:Reasonable Force

Courtesy of Dallas Theological Seminary

Follow these links for Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this lecture series.

No Comments

Back in April of 2005, I wrote about the need to be consistent with regard to embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Al Mohler recently highlighted a Times London piece reporting that over one million embryos have been destroyed in U.K. fertility clinics.

While this report is likely to spark controversy in Great Britain, the situation in the United States and many other nations is virtually the same. Human embryos are being produced, almost factory-like, and then routinely destroyed or indefinitely frozen.

This phenomenon might be described as an unintended complication of the IVF technology. Nevertheless, all involved in this technology are responsible for this vast human tragedy, intended or not.

Far too many evangelicals seem to turn a blind eye to this reality. While we celebrate the birth of a child and the gift of life, we cannot blind ourselves to the harsh and grotesque reality that this technology also means the destruction of human life.

Many evangelicals fail to see what many proponents of human embryonic stem cell research have noted — a glaring inconsistency in condemning the destruction of human embryos through stem cell research, while ignoring or dismissing the destruction of embryos in IVF clinics.

This prompts me to reprise what I feel to be the root cause of this horrifying reality (from my April ’05 post linked above):

I suggest that the root of the problem is that, in all things, but certainly when it comes to having children, we have made our desires paramount over an older view that accepted conception as the province of God. Clearly I’m speaking primarily of believers here.

The modern Christian (or postmodern, if you will) determines when and if they will have children, and how many. Soon they will choose whether they will have a boy or a girl, if they’re not already. Soon after, they will determine in advance height, hair color, and whether they prefer athletic or musical aptitude.

If our career goals are incompatible with children we use birth control. If, when we’re ready, children are not forthcoming, we go to the fertility clinic. When we’re ready to stop having children we undergo surgery.

I’m not arguing against examinations and/or treatments to make sure all our parts are in working order, but beyond that I would suggest that we have lost the view of children as blessings bestowed upon us by God and view them, rather, as something to which we are entitled when we’re good and ready, and only in the quantities with which we’re comfortable.

This is one area in which we have adopted the world’s view of things without even blinking. When we begin to examine the extensions of our arguments against some of these more abominable practices, however, our error is brought to light.

No Comments

The horrifying murders of thirty-three students and faculty at Virginia Tech have been followed by the chilling media blitz that has put the killer’s name and face, complete with action poses, on every newspaper and television network in America. He has achieved the kind of notoriety and attention that others are going to desire to have, and I would be very surprised if his approach isn’t emulated by some in the near future.

He aided in the coverage of his own story by providing promotional materials, essentially a press packet, to NBC, who are now obligingly making him a star. This is sickeningly reminiscent of the Robert DeNiro movie “15 Minutes,” in which the killers videotape their crimes with the hope of selling it to the media.

If you watch pro football you may have been watching a game during which a fan, most likely a drunk one, jumps from the stands onto the field and runs around, until they are either corralled by security or get knocked into next week by a player (my preference). You may be aware that this has occurred, but I dare say you’ve never actually seen it. This is because the NFL seems to have an agreement with the networks that they will not reward such attention-seekers with airtime. While such an event is taking place, the cameras will be everywhere BUT on the perpetrator. As much as we would sometimes like to see what’s happening, I think this is a wise policy.

Most of the country probably want answers about the shootings, including information about the killer. I’m sure it’s tough to know precisely where to draw the line between providing the public with relevant information and sensationalizing the lived-out fantasies of would-be killers and glory-seekers everywhere.

I think it’s pretty clear in this instance that wherever that line is, it was not only crossed, it was leaped over and left way behind.

No Comments

OpinionJournal featured an editorial by Tawfik Hamid, former member of an Islamic terrorist group, in which he made this admission:

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the “end of days.” The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

In the same day, I heard this story of a school district in New Jersey holding an exercise to test their readiness in the event of a Columbine-style shooting and hostage incident. With the cooperation of local police, they staged their scenario, in which two armed men stormed the school, shooting several students and holding ten others hostage. Striving for realism, they crafted a backstory for the incident.

It seems that the gunmen were “right-wing fundamentalists who don’t believe in separation of church and state.”

The fictional trigger for their rampage? The daughter of one of the men had been expelled from school for praying before class.

I’m not suggesting their scenario should have included Islamic terrorists. It was unnecessary in my view to ascribe a particular motive to the attackers at all. I mention the article about the violence implicit in mainstream Islamic theology because I find it ironic that all of the Western world has an avowed enemy that daily carries out terrorist acts against civilian targets and yet these school officials are apparently more afraid of “fundamentalist” Christianity.

Or perhaps they simply lump as all together as do Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and A. C. Grayling, who in a recent London debate defended the position “We’d be better off without religion.”

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

If you spend just a little time reading the comments on nearly any post on Dawkins’ site you will see that a common thread of the community there is the belief that religion is the source of all the world’s ills, or at least its violence and hatred.

When I think on these things I find myself driven to spend time in God’s word. I reaffirm to myself who He is and reacquaint myself with His matchless power. I’m also gripped with a sense of urgency for the practice of the spiritual disciplines that are our part of the sanctification process. Because I believe that there are dark times ahead for people who are willing to profess a belief in Jesus’ literal resurrection and everything that means. And Scripture gives us some comfort if we suffer for the sake of the name of Christ, but we must guard our behavior so as not to deserve the world’s condemnation. As Peter said, “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” (1 Peter 4:15-16)

We must be ever mindful not to repay evil with evil, to bless those who curse us, and to pray for our enemies (Rom. 12:17, Luke 6:28, Matt. 5:44).

Daily, it seems, we have occasion to recall the words of Christ:

18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. —John 15:18-19

No Comments

Super Bowl winning coachTony Dungy has taken a courageous stand for marriage and the family in accepting a reward from the Indiana Family Institute and announcing publicly his support for a proposed ban on same-sex marriage in Indiana.

From the IndyStar article:

Dungy told more than 700 people at the Indiana Family Institute’s banquet that he agrees with that organization’s position supporting a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I appreciate the stance they’re taking, and I embrace that stance,” Dungy said.

Dungy’s comments came in the final three minutes of a wide-ranging, 20-minute speech that recounted stories from the Colts’ Super Bowl run, related his interest in prison ministry and described how he wondered whether his firing in Tampa was God’s signal for him to leave football and enter ministry. He also talked about his efforts to make the Colts more family-friendly by encouraging players to bring their kids to practice.

Local and national gay-rights organizations had criticized Dungy for accepting the invitation to appear at the banquet. The institute, affiliated with Focus on the Family, has been one of the leading supporters of the marriage amendment.

“IFI is saying what the Lord says,” Dungy said. “You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be. I’m on the Lord’s side.”

The coach said his comments shouldn’t be taken as gay bashing, but rather his views on the matter as he sees them from a perspective of faith.

“We’re not anti- anything else. We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we’re trying to promote the family — family values the Lord’s way,” Dungy said.

Pro-gay advocates were already getting worked up about this as far back as January when his attendance at this banquet was announced, and are decrying the association of such a public and popular figure to a group that opposes “marriage equality” and “gay rights.”

From the same article:

Bil Browning, managing editor of bilerico.com, a blog that focuses on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues in Indiana, was surprised to learn of Dungy’s remarks.

“It is unfortunate that coach Dungy has chosen to align himself with the Indiana Family Institute,” he said. “The Colts were supported this season by all of their fans — gay and straight.”

Here’s a quote from another source from back in January, trotting out the usual misguided comparison of race with sexual orientation:

But, needless to say, I find this, if not surprising, nevertheless dismaying. Such attitudes are common enough among sports personalities, and football is surely the most conservative of the major team sporting cultures. And, there is clearly a common link between the kinds of religious professions that Dungy makes and this sort of homophobia.

But, to hear Dungy talk proudly about what he’s had to overcome as an African American, including the deep-seated prejudices that confronted him as he was growing up and then to turn around and lend his voice to an organization spewing similar kinds of hate-filled rhetoric – well it just begs the question in my mind: how does he reconcile these things? I know how he might answer, by reference to the bible, and God, and deeply held religious beliefs. But, there’s no way to read James Dobson as anything other than bigoted and hate-filled, and plenty of racists have justified their own anti-Black sentiments down through the ages by reference to their own deeply held beliefs about God’s intent, etc.

Surprisingly, I haven’t seen this story on ESPN yet, but I bet it’s coming. Granted, Dungy didn’t say anything on the order of Tim Hardaway’s use of the “H-word,” but to the gay lobby it amounts to the same thing. A statement of religious conviction regarding their sexual proclivities is tantamount to hate-speech and is certain to bring calls for apologies and for the Colts and NFL to distance themselves from such views.

In the present cultural climate, Coach Dungy has taken a genuine risk by openly stating his views. It’s unlikely that the Colts would fire the man that just brought them their sport’s biggest prize, but some pressure may be brought to bear by the league.

For my part, this just adds to my estimation of the caliber of man he is.

No Comments

Focus On the Family’s CitizenLink reports on the impact of abortion on college men:

There’s little research on abortion’s impact on men, but a study by Drexel University revealed 80 percent of men who were at the clinic the day their child was aborted called it one of the worst days of their lives.

No Comments

If you don’t pay attention to sports news you may not have heard about the former NBA player (John Amaechi) who recently revealed his homosexuality and the other former NBA player (Tim Hardaway) who avowed his hatred of “gay people” when asked about Amaechi during a radio interview. Actually, you’ve probably heard something about it if you’ve read/heard/watched any news at all.

I’ve been listening to numerous sports personalities from athletes, owners, and commissioners, to sports journalists and talk show hosts holding forth on the contemptible and unenlightened position illustrated by Hardaway and lauding the courage and gentility of Amaechi in the face of such naked “bigotry.” Callers or other commenters to these programs who have dared to digress from politically correct thought are routinely mocked as likewise bigoted, small-minded, or (my personal favorite) unevolved. Granted, most of the calls I’ve heard have done less than a stellar job of presenting well-reasoned arguments, but have either appealed to the Bible without being prepared to deal with the inherent difficulties (more on that later), or simply asserted the “natural wrongness” of homosexuality, which I think there’s something to, but it’s not very persuasive against a mindset that has accepted gayness as just another trait like race or left-handedness.
(more…)

2 Comments

Andrew Morrison asks:
What do you make of this?

Why should the British, with far less devotion to Christ, suffer fewer social ills than we?

The article concerns this study published in the Journal of Religion and Society. While the author of the study, Gregory S. Paul, like Andrew above, is careful to point out that correlation does not establish causation, the U. K. Times religion correspondent, Ruth Gledhill is less hesitant to lay at least some blame for societal problems at the feet of theists, declaring, “Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.”

Does the acceptance of the theory of common descent promote a healthier society than an unwavering belief in God? Certainly the data compiled in this study cannot answer that question definitively. Taken as presented, however, it does provide food for thought.

Intuitively, I cannot see why this would be so. It seems reasonable and logical to presume that a people who believe that they will one day be held accountable in some way for their actions should comprise a society that is more compassionate, more loving, more considerate of others; it should be more moral, at least as defined by the tenets of the religion they observe.

Likewise, I cannot conclude how a purely materialistic view of nature and man could logically lead to any other conclusion but that life has no inherent value except what enjoyment can be derived in the life of the individual, that anything is permissible provided the consequences can be avoided, and that the grave is the terminus of all our ultimately empty endeavors.

This is fairly well in line with the view of “conservative theists” cited in the study and these are essentially the claims supposedly refuted therein.

Now I’m not really in a position to take issue with the numbers so let’s just assume for the moment that the raw data is accurate. While I find these results troubling, I am not ready to throw in the towel on the positive impact of faith on the culture just yet.

Before I continue, however, it’s important to clarify what I believe is a common mistake among believers and non-believers alike. While moral behavior is a desirable result of religious belief, and can be useful as an indicator of the strength of one’s convictions, it is not a reliable indicator of a particular belief’s validity. Christians holding a Biblical view of salvation in Christ’s name alone are often confronted with the example of the “moral” Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or even atheist. The questioner demands to know on what basis these good people should be excluded when there are so many Christians who fall short.

The problem lies in the fact that the questioner presumes to be an able judge of what constitutes virtue. They fail to consider that if Christian theology is true then all of the above paragons of human morality fail in one monumental, glaring sense; either they believe themselves to have no sin or they seek to expiate their own sins by their own efforts. Sin is an offense to the holiness of God. Once stained by it, as we all are, there is no power inherent in humanity to remove it.

It is one of the peculiarities of the Christian religion that we don’t believe we are made righteous by how good we are, but rather by how good another person was. I can’t atone for my sins, but Christ could and did. The moral behavior for the Christian is therefore not the means by which we are saved, but rather a result of our salvation; an overflow of the love and gratitude we have toward the One who has saved us.

All this to say that it is certainly possible for a person to have all the appearance of moral behavior and yet be sinful in the eyes of God. Likewise, let me to some degree concede Gregory Paul’s conclusion: It is not necessary for a society to be religious in order to allow its citizens to live in safety and prosperity.

And if religion were merely a pragmatic device, the only value in which was allowing humans to survive against their baser impulses and their members that yield to them, it would then follow that religion is not necessary at all.

Such a view of religion is common among those who subscribe to naturalism, though the religious often unthinkingly act or speak as if it were the case themselves. We do not… or should not, hold religious beliefs because we think they will make us better people, but because we think they are true. We believe, in the case of the Christian, that God loves us and so sent His Son Jesus to share in our sufferings, and take our sins upon Himself to make a way for His perfect justice to be satisfied, so that we could be with Him eternally as we were always meant to be.

That belief should produce in me behavior consistent with those beliefs. If my faith is not producing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) in my own life then there is little hope of others being positively influenced by my beliefs. Even if I am growing in these respects, however, there is not necessarily a corresponding increase in virtue in the society around me.

I don’t know why other, largely secular (according to the study) societies seem to be doing so much better than the U.S. I’m sure Gregory Paul, Andrew Morrison, and perhaps even Ruth Gledhill would acknowledge that there are a great many other variables that would have to be examined in depth before we would conclusively establish religious belief as a societal poison in and of itself. I would swiftly agree in many cases that certain beliefs are precisely that. In the case of the Christian religion, however, while the goal is our salvation one of the results should be that we live as Jesus lived. Can anyone argue that if we all did that the world wouldn’t be a better place?

Of course, if I ask that question then I must ask whether or not I am in fact living as He lived myself. When I consider how far I deviate from His example I confess that I am convicted that the implications of Gregory Paul’s study may not be so easily glossed over as I have attempted to do here. What it suggests to me is not that religious belief is harmful to society, but that Christianity is not particularly beneficial to society as I have been practicing it.

We are not saved, after all, so that we can sit back and put our feet up, contented in the knowledge that we’re going to heaven, but rather to go into the world and do the work that God has prepared for us. I’m long overdue to be about finding out what works are prepared for me. How about you?

7 Comments

David W. Boles over at Urban Semiotic raises the oft-decried spectre of the wire-hanger abortion at the prospect of the confirmation of purportedly constructionist nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts. I responded on his comment thread (in a moderation queue as of this posting) and decided to post my thoughts unedited (though I’ve added a few links). Though I’m obviously on the other side of this critical issue, I appreciate David’s thoughtful style and his courtesy in responding to all of his visitors.

David, with all due respect, the horror of back alley abortions was largely a media creation based on bogus numbers spoon-fed to them by pro-abortion advocates. Granted, if you happen to know one of the few legitimate cases, it has more emotional impact. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a lie was greatly responsible for shaping cultural attitudes toward legalization. The political cartoon you cite is a shameful example of fear-mongering for political purpose with no basis in fact.

Further, while I would never argue that life is easy or fair for people born into disadvantaged circumstances I fail to see how the compassionate solution is to offer scars that never heal. You say that abstinence “doesn’t work;” I presume you mean that it isn’t applied in the populations that need it most or are poorest equipped to deal with additional mouths to feed?

That it works to prevent unwanted pregnancies is unquestionable. So, rather than throwing up our hands and conceding that some groups can never be taught self-respect or self-control, perhaps we should frankly examine whether an effort has ever been undertaken to impart those virtues, without simultaneously offering the easy path of unrestrained “protected” sex along with the assumption that they’re going to do that anyway.

I’m not accusing you, by the way, of having the above-stated attitude toward any group, though I do believe your dismissal of abstinence education is tantamount to such a position.

Again, I recognize that inner-city conditions can be horrific and that there are no silver bullet solutions to the day-to-day situations faced by their residents. I don’t believe, however, that the abortion debate has ever been about compassion for women there or anywhere.

I will not, however, try to make the argument that all women can control the circumstances under which they might become pregnant. I agree with one previous commenter that our world is far from ideal.

The problem is that we attempt to correct one injustice with an even greater one when we suggest that preventing a child from being born is to salvage a woman’s sovereignty over her life and body.

It was not the difficulties faced by women in unfortunate circumstances that prompted the legalization of abortion. It was that we crossed a line somewhere in the pursuit of unfettered liberty and began to perceive the unthinkable as first unfortunate but understandable, then reasonable, and finally, horrifyingly, natural.

Sorry for the length, David. I would just like to make two more points.

First, have you and the other pro-choice advocates here considered how many women are forced to exercise their “right to chose” by fathers, husbands, or boyfriends? No, I don’t have numbers on that and doubt they could be accurately assessed, but anecdotal evidence leads me to conclude that it’s not a low number.

Point being, the same men that can assert their will over the women’s bodies in getting them pregnant can assert their will via the clinic. All you’ve done is give irresponsible men a legal way to avoid child support.

Second, and parenthetically, in response to Carla (comment#3), who questioned the relevance of Sanger’s acquaintance with Hitler’s Merry Band of Eugenicists (raised in comment#1), I respectfully submit that it is absolutely relevant if it sheds light on Sanger’s motivations for advocating legal birth control and abortion. Wikipedia’s entry on her contains a plethora of quotes near the bottom that leave little doubt that she shared some of the philosophies prized in Hitlerian medicine.

UPDATE: David’s response can be read here. David has graciously provided a classic example of the attempt to invalidate opposing views when they are voiced by folks with sincerely held religious convictions. To his credit, he did post my initial response to his article and has been unfailingly courteous.

Two things that amused me:
First, his initial greeting to me, “SCPanther – I was waiting for you to make an appearance here. You are BlestWithSon’s evangelical brother, correct?”

Does anyone else get the mental image of Vader stepping from the shadows with an ignited lightsabre? Note that I’m her evangelical brother; an early preview of what David views as an exposé.

The second funny thing was that David categorizes this site as a “Pro-Life ministry,” in a misguided effort to further cast aspersions on my credibility. Granted, this site would be more worthy if it were a directed ministry in that fashion but, as is apparent to any casual observer, right now it’s just one guy’s sporadically posted opinions on many different subjects. I didn’t bother disavowing his characterization because anyone who visits will know better, and because I wouldn’t have been ashamed of it if it had been true.

My concluding comment to David follows:

David: I do not believe you [are] here to have a genuine intellectual discussion about the issue raised in my post and the following comments.

I’m sorry you feel that way, David. I believe all of my comments were relevant to your post and the comments here, and would have hoped that you might deal with the issues rather than ruling me ineligible for “intellectual discussion” by virtue of the faith that helps to shape my beliefs.

Nevertheless, I certainly acknowledge your right to do whatever you will with your site and the discussions therein.

Thank you for displaying my comment and for your sentiments. I likewise bear no ill feelings toward you and pray God’s rich blessings on you and the others who have commented here.

9 Comments

I don’t know anything about rap/R&B singer Nick Cannon except that he is apparently popular enough to get an unabashedly pro-life video played on MTV. I’m not particularly a fan of much of this music either. I just found myself moved to tears, however, by the lyrics to Cannon’s song “Can I Live?” played on his website.

The song is purported to be autobiographical and describes how Cannon’s mother walked out of an abortion clinic and allowed him to see life.

(Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost, Apologia Christi)

No Comments

Andrew McCarthy at NRO addresses the call by some in the media for an apology from advocates for the life of Terri Schiavo in light of the recently released autopsy report.

E.J. Dionne, Matt Lauer, and the rest of the mainstream media vanguard are in high dudgeon. The autopsy report is finally out on Terri Schiavo, and they want to know: Where is the apology? A better question would be: Are they kidding?

After this tone-setting introduction, McCarthy sets out to debunk the revisionist version of the debate, being spun today as purely a matter of whether or not there was any possibility for Mrs. Schiavo’s recovery. He does this by refocusing the attention on precisely what the issues were when the courts held Terri’s life in their hands; that it was incumbent on the court making such momentous decisions to precisely ascertain her condition and the credibility of the claim that she had expressed a desire to be allowed to die in such a state absent any documentation to that end, and with a clear conflict of interest on the part of her husband.

The scientific facts about massive brain damage being trumpeted today, which — as Dionne’s own newspaper concedes do not even establish that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS — were not important to the media and the right-to-die lobby back then. All that mattered was that Terri Schiavo’s life was not one that they thought worth living. Whether or not it had technically been reduced to a PVS was beside the point. Whether or not Terri had even thought about, much less made a knowing and intelligent judgment about, the choice between life and death was beside the point. Terri was a grisly car-wreck. They just wanted her off the road and out of sight — no need to know what happened, and why, and whether anything could or should be salvaged.

So now, months later, long after it mattered, the autopsy is out and it indicates what we already knew: Terri was profoundly brain-damaged. She may or may not have been in a PVS — to this day we don’t know. Yet, the “right-to-die” forces are waving the autopsy report triumphantly, saying: See, see, see — she was PVS, just like we said! Well, leaving aside that the autopsy does not confirm the diagnosis, if scientific exactitude about the degree of brain injury is important now, when she’s dead, why wasn’t it important then? Why was there only rebuke for those who insisted there was virtue in a society’s being sure before life was snuffed out? The answer is simple: Because to the right-to-die people, the accuracy of the PVS diagnosis was never central; what mattered was giving effect to the purported “choice.”

Oh, and on that score, one other thing: When does the “autopsy” on Terri’s choice come out? It doesn’t. We are stuck with a record that should trouble serious people: no living will, and some self-interested witnesses (mainly husband Michael, by then pulled by the ties of a new family) who suddenly remembered years after the fact that Terri supposedly made some passing remarks about not wanting to be maintained in extremis. Is it any wonder all the talk is now about the extent of brain damage, as if that had been the only issue?

The full article can be read here.

Here are a few excellent posts on this from JackLewis.net:
Statement from Terri’s family

Medical experts dispute autopsy findings

Also worth reading is this response to the autopsy from www.blogsforterri.com illustrating how the autopsy report has been distorted by pundits.

1 Comment

(hat tip: Thinklings)

According to “Britain’s highest appeal court” it is now permissible to genetically screen embryos created via in vitro fertilization (IVF) to determine whether there is a tissue match for another child with a serious illness.

CBC News on MSN reports the details:

The case stems from Raj and Shahana Hashmi’s desire to conceive a child whose tissue is a match for their six-year-old son Zain, who has a rare blood disorder.

The couple conceived twice naturally after Zain’s birth. One fetus was discovered to be carrying the same blood disorder and the couple aborted it. Shahana gave birth to another child, who was not a match for Zain.

After the 2003 ruling, the couple went through fertility treatments to create a child whose tissue matched Zain’s, but Shahana had a miscarriage.

Understandably, these parents love their son and want to do whatever they can to help him. I don’t know much about blood disorders, but given the lengths they are going to, one would assume the condition is terminal.

Rather than have a second child that looked to have the same disease, however, they killed it in the womb.

Now they seek to find a genetic match from a batch of artificially produced embryos, one of which has already been miscarried. Assuming they do bring another suitable one to term, what becomes of the rest?

And what of the child who has been genetically selected to be a donor of some type for his or her brother? Is there as much value attached to its life as to the one they are born to save?

In this tragic story are several examples of the bottom of the slippery slope rushing up to meet us.

Had the second child been born, and had it actually had the same malady as the first, presumably, as much effort would have been undertaken to save its life. Instead it was prevented from taking its first breath. That was the only difference between the second child and the first that they so desperately want to save.

Meanwhile, who knows how many disposable human beings are being created for the sake of finding that match, whose worth has already been determined to be measured by the degree to which they are able to help their sibling.

This is a frighteningly utilitarian view of human life; all the more so because it is not some ivory-tower academician making impersonal pronouncements, but an actual mother and father culling their potential offspring for a specific purpose.

No doubt they view their efforts as an expression of love for their gravely ill child. That is perhaps the most chilling aspect of this story.

No Comments

I haven’t linked anything by Mr. Lileks in a good while and this is a gem. He expresses bemusement at nominal Catholics who dreamt of a left-leaning successor for John Paul II.

I have my doctrinal differences with the Catholic church as well; I understand the reasons for requiring priestly celibacy, but I don’t agree with them. I don’t agree with many Catholic positions on issues regarding sexuality. Growing up Lutheran, I was gently guided away from the clanging errancy of Maryolatry. Because I disagree with the Catholic Church on these and a few other matters, I am– how do I put this? – NOT CATHOLIC. Hence I am always amazed by people who want the church to accommodate their thoughts, their new beliefs, their precarious and ingenious rationales, instead of ripping themselves from the bosom and seeking a congregation that doesn’t make them feel like a heretic banging thier head on Filarete’s doors. To those who want profound change, consider an outsider’s perspective: the Catholic Church is the National Review of religion. You may live long enough to see it become the Weekly Standard. In your dreams it might become the New Republic. But it’s never going to be the Nation. And if ever it does, it will have roughly the same subscriber base.

Comments Off

Terri Schiavo is dead.

It is a horrifying thing to have to watch a public execution by starvation, particularly when the victim has done nothing wrong and been convicted of no crime.

I met a gentleman yesterday who said something similar to what many well-intentioned people have no doubt been saying throughout the Terri Schiavo drama: “I wouldn’t want to live like that.”

The first problem I have with that statement is that it has been difficult for those of us watching from afar to know exactly what condition Terri was in. If you believe her husband and his doctors then you get one picture; quite another if you believe her family and their doctors. What should be clear from watching the few video clips available is that Terri was not in a coma and, while experts clearly have degrees of disagreement on this fact, she exhibited certain responses, albeit inconsistently, that belied the diagnosis that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State, defined as “wakefulness without awareness.”

Having viewed these video clips, this statement by neurologist William P. Cheshire, Jr. has the ring of truth:

In summary, Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state.

Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on Terri’s behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.

Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that this neurologist is correct. Many of us still might say that we wouldn’t want to live that way, even if some improvement were possible with proper care and treatment (something Mrs. Schiavo was denied by her husband, by the way). That brings me to the second problem I have with the gentleman’s statement, above.

While we might all share the sentiment, I don’t believe that we have that choice.

Most of us agree, do we not, that suicide is morally wrong when committed by a teenager or a young adult? Indeed, we view it as horrifying and tragic. Consider, then, someone like Christopher Reeves or Joni Erickson Tada. While we would be perhaps more understanding of suicide in those circumstances, we would still recognize that the nobler thing is to struggle on in the face of adversity.

The law, in many cases, has come to recognize a “right to die.” I believe that this must be balanced against a duty to live and, by extension, a duty to preserve life. That means that as long as a person can be determined to be alive we must provide care for them. The trick, then, comes to determining the definition of alive.

When someone is truly being kept alive by machines, with no evidence of brain function, there is an argument, I believe, for allowing that person’s body to die. In cases such as Terri’s, however, God has seen fit to preserve this woman’s life, albeit in a severely inhibited condition and it is not our place, or her husband’s, or even her own, to determine that such a life is not worth living.

In any event, she is dead now and hopefully with the Lord. Many people are celebrating this fact and view it as a victory for personal liberty. I view it as a defeat for all of us; a further devaluation of the worth and dignity of human life.

Terri Schiavo was a living, breathing human being, however limited her brain function, and she was starved to death.

Comments Off

What is it in the minds of U.S. Congresspersons that hears about a high-profile steroid scandal in a professional (read private) sports league and thinks, “that’s definitely something that the federal government needs to get involved with.”

Appearing on other Sunday talk shows, the House minority leader and the Senate majority leader agreed that the best solution would be for baseball to require stronger testing but said they would support legislation if the league failed to act on its own.

“They have a responsibility, not only to the sport, but to the children of America who look up to these players,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”"Quite frankly, it’s overdue.”

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the problem “could be ended, bang, just like that, if everybody from the owners to the unions just step up and face the reality that we’ve got a huge problem.”

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Frist said, “I’ll support being very aggressive if it cannot be addressed at the more local level, which again, I would much prefer.”

So what if they say that they prefer MLB clean up its own house? The key question here is what business does government have involving itself at all?

I fully realize that our representatives exceeded their Constitutional mandate a loooong time ago and that this is probably not even the best example to get outraged about. This item just caught my eye and immediately struck me with its absurdity.

It’s really this simple: if league rules have been violated, let the league handle it. If laws have been broken, let prosecutors prosecute.

Ultimately it is the fans that will determine whether the game is sullied by whether or not they choose to spend their money on it or feed MLB’s ratings with their viewership.

Don’t waste time with any arguments about the harmful impact of star athletes’ steroid use on youthful aspirants. Nobody can argue with a straight face that government should stick their legislative noses in for that reason when alcohol advertisements are responsible for a huge percentage of the television revenue.

Not that it would make sense even if the above weren’t true, but the hypocrisy of getting riled up about influencing youngsters to use steroids is laughable.

John McCain claims that there’s ‘not a doubt in his mind’ that the President would ‘love’ to sign a bill governing baseball’s handling of this into law. I will be extremely disappointed in my conservative President if he’s right.

(hat tip: Drudge)

No Comments

Following the lead of Blogs4God and the Blogdom of God aggregator (which I probably ought to join, come to mention it…), there is now an aggregator for weblogs that support the sanctity of life, particularly in relation to abortion.

Pro-Life Blogs states its objective as follows:

The objective of this site is to raise awareness and support for the pre-born and the sanctity of human life by communicating pro-life news and materials and by enabling a community of pro-life bloggers to promote their sites, interact with one another and influence internet readers.

I think that’s a great idea and I have jumped on the bandwagon by linking the site and adding the Pro-Life blogroll to my site.

Abortion on demand is a scourge that has cost this nation more than 44 million lives since the unconscionable Roe v. Wade decision was issued in 1973. Only God knows fully what we have lost as a result of these murders, but to be sure, a part of our humanity has been extinguished with each tiny life.

I pray that President Bush is re-elected and that he does, in fact, fulfill the deepest fear of the left in installing pro-life justices onto the expected vacancies in the Supreme Court. Further, I hope and pray that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and that we can end the slaughter of the most innocent among us. To date, I have done very little personally to affect these efforts. I do not advocate violence against the clinics or the butchers doctors who perform the murders, but I plan to devote time and material resources to alternative pregnancy centers and legal efforts to effect the needed change.

Finally, I pray that through the efforts of the blogs at Pro-Life Blogs and other like-minded sites, hearts might be touched and minds changed to see what a monstrous evil the so-called “pro-choice” position really is.

1 Comment

Since I’m too brain-dead (sharing that state with our President, according to Sen. Joe Biden) to post on any of half a dozen subjects that have caught my attention in the last few days, I’m just going to link to a thought-provoking series of articles by Pastor Mark D. Roberts on Christian Inclusiveness.

The context is a conflict within the Episcopal Church USA over their rejection of Biblical authority on the issue of homosexuality.

Pastor Roberts uses this as a springboard to argue the Biblical position that Christ’s acceptance of “all who come” was in fact predicated on repentance. At the same time he criticizes the Church for a hypocritical view that often places homosexual offenders in a special category of “super-sin” (my term) and exhorts the Church to greater efforts to include homosexuals in our outreach efforts.

Therefore, to interpret the unconditional love of God in Christ as some sort of “absolute inclusiveness” is a mistake. God invites all people into relationship with himself. But entry into this relationship and maintenance of this relationship depend on such things as repentance, faith in Jesus, and a life of “walking in the light” (1 John 1:5-9). To say that, on the basis of Jesus’s own practice, the church should include all people just as they are is simply wrong.

In point of fact, the advocates of inclusiveness within the Episcopal Church don’t actually practice the sort of inclusiveness the seem to promote. They don’t, for example, say to those they label as homophobic, “Y’all come. It’s just fine if you continue to act unlovingly towards gays and lesbians. We practice absolute inclusiveness here.” In fact many of the strongest proponents of inclusiveness in the Episcopal Church are increasingly moved to exclude those in their own denomination whom they label as fundamentalist because of their commitment to the authority of Scripture. Now I would in fact defend this notion of limited inclusiveness, because I think absolute inclusiveness is both impossible and wrong. The church needs to be more precise and discerning when it comes to inclusion (and exclusion). Of course, though I defend the idea of limited inclusiveness, such as practiced by the Episcopal Leaders who would include gays and exclude “fundamentalists,” I think they’re making precisely the wrong choices about whom to include and whom to exclude.

Yet, having said this, I must add that the church’s zeal to exclude gay and lesbian people has, sadly, far outstripped its commitment to Christ-like love. Many Christians practice a double standard, whereby homosexual sin is worse than heterosexual sin, the one unforgivable, the other easily overlooked. A father once admitted to me that he continued in relationship with his daughter, who was living “in sin” with her boyfriend, while he had completely broken relationship with his son, who had chosen a gay lifestyle. This sort of double standard is indefensible. The church needs desperately to reach out to all persons, including gays and lesbians, with the forgiving, healing, renewing love of Christ.

That’s a fair summary in his last few paragraphs, but I would encourage you to read the series from the beginning as he relates some examples from his own experience that challenged me to consider how I approach this issue.

No Comments

For your perusal on a Sunday morning. Jeffrey Bell & Frank Cannon write in the Weekly Standard on the impact of “moral values issues” on the political landscape. I hope to add some personal perspective later today, but likely not until late in the evening because after church I will be headed here. The Dirty Birds will not be undefeated for long, by golly!

10:31PM (EST): Moving on quickly from football (“Nothing to see here, folks! Move along.”), I want to juxtapose the article linked above with another one I saw this weekend. First, note the following from the Weekly Standard piece:

In recent presidential cycles, post-election polling found that social issues like abortion, while invariably a mild plus for Republicans, were cited by a relatively small segment of the electorate as a prime motive for voting one way or the other. Moreover, social conservatism was seen as good in the South and heartland and bad on the coasts, making it dubious as a national theme or as a subject of campaign commercials. Conventional wisdom among GOP political consultants has been to mobilize socially conservative voters by a stealth strategy of quietly “passing the word” to “our people.”

New polling by Time and MSNBC/Knight-Ridder suggests that all this has changed. The proportion of voters who say they are keying their vote on “moral values issues like gay marriage and abortion” has gone up sharply–to a level of 15 to 18 percent, according to five national polls commissioned by Time and conducted by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas since July. More important, the profile of such voters is no longer definable in the vocabulary of polarization and divisiveness. The most recent Time poll (taken September 21-23) has George W. Bush winning socially driven voters by a lopsided 70 to 18 percent. If not for these voters, according to the poll, Bush would be trailing John Kerry by 5 points instead of leading by 4.

The article goes on to use polling data to show that, where he leads, Bush tends to lead Kerry in only two areas: 1) the moral issues, i.e. abortion and gay marriage and, 2) terrorism and homeland security. Interestingly, some believe that these two issues are linked and that, in striving to reclaim the moral landscape of the nation, we also stand to weaken our terrorist enemy and increase our chances of ultimately beating him back.

Chuck Colson and Anne Morse make that very argument on the Breakpoint site of Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries.

CT managing editor Mark Galli made the same point soon after 9/11. Islamic militants are angry at the West, he said, for exporting “hedonism and materialism into their very homes through television, enticing Muslims to become religiously lazy and morally corrupt.” Galli quoted a 1985 communiqué from the terrorist group Hezbollah: “Our way is one of radical combat against depravity, and America is the original root of depravity.”

Anger at Western decadence fueled the writings of the radical Sayyid Qutb, which so influenced Osama bin Laden. These people see themselves not as terrorists, but as holy warriors fighting a holy war against decadence.

We must be careful not to blame innocent Americans for murderous attacks against them. At the same time, let’s acknowledge that America’s increasing decadence is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When we tolerate trash on television, permit pornography to invade our homes via the internet, and allow babies to be killed at the point of birth, we are inflaming radical Islam.

So, all the while the liberals claim that Western imperialism and U.S. foreign policy toward the Israeli/Arab conflict have invited the attacks on our soil it may, in fact have more to do with the perversions of unrestrained personal liberty that they have been championing for the last fifty years.

The authors then connect the dots, making the case for the Federal Marriage Amendment essentially a national defense initiative.

Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it’s also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us. We must not give up simply because the Senate voted down the FMA. It took William Wilberforce and his allies 20 years to shut down Britain’s slave trade; it will take years to win the battle for traditional marriage.

The lessons of history are a warning that the church must not fail to engage these moral battles. Comparing U.S. decadence to the fall of Rome is an old chestnut that culture warriors have used for years. In the past, I dismissed such comparisons because of America’s enormous economic and military strength. But the tactics of terrorists changed that equation.

Recall that Rome’s destruction came about not only through its decadence, but because the Rhine River froze, allowing barbarians to cross into Roman territory. America is vulnerable not only through its decadence, but because the vast oceans that once protected her from enemies protect her no more.

This makes reversing U.S. decadence an urgent priority, not just for Christians, but for all Americans. If our cultural rot continues unabated, a Talibanized West may no longer be a joke, but grim reality.(emphasis mine)

I think this last point is overreaching, but the parallel is worth noting. There are numerous reasons for the enmity borne us by Al Qaeda and their ilk. The pumping of our degenerate values into their homes via MTV and other media does not create the mindset that causes one to believe it is a righteous act to murder civilians. It does, as Colson and Morse claim, give them ammunition in the form of moral outrage and the sense that, whether militarily or not, the West is assaulting their culture with the inevitable spread of our immorality.

What America must realize is that Kerry and the liberal Democrat party, should they reclaim majority political power will hasten the spread of radical Islam, not defuse it. They will hasten it by enacting their liberal policies, serving to weaken America militarily and morally at the same time.

No Comments

I already had a high estimation of Condoleezza Rice. Now it has skyrocketed. Though my beloved Panthers took a beating last night at the hands of Brett Favre and Ahman Green, we were treated to the sight of Dr. Rice in the owner’s box enjoying the game. She was in town to speak at two local colleges and gave an interview to Scott Fowler of the Charlotte Observer.

Q. How did you get to be such a football fan?

When I was born in Birmingham, my father was a high-school athletic director and an assistant football coach. He was sure he was going to have a boy and that I’d be his All-American linebacker. But I was an only child, and he had to do something. So he taught me all about football. He was a Presbyterian minister as well, and some of my earliest memories are of going to church on Sundays and then watching the NFL games on Sunday afternoons with him.

Q. So you really want to be NFL Commissioner after Paul Tagliabue retires?

I do. NFL Commissioner would be a dream job for me.

Q. Why?

I love football, and I think the NFL is an exceptionally well-run league. It’s also very central to the way we think of ourselves as a country. On any Sunday, in any NFL city, fans have essentially the same experience with a little local flavor. When I was the provost at Stanford, the athletic department reported to me. I liked that. I’ve always enjoyed the management side of sports.

Not for another four years, Condi.

No Comments

China may be an oppressive police-state, but I think they’ve got the right idea on punishing internet porn peddlers.

(hat tip: Drudge)

No Comments