OK. I don’t know how to say this. Really. You promise not to laugh? OK. Ready?
Some atheists don’t want us to evangelize imaginary space aliens because the terrorists in the Middle East might not like it.
Hey. You promised not to laugh. If you don’t believe me here’s the article from the Los Angeles Chronicle:
An Atheist-First Amendment public policy group charged last week that NASA is violating the separation of church and state by permitting a “space missionary” memento on the latest Discovery Space Shuttle Mission.
On board the shuttle is a piece of an airplane that crashed in Ecuador in 1956 that carried members of the Missionary Aviation Fellowship. One of the shuttle astronaut contacted the Idaho-based group proposing that the item be taken into space as part of a government-funded exploration project. The event has re-ignited enthusiasm by religious groups for “space missionary” proselytizing.
“This is an inappropriate and unconstitutional use of resources,” charged Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists. NASA is a scientific and exploratory agency that is funded by taxpayers. Its mission should not include religious grandstanding, or efforts to use outer space as a pulpit for religion.”…
Dave Silverman, Vice President and Communications Director for American Atheists said that in addition to being inappropriate and illegal, using NASA to promote sectarian religion “could fuel international tensions and resurrect images of American-sponsored proselytizing in the Middle East and elsewhere.”
“This is supposed to be a ‘new era’ for international respect and cooperation,” said Mr. Silverman. How do you think the non-Christian peoples of the world react when they see Americans pushing Christianity even in outer space?”
Well how about that? You’ve got to admit you didn’t see that coming when you logged onto CMR today. I’m just going to sum it up again because I get a kick out of it. Some atheists don’t want us to evangelize imaginary space aliens because the terrorists in the Middle East might not like it.
I really can’t get enough of it. I’ll have to ask an atheist what inspired this particular lunacy. Was it that even they realized the stupidity of arguing that the cost of carrying a teeny tiny religious memento wasn’t going to bankrupt the country or actually cost much of anything at all so they’re resorting to threats that terrorists might not like it if we bring religion with us into space.
Well, last I heard the terrorists weren’t too keen on us anyway. And you know what, if the terrorists don’t like it, tell them to build a rocket ship and send it up into space to settle this the old fashioned way. By then we’ll have lasers and their rocket will become just a little more space rubble that bounces inconsequentially off our satellites that will be beaming us the locations of overly litigious atheists.
Just kidding about that last paragraph. Kinda.
And I’m sorry for calling them space aliens. They should be referred to as undocumented intergalactic beings.
September 2, 2009 at 7:34 am
This is the absurdity to which the Godless heathens will to go with a mentality which is actually a prompting of the Devil.
As with all of the discussions regarding removing Religion from the public square, one has only to read about the Beheading of St John The Baptist. It was not that his persecutor wanted him to deny Christ, but to keep silent about Him and His Truth.
Matt
September 2, 2009 at 7:49 am
Well, they're a little too late. St. Therese has already made a trip to outer space on back and is, I think, due for another trip next year.
I understand their rationale as not serving the interest of one religion so as to serve the interest of another religion. Maybe it's easier to just call it bias. Of course they wouldn't admit that since atheists are the most impartial people in the world.
September 2, 2009 at 12:01 pm
FYI. Astronaut Patrick Forrester got to bring his trinket into space and will return it to the group he got it from when he gets back.
September 2, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Very funny it usually is, but I have to tell you that your use of an icon was really an unfortunate choice. To quote Fr. Joseph Hunicutt who recently wrote on the profane use of icons:
Many who do not hold icons sacred — as the Orthodox do — may not see this as a big issue. To the Orthodox though, this is sacrilegious and offensive in the extreme. Orthodox Christians are trained from an early age to “read” icons, and the halo with a cross background surrounding a figure is iconography’s way of saying: “This person is God.”
Byzantine and Eastern Catholics see it this way too. I hope you will consider taking it down.
Respectfully,
Mrs. Darcy
September 2, 2009 at 6:17 pm
On the profane use of icons. Profane = profanum = pro (before or in front of) + fanum (temple). I.e., outside the temple. If we recover that sense of the word "profane", we should then remove icons and holy pictures from any and every place other than in or on churches and shrines. I would contend that the internet definitely constitutes an inappropriate place to display, advertise the sale of, casually flaunt and allow copies of icons to be distributed.
Maybe. Perhaps the internet (or the people viewing sites) can be sanctified to some degree by the beauty of the Lord and His saints. It is amazing how God can speak to people in unusual contexts.
As an aside…
I am amazed at how many bloggers display religious art on their websites, and I wonder how many paid for that art or received permission (from the photographer or scan source) to display that art. Of course, one could argue art in the public domain (the "profane" domain?) is available to anyone (for any purpose?). In the case of artists who are alive and well and might appreciate some support (a donation?), have these bloggers actually offered the artist directly or indirectly any support for their work?
"Undocumented intergalactic beings" = very funny! I say let the UIB's children come unto the Lord, if there are indeed other enfleshed souls "out there" in the cosmos. Time will tell.
Apologies if my rant/critique hijacked the topic.
September 2, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Ignoring the jab, I was speaking to using an image that depicted an alien icon. The use of icons that depict Jesus Christ or others, are not necessarily inappropriate (per context, of course) outside of churches or even on the internet. A different example of what I mean is, a few years back someone wrote an icon depicting Stalin with a halo. Naturally many Christians were appalled by this. He may have "led" many to sainthood, but not by saintly or Christian means. Maybe you have seen the Judas Iscariot candles (complete with a halo of 30 pieces of silver) that they sometimes sell at the Latino Grocery stores? It is not much different.
September 2, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Perhaps the first couple of their species didn't commit "original sin", though this doctrine doesn't come into play with the Orthodox. In any event, their technology may have well surpassed Dawkinian Science in their quest to prove the lack of existence of the Supreme Deity. Hence they would, no doubt, "evangelize" the Christians into purposeless humanist eutopianism (huuurrraaayyy!!)
September 2, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Slight edit is needed:
"How do you think the non-Christian peoples of the world react when they see Americans pushing [strike] Christianity [/strike] [add] atheism [/add] even in outer space?"
September 2, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Should we try to evangelise space aliens? I don't think so. Salvation, as won for us by Christ is for the "haunted sons of Adam". Whatever species may inhabit another planet would have their own salvation history.
Their first parents may have rejected any original temptation and thus they would have no need for redemption.
They may have sinned but as yet be unsaved or they might have their own redeemer who would be God but not "man" since they are not themselves "man".
The sacraments can only be administered by and received by human beings.
Our Lord commanded us to make disciples of all the nations of the earth. Not beyond.
September 3, 2009 at 1:51 am
I don't see any icon-like picture of a space alien. Where is this depiction which so bothers Mrs. Darcy?
Susan Peterson
September 3, 2009 at 7:16 am
Eulogos asked, "I don't see any icon-like picture of a space alien. Where is this depiction which so bothers Mrs. Darcy?"
It was in the right corner of the post by CMR, but evidently he caved in to the whiny Nannies who want the whole fricken world to be a boring Soviet state. I have a copy of it and plan to use in my own way. Too bad anyone is offended with something humorous like that. Be an adult about it and move on.
As far your angst, Mrs. Dacry, I find it offensive the Orthodox remain outside the realm of the Roman Church and the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore should return to the Fold. My offense need to addressed IMMEDIATELY!
Matt
September 3, 2009 at 7:42 am
David said, "Our Lord commanded us to make disciples of all the nations of the earth. Not beyond."
David, I don't think there are parameters to that statement. Teach ye all nations means everyone and infers beyond here. At the same time, there is no beyond, not intelligent ( able to contemplate the Divine which infers an immortal soul ) anyway. That there may be brute life elsewhere, hey, fine. Man, however, is the highest and greatest expression of the Father's act of physical creation which He created out of love.
The Fall of Adam took ALL of creation with him and thus Christ came into the world as man to save man, no one else. He also returned to Heaven in His physical human body most wonderfully glorified. How then does one think there is anything else out there needing salvation? God is thus waiting for man to evangelize the universe? Code: there isn't anyone else to save but man, that it could also be construed to mean God the Father wishes to save man only. This is akin to anyone who thinks their dog or goldfish is going to be waiting for them in Heaven is sadly mistaken.
Matt
September 3, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Unbelievable.
Simply unbelievable.
Don't you think those people could find something better to do with their time?
Supposedly we each get our 10 minutes of fame. Are they so desperate for theirs that they need to resort to utter idiocy?
September 4, 2009 at 12:27 am
Matt said: "David, I don't think there are parameters to that statement. Teach ye all nations means everyone and infers beyond here".
There are indeed parameters to that statement Matt. The word nations doesn't refer to geographical entities nor to nation states as we know them but to peoples. Those "peoples" must be inheritors of the sin of Adam to be eligible for salvation won by Christ.
Matt, you go on to say that any life on another planet would be merely brute life, incapable of knowing God.
But we don't know that Matt. We don't know if there is any life on any other planet let alone whether or not they are capable of comprehending the Divine. What we do know is that unless there has been some space travel unbeknown to us whereby the descendants of earthlings inhabit another planet, no life on those planets, regardless of intelligence, is eligible for salvation through Christ.
September 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm
CS Lewis wrote science fiction stories in which Mars had an unfallen race, and Venus one that was in danger of becoming fallen but was saved from it by his hero, named Ransome. Earth was referred to as the Silent Planet because it was under a kind of interdiction as the home of a fallen race.
We don't know if there are other intelligent races; there might be, there might not be. If they are, they have their own story with God. I think because Christ was in the form of a man, it is mankind that He thus redeemed. But there is no reason why there couldn't be other incarnations.
Although it would seem to make us less special. I retain an open mind about this. I don't believe the Church has any doctrine about it.
As for dogs and goldfish, I think St. Paul said that the whole creation was groaning and straining towards salvation. I believe the whole created world (on earth at least) was involved with the fall of Adam and is and will be involved in the redemption of the world.
We don't know what heaven is like. But if it is legitimate to imagine trees and grass in it, I think it is legitimate to imagine dogs, cats and fish in it. NO one should want heaven in order to see his dog again, but then, no one should want heaven in order to see his spouse or his child again either. One should want heaven in order to see God. Those other goods will be fulfilled within the One Good.
Susan Peterson
September 4, 2009 at 7:30 pm
David, you just restated my premise in your own words, so I don't think you missed the point entirely, but, yes, it is my belief Man is the highest and most intelligent of God's physically created creatures. He also said in Genesis man has dominion over all creation. This infers anything in the physical realm of existence. On Earth or elsewhere, creation is creation, period.
If there was another life form elsewhere higher or more intelligent than man, then it/they would be nearer and dearer to God the Father for that reason. That premise puts Man on a lower rung and thus contradicts what is emphasized in Scripture, the writings of the Fathers and Sacred Tradition of the relationship of man and God and further in Christ Jesus.
That the Word of God took on our nature to save us and returned to Heaven in said nature emphasizes entirely the singular love of The Father for mankind. Nothing else has received God's attention this fully than Man. Besides the angels and the demons, only Man's soul is forever, and worthy of Redemption.
This also puts into question the next best thing of perfection, the Blessed Mother. If one thinks or believes there is something else "out there," greater than man then it lessens the position and perfection of the Blessed Mother. Anathema!
Remember the last command of Christ on the Cross. "Son ( to St John ), behold thy Mother. Mother, behold thy son." This seals the relationship then between Man and our Blessed Mother. This didn't include any xenomorphs, Predators, etc.
I can't imagine even trying to stretch it, that these "UFOs" supposedly flying around are of some advanced civilization which in all this time has never landed at any palace, White House or anywhere else to communicate to the world who or what they are. Would this then not be the venue by which Man evangelizes these creatures? Theoretically speaking anyway, absurd as it sounds.
Who has really seen one? Why is it always two hicks in an RV drinking beer? "I saw it! I saw it. We was skinnin' possums in them woods. It did Cindy. We enjoyed it."
All the stories we hear about are of people being abducted and probed in the most salacious of manners. Of mankind, yes. Of "aliens," no! Of course, if people believe that's the kind of entities populating "out there," hey, knock their socks off.
Matt
September 5, 2009 at 4:36 am
Matt, Eulogos (Susan Peterson) submitted an excellent comment just above yours. I recommend it.
You state that man is the highest order of creation. If you are referring to creation on this earth you are correct but the angels constitute a higher order of creation than do we which is precisely why the devil (a fallen angel) is so dangerous. The angels are said to be amazed that God became one of us who are lower than the angels.
The angels have their own story. The good angels never fell and the rebellious angels were never redeemed.
The first creation account in Genesis clearly states that God gave man dominion over all the animals on the earth and all the seed bearing plants. If you want to extend this dominion to whatever creatures may inhabit some other distant planet you are on your own. Neither scripture nor the teaching of the Church back you up.
September 5, 2009 at 8:46 am
David, nothing in Scripture nor the Teachings of the Church refute what I am saying either. Stop obsessing over this.
Matt
September 7, 2009 at 4:58 pm
David,
You know I always wonder about those angels. On earth we have a group called "undecided". I wonder if some of the angels couldn't make up their minds and remained "undecided" and are still buzzing around trying to decide what side to choose…
(just kidding).
November 30, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Kind of amusing that you are so quick to dismiss the possibility of intelligent life outside of this planet, yet you bow down to your imaginary man in the sky…