plans to chop up Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, plans to use the money saved by going after "entitlements" to increase funding for the military. But this is EXACTLY the sort of "violence" (by taxes) Rand warned against!

As for the atheist part, while Rand was indeed a self-proclaimed atheist, her philosophy itself shares zero commonalities with atheism. For example, NO atheist I know insists we each become islands unto ourselves and pursue our own rational self-interest, even to the extent of weighing the value of another before even considering saving their life! (Virtue Of Selfishness', p. 45) Neither do any atheists I know demand the government be reduced to a mere onlooker in terms of governance, and let armies, police, citizens etc. set up "insurance" companies to get their funding, or lottos!

So, what Paul Ryan is really really saying in his denial, is that he loves Rand's gratuitous, selfish, anti-government economics but isn't buying the essential philosophy from which it's forged. Can we then agree this guy is trying to square the circle? Can we also agree he's full of shit? Especially when he himself doesn't even adhere to Rand's basic, enunciated economic principles in terms of "government funding in a free society"?

But the biggest howler and which petard is almost as large as the first he's hoisted on, is when he claims to be "following Saint Thomas Aquinas". (TIME, op. cit. p. 56). He claims (ibid.) he bases this on the fact that abortion is outlawed by the Church, and was by Aquinas, and hence legitimately he can oppose any abortion even if a 12 year old kid is raped by her uncle, or a young college woman is gang-raped by frat boys.

Maybe this joker needs to do a tad more reading, such as learning that a leading Church historian, John Connery, S.J. has documented that up to 1869 the Church permitted abortion, up the end of the first trimester! (See, e.g. Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan , PARADE, April 22, 1990 ) Clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows it can do so again. And hence, one must question whether either of its positions (before and after 1869) embodies any kind of "absolute moral" position.

In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Catholic Theologian Hans Kung observes the following (p. 143):

“..no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."

This makes sense, and is something I've always challenged Catholic padres on when I've debated them. The problem confronting all doctrinal absolutists is that their cognitive reach exceeds their grasp and they become hoist on their own petards. As the illustrious Ryan does on one big petard when he backed House bills dignifying the term "forcibible rape" and "non-forcible rape".

Kung goes on to note (ibid.):

"It is impossible to honestly deny objective errors committed by the Church's teaching office, both ordinary and extraordinary."

So why then are Catholics adhering to their Church's stupid, archaic rules so slavishly? Maybe because they've done it so long they no longer have the power to think for themselves. Or.....maybe they still buy into the "Hell" crappola, when the padres and Bishops (who never play when THEY are molesting altar boys or protecting the molesters) never play that card for their own misdeeds.

Moving on....

Ryan also claims- with a straight fact- this his "mission to reduce debt" issues from the Holy Father himself, Pope Benedict, who has charged that "governments and communities running up high debt levels are living at the expense of future generations."

That Ryan would cite a pope to justify his vicious budget is astounding, not to mention highlighting his own chutzpah! Because the truth is the CBO, Center for Tax Policy, and other budgetary cognoscenti have determined his own "Ryan budget' is nowhere near neutral in cuts and spending. While he makes brutal cuts to the social service programs (that most Catholics have always supported), such as food stamps, Medicaid - sending tens of millions into a limbo without health care, or enough food, he allows and enables $4.8 trillion in tax cuts for the 1%, and at least as much for the Pentagon's war profiteers. Most economists, e.g. Paul Krugman, estimate this will add at least an additional $7 trillion or so to the deficit. In other words, Ryan is actually INCREASING the debt as he demolishes social programs!

The man ought to be ashamed of himself, but after witnessing the bevy of lies he unloaded two nights ago, I believe he's totally shameless.

One thing we cannot do is let this lying scumball anywhere near the levers of power to try to implement his half-Rand, half-Aquinas bullshit agenda.

Pastor Mike's Attack on Catholics (1)

In this installment I examine Pastor Mike’s screeds and assertions made against Catholicism. This is under his “False Doctrines” page, specifically headed up: “Is Catholicism Christian?”

In a way the header itself is daft, since historically we know that Roman Catholicism was the FIRST manifestation of Christianity. It is somewhat amusing to behold a latter-day “saved” nouveau Protestant screeching that the original church is "not the Christian one". This is somewhat like a current day Baltimore Ravens football fan saying HIS team has the real hold and claim on the Cleveland Browns’ history and records (since the Ravens left Cleveland and the original Browns!)

In fact, as we know, the Ravens left all the Browns history and records intact. They knew - even at the mundane football level- THEY were the ones breaking away and they had no innate claim to them, By the same token, ALL the breakaway Protestant sects have no more claim to the authentic Christian message and path to truth than say, revolutionary Americans (ca. 1776) had the right to call themselves "England" and "English people".

But let’s see what claims Pastor Mike has to make. He begins by giving the reason for his page:

FIRST AND FOREMOST to expose Catholicism for what it IS NOT - i.e., BIBLE BASED CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE


This is balderdash, given that it was the Catholic monks and scribes who FIRST translated and prepared the earliest biblical manuscripts. It was also these early monks, scribes who also separated out the various books, to determine what would not be included. For example, the apocryphal books were omitted, as were the Gnostic texts (Gospel Of Thomas, etc.)

If Pastor Mike had the least grain of sense to work with he’d realize he’s complaining about a Book that the Catholics ALSO accept and originated! He’d have more basis if he defended the Gospel of Thomas, for example, and made hay about the RC Church excluding it. He doesn’t He’s carping about the original Church-religion and the SAME book that has passed down to him, only different in emphasis in its .

In his next section, the brain-addled Pastor really goes off half-cocked:

It's really no different than the hundreds of people that were taken in by Jim Jones and his " Peoples Temple " , where approx. 900 of his 'parishioners' committed mass suicide in 1978 . I'm sure that the MAJORITY of them were no different than you or I , and perhaps were 'looking' to find TRUE Salvation , AND inner Peace , with the exception that THEY were decieved by his false teachings , and BELIEVED HIM when he told THEM that HE was "Jesus" . likewise with David Koresh , Charles Manson , and of course , the (now deceased) ATHEIST cult leader , Madalyn Murray O'Hair


Well, here he’s wholesale conflated atheist (Madalyn Murray O’Hair), Jim Jones, David Koresh etc. with an established religion that has existed for over two thousand years. If the first criterion of sound mental discrimination is proportion and the ability to parse it, Mike strikes out on all counts.

Jim Jones and David Koresh weren’t so much guilty of “false teachings” as they were egomania. Jones, in fact, began much like Pastor Mike, sticking to the “straight word” of God in the Good Book. Taking it as inerrant. At some point, however, his ego grew out of all bounds and he began to regard himself as “God”. This is not at all analogous to the pope – whose “Holy Father” appellation merely pertains to being a de facto head of a flock, in these case the world’s 800 million Catholics.

Murray O’Hair had NO teachings at all, since like me she was an atheist. She accepted science and its principles, and the only reason Pastor Mike would rail against her is the same reason he rails against me – he can’t tolerate the fact that science exposes him and his beliefs as fraudulent.

Mike’s folly goes on unabated:

My Catholic 'Brothers and Sisters ' , "Ignoring " these FACTS will NOT change them !! I BEG of you all - to AT LEAST - READ THE HOLY BIBLE - AT LEAST see what GOD HIMSELF says

Here, he continues demonstrating that he’s lost all touch with even immediate reality. He tells anyone who will listen that “ignoring these facts will not change them” BUT he hasn’t presented any facts about the Church itself. He’s assembled a hodge podge of unrelated extreme examples and tried to uphold them as analogous to RC Church teachings. They aren’t! Neither Jim Jones nor David Koresh bear any analogy to the Pope. Indeed, truth by told and from an analogy standpoint, Pastor MIKE has more in common with Jim Jones than the Pope does.

The Pastor also makes a common error of rank fundies, taking the Bible as something his “God’ literallyy wrote verbatim, as opposed to very fallible humans. He doesn’t seem to get it that “”God” didn’t just zap ten thousand ancient scrolls with lightning in the English language which were later assembled into 66 books.

No. Humans had to first enter remote caves near Qumran and recover hundreds of scrolls. These were on parchments, and written in the language of the time – Aramaic. These were then translated. The parsing of the many scrolls also showed they themselves had been subject to different interpretations and re-translations. Out of a morass of competing works, a final “Bible” materialized, but it is wholesale the product of human beings, not any divine entity.

The Pastor then asks Catholics to consider a few facts.

The Pope claims the place and names that belong to God alone (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, III para. 18). God, the Father: He claims he is "The Holy Father". This is the unique name of God the Father.

This is bollocks. All the places noted existed in antiquity and were named before there was a Catholic religion. For example, the Vatican and Vatican Hill were known to the Mithraist cult. If the Pope appropriated names from anyone, it was from the Mithraists!

The “Holy Father” is no biggie. The Latin for Pope is “Papa”. The RC Church used Latin as its official language. “Papa” translated literally comes out to “Father”. Adding “Holy” before it is in recognition of the Pope’s status, as a descendant of St. Peter.

There is NO “unique” name of God – and the use of “the Father” is purely a colloquial term designed to convey some level of intimacy to an otherwise abstract entity.

Mike continues with his “facts”:

God, the Son: He claims he is "The Head of the Church". This title belongs to Christ alone

Well, as a Catholic for “53 ½ years” Mike ought to know better than this. The Pope does not claim he is “head” of the Church but the spiritual guide-leader for its teaching office, the magisterium. When doctrines are formulated and pronounced, someone – after all – must put the final stamp of approval on them. Since neither God nor Holy Spirit comes down to place a lightning imprint on any document – it is left to the human vehicle to do that.

Now, the use of “head of the church’ is more a popular or colloquial usage.

Mike rambles on:

God, the Holy Spirit: He claims he is "The Vicar of Christ". This is the office of the Holy Spirit alone.

Again Pastor Mike loses it. The word “vicar” is from the French “Vicaire” which translates to “the minister of a parish” (see also the term “vicarage”) Thus, when the Pope refers to himself as “the Vicar of Christ on Earth” (parts Mike left out) he means he is like the minister of a global parish. What’s the big deal? There isn’t any! Mike manages to convert another molehill into a mountain.

Saying it can “only be the office of the Holy Spirit” is therefore obtuse. Indeed, a non-physical entity can hold no “office”.


More bunkum:

The Pope even takes the very name of God. The New York Catechism calls the Pope, "the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth." THE TRINITY OF GOD IS USURPED IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM!

Now with this Pastor Mike shows himself to be a deceitful instigator of hatred and division – no better than those he unctuously condemns. Indeed, there is NO such thing as the “New York Catechism” there is only the Baltimore Catechism – and unless Mike now has Alzheimers, he ought to have remembered that from his Catholic student days.

Evidently, anti-Catholic groups have latched onto this and are now circulating it around the net. Buyers therefore beware! My brother has fallen in with the Catholic haters, as well as the atheist baiters.

The assertion that the “Trinity of God is usurped in Roman Catholicism” looks like it was lifted directly from one of these anti-Catholic tracts. Seems Pastor Mike is not even able to formulate his own arguments, but has to lift them from second hand sources.

In fact, the RC Church TEACHES the reality of the Trinity in numerous doctrines and it is the ONLY religion that does so! No where in the standard Protestant religions will one find full doctrinal acknowledgement of the Trinity. (Emphasis is almost always on John 3:16 and the importance of the Son) In fact, it was a CATHOLC theologian - Thomas Aquinas – who first articulated the concept in detail. To say now, as Mike does, that Catholicism has “usurped” the Trinity is tantamount to the howlings of a lunatic or a careless plagiarist. I don’t know which.

More regrettable, the Pastor is totally ignorant of the fact that it was the Catholic Church and no other that established the consubstantiality of the (Holy) Spirit with Father and Son. This was at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Thus, we see the Roman Catholic Church not only first invoked the primacy of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit triad, but later elaborated it (by Aquinas) hundreds of years BEFORE the Protestant Reformation. To hear the ignorant Pastor talk, it was the Protestants and latter day Evangels that discovered the Trinity. (I suppose in the same way that they invented the ‘New York Catechism”)

Protestants themselves – including nouveau Prots like my bro- have nowhere near the respect for the Trinitarian terminology refined by the Catholic theologians over centuries – which seeks a delicate balance of properties within the Trinity. Among the most important, that the Holy Spirit descend THROUGH the Son and not FROM the Son. All of this nuance is lost on Pastor Mike who can only fulminate.