You're A Bad Person And Cal Thomas Likes Jim Carrey Movies About God

I love when commentators try to use movies, mediocre movies even better, to prove a point. The wonderful Cal Thomas in his syndicated column today writes:

"In an age when we think we should be free of burdens -- a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse -- getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible. But by doing so, we assume an even greater burden: the role of God in deciding who gets to live and who must die. Anyone who has seen the film "Bruce Almighty" senses how difficult it is to play God."

The work of Jim Carrey can teach so much. For those who have not had the "pleasure" of Bruce Almighty here is the synopsis from IMBD:

"Bruce Nolan, a television reporter in Buffalo, N.Y., is discontented with almost everything in life despite his popularity and the love of his girlfriend Grace. At the end of the worst day of his life, Bruce angrily ridicules and rages against God and God responds. God appears in human form and, endowing Bruce with divine powers, challenges Bruce to take on the big job to see if he can do it any better."

Cal's point is that being god is tough. So don't try. I think that is good advice.

Enough of the jokes. Cal Thomas believes that people who don't believe in god want to kill people. Thomas writes:

"Few from the 'endowed rights' side are saying that a 100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor should be given extraordinary and expensive care to keep the heart pumping, even after brain waves have gone flat. But there is a big difference between 'letting go' and 'snuffing out.' The unnatural progression for many on the secular left is to see such a person as a 'burden.' In an age when we think we should be free of burdens -- a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse -- getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible."

Secularists, as Thomas calls them, would rather "snuff out" older sick people just to be rid of a burden while the "endowed rights" people value life let go of old people. I don’t understand his distinction between letting go and snuffing out. The result is the same only the demonization is different.

Earlier in his essay Thomas asks, “Are we now assigning worth to human life?” I think that is an interesting question. Don’t tell Cal that we have been doing that for years. Stanford economists say it is about $129,000. An interesting conversation of philosophy could be had if you were not talking to someone who believes in god. Thomas says that life has “its own predetermined value, irrespective of race, class, IQ or disability?” That is non-starter in the conversation but also not the point when it comes to health care, the issue that Thomas is trying to address.

The question that needs to be asked is not what is life worth instead what is the priority for scarce health resources worth? Should we distribute the resources to people with dim prognosis such as the “100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor” or Terry Schiavo at the expense of a sick person with a positive prognosis? That is the question we need to answer. To confuse this important question with ideas about god and the false profundity of “god made us and also makes the rules about our existence” only delays the answers to these questions.

This is an economics issue not a god issue. Even though “it's on the money…In God We Trust” does not mean that god creates the money.

P.S. Cal, please reconcile the contradiction between all life is valuable and the death penalty.

P.S.S. Cal you still ignore suffering of ill people. Why do you do that you big pious lug?

Sphere: Related Content

If religion allows you to ignore suffering, thank god I don't have it

Cal Thomas writes in the Washington Times today, " there are always euphemisms to help us through the troubling practices we might not, under other circumstances, wish to pursue." He is not referring to the trite little things people say when someone dies. "It was his time." "She's in a better place." "Their with god now." My favorite, "at least they're not suffering." What bullshit. Of course, dead people don't suffer. The living can suffer and most don't want to. No, Thomas is not referring to these arrogant mostly religious niceties; he is referring to the phrases "right to die" and "compassionate assisted suicide." He does not believe that individuals have a choice in how they die.

If people could choose to alleviate their own suffering there would be "a significant loss for the human race." Thomas does not explain what the human race would lose. I imagine the loss that Thomas thinks will be significant to the human race is purely sacramental. The bible is the ultimate argument for Thomas' position. As he writes, "in a sense, we all have a 'right,' or more precisely, an obligation, to die." Presumably because we are owned by god. As the Catechism says, "we are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of." Bullshit. Even Thomas does not believe this entirely as he writes, is death even "ultimately our decision? We did not create life... The state is supposed to protect life, not take it except in cases of capital murder." Hypocrite.

As I expect of any religious hypocrite the right to life only extends to the point of when you begin to choose how you want to live. At that point Thomas wants to impose his religious will on your life choices. Thomas wrote during the end of Terri Schiavo's suffering, "there is little legal or (shudder) theological precedent for any such 'right.'" I am not a theologian nor do I care for Jesus but in John 10:18 of the bible it says, "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." Did Jesus choose?

Of course Thomas connects this argument to abortion. But he also decided to perpetuate the myth that President Obama want to euthanize senior citizens. He writes:

"The One who gave us life has, or ought to have, sole discretion as to when it ends. However, if increasing numbers of us think 'the One' refers to a character in 'The Matrix' and that we are just evolutionary accidents, the conclusion of it all is euthanasia for the elderly, the 'defective,' the inconvenient and the unwanted. It's coming sooner than you think to a senior center near you, especially if Obamacare becomes law."

I can't imagine how someone as self-righteous as Cal Thomas can continue to live with lies he tells everyday. Oh wait, he goes to confession and a man in a wood box tells him it OK, say a Hail Mary or two and all is forgiven. While the people not burdened with religion have to think about the actions they take, the words they use and the suffering people feel. If religion allows you to ignore the suffering of people I am glad I don't have it.

Sphere: Related Content