The Celibate Priesthood – God's Will and Human Nature

“Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” 1st Peter 2:12-13

The issue of sexual perversion, of whatever sort, amongst Roman Catholic priests proves the difference between God’s perfect way and man’s faulty way.

The Bible states, “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'” (Genesis 2:18). Plain and simple, men and women have emotional and physical needs that are fulfilled in emotional and physical relationships with the opposite sex. God’s plan is that one man is to come together with one woman in order to fulfill these needs.

The Bible further states that it is acceptable for a person to choose to remain unmarried (see 1st Corinthians 7:7-9) and be celibate, “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:12).
For example, Paul recognized that since he was unmarried he could devote all his time to the ministry and not have to divide his time between ministry, wife and children (see 1st Corinthians 7:32-35). However, the Bible states that “if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1st Corinthians 7:9).
Moreover, although even a married couple could abstain from physical relations it is to be for a predetermined and agreed upon temporary period of time (see 1st Corinthians 7:5).

What we have in the system created by God is a clear recognition of, and provision for, natural human needs. However, as clearly opposed to this, the Roman Catholic Church has created its own system which as the evidence of history proves has, does, and will fail. We cannot go against the will of God and expect success.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, as far as its upper level clergy is concerned, it is good for man to be alone because the Roman Catholic priesthood is one in which celibacy is a life long commitment, a vow. It may be argued that celibacy is not imposed upon Roman Catholic priests, it is a decision that they make and to which they commit.
The problem is that this issue is not simply a matter of black and white intellectual discussions because we are dealing with real life human beings with real feelings, needs and all that comes with. A young man who wants to become a priest may in all honesty believe that he can be a lifelong celibate, and of course God can give him the gift of celibacy.

But what happens five, ten, thirty, fifty years down the line? What if a priest, according to natural human needs, begins to long for physical relations? “Then he can leave the priesthood and get married,” you might say. It’s not that simple, at this point the priest must make a difficult decision and he must make it due to the faulty human system in which he finds himself trapped, “Do I give up my life’s work, my decades of service in the priesthood for marriage?”

We hear over and over of people who have been laid off of work after decades at the same job, “I don’t know anything else,” they say, “I don’t know what to do!” Keep in mind that a Roman Catholic priest does not pay rent, does not pay utility bills, does not have a wife and children to support, they are given a car and an allowance for food plus their wage. It’s not as simple as to think that a person would be willing or able to walk away from a life long vocation and not having to pay most of their bills.

In this way they are forced to remain in a faulty system. You are either celibate or you are not a priest is the Roman Catholic stance which causes us to declare priestly celibacy as being forced. Moreover, the choice between marriage or the priesthood is not what the Bible teaches (of course you will not find a New Testament priesthood, but that’s another article).

This is why it is extremely important to consider that God tells us in His word that “the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” (1st Timothy 4:1-3).
Nowhere does the Bible teach that one cannot serve God if one is married and while, for example, Roman Catholic deacons can be married the higher levels of the clergy are reserved for the celibate. These are the sort of problems that the Roman Catholic Church has created for itself by making up its own rules instead of following God’s.

We speculate here in stating that just as a person might commit adultery for a momentary thrill, a celibate priest may decide that it is not worth giving up his life long career and financial ease for a momentary physical thrill. Roman Catholicism has set up for itself a system by which to grade sin, venial and mortal. It seems to be a human tendency to excuse ourselves by thinking that if we are not committing a grade A sin then a grade C or grade Z sin is not so bad. B

eing caught in this dilemma a priest might unreasonably reason that if he has vowed to never have a natural male/female relationship he can, in an odd way, get his thrills with children or other men. They might tell themselves that they, while they have sinned, it was not as bad as violating the original vow of abstaining from a natural male/female relationship. It is true that celibacy ultimately means abstaining from any and all sexual relations, but we are speculating about how people make excuses for themselves.

Speculating upon the inner workings of a troubled mind is difficult indeed, if you cannot conceive how someone could sexually abuse a child you should thank God that you are so far removed from that malicious perversion that you could never have conceived it.

Therefore, the bottom line is that some people can ruin it for everyone else. All priests are now looked upon with suspicion, which is a shame because many do not deserve such scrutiny. But what are we to do about the children who are left in the care of priest, for class, as altar server, or what ever reason? Sad to say but these children should never be left alone with any priest. This is not an assumption that the priests themselves are not trustworthy but because the Roman Catholic Church as a religious hierarchy proves over and over that if something does happen they will either do nothing, or simply relocate the priest (giving him fresh hunting grounds).

They will buy silence from the family with money and ultimately they will hide yet another skeleton it in the Vatican’s closet. They constantly prove to the world that a false clean outward appearance is more important than a true inward cleanliness. Jesus pointed out that some people are like a beautiful mausoleum, beautiful on the outside but full of dead men’s bones on the inside (see Matthew 23:27). The covering up or ignoring of these horrendous acts is as bad or even worse than the acts themselves.

One single priest may take it upon himself to privately molest a child, but we see that a system of thousands of clergy are willing to look the other way and allow it to continue, allow children to be scarred for life and cause people to turn away from God due to the terrible actions of people who are supposed to be His holiest servants.
When King David committed adultery with Bathsheva, and arranged for her husband to be killed in battle, the prophet Nathan told him that by his actions he had caused the enemies of God to blaspheme (see 2nd Samuel 12:14). We should never add fuel to the fires of unbelief. Let us pray that their attempts at reformation and reconciliation in this area will be fruitful.

One Biblical response to such perverted behavior comes up in a church that Paul was involved with, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles_In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1st Corinthians 5:1-5).
In time, when the person repents they are to be restored. “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted” (Galatians 6:1).

We could not go without pointing out the obvious, which is that celibate Roman Catholic priests are not alone in the commission of these grave sins. Some married Protestant Pastors are likewise guilty. Some regular Joe American married men, and women for that matter, are likewise guilty. We have heard stories of Hindu-Hare Krishna school teachers that are likewise guilty.
Recently, Buddhist priests in Cambodia have been suspended for frequenting brothels and watching pornographic videos. We have focused on Roman Catholic priests in order to explore a particular aspect of their system that adds fuel to the fires of a troubled mind and heart and to show that God’s will takes into consideration that which Roman Catholic celibacy does not.

Other verses of Scripture seriously contradict Roman Catholicism’s concept of the celibacy of the clergy.Bishops are to be allowed to marry:

“you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you-if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God” (Titus 1:5-7).

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1st Timothy 3:2).

Peter, who Roman Catholicism claims to be the first Pope, was married:

“Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles,
the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas [Peter]?” (1st Corinthians 9:2).

“Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever” (Matthew 8:14).

In conclusion, we note that all and every form of perversion is born from the seed of rebellion against God’s will for our lives. God has set up a system that takes into account and provides for human emotional and physical needs, when we do not follow God’s will we can expect nothing but the worse, the acting out of the darkest human deeds unrestrained.

“for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor” 1st Thessalonians 4:2-5

Jewish / Judaism : Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Anti-Missionary Assertions

In his book, “The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries,” Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does the very things that he accuses Christians of doing. He offers wrong citations, takes texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts and tries very hard to find fault where there is none to be found.

Following are some examples.

One of the most shocking, serious, and disappointing errors is when he states:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructed his followers (Matthew 5:43) “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and do good to those who hate you.”
This might have been a fine lesson if Jesus himself lived up to it. But when it came to his own enemies, Jesus declared (Luke 19:27), “Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me.”1

This error is repeated by Gerald Sigal when he refers to Jesus as,

He who advocates…killing enemies (Luke 19:27) cannot be called a ruler of peace.2

This is a perfect example of just how important it is to check the citations. The text they are referring to in Luke 19:27 begins in v.11 with this statement, “While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable.” It is a man in the parable that said, “Take my enemies…bring them here, and kill them before me.” Jesus said it, but they were not his words.

jewish_judaism_therealmessiah_ajewishresponsetomissionaries_rabbiaryehkaplan-2239778

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan states that Jesus,

was not so broad minded. When he sent his twelve disciples, he charged them (Matthew 10:5, 6), “Do not take the road to the gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan city. Go only to the lost sheep of Israel.”3

Jesus just cannot seem to do right in the eyes of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. In this case Jesus is wrong for neglecting the Gentiles but when Jesus tells a parable that favors the Samaritans, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, again, reacts negatively in stating:

We would expect that after the Cohen and Levite passed up the victim, the story would tell us that the third person was an Israelite, an ordinary Jew. Instead, however, Jesus substitutes a Samaritan, a member of a tribe who had been enemies with the Jews for almost five hundred years.This Samaritan then becomes the example of moral love. The Priest and Levite, who were the religious leaders of the Jews, were thus downgraded, while the hated Samaritan was praised. What Jesus is implying is that every Jew, even a religious leader, is incapable of even a simple act of mercy.

Even in his parable about love, Jesus was not above demonstrating his spite towards the Jewish leaders who rejected him.4

When Jesus begins His ministry and sends His disciples exclusively to the Jews He is said to be discriminating against Gentiles. Later, when He is ready to send His disciples to the Gentiles He is also said to be discriminating, this time, against the Jews. Either way; Jesus appears to be wrong, when He does or does not do that which Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan thinks that He ought.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan complains that people think that Leviticus 18:19 is an original teaching of Jesus. On the other hand he says that the Messiah is supposed to teach the Torah to the world. He writes:

(Leviticus 18:19), “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” This commandment is so important that Rabbi Akiva declared that it was the fundamental principles of the Torah. Even though this is openly stated in the Torah, written over a thousand years before Jesus’ birth, many people still think of it as one of Jesus’ teachings.5

The evidence, as admitted by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, is that the Gentile world has learned the Torah from Jesus. The Messiah is supposed to teach the Torah and we find that the Gentile world knows the Torah by the teachings of Jesus. Apparently, in this case Jesus is at fault for doing what the Messiah is expected to do.

Unfortunately, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan gets downright silly in stating,

Jesus was even able to be vindictive against a tree…Did this innocent tree deserve such cruel punishment?6

Need any response be offered? I had to respond to this issue as it was brought up by another Gentile militant activist atheist Cliff Walker and since I responded to it elsewhere I will merely point you to this essay: Weak Bible Week Poster, part 7 of 7

Pinchas Stolper, who contributed to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s book, wrote,

The Missionaries claim that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah.7 [emphasis mine]

This is not only utter falsehood, but also contradicts a large portion of the rest of the book. Many prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill are pointed out in the book, along with admissions that Christianity awaits a Second Coming when Jesus will fulfill those prophecies-thus, there is an internal inconsistency within the pages of “The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries.”

I was corresponding with a Jewish gentleman who recommended that I read Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s book so that I could understand that Jesus was not the Messiah. I was more than glad to oblige.

However, I found a book that was quite fallacious and in that sense disappointing and not worthy of the popularity which it has enjoyed in the anti-missionary realm. The above represent mere a few of the many examples that may be pointed out.

Answering Atheism – audio, page 1 of 3

Keep in mind that you can use the CTRL+F function to search this post.

audio-6806933

Apologetics 315 – log on and search around, they have a lot of great resources—to much to list here.

Sermonaudio – log on and search around, they have a lot of great resources—to much to list here.

Walter Martin,

Evil and Human Suffering, part 1 and part 2

Vs. Madalyn Murray O’Hair

Vs. Hugh Schonfield (The Passover Plot)

Shandon L. Guthrie

Rationalism and the Historical Mind/Body Problem

The Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Why Atheists Cannot Avert the Burden of Proof

On “Live with the Infidel Guy” Radio Show

Vs. Krueger, Atheism vs. Theism: Which View is More Rational?

CS Lewis,

Mere Christianity (complete audiobook)

A 1944 speech on Beyond Personality

Dinesh D’Souza,

Vs. Daniel Dennett

Vs. Michael Shermer

Vs. Dan Barker

Vs. Christopher Hitchens

Joe Zamecki vs. Rick James at Kean University, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Ravi Zacharias,

Q&A at the University of Washington, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
Q&A with William Lane Craig

Is Atheism Dead? Is Atheism Dead? Q & ATheism and Atheism: Points of Tension
Is Atheism Dead? Is God Alive?, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4

Naturalism, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4

The Postmodern Condition, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4

Theism and Atheism: Points of Tension

Theism and Atheism

William Lane Craig,

The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

The Possibility of Resurrection

Resurrection (Interview)

Contemporary Scholarship and the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus

Is One True Religion Possible

Will the Real Creator Please Stand Up?

The Problem of Evil

The Absurdity of Life Without God

Is God Necessary for Morality?, part 1, part 2

Can We Be Good Without God?

The Evidence for Christianity

Natural Evils

Reasonable Doubts Episode 4

On omniscience

On Epistemology and The Resurrection

How Can a Good God allow Suffering and Evil?

Are there objective truths about God?
On answering skeptics (Dan Barker, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins)

On the “New Atheism”

The Problem of Evil
Can We Be Good Without God?
The Absurdity of Life Without God
Does God Exist?
Has Science Made Faith In God Impossible?
Beyond the Big Bang

w/ Alvin Plantinga, Richard Gale and Quentin Smith, Science and Religion

w/ Alvin Plantinga, Science and Religion in the 21st Century

Debates:

Vs. Eddie Tabash

Vs. Eric Dayton

Vs. Theodore Drange

Vs. Ray Bradley

Vs. Paul Kurtz, Goodness Without God is Good Enough
Vs. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, On Evil and Suffering

Vs. Bill Cooke, Is God a Delusion?

Vs. Eddie Tabash, Secular Humanism vs. Christianity

Vs. Keith Parsons, Why I am/am not a Christian

Vs. Austin Dacey, Does God Exist?Vs. Frank Zindler, Atheism vs. Christianity

Vs. Austin Dacey, Existence of God, part 1, part 2

Vs. Paul Draper, Existence of God

Vs. Peter Atkins, Existence of God

Vs. Antony Flew, Existence of God

Vs. Brian Edwards, Existence of God

Vs. Victor Stenger, Existence of God

Vs. John Shook, Existence of God

Resurrection debates:
Vs. (Robert) Greg Cavin

Vs. John Dominic Crossan

Vs. Gerd Ludemann, part 1, part 2

Vs. Robert M. Price

Vs. Brian Edwards

Vs. Marcus Borg

Vs. Hector Avalos

Vs. John Shelby Spong

Vs. Victor J. Stenger

Vs. Bart Ehrman

Bill Honsberger, Haven Ministry: pull down menu lists “Problem of Evil” et al.

David Cook,

What are the ethical implications implied by the Imago Dei doctrine?
Does Religion Block Scientific Advance?
Science, Faith and the Moral Maze

John M. Hanna’s sermons,

Atheism – Hope for the Unbeliever

Atheism – Getting the Facts Straight

Atheism – Common Ground

Atheism – The Proselytizing of Nothingness

Atheism – Who’s Fooling Who?

Love Changes Life

One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest: What Truly Bright Mind Could Believe God Exists?

Conversing With Critics: How Do Jesus People Respond To The New Atheism?

A Cure For The Disease: Is Faith The Enemy Of Reason?

Bury The Bible: Is The Good Book Bad?

The Arrogance Of Faith: How Can Christianity Say It Is The One True Way?

You’re Fired: How Can A Loving God Send Anyone To Hell?

The Great End Of The Church: Can Christianity Finally Compete With Atheism?

Is there a God?, Various talks

Richard Carhart, What are the Scientific Roadblocks to Faith?

Timothy J. Keller, Suffering: If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?

Bruce Little, Evil and the God Who Knows

Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter Today

Ken Samples vs. John Snyder, Is God Necessary?

Alister McGrath,

Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Biology, the Anthropic Principle and Natural Theology

A Scientific Theology? Parallels and Convergences in Science and Religion

Has Science eliminated God?
On Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
w/ David Helfand, The God Delusion? Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the Meaning of Life

Vs. Daniel Dennett
Vs. Peter Atkins
Vs. Richard Dawkins (segment cut from Root of All Evil?)
Vs. Christopher Hitchens

Vs. Richard Dawkins, God Delusion Debate, Part 1 and Part 2
Vs. David Helfand

Vs. Sue Blackmore

David Quinn vs. Richard Dawkins, God Delusion Debate

Kim Riddlebarger, Lectures on Francis Shaeffer – Taking the Roof Off

John Warwick Montgomery, The “New” Atheists, Part 1 [starts 28:09] and Part 2

K. Scott Oliphint, Something Much Too Plain to Say (Critique of Michael Martin, etc.)

Dustin Segers, No Good Reason to Be an Atheist

Paul Manata,

Vs. Dan Barker, Which is More Intellectual – Christianity or Atheism

Vs. Derek Sansone, Does The Christian God Exist?

Paul Copan, God as the Best Explanation

Jess Stanfield,

The Myth of Neutrality
Confronting an Unbelievers Worldview
Faithful Debate

Michael Butler,

The Certainty of God’s Existence

The Foundation of Science

The Goal of Science

The Method of Science

The Nature of Science

Gary DeMar,

Atheism’s Stolen Morality (with Doug Wilson who debated Christopher Hitchens)
The Gospel According to Atheism (with Larry Taunton of fixedpoint.org who set up thedebate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox)
Debating with the Village Atheist (with Joel McDurmon, the show’s title is a referencehis book The Return of the Village Atheist)
Debating Atheism (with Regis Nicoll discuss the Brights sect of atheism)
The Atheist Debate
The “Bright” Side of Atheism

C. Gregg Singer,

Kant and German Idealism, part 1, part 2

Impact of Darwin and Social Darwinism, part 1, part 2

Francis Nigel Lee, The Knowledge of God

Norman Geisler,

Interview re: Evidence for God’s Existence

Answering Atheist Objections

Bruce Little, What is faith? Does belief require warrant?

J.P. Moreland,

Atheism, Theism, and the Meaning of Life

Truth & Philosophy: God, Scientific Naturalism, and the Search for Meaning
Theism, Naturalism, and the Reality of Consciousness

Relativism
Faith and Reason

Hugh Ross,

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?, part 1, part 2

Evolution or Intelligent Design?

What Does The Cosmos Tell Us About God?

What Recent Discoveries Tell Us About God

The Top 9 Objections for Rejecting Christianity
w/ George Murphy, Marc Pinsonneault, Dana Wrensch, Fazale Rana, The Question of God: ‘Evolution and the Origin of life: Chance or Design?’ A scientific model for testing Intelligent Design, part 1, part 2, part 3

William Edgar, One Way? Is Christianity the Only Truth?

Kenneth Boa, Does God Really Exist?, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Robert Morey, Benign and Malign Atheists

David Byron, What is a Transcendental Argument

Christianity's Dangerously Liberal Side

It is very easy to pick on the orthodox-fundamentalists-conservatives but when it comes to authentic Christianity, liberalism is a danger. For example, a friend and I went to a lecture by Muslims about Islam. This lecture took place at a Christian church; St. Michael and all Angels Episcopal Church – Alb. NM.

It was quite a seen; the Muslim apologists were expounding Islam’s virtues but some Coptic Christians were in the audience and were pointing out that they had first hand experience about Islam, having lived in Egypt where Islam is not spiked with tolerance, as it must be in the USA. The liberal church members actually started yelling at the Coptic Christians, telling them to sit down and be quite. Someone actually yelled out “Stop him!” as if the Coptic was robbing a bank. Then a self appointed liberal spokesman said that they did not care about what the Coptic Christians had to say; you know, little things like persecution of Christians by Muslims and shameful treatment of women. He explained that we were here to learn what the Muslims had to say; “Their truth” is exactly how he put it (see Is Truth True?).

The basic message that the Muslims had was that Muhammad was the final prophet and the Qur’an was the final revelation from God. They claimed that the Bible prophecies Muhammad and that you could buy books from them that would explain the prophecies.

After the lecture we had some discussions with the church members who seemed to use the phrase, “We don’t take the Bible literally” as a mantra (see How do you read the Bible?).

Why did we refer to Christianity’s Dangerously Liberal Side?

Put the whole picture together; this is such a liberal church that its members don’t know, and or, don’t believe orthodox-Biblical doctrines.
Next, their liberal pastor invites Muslims to preach to the church, without a single word in response, defense or clarification.Finally, the Muslims teach the liberal Christians that the very same Bible that they do not understand nor really believe in, is prophesying the founder of Islam, God’s final and greatest revelation.This is a recipe for disaster; it is a situation that is tailor made to have ignorant Christians embrace Islam (keep in mind that liberals love the underdog, at least allegedly so).

What Christians must also understand is that the Qur’an teaches that Trinitarians are hell bound sinners whose only hope of salvation is conversion to Islam-Surah 5:72-73. The Muslims, understandably, came to preach salvation to Christians-what an odd state of affairs.

Atheism, EvilBible.com, “Theists Suck” and Christians are Hypocrites, part 1 of 6

As with absolutely every condemnation of the Bible, its God, Jesus and Christians found within evilbible.com we must, yet again, note that this condemnation of hypocrisy goes unsubstantiated since is it premised upon an atheist worldview whereby condemnation of anything at all amounts to mere assertions based on emotive and impotent arguments from outrage.

This time evilbible.com’s author is not the author but borrowed an “essay” written by a certain Charlotte who wrote a series entitled, “The Church of Theists Suck [sic].” These were previously posted on a website that was entitled “Theists Suck” yet, “Theists Suck” is dead and gone and only a portion of it lives on at evilbible.com.
Evilbible.com’s author calls them “essays” but Charlotte prefers to term them “sermons.”

Beyond this, the only things I know about Charlotte is that she is an “ATHEIST WOMAN,” she is very, very, very very angry and she is very, very, very, very ignorant of even the most basic biblical concepts and contents. It is no wonder that evilbible.com’s author found a comrade in her since they share these common afflictions and others such as self-servingly convenient selective quotations, manipulation of biblical texts and their readership via propagandizing, simply being all around illogical and have a propensity for employing school yard bully style vocabulary into their writings.

We will find that the overwhelming majority of everything that Charlotte had to say is premised upon the same fallacy. She lays this out in toto at the end of her “sermon” and so while we will chip away at it throughout we will conclude by shooting down her supposed fool proof shoot down of Christians after considering other arguments.

Of primary importance it must be pointed out that, in reality, Charlotte’s entire “sermon” can be discredited beyond repair by simply making one or two points:

1) If she wants to charge Christians with hypocrisy we could merely say, “Right you are, shame on us”-period.

2) Or: since God, Jesus, the Bible, Christianity do not teach the attaining of perfection on this side of heaven Christians cannot be logically charged with hypocrisy.

That is all that there really is to discrediting both Charlotte and evibible.com’s approval of her “sermon” in one fell swoop. Yet, I will dissect her “sermon” as I know that atheist are very un-skeptical and will generally believe whatever they are told about the Bible by another atheist without question.

Charlotte’s angry, misguided and expletive peppered condemnation begins by noting:

[Christians’] willful ignorance of the Bible combined with their two faced idealism to preach it, has made us sick, hasn’t it? For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality_The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft- noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”. What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently_even the validity of calling oneself “Christian” is in question_[they] don’t even PRETEND to heed other, equally valid, maxims_This one [“sermon”] is going to sum up the rest of my beefs.

This premise, this reference to “beefs” and the examples of malice and ignorance that follows denotes a webpage that is more akin to a “My Dear Diary” entry.

Section one is entitled, “Hypocrisy of Marital Relationships” and revolves around the idea that the Bible ideally allows for divorce only due to adultery yet,

80% of this country is Christian yet we have a 50% divorce rate. A majority of divorces are a result of irreconcilable differences, not adultery, which implies that Christians are again practicing selective morality. How many Christians are working on a second, third or fourth marriage?

The primary response to this sort of condemnation is, of course, to say AMEN!!! She is quite correct; there are Christians who are not living up to the biblical standard.
Yet, even with such large numbers of Christians divorcing it is noteworthy that,

atheists are 58.7 percent more likely to get divorced than Pentecostals and Baptists, the two born-again Christian groups with the highest rate of divorce, and more than twice as likely to get divorced than Christians in general.1

Also, that,

What needs mentioning is the fact that many atheists do not cohabit as a prelude to marriage. They in fact see cohabitation as “equivalent” to any marriage relationship_a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population_Not only do atheists cohabit and break up in very large numbers, they also do not marry in very large numbers.2 [emphasis in original]

And yet, it is not condemnatory that atheists divorce because an absolutely materialistic universe does not call for the fidelity of bio-organisms living on a little dot in the middle of the universe’s nowhere and so they are violating nothing when they divorce.

The next section is entitled “On to another beef

The Christian attempts to put prayer into schools run directly counter to biblical teachings. Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display: “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret…” (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV). Biblicists violate this on a regular basis and have no intention of correcting their behavior_Christians continuously pray in public, IE: churches, street corners, schools, courts, etc. yet all the while they never stop to think this is in direct violation to the god they pray to.

This actually is the goal of many atheists; to push Christians out of public view, the public square and into their closets with the lights out under a blanket. Many atheist countries already and literally do this, by the way.This is rather interesting as Jesus is being quoted, the very same Jesus who attended the Temple and who prayed in public, in front of people such as in Matthew 14:19 when he prayed before “about five thousand men, besides women and children.” Then perhaps it is not merely Christians who are hypocrites but Christ Himself.

Yet, note that Charlotte is parsing the thought behind the text in order to make her point; the thought is just as was quoted,

when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men.

It is clear that the thought is that the, actual, hypocrites where praying that way just to make a show of their supposed godliness. In counter distinction is it better to completely remove yourself from the public. Yet, since the thought, the context, is about not putting on a fake show of godliness and Jesus prayed in public it is not a condemnation of public prayer but is, in typical Jewish fashion, counterbalancing one extreme with another: as if to say that if they do this you do that.

This is in keeping with the preceding verses which read:

Take heed that you do not do your merciful deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in Heaven.Therefore when you do your merciful deeds, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward.

But when you do merciful deeds, do not let your left hand know what your right hand does, so that your merciful deeds may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret Himself shall reward you openly.

That was the point; do not do it just to be seen and draw attention to yourself.

Next, Charlotte plays the part of a mind reader and pretends to know why Christians want prayer in public:

I, of course, know why this is voluntarily ignored. Public prayer forces the peers of school children to jump on the band wagon and pray. We are all aware that the church is simply a business which employs tactics similar to that of tobacco industries in recruiting consumers_I find it humorous that other businesses warn their consumers on the package that it is dangerous to one’s health while Churches don’t put warning labels on the bible for the pornography and immorality it contains. The psychological damage organized religion causes is notably prevalent. Cancer from smoking and cirrhosis from drinking is JUST AS HARMFUL as the psychosis believers develop concerning reality.

The “I see demons” complex is more rampant in Christians then it is in acid dropping space cadets. I am not saying this as a joke. There are literal studies done on this topic and they are in accordance to what I am conveying here.

As for as being harmful, I wrote about how harmful, in fact tormenting, it was for me to be raised in an utterly secular home in my essay Torture, the Hell of Atheism and the “Gentle Pedophile”. She not only claims to know why but to also know that it is voluntary ignorance. What she does not seem to consider with regards to the “pornography and immorality it contains” is that it is mentioned within a framework which places it into an ethical context. In other words, the “pornography and immorality” are not gratuitous but are meant as lessons and guides. This is tantamount to discrediting a newspaper for reporting immoral actions. Remember: just because it is found in the Bible does not mean that the Bible is giving its approval.
I would love to read her absolute atheist standard of immorality, by the way but, of course, it is not provided but merely asserted. As to the “I see demons” complex it may be of interest to note that there are literal studies that demonstrate that secular people are far more superstitious than Christians. This is because Judeo-Christian theism or even superstition, if you wish, is confined within an internally consistent framework, it has parameters, whereas for secularists anything goes and so they go for anything:

The Wall Street Journal provided the following report:

“From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace. The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith – it’s what the empirical data tell us.’What Americans Really Believe,’ a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians_

While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things [dreams foretelling future, existence of Atlantis, haunting, necromancy, Bigfoot and Nessie], only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did_In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,” skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.

Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.”3

Ponder these things my friends and we will pick it up next time: same bat time, same bat channel.

One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

US Postal Service due to issue a stamp commemorating Mother Teresa, a proposal to which Freedom From Religion Foundation is objecting.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation was established in the USA which is a nation that was premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression.
It seems that from about November to February they calculate their budget and go on a lawsuit filing frenzy so as to claim victim status and beg their adherents for money (much of which they waste on bus ads and billboards)—the are the underdog not under God (a little dyslexia humor).

I have detailed how the New Atheist sorts have, quite brilliantly, absconded from taking on the true dangers of “religious” extremism in the world and instead choose easy targets such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Pope, the Bishop and Canterbury and now—Mother Teresa. Of course, this is not the first time that she has been in the atheist’s cross hairs as, for example, Christopher Hitchens besmirched her previously.

This time, the issue is the proposed US Postal Service issuing of a stamp commemorating Mother Teresa who is:

Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years…
Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations.[i]

Well respected worldwide, she successfully urged many of the world’s business and political leaders to give their time and resources to help those in need. President Ronald Reagan presented Mother Teresa with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1985, the same year she began work on behalf of AIDS sufferers in the U.S. and other countries. In 1997, Congress awarded Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal for her “outstanding and enduring contributions through humanitarian and charitable activities.”[ii]

In 1979 AD, she also received the Nobel Peace Prize for her humanitarian work.
Born in 1910 AD, it was at the age of 18 that she, “realized my vocation was towards the poor…From then on, I have never had the least doubt of my decision.”[iii]
While not doubting her decision to do more good for the world in one day than the likes of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) will do in a lifetime, she did experience bouts of doubts about God. She was a true and honest skeptic who wrestled with doubts about God even whilst helping those whom she believed God had created, those whom the Hindu cast system had cast off.

motherteresamotherteresastampfreedomfromreligionfoundationatheismdanbarkerannielauriegaylor-3451047

Note the specific reasons to which the US Postal Service (USPS) appealed in issuing the stamp. This comes into play when considering the utter illogicality behind the FFRF’s objections. FFRF co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor stated the following about the USPS’s criterions for considering the issuance of stamps as she notes that criterion No. 6 should have been a stumbling block:

…Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor fraternal, political, sectarian, or service/charitable organizations…The organization she ran and was inextricably identified with, Missionaries of Charity, was both sectarian (Roman Catholic) and a service/charitable organization.[iv]

I love how they hide their prejudice behind concerns for the integrity of USPS regulations. Let us attempt to follow the bounding ball of logic:

1) Criterion No. 6 states that stamps shall not be issued to various organizations.

2) But the organization Mother Teresa ran and was inextricably identified with Roman Catholicism, etc. 3) Therefore, her organization is not being honored on the stamp: Mother Teresa is being honored.

It is really as simple as that: her organization cannot be honored and it is not, she is being honored and thus, the FFRF’s objections are discredited, null and void.

USPS spokesman Roy Betts:

expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
“In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith”…

Mother Teresa is not being honored because of her religion, she’s being honored for her work with the poor and her acts of humanitarian relief…Her contribution to the world as a humanitarian speaks for itself and is unprecedented… He said the Mother Teresa stamp, like other stamp subjects, will “stand the test of time, reflect the cultural diversity of our nation and have broad national appeal.”[v]

Now, what does the FFRF do when refuted by troublesome things such logic and facts? They merely tread on:

Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan’s stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion. Martin Luther King “just happened to be a minister,” and “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure,” she said. “And he’s not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific…she was doing was to promote religion, and what she wanted to do was baptize people before they die” Gaylor said the foundation’s only concern is the “other things that deserve to be commemorated but are not because the people behind it didn’t have the power of the Catholic church.”

“It’s enormously difficult to get them…and people have huge campaigns, and to me this speaks of the power of the Roman Catholic Church in hierarchy. They want to make her a saint and this is part of the PR machine.[vi]

Martin Luther King “just happened to be a minister” in the same way that Richard Dawkins just happens to be an atheist. “Malcolm X was not “called Father Malcolm X” because he was not a Roman Catholic priest but the one time chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam who later embraced non-Nation of Islam Islam (and who was also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz).
It is all a vast Roman Catholic conspiracy to do what exactly? The Roman Catholic Church put its power behind honoring a Baptist and Muslim?—rage against the PR machine, fight the power and so on. No, no, just this one nun—apparently, they do not wield much power.

Note that the FFRF “is encouraging its supporters to purchase the new stamp honoring the late actress Katharine Hepburn, who was an atheist, instead.”[vii] Hepburn, “told the Ladies’ Home Journal in 1991, ‘I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.’”[viii] Of course, being kind to each other and doing what we can for other people is a non sequitur from presupposing atheism. But recall that Annie Laurie Gaylor’s objection was that—while Mother Teresa’s organization was not being honored—“The organization she ran and was inextricably identified with” Roman Catholicism, etc. Thus, the objection is that her humanitarian deeds were done though the premise of Roman Catholicism.

Moreover, Gaylor stated, “You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did.”[ix] Let us grant this and logically follow it by stating that since Katharine Hepburn premised her humanitarian claims on atheism, you can’t really separate her being a humanitarian and being an atheist from everything she did (which is what, exactly?).

Now, Mother Teresa conducted humanitarian work for some eight decades. But the FFRF support a stamp honoring an actress. Why the one over the other? Because Katharine Hepburn was an atheist and so is being supported due to her atheism.

But there is one more objection up the FFRF’s sleeves:

Gaylor said Mother Teresa infused Catholicism into her secular honors — including an “anti-abortion rant” during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech — and that even her humanitarian work was controversial.[x]

Indeed, the FFRF seek to, “use this opportunity to enlighten friends and colleagues about the darker side of Mother Teresa’s religious activism” which includes the “a disturbing, befogged religious rant”[xi] against abortion which they reiterated thusly:

Here’s another objection: Mother Teresa used almost every public occasion, including her acceptance speech for the Nobel prize, to promote Roman Catholic dogma, especially its antiabortion ideology…Even during her Nobel acceptance, the nun delivered a gratuitous tirade against abortion.[xii]

But why is this a problem? It is because the FFRF supports the brutal, dismembering murder of healthy, beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies. FFRF co-founder Dan Barker stated that “abortion is a blessing” and generally has a very low view of human dignity and worth, particularly with regards to babies in the womb.

Other notables have made relevant comments such as the Pacific Justice Institute’s President Brad Dacus:

Just when you think the atheists and anti-religionists have run out of things to complain about, they attack Mother Teresa, one of the great role models of the last century. We are encouraging anyone who has been inspired by Mother Teresa to join us in writing letters of appreciation to the U.S. Postal Service to counter the ridiculous complaints they are receiving from the FFRF.[xiii]

Bruce Sheiman, an atheist and author who wrote An Atheist Defends Religion (imagine that; an atheist defends religion while Christians condemn it):

said the Freedom from Religion Foundation is being “hypocritical” and really “stepping over the line.” “Clearly there are a number of things that you can point to and say it’s religious and a number of things you can point to and say that it’s areligious…So it really doesn’t make sense to protest it.” He said the Foundation’s campaign stems from concern that the abundance of humanitarian work done by believers will overshadow that done by atheists.

“Like billboards and bus ads, this is just part of the whole campaign that they’re doing to make non-belief more visible.”[xiv]

Lastly, note that “Hindu leaders have applauded the stamp decision. Rajan Zed, head of the Universal Society for Hinduism, called it an honor to all of India.”[xv]

Overall, the FFRF’s illogical objections are quite obviously a very thinly veiled excuse for expressing prejudice and attempting to gain support and funds.

[i] Diane Macedo, “Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp,” Fox News, January 28, 2010
[ii] Bob Unruh, “Atheists attack Mother Teresa Say she’s not worthy of memorial stamp,” World Net Daily, January 25, 2010, © 2010 WorldNetDaily
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Macedo
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Unruh
[ix] Macedo
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Unruh
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii]Save Mother Teresa Postage Stamp Campaign begins – Atheist Group Assails Mother Teresa Postage Stamp,” Oregon Faith Report, January 28, 2010
[xiv]Macedo
[xv] Oregon Faith Report

Daniel Dennett's One Way Street of Censorship

Or: On the Hoodwinkification of Children

Daniel Dennett, professor of philosophy at Tufts University and author of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is part of a sect of atheists who believe that it is child abuse to raise one’s children according to one’s faith.

Daniel Dennett wrote:

On the one hand, many declare, there is the sacred and inviolable right of life…On the other hand, many of the same people declare that, once born, the child loses its right not to be indoctrinated or brainwashed or otherwise psychologically abused by those parent, who have the right to raise the child with any upbringing they choose, short of physical torture, Let us spread the value of freedom throughout the world-but not to children, apparently.1

From Gary Wolf’s interview with Daniel Dennett:

Dennett gives no quarter to believers who resist subjecting their faith to scientific evaluation. In fact, he argues that neutral, scientifically informed education about every religion in the world should be mandatory in school. After all, he argues, “if you have to hoodwink – or blindfold – your children to ensure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct.”2

The reason for teaching all “religions” in public school appears to be state sponsored forced theological education so that children are not just indoctrinated by their parents.Thus, children are not to be denied an education consisting of every theological point of view. However, when it comes to Prof. Daniel Dennett’s chosen worldview quite a different scenario is presented.Daniel Dennett commented regarding:

_those who don’t yet appreciate just how well established the theory of evolution by natural selection is. According to a recent survey, only about a quarter of the population of the United States understands that evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H2O.3

He refers to this as an “embarrassing statistic.” There is much to be said for his statements:

1. He does not cite the survey: who conducted it, what was asked, how were the questions posed, how may people were asked, what is the margin of error, what have political scientists made of the survey and its results, etc. are unanswered questions.

2. He refers to “evolution by natural selection” yet, natural selection is an aspect of the theory of evolution. Even the most Bible-thumping-fundi-evang-YECers do not necessarily have a problem with natural selection; at least not when the term is used to mean something to the likes of observing that if we took a Saint Bernards and a Chihuahua to the North Pole one is very much more likely to survive.

3. One reason why knowing what questions were asked in the apocryphal survey is that “evolution” can simply mean living organisms changing or it can mean that God does not exist (just ask Prof. Richard Dawkins who looks through a microscope and infers atheism).

But what of the belief of three fourths (according to Prof. Daniel Dennett’s apocryphal survey) of Americans who believe that “the theory of evolution is false (or at least unproven)”? Daniel Dennett writes, “there are no reputable scientists who claim this. Not a one.”4
Of course, the logical question would be: has Daniel Dennett surveyed every scientist on the planet (and throughout history, perhaps) and ascertained their position on the matter? Although, perhaps he did not need conduct any such survey. Perhaps his criterion was simply that if they disagree with him then they are obviously wrong. If a scientist believes that “the theory of evolution is false (or at least unproven)” then they are obviously not reputable.

danieldennettandatheism-3672721Daniel Dennett then offers the following recommendation:

Educate yourself in evolutionary theory_

Suspend disbelief temporarily in order to learn what an evolutionist makes of religion as a natural phenomenon.

Incidentally, it seems worthwhile mentioning that the overwhelming majority of American theists have studied the Darwinian theory of evolution for a minimum of a dozen years and have also had exposure to criticism of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Daniel Dennett even helps us along by recommending his favorite works that seek to prove what he believes.

Personally, I could not agree more with him. Indeed, educate yourself (even more) in the Darwinian theory of evolution (here I mean the concoction of actual observation and atheist cooption of it as atheist propaganda) since there is no better way to understand a house of cards than inspecting one for yourself. But remember to define the terms.
It is also important to mention that out of the vast amount of science literature it is very easy to pick and choose those bit that suit your worldview. Since Daniel Dennett can recommend science literature we will do the same in recommending the plethora of statement that we quote in Atheism is Dead‘s parsed essay Scientific Cenobites.

Moreover, Daniel Dennett wrote:

Since 2002, schools in Cobb County, Georgia, have put stickers in some of their biology textbooks saying, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact,” But a judge recently ruled that these must be removed…This makes sense.5

The stickers were described by some as being “anti-evolution stickers” that “undermine the teaching of evolution in biology classes.” Since “parents sued arguing that the policy promoted religion in science classrooms and violated the separation of church and state” the removal of the stickers was declared an “absolutely a victory for the parents and the children in Cobb County school” by Debbie Seagraves, executive director ACLU of Georgia.6

Certainly, the wording “Evolution is a theory, not a fact” was an unfortunate misnomer but still; imagine the scandal of making it clear that evolution is a theory for whatever reason. It is simply intolerable to ensure accuracy in education, right?But just how do the stickers undermine the teaching of evolution in biology classes? It seems that it merely places evolution in its correct context.

And just how do the stickers violate the non-constitutional separation of church and state? It seems that student may wonder if there are alternative theories, the real problem of which would be that the alternative theory is illegal in public schools; only atheism is acceptable in our public classrooms.

So, why was it a victory for the parents and the children alike? Because the atheist presupposition regarding origins is Federally funded and atheist parents want their worldviews taught to the impressionable and undiscerning children of parents who disagree that in the beginning of life was abiogenesis (which circa one and a half century of experimentation has disproved).

But let us not be capricious; students are to be given every chance to approach the subject matter with an open mind and they are to study the topic carefully and critically.

At this juncture it ought to be pointed out that Daniel Dennett conveniently quoted only part of the sticker, the full text of which states:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.7

Precisely what part of the statement is inaccurate?That evolution is a theory? It is.That it is not a fact? While atheist activist scientists like Prof. Richard Dawkins extrapolate atheism from biology, when scientists speak purely from their discipline they make it clear that science does not deal in fact but can only tell us what the best guesses are thus far.Of course, some scientists, being also activists for their own worldviews, openly proclaim that they will purposefully deny any evidence that interferes with their beliefs. Scott C. Todd from Kansas State University’s Department of Biology is one such scientist as is made clear by his statement:

Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.8

See Omni-Science for a detailed dissection of his comment.

Thus, our circuitous statement comes to its logical conclusion:
On the one hand, when Daniel Dennett expresses an opinion regarding the beliefs of others, children should not be hoodwinked or blindfold. That sort of indoctrination only comes to prove that your faith ought to go extinct.

On the other hand, when Daniel Dennett expresses an opinion regarding his own beliefs, children should be hoodwinked and blindfold. They should be discouraged from accurate representations of the scientific methods and should be discouraged from having an open mind, studying carefully and critically. That sort of indoctrination should, apparently, not go extinct but should be state sponsored.