John Mark Reynold -- "An Odious Law: Uganda and Homosexuality"

John Mark Reynolds:

Uganda may pass a law that could lead to the death penalty for homosexual behavior.

The proposed law is odious.

Due to the legacy of colonialism, Western people should be sensitive about interfering in sub-Saharan African politics and modest in making moral pronouncements regarding Africa, but this law deserves universal condemnation. Uganda experienced many evils under colonialism, including the loss of basic liberties.

Experiencing evil does not give a free pass to do evil and this bill is wicked.

It is not a close call.

Read more!

Culture wars: Sign "The Manhattan Declaration"? Not Me.

At the moment I am writing this line 178,536 people have signed "The Manhattan Declaration" - A Call to Christian Conscience. It is probably clear from my series on the culture wars that I will not be a signer of the Declaration - but some comments are in order.

Their website front page reads:

Read more!

Culture wars: What Jesus Did Not Do

[Point eight Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

8. It has no root in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus knew heart change didn’t come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry, so he was keenly disinterested in those things.

Read more!

Romans 7:1-6 -- "Free From Law to Live By the Spirit"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Blog Tour: 9/27 - 10/3

Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Read more!

Blog Tour: 8/30 - 9/5

This re-initiates my old practice of looking around the web - hopefully once a week - and drawing some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Christian Carnival picks:

• Shannon at The Minority Thinker examines why they are "Quitting Small Group". After having read it, I have to agree with these two statements:

  Over fifteen years, I have been part of almost a dozen small groups sponsored by three different churches; my husband has joined me in most of them. Never once have I developed a close friendship through one of these groups.

  and

  We are told to confess our sins to each other [I tore a group up doing this], to restore each other, to love each other, to encourage each other, and to serve together as the body of Christ. I have rarely – if ever – seen these things happen in a small group. And if that kind of fellowship isn’t taking place regularly, why do we keep trying the same methods and hoping for different results? It seems to me it’s time for a new approach.

• Henry at Participatory Bible Study Blog responds to:

  … The problem is this: when one takes a close look at the Bible in its original context, there is no evidence that the Bible is such a historically-situated divine revelation, that it is somehow ontologically different than other texts from antiquity and should be privileged or treated in a special way. …

  with "Indentifying Define Revelation"

President Obama's address to school children: I created a category for this expecting to see a bit of stuff on it - but there really wasn't much:

• Jim at Volokh Conspiracy took a look back at the news articles, etc. connected with President George H.W. Bush's 1991 Speech to Schools.

  On WESTLAW, I looked up other news stories about the speech. It was eported as 10 minutes in some reports and 12 minutes in others. It was carried live on CNN, PBS, and [the NBC] and Mutual radio [networks]. The Secretary of Education sent a letter urging schools to have their students watch, but I didn’t find any evidence of how many schools followed that recommendation. And most striking: Bush laid out goals — to increase the graduation rate, improve student competency and better prepare students for entering school — and said, "Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter. I'm serious about this one. Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." [Written text is here - and wasn't checked against the tapes]

• John Piper weighed in with "I Hope My Daughter Hears the President’s Speech":

  I am stunned at the outcry against the President of the United States speaking to the youth of this nation about the importance of education.
  
  I am embarrassed by the governor of my home state saying, that the president’s plan to address them is “disruptive . . . uninvited . . . and number three . . . I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children.”
  
  This speech seems, for me, to be an answer to a prayer that I have prayed for the president repeatedly . . .

Jason S at Fundamentally Changed looks at how extreme fundamentalism can be involved in "Transgressing By Traditions":

Today I call upon all of my fundamentalist brethren to honestly take the time to examine their doctrines and practices and see how they measure up to God’s Word, the five sola’s, and the historic fundamentals. If they don’t fit that, they must be discarded, no matter how old, precious, and dear they are to us.

Iraq the Model this week is focusing on the crisis raised by Syria's apparent complicity in the August 19th bombing which killed 95 people and wounded 600. One of the stories began

Iraq continues to insist on internationalizing the crisis with Syria, which began after Iraq demanded that Syria hands over senior Ba’ath Party members. Iraq now plans to persuade the international community to form an international criminal court, similar to the one investigating the assassination of the late Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stressed at a meeting with the Turkish FM that Iraq “will move forward to demand that the UN forms an international tribunal to prosecute those who committed ugly crimes that target Iraq’s stability and people and killed many innocent lives”.

Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed points to a book by

David Bentley Hart, a historian of ideas, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies , has been our guide into some of the philosophical and historical issues at work among the new atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. One of the implicit and sometimes explicit claims is that we are enlightened and that
the secular state is safer than a religious-shaped state. To which Hart makes this statement, and he expresses the growing body of literature that both denies the myth of secularization (that all things are becoming more secular) and reveals the profound mischief of the secular state:

"We live now in the wake of the most monstrously violent century in human history, during which the secular state (on both the political right and the political left), freed from the authority of religion, showed itself willing to kill on an unprecedented scale and with an ease of conscience worse than merely depraved. If ever an age deserved to be thought an age of darkness, it is surely ours. One might almost be tempted to conclude that secular government is the one form of government that has shown itself too violent, capricious, and unprincipled to be trusted" (106)

Jeremy at Parableman points to "Obama's Widely-Unpublicized Backtrack on Stem Cells" - belatedly for sure because it occurred a while back:

2009 -- March 9th: President Obama rescinds Bush’s August 9, 2001 EO with his own EO entitled, “Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The revocation of Bush’s EO is heralded as “lifting the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).” (this is the event found in the video offered above)

This EO simultaneously revokes Bush EO # 13435 which has provided federal funding of successful IPSC research. This aspect of the order is not mentioned at the press conference.

2009 -- March 11th: President Obama signs and renews the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which continues the ban on federal funding for ESCR that Obama claims to have lifted 2 days earlier. No announcement is made and no press conference is called.

Notice that now not only is there no federal funding of ESCR - President Obama removed President Bush's mandate of federal funding for IPSC research as well. Incidentally, Jeremy did what anyone should really do when confronted by such a reported contradiction between stated positions of politicians and their actual actions:

When I first read this, I immediately wanted to find something to verify it. It was incredibly difficult to find an actual news story on it, since the mainstream media either suppressed it or never got the information on it. The one news story I could find was from a partisan organization, but it does give chapter and verse for where to find the language in the bill that does indeed do exactly what the story says it does. It's in Title V, section 509 of the Omnibus spending bill (page 128 of this PDF; it appears in full here). It repeats verbatim exactly the section that since 1996 has appeared in every such spending bill under President Clinton and President Bush.

Rick at Rightwing Nuthouse as been writing a whole series of articles about conservative reform - three in the last week. All of them are, to me, important for both folks on the right and the left to read.

Orin at Volokh Conspiracy looks at "al-Kidd v. Ashcroft: Is Pretextual Use of the Material Witness Statute Unconstitutional?":

The Ninth Circuit handed down a fascinating and important case on preventive detention on Friday, and one that I suspect added a new case to the Supreme Court's docket next year: al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. The basic holding of the opinion is that the post-9/11 practice of using the material witness statute to detain suspected terrorists is not only unconstitutional, but clearly unconstitutional, and that former AG Ashcroft can be personally sued for his role in it. The majority opinion was written by Judge Milan Smith and joined by Judge Thompson; Judge Bea wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent.

There's a lot of coverage of the case in newspapers and around the web, but nothing that really delves into the legal questions. That's understandable, as the opinions in the case fill about 100 pages. But in this post, I wanted to delve into the legal questions and see if the court's opinion holds up to scrutiny.
. . .
Fortunately, this case is perfect for Supreme Court review: If the en banc Ninth Circuit passes on it, this case will give the Supreme Court an ideal opportunity to evaluate the very important question of how the Fourth Amendment applies to preventive detention.

Read more!

Romans 3:21-25a "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

(NET) Romans 3:21 But now²⁶ apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets)²⁷ has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ²⁸ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified²⁹ freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed³⁰ him³¹ at his death³² as the mercy seat³³ accessible through faith.³⁴ . . .

Notes:

²⁶ tn Νυνὶ δέ (Nuni de, “But now”) could be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force, but most recent interpreters take it as temporal, referring to a new phase in salvation history.

²⁷ tn Grk “being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” a remark which is virtually parenthetical to Paul’s argument.

²⁸ tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

sn ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

²⁹ tn Or “declared righteous.” Grk “being justified,” as a continuation of the preceding clause. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁰ tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³¹ tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³² tn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tō aujtou haimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proetheto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999).

³³ tn The word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, ” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁴ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: A quick review of the book up to now might be helpful:

• 1:1-15 -- Introduction
• 1:16-17 -- the theme of the entire book.

  16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

• 1:18 - 3:20 -- The first sharp turn in Romans. Paul goes in to a long explanation of why everyone, Jews and Gentiles, are "under sin" and subject to God's wrath. Indeed, Paul goes to great lengths to prove that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." One of the folks commenting on this section has gone as far as to suggest that Paul did not write a great deal of this section because it is such a sharp departure from the previous verses - and the ones we will now move into.

As Chris Thatcher (this weeks speaker) points out this passage, starting with "But now . . .", marks a another sharp turn, or hinge, in the book of Romans. Indeed, he states (and I agree) that if Romans had ended with 3;19 that this would be a supremely depressing letter that would not be in the Christian canon, and if it was would mark Christianity as one of the most negative, depressing religions on the planet.

Indeed, one of those commenting on the last section of Romans pointed out:

Other people like me let our conscience eat us alive from the inside out because when we read scripture like this that remind us how flawed we are already convinced. So to hear it from a source of authority simply consumes us.

And we don't get back up.

Some people will thrive on this and use the other chapters in the Bible to build themselves back up and make better people of themselves but with a newly polished mirror.

Other people, like me, like my father, listen to the reminders of how flawed we are, stare into that mirror long enough - and then out of guilt, frustration and desperation we smash our face right into the glass and the shards do the rest.

This is true of both followers of Christ and non-followers of Christ - and it comes partially, IMO, because we do not do a good enough job showing how God loves us despite our flaws. I will offer my bedrock set of verses from later in Romans that I use for this purpose

Romans 7:15-25 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

We all, Christian or not, have a body of "laws" - a morality - that we desire to follow. And, I am convinced, we are convicted by that body of laws - none of us live up to our own expectations. Paul sees this dichotomy in himself: as much as he loves God and wants to do right he still does wrong. Paul attributes this to our sin nature (the law of sin in our members) that actually wars with our own conscience and morality. It is not Paul who does wrong, but that law of sin residing with him in his body.

This is what Paul meant by us living "under sin" in the last section of Romans 3. Now the good news: just as, right after the Romans 7 passage quoted above, Romans 8 began

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh.

now Romans 3:21 continues

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Jesus is the rope thrown by God to drowning humans (or, to keep myself PC at Street Prophets - one of those ropes :-)). As Chris Thatcher said it, at the train wreck Paul outlines in the previous section - where every car and every passenger is involved - God shows up in the person of Jesus. Moreover, God shows up apart from any law or set of rules humans can follow - Jews and gentiles are equal.

Paul begins his primary view that the Mosaic law (or, IMO, any set of ethics and morality) does not make us righteous or even give us something to base moral superiority on; but actually should engender humility and make us realize that we are incapable of righteousness - these rules should teach us that we are incapable of following our own moral codes.

Not that Paul is talking about political entities here, but I think there is some application to political life as well. Folks, and countries, have underlying political ideologies along with moral ideas and rules in which they believe. These ideologies should also not engender pride or self-righteousness - but humiility - because people and countries do not follow their political ideals any better than folks follow their morals codes and laws.

From the notesheet: Question for individuals or groups --

1. Describe your heart’s response to God’s revelation, rescue, and provision in Jesus Christ.
2. Looking ahead in Romans, what are the implications for you if you now have God’s righteousness by faith in Christ and your sin is atoned for?
3. If someone asked, how would you explain the gospel based on what we have covered in Romans so far?

Next: 3:25-26 -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 2)"

Read more!

Romans 2:6-16:"God's Impartial Judgment"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!

The Obama DOJ and the Federal DOMA

This popped up at The Volokh Conspiracy (HT: Parableman) and seems like a discussion item.

The Obama Justice Department yesterday filed a brief urging a California district court to dismiss a little-known constitutional challenge to DOMA filed in late 2008 by a married gay couple . . . For lots of reasons, gay-marriage advocacy groups would like to see this case go away . . . A dismissal on jurisdictional grounds would nicely suit that purpose, and that seems to me the most likely outcome.

But the DOJ brief goes further than it needs to go at this point in the case by addressing the merits of the constitutional issues in the case, . . .

Of most interest is what the DOJ has to say about the due process and equal protection claims, rejecting just about every single variation of an argument that gay-rights scholars and litigants have made over the past 30 years.

Certainly, there can be lots of discussion on the Federal DOMA and it's constitutional merits - but what caught my conservative eye was Carpenter's point of interest #3:

(3) The Obama DOJ also has new understanding of federalism:

[B]ecause Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States. Given the strength of competing convictions on this still-evolving issue, Congress could reasonably decide that federal benefits funded by taxpayers throughout the nation should not be used to foster a form of marriage that only some States recognize, and that other States do not. (emphasis added)

Historically federal marriage benefits have been available to anyone married under state law. The federal definition was parasitic on the state definition. If a state chose to allow 14-year-olds to marry, but most states did not allow that, nobody thought federal recognition of such marriages functioned as a subsidy forced on the taxpayers of other states. DOMA changed that, but only for gay marriages. "Neutrality," as the Obama administration understands it, does not mean federal recognition of state choices in this matter. It means denying federal recognition of state choices.

The continual erosion of the rights of the several states vs the Federal government is, of course, worrisome to me.

Obviously, for folks who expected President Obama's administration to support gay marriage, Carpenter's conclusion may be a surprise:

My point here is not to claim that the DOJ's arguments are anti-gay, homophobic, or even wrong. Much of the brief seems right to me, or at least entirely defensible, as a matter of constitutional law. My point is only to note how much continuity there is in this instance, as in others, between the Bush and Obama administrations. In short, there's little in this brief that could not have been endorsed by the Bush DOJ. A couple of rhetorical flourishes here and there might have been different. Perhaps a turn of phrase. But, minus some references to procreation and slippery slopes, the substance is there.

Obama says he opposes DOMA as a policy matter and wants to repeal it. Nothing in the DOJ brief prevents him from acting on that belief. He is, he says, a "fierce advocate" for gay and lesbian Americans. When does that part start?

Read more!

"Divine Will" or "Will of the People"?

One needn't be a theophobe to believe that government ought to be conformed to
the will of the people, not of the divine.

This comment really ties together a number of ideas I have been writing on for awhile - and I think you are NOT a theophobe because you believe that. You are a theophobe if you believe that those who do not have this divided, "enlightened" view of the secular and the divine realms are trying to take over the government for Christ (or Allah) - and you irrationally fear that. After all, as Joe Carter contends:

After all, it is true that some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy. Their actual numbers, however, are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existence. As a group they likely outnumber black separatists, though they are dwarfed by the number of liberal secessionists.

However foolish I really think the theocracy canard is - that is not the point here.

The point is the intersection of faith and politics - and the connecting together of a few threads that have been running through my blogging - some nearly since the beginning:

• Natural moral law, or - as it is called by C.S. Lewis - the law of right behavior; and the source, role, and defeat of conscience.



• The Great Commandment, specially "Loving God with all Your Heart" and " . . . Mind"



• Vocation, and its fall in front of individual will endorsed by the Enlightenment

The first part of my view on this is that there are not, as the Enlightenment wished to contend, a spiritual realm and a secular realm. Of course, most devout folks I have met from any religion understand that the morality and ethics flowing from their faith cannot simply be cut-off from their secular lives - we can not be two-minded.

However, the natural law tradition is that all good things in the world overflow from God's character - including the governments we raise up to bring right order and maintain justice since the Fall. Thomas Aquinas and William Blackstone:

But Aquinas is also a natural law legal theorist. On his view, a human law (i.e., that which is promulgated by human beings) is valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "[E]very human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law" (ST I-II, Q.95, A.II). To paraphrase Augustine's famous remark, an unjust law is really no law at all.

The idea that a norm that does not conform to the natural law cannot be legally valid is the defining thesis of conceptual naturalism. As William Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original"

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian theologian and martyr who most had to tackle whether the "Two Kingdoms" of Luther had been subverted - also opposed the idea of separate secular and religious realms:

Any reduction of Luther’s doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms” to a notion that there are two spheres, “the one divine, holy, supernatural, and Christian, and the other worldly, profane, natural, and un-Christian,” Bonhoeffer held to be a vulgarization. The modern reading of the Two Kingdoms—a reading shaped (Bonhoeffer would say deformed) by the Enlightenment—unwittingly finalized the separation of Christian concerns from the secular and profane. “On the Protestant side,” he writes, “Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms was misinterpreted as implying the emancipation and sanctification of the world and of the natural. Government, reason, economics, and culture arrogate to themselves a right of autonomy, but do not in any way understand this autonomy as bringing them into opposition to Christianity.” The Lutheran misunderstanding of Luther contributed over time to the Enlightenment cult of reason and the emergence of the self-mastering self.

With that triumph came an idolatrous faith in progress that could only result in nationalism—the “Western godlessness” that became in modern times its own religion. In the “apostasy of the Western world from Jesus Christ,” a massive defection from our collective recognition of finitude, we abandoned the knowledge that we are creatures as well as creators. This for Bonhoeffer is the backdrop to twentieth-century totalitarianism, a terrible story of what happens when we presume we stand alone as Sovereign Selves within Sovereign States, a terrible story of what happens when individual hubris meets nationalism.

For many today, the United States is the country that most reflects "individual hubris" meeting "nationalism" with a "massive defection from our collective recognition of finitude".

For Augustine, Aquinas, Blackstone, and Bonhoeffer laws and government are only legitimate if they maintain the right order and right justice that overflows from God's character in the form of natural law. In other words, right government must conform to divine will - or it is not right.

However, let us say for a second that that is not true (as many reading this will) - what does it mean in modern America to say that government conforms to the will of the people; and where does true justice and right order flow out of the people's will (and, of course, what is it's source).

That is for Part II

Read more!

Rick Moran Goes Off

I like Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse. We share at least one thing - the principles upon which he bases his political conservatism are close to my own. We do not share at least one thing - a belief in God. Rick is a professed atheist.

We share another belief I think: the marriage of theologically conservative Christians with the Republican Party in 1980 and increasingly in 1984 was not really because of shared political philosophy.

It was because the Republican Party staked its verbal claim (at least) to being opposed to abortion and the repeal of Roe v Wade; while the Democratic Party staked his big tent firmly for abortion choice and the defense of Roe. For those who believe that the death of 1,200,000 unborn children a year is horrific, and the most important issue facing the country, they really had no other place to go. The rise since then of a movement for re-defining marriage as any two loving people, even if they are the same biological sex - again generally opposed verbally by the Republican Party and supported verbally by the Democratic Party - has increased that feeling that being Republican was where it was at for theologically conservative Christians. Since they constituted 40ish% of the Republican Party, and were essential to its victories since 1980, they have wielded some weight.

However, both the Republican and Democratic parties have both completely pandered on the latter point (a Democratic president signed the Federal DOMA) and the Republicans have largely pandered on the former. The results are that the two Supreme Court appointees of George Bush will NOT (imo) vote to overturn Roe if they get the chance; and (imo) - they were never intended to; and John Roberts - claiming hired gun status - successfully argued the case against the Colorado DOMA before the Supreme Court before he was nominated. While both are strict constructionists whom I support, there is hardly a reason to believe they will violate that strict constructionist philosophy to make social conservatives happy in the areas of gay marriage and abortion.

In exchange for (imo) nothing, some of the leadership of theologically conservative Christians in this country have traded the centrality of Christ's power in their life, as well as the spreading of the Gospel, with the quest for political power - or really just recognition at the "kid's table" of American politics. Now, the first time one of those social conservatives takes a shot at political power itself the screams from the right of American politics is deafening.

That brings us to Rick's "Facing up to the Unbearable Truth" - a rant every bit as hateful really as any I have seen from the most rabid anti-faith secular liberal. It made me want to put my shoes on, take that straw outa my mouth, and march right up and hit him in his citified face with a bowl of grits - and I will not be voting for Mike Huckabee. To Rick's credit, he apologized, and in doing so brought up the real issue:

There is going to be a reckoning within the conservative movement between classic conservatives who believe that a society must have a just, moral order to survive and social conservatives who wish to “take back (sic) the country for Jesus” while imposing a moral order on the rest of us via top down, government solutions . . . the solution will eventually be found in local communities who will decide for themselves the definition of “moral order” without diktats from Washington. [I am going to ignore that "imposing morality" nonsense for now]

Every married couple - especially after being married for 30 years - has had those periods of strained civility for the sake of peace - a horrible caricature of relationship to be sure. Suddenly, when the peace breaks and the long-stifled issues surface - the marriage has either reached its end; or a new and deeper relationship will be formed. Welcome to that moment in the social conservative and political conservative marriage. It is hard for me to see how the marriage can be saved.

First of all, both parties have lost their way. Christianity is not, at its heart, a legislative religion - the failure of Mosaic Law to make us righteous was one of the reasons for Christ's advent - to write the law on our hearts instead of in stone. It is not possible to use secular political power to spread the Kingdom of God. If you are going to use secular law to restrain immorality, the process of doing so shouldn't obstruct the real building of a real Kingdom. Admittedly, over a million lives a year is an astronomical pressure on pro-life Christians to ban abortion. I cannot blame them for trying even if it will never work before you win the hearts and minds of a super-majority; and the current political/legal battle may actually get in the way of winning those necessary additional hearts and minds. However, the amplification of homosexuality to some special class of sin has no Biblical justification whatsoever in my opinion.

Politically conservative Republicans have also lost their way - becoming "big government" "big spenders" at the Federal level (at least). Frankly, it matters not whether your deficits are created by cutting taxes or increasing spending - conservatives have not been paying the bills and instead have left them for future generations. When the only President in the last 27 years to actually balance a budget and pay down the debt was a Democrat - it shows the bankruptcy (literally) of the current version of (un) "fiscal" conservatism.

Also, whether it be actively usurping state's rights through use of the Commerce Clause, or centralizing control of FEMA so it was unable to respond quickly to a regional crisis like Katrina - the idea of subsidiarity has been lost to the Republican Party. This goes for attempting to usurp state power through proposed constitutional amendments governing marriage and abortion: even if pandering to social conservatives, these political impossibilities (coupled with liberal top-down social engineering) should have never been proposed. Republicans, in general, have been just as much about giving power to the Federal government at the expense of lower levels of organization as the Democrats. Witness President Bush's use of the Commerce Clause and the FDA to assault California medical marijuana and Oregon's acceptance of physician supported suicide.

The use of torture and the building of vast Federal domestic spying programs are anathema to classic conservatism and its support for individual rights vs. the intrusion of the state. Admittedly, the need for security in a post 9/11 age requires some giving up of individual liberty in order to protect the general population - but excess is excess. President Bush's claims to unrestricted executive power in such cases do not ring true - whatever classic conservatives trust, it is not unrestricted government power.

Luckily, political marriages are not made in Heaven, are not forever, and divorce is not banned. This couple needs to examine themselves, repent and return to their respective philosophical and theological roots, and then decide whether they should part for the good of both of them.

Hey, they can still remain friends.

Read more!

Establishment and Free Exercise

This is the first person I've read - Charles Krauthammer's "An Overdose of Public Piety" - who really has found the balance in the establishment vs. free exercise debate; and someone commenting on it - Rick Moran's "Drunk with Religiosity" even improved on that. For my friends at Street Prophets reading this - that it comes from the secular right is probably not going to make them happy. They, if they read it, may react like this person in the comment section at Rick's post:

It really irritated my Leftie sensibilities that Krauthammer said something rational and intelligent. I’ve gotten so used to hating his work that I had to read the column three times to make sure I didn’t miss something. It makes being radically partisan much more difficult when there’s intelligent discourse on both sides. That damn man is going make me think!

The context of all of these columns is Mike Huckabee's showing in Iowa - suddenly the secular right is coming out loaded for bear to make sure he doesn't get the Republican nomination: the venom is both interesting and predictable.

However, right now let's look at Krauthammer's main points:

Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments. The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.

There can be no privilege for any set of ideas in the public square. As Jefferson said in the body of the "Virginia Statutes for Religious Freedom"

That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

That cuts in every direction - Jefferson's argument was in favor of absolutely free debate:

truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them

Back to Charles:

A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you're somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.

This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It's ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.

Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.

Exactly. Before my liberal friends that read this fluff to much - notice that Krauthammer does not paint with a broad brush - and accurately portrays the position of those "certain kind of liberals". Since I have had multiple arguments on a long-term and on-going basis with this "certain kind" I can personally attest to the accuracy of the remark. Now, he adds the balance:

But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed, that it confers some special status.

Romney has been faulted for not throwing at least one bone of acknowledgment to nonbelievers in his big religion speech last week. But he couldn't, because the theme of the speech was that there is something special about having your values drawn from religious faith. Indeed, faith is politically indispensable. "Freedom requires religion," Romney declared, "just as religion requires freedom."

But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech

Exactly. This is where Rick Moran adds to the discussion:

But there is a huge difference between being inspired or animated in your politics by religion and thrusting your religious beliefs forward as “proof” of your superiority as a candidate. Or that your faith gives you a privileged position in a debate over public policy issues.

And that, boys and girls, is the problem with this GOP field. The Democrats have their own agenda when it comes to trying to appeal to Christians. Witness Barack Obama’s efforts in South Carolina where he staged a “Gospel-fest” featuring some of the country’s finest Gospel singers. But Obama seems to wear his faith like an old coat – comfortable and roomy. Candidates Romney and Huckabee wear their faith like a straitjacket, the tenets of which limit their worldview while binding them to positions on social issues that brook no opposition because they are based on holy writ.

Back to Krauthammer: I cannot even fault his next statement because he does not confuse faith and religion as many do:

In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite,

Again, he is right - religion has done both.

His summation parallels Jefferson above and is, to me, the key quote here:

In this country, there is no special political standing that one derives from being a Christian leader like Mike Huckabee or a fervent believer like Mitt Romney. Just as there should be no disability or disqualification for political views that derive from religious sensibilities, whether the subject is civil rights or stem cells.

Exactly.

Now, when Rick Moran started to talk about relgion and natural law in the last part of his piece - he gave me some things to want to look at a bit closer. However, that is another diary.

Read more!

Wilberforce and Separation

Again, from Stand to Reason :

I found, in the preface to a new edition of [William] Wilberforce's book, A Practical View of Christianity , the following quotes of protest directed towards Wilberforce's work in his day:

The linked article, "200 Years of Christianity, Politics, and Human Rights" is an interesting read on the comparisons between trying to expand the definition of imago dei now with trying to extend it then.

Read more!

Richard Land and Moral Agency

[ This was cross-posted, with major changes, from Street Prophets]

A new conversation, or revival of an old one, in the blogosphere was started by the posting on YouTube of a video clip of a guy asking pro-life demonstrators whether women should spend time in jail if Roe v Wade (and Casey) were repealed and states began to make abortions illegal or severely restricted.

The discussion it raised showed up first (in sites I keep an eye on) at Stand to Reason with the articles listed here. My comments are in some of those comment questions. Then, PastorDan at Street Prophets weighed in on some quotes from "'How Much Time Should She Serve?'" published in Christianity Today. Anna Quindlen, writing in Newsweek, posits this choice:

There are only two logical choices: Hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place.

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior policy analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family, responds:

Penalizing the woman is not even on the table.

to which Quindlen says: Such a legal stance is tantamont to

"ignoring or infantilizing women, turning them into 'victims' of their own free will," . . . "State statutes that propose punishing only a physician suggest the woman was merely some addled bystander who happened to find herself in the wrong stirrups at the wrong time."

Enter PastorDan with "The Teacher is the Law in This" .

[Cue musical interlude while you go and read these articles and come back]

So, does Land listen to what he says? Are women impaired when they choose abortion?

I have been fighting against the "well, ya, we should convict them of murder" side of this discussion in the last week at STR and SP; so I might as well deal with it here as well. However, other than some brief comments on a bad pro-choice meme at the beginning - my contention is that all humans are impaired moral agents: certainly not just women, and certainly not just when it comes to abortion. Quickly, for the vast majority of pro-life folk:

It has never been about punishing the woman

For the half of the country, and indeed half of the women, who consider themselves pro-life:

• it is about the fetus being the kind of being whose life it is wrong to end.
• it is about 1,200,000 of those innocent lives being ended a year in the US alone.
• it is about the responsibility of government, and the community it represents, to protect the innocent lives in our midst - even from their own mothers and fathers.
• it is about the failure of our communities to do that since Roe v Wade - indicated by 1,200,000 abortions a year. Our communities could have done this without the government - they didn't.

Woman are indeed moral agents capable of making their own decisions. That we are all (mostly all at least) moral agents capable of making our own decisions does not mean we make the right decisions. Why do we reason badly as moral agents? This is my favorite list (compare Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Prima Secundæ Partis, Question 94, Articles 4 and 6):

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

Actually, only (maybe) #8 and (certainly) #9 make us "bad people" or "a criminal". In the other seven, the community and the culture bears an equal, and sometimes greater, responsibility for training and equipping us to reason well; and establishing "known principles" clearly. So, now Land's points that PD butchered (IMHO):

It's not demeaning to assume that any person who is a mother who could make the decision to do this must be suffering from some form of psychological impairment because of the crisis of the pregnancy

Do any of us reason most clearly in a crisis? We are all psychologically impaired when we are confronted by a crisis situation (that is what extreme stress does i.e. finding out your are pregnant when you didnt want to be; and that it creates monstrous difficulties in your life). That is why the Bible says we need many wise counselors. Note: this deeper explanation of another form of impairment was posted in the other thread:

• it is clearly evident in nature and within us that unborn children are created imago dei and should not be killed.
• that is a general revelation from God - unrelated to Christianity and Christian teaching. Folks should "just know it"; and indeed the all over world abortion has been seen as wrong in every nearly every culture and in nearly every time until the modern period.
• that gets twisted between our consciences and our moral acts because of errors (examples above) in our moral reasoning.
• the world, our desires, and the devil encourage and support that twisted reasoning. And hence we act in an morally impaired way.

or because of societal demeaning of human life

We talk about the war in Iraq, hunger and homelessness due to poverty, violence against women, racism, etc; and you do not believe society demeans human life? Not only does the general culture in the US demean life in general; but parents, husbands, boyfriends, friends, and those who profit from abortion demean life particularly in case of abortion. Woman do often have many counselors, but are they wise: do they help overcome the list above or are they making it worse? And, actually from Earlle

The law is a teacher in this

Paul said a tutor, and of course it is. The law restrains us long enough to reason more clearly - partially because of the possible legal consequences of our acts force us to weigh difficult issues more deliberately. The law also points out to us the "known principles" it values, and those it doesn't.

Since, I am not into "legal vs illegal" when it comes to morality - but about "moral vs immoral" - I am obstensibly pro-choice. I am not for abortions being made illegal in a society with no clear and mutual understanding of its "known principles" on this issue. Land acknowledged this lack of common cultural understanding in the Christianity Today article:

abortion is not the same as murder, since there is no cultural understanding that a fetus is a person.

However, if Roe (well, really Casey) is overturned and the states begin to make abortion illegal - I have absolutely no problem with society protecting the innocent life of the unborn child; while choosing to explicitly exempt the mothers from punishment who still choose to abort their child. After all,

It has never been about punishing the woman

and we, as a culture, have not taught anyone to reason carefully when it comes to the lives of those we turn into "others". Which, BTW, is why the subject of this post is :

Why do we as moral agents reason poorly and make immoral decisions?

and

What responsibility does society have in training us to not do this, and restraining our actions when we do?

and not abortion (that is just the particular example)

Read more!

Abortion: Foundations of a Discussion

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

I really haven't fully blogged on abortion - because it is one of my brain cramps. It is a brain cramp because nearly every woman in my immediate, and married family, has had experiences with abortion:

• My mother was engaged to be married right after WWII, and her finance drowned one week before the wedding - leaving her pregnant. She had an abortion from a medical student in Texas - the eventual state of Roe v Wade. If she hadn't, she would have never met my father, they never would have married, and I and my three sisters wouldn't be here. Of course, at least one other would be.


• Two (I know of - maybe all three) of my three sisters had abortions


• One spouse went in, under severe pressure from the father of the child, and her own father, to have an abortion. The abortion clinic sent her away because her reasons were all wrong. Her daughter is now on her way to the Persian Gulf on the John Stennis - and she is a strong beautiful woman.


• An older family member had an abortion sandwiched between two of her 5 other children because she felt it was financially undoable to have a child at that point. She is still not sure of heaven because of that - a true pity for a very Godly woman.

There really isn't a Biblical case against, or for, abortion - although I think this paragraph from Wiki deals with this well:

Such passages of the Bible are not taken in a proof-text manner by Christian tradition (that is, they are applicable to the question, although they do not mention abortion), but as illustrations of a basic ethical principle of the created order — a unity of instruction, or "world-view". And this provides for a syllogism, which forms the basis of the modern Christian pro-life movement. Scripture condemns the shedding of innocent human blood. The biblical insight into the order of things is that man is distinct from, and above an animal; and man is uniquely subject to God, whereas animals are given to man; and an unborn child is human and known to God. Therefore, even an unborn child is protected by God, as made in the image of God because it is human (an issue distinct from all speculations of when life begins).

Up until recently, however, I have not made a "religious" argument on abortion - I have stuck to a secular one.

However, that is two posts away. This post is the first of two on how we (badly) argue this issue; and what I see the core question of the discussion should be. The latter will come first in this diary, followed by some arguments that, IMHO, should be scrapped immediately by those that use them - that is, if pro-life and pro-choice folk actually have any desire to stop talking past each other; and find ways to reduce abortions in the US. Incidentally, that is on the agenda: almost every poll that phrases it that way shows that while maybe a third (at most) of the population want abortions to be illegal, two-thirds want it reduced and/or restricted from its present level. At this point after 30 years of debate, making abortion illegal is really off the table; but so is unrestricted access.

There were a few stories/diaries/posts that clicked together to produce the impetus for this diary. One of those was "Dignity as a Litmus Test: Why I'm a Single Issue Voter" where Joe Carter quotes David Gushee's definition of sanctity of life:

The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

I think folks who read this will generally agree with this definition unless they react to who said it and where it came from (one of those bad things about how we argue). The bold face words in the quote are, of course, key: the definition of human being as it relates to embryos, fetuses, and abortion. Few who read this will agree that indeed embryos and fetuses represent human beings in the sense Gushee means; and then say it is cool that 1,200,000 a year are killed. So, while the first thing the discussion can concentrate on is the "sanctity of life" statement above - the next is this statement from Don Marquis from his seminal (according to Wiki - download here):

Many of the most insightful and careful writers on the ethics of abortion-such as Joel Feinberg, Michael Tooley, Mary Anne Warren, H. Tristram Engel¬hardt, Jr., L. W. Sumner, John T. Noonan, Jr., and Philip Devine — believe that

whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end.

I think that this is the core question and that your answer - yes or no - will be the basis of your position on abortion. If it is no, then abortion is a medical question between a woman, the father (if he is available and cares), and the doctor; and there is no moral content to this decision at all. If it is yes, then the ending the lives of 1,200,000 beings whose lives are seriously wrong to end is a moral question of huge proportions - and certainly not just the business of the woman, the man, and the doctor. Is this the core question? Discuss that below.

The whole abortion debate, and abortion law, revolves around where in the development of a human being - from fetus to 1st grade - the line is crossed between a being whose life it is not seriously wrong to end, and one's whose life is seriously wrong to end. I will look at the state of those arguments in the next diary. The rest of this diary assumes Marquis's statement of the core question is correct; and looks at some really bad sidetracks to this discussion I would love to see never be mentioned again in the debate (but have no expectation will not be)

1. Abortion will never be illegal in the US; nor will it ever be unrestricted: As mentioned above, 2/3 of the country think abortions are out of hand - and Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion in the US:

   Before Roe, many states had already moved to modify abortion prohibitions. By 1973, four states had totally repealed their anti-abortion laws. Thirteen states had adopted the "Model Penal Code on Abortion" proposed by the American Law Institute (ALI). This Model Penal Code, drafted in 1962, provided abortion should remain legal whenever the woman's life or health is at risk, when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or when the fetus had a severe defect. By 1973, all but five states had either amended their abortion laws or had pending legislation to do so. -- Kurt Entsminger

   nor would repeal of Roe and Casey end abortion in the US

   . . . If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the regulation of abortion will revert to the 50 individual states. Those who envision reversal of Roe as a great panacea for ending the abortion tragedy will be sadly disappointed. There will be no automatic legal protection granted to unborn children by a reversal of Roe.
   
   Even the most conservative Supreme Court justices have refused to recognize that unborn children are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Nor is it likely that strict abortion prohibitions will suddenly re-emerge. Instead, in a post-Roe era, the political landscape involving abortion across the United States will be far more complicated.
   
   In many key states, we should sadly but realistically expect abortion laws to remain unchanged. These states have adopted public policies through legislation and judicial rulings that evidence a strong commitment to uphold legalized abortion on demand regardless of the disposition of Roe vs. Wade. Two of such states are New York and California, in which nearly 400,000 abortions are performed yearly. This represents almost 40 percent of all annual abortions in the United States . . .

   Deflection of the discussion from the core question above to legality/illegality is, to me, a strawman.


2. Christians, at least, should not be attempting to make abortion illegal: This will make me popular in my conservative Christian crowd :-). Even though I answer the core question with a "yes"; the country is almost exactly split 50/50 on this issue. I think it is time for Christians who believe abortion is immoral to concentrate their considerable muscle on making abortion unchosen and not illegal. The point of Christ's coming and dying was that Mosaic Law could not make us moral or obedient - neither will human law. J. Budziszewski:

   Christianity is not a legislative religion . . . It is not even true that all of God's commands limit the kinds of laws that Christians can accept. To see this, contrast two such precepts: (1) I am prohibited from deliberately shedding innocent blood; (2) I am prohibited from divorcing a faithful spouse. Both precepts are absolute in their application to me, but that is not the issue. If we are speaking of governmental enforcement, then we are speaking of their application to others. The former precept should require very little watering down in the public square, for even nonbelievers are expected to understand the wrong of murder . . . But the latter precept requires a good deal of watering down in the public square, for before the coming of Christ not even believers were expected to understand the true nature of marriage . . . No doubt the Pharisees to whom He was speaking were scandalized by the idea that their civil law did not reflect God's standards fully. They must have been even more offended by the suggestion that it was not intended to. Among religious conservatives this suggestion is still a scandal, but it does not come from liberals; it comes from the Master . . . The civil law will be Christian - if it still exists at all - only when Christ himself has returned to rule: not when a coalition of religious conservatives has got itself elected.

   Budziszewski mentions his comfort with opposing abortion as part of opposing murder; but that again comes back to the core question above - is the embryo/fetus the type of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. The 50/50 split in the country means this issue is closer to the marriage part of his argument above than the murder part.


3. The core question is not a "woman's right to choose" or the "right to privacy": Let me be clear here. Since abortion is never going to be illegal in the US it is going to be a woman's choice. However, again, if you answer the question above "no" then there is no moral issue in abortion - other than perhaps the inclusion of your spouse, or significant other, in the decision. Does any married woman reading this think you could go down to the abortion clinic and end a pregnancy without involving your husband in the decision? While the abortion may have no moral content, the betrayal of your spouse certainly does. Even if the father of the child is not married to the woman getting the abortion, if they are still an active couple then this is a joint decision on almost any planet.
   
   If your answer to the core question above is "yes" - then in what other area of life do we allow one person to have the absolute decision to end the life of a being whose life it is seriously wrong to end? There is no such area.
   
   Similarly, the Supreme Court in Roe and Casey recognized that the right to privacy and choice ended at the point where the fetus might be a being whose life is seriously wrong to end. In Roe these rights were only unfettered for the first trimester and non-existent in the third - during the second the state had limited rights to stick their nose into the issue. Casey dropped the trimester structure and simplified to the question of viability alone - the right to abortion ended when the fetus was viable. Incidentally, the record for a child surviving after a severely premature birth was a birth in the 19th week in 1972.


4. This is not a "woman's issue", and women are not the only ones that should have an opinion: A "yes" answer to the core question makes this a societal problem that involves the deaths of 1,200,000 beings whose lives are seriously wrong to end; and not about some male chauvinist's attempts to control the sexuality of women. While a "no" answer may lead to that conclusion; it ignores that by at least one pro-choice managed poll over half of all women in the US consider themselves pro-life. If it doesn't ignore that, it denigrates those women as quislings dominated and brain-washed by male chauvinists. I can hardly think of a more anti-woman attitude than that last one. Women are just as divided on this issue as men; and if abortion is prima facie (not always) immoral then it is a societal/cultural problem involving men and women - all of whom must agree to act to truly make abortion "safe, legal and rare".


5. Abortion, the death penalty, and war are not the same issue - stop deflecting : All of these issue have different problems associated with them, and we will never discuss any of them intelligently if we sound like small children defending our theft of our siblings toy because they stole one of ours last week


6. Be Consistent: One of my doubts about the "safe, legal, rare" line current in the Democratic Party is that I do not trust it. I agree with it; but do not trust those that speak it. I am not alone. Another story this week that helped start this post: Illinois Choose Life won its right to a specialty "Choose Life" license plate in Illinois.

   The benefits of the Choose Life license plate are the opportunities created to encourage and assist adoption of children in Illinois. The funds generated from sales of the Choose Life license plate will become available to homes for unwed mothers, pregnancy help centers, adoption agencies, and organizations that provide help for foster and special needs children.

   This is a conservative-supported cause; and it has been opposed by much of the pro-choice movement in Illinois. Barack Obama said:

   If we're going to be promoting one view of the abortion debate, then the other one has to be expressed as well, and we don't want license plates to suddenly become bulletin boards for political groups.

   Pro-choice folks have said these plates are "anti-choice". Now, pro-choice legislators in Illinois are trying to dump the entire specialty plate system to prevent this one from being available. One commenter asked the obvious question: if the pro-choice's slogan of "legal, safe and rare" is heartfelt - how can they oppose as "anti-choice" a license plate that encourages adoption and helps fund agencies that are involved in improving adoption services? Obviously, one key element in "safe, legal, rare" is adequate funding, and reform, of adoption services. If there is going to be a "meeting in the middle" on abortion - it is efforts like this that must be supported even if you dislike the general views of the sponsors.

That probably gives us a few things to talk about before the next post in the series - which will deal with the biology (when life begins) and personhood/sentience arguments used to define when a being is the kind of life it is seriously wrong to end.

Next: Talking Past the "Other"

Read more!

Elections and Abortions

Just another one of those conversation posts that originated at Street Prophets. I think Pastordan is probably correct - the Foley scandal may just be the last straw to end the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and perhaps the U.S. Senate.

I linked this post by Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost where he agrees that this is the apparent case

Poll after poll shows that voters are dissatisfied with the GOP. For months conservative pundits have been listing the reasons why the Republicans deserve to lose. Then the Foley scandal broke, revealing that the House leadership is either more corrupt or incompetent than we had imagined. Congressional Republicans appear to be headed for a fall this fall.

except, in the end, abortion will doom the Democrats

Once the dust settles, though, the result will be the same as it’s been for a decade: the Republicans will still be in control of the House and Senate and the Democrat’s will wonder how they managed to blow it yet again. There will be the inevitable stream of books and op-eds to explain “What Went Wrong” but they’ll be missing the two words that consistently kill the hopes for a Democratic-controlled legislature: Roe and Doe.

A pretty good discussion ensued in this thread. The key comment in this thread that led to this post, after me saying abortion really isn't a "single-issue":

Well, For JCH it is more than a simple single issue. He posted the other day that if you banned abortion (and that's the big IF), you'd also need other things, reform the adoption system, better pre and post natal care, etc.

That really does take it above the mantra of "single-issue".

However, I don't think that's the stance of most of these anti-abortion voters, at least the ones I've met.

Most of these people are looking for a very simplistic...and to be honest morally safe*.. black and white view of the world. And this issue seems to give it to them.

*And by morally safe, I mean that it's in an area that they won't "trip" themselves, so they. and others can see them in those pristine pure white terms.

Needless to say, a lot of those people I've met I personally would say are quite morally challenged, so to speak.

I like Karmakin a lot actually, considering how different we are. He is struggling mightily to come up with a moral "language" that both secular and religious folks can unite around in a common framework. Since I believe in a version of natural law, and the actual existence of common moral beliefs stretching across all cultures and religions, I like his style - a lot.

The comment by me that he mentions in that last quote is here and the applicable section to this post is this:

Abortion: I think abortion is immoral, but shouldn't be outlawed.

• If on the national level, they tell me they will work to pass any constitutional amendment on abortion, pro or con, they are probably done. I might support one that bans but allows exceptions for life and health of mother, and severe health issues for child, plus rape and incest. They better, however, also support complete medical coverage and financial support (paid medical leave) for all pregnancies, and adoption reform - or they should just leave it to the states
• On the national level, if they say they will get judges to overturn Roe, they are done.
• On any level, if they oppose parental notification, they are done

Now, my response to my abortion stance not being "single-issue" because I wanted to include social and material support for women (with some modification)

* * * * *

I wish I could say that is what I meant by "single issue". For many in my church, say, those 1,200,000+ abortions a year are just as real a lost life as a soldier or civilian killed in Iraq or an earthquake victim in Pakistan. Period. All the deaths in Iraq are a drop in the abortion bucket. All of the AIDS deaths in sub-Sahara Africa in 2005 is only about 700,000 more than the abortion deaths in the US alone. The exceptions for life and health of the mother, health of the child, rape and incest only amount to about 10% of that 1,200,000 - leaving over a 1,000,000 that are the taking of innocent life without excuse.

Frankly, while I am more politically-wired and looking for compromises that can do something, I agree. If you believe that, all other issues pall - and the defenders of abortion, in justifying abortion, really are justifying a degradation of all American culture. Everything good and moral begins to sink into the abyss with this immorality.

We are created imago dei: in the image of God. Our value is defined not by what "we can do" (our value to others), but "what we are"(our intrinsic value). In justifying abortion, different folks have different standards on what abilities constitute a person they have to hold in regard: sentience, cognition, self-awareness, sociality, the capacity to make plans, or their mother believing they have that regard. All of these are measures not of "what we are" but "what we can do" - they all ignore imago dei and that we have an inherent nature that is worthy of respect and that makes us a "rights bearer" regardless of the narrow definitions of "personhood" our society may hold. Once we start defining which "images of God" are not "persons" with adequate sentience, cognition, self-awareness, sociality, capacity to make plans, etc. - then we justify infanticide, mercy killing, and active euthanasia (which I actually support in Oregon) - not to mention just good old fashion racism, sexism, murder and genocide.

In discussing the five furies of conscience, J. Budziszewski used abortion in every example. When I discussed the Five Furies, I removed abortion from the examples, because I frankly did not want to be accused of back-dooring an anti-abortion rant by means of a philosophy discussion - just as Joe Carter was accused of running Karl Rove's "wedge issue play sheet" by one of his commenter's in his post linke above. I wanted to discuss conscience without a pie-fight on abortion. J. Bud's reason for using abortion throughout this discussion:

All the furies collude. Each reinforces the others, not only in individuals but in the social group. Perhaps you and I connive in displaced reconciliation by becoming comrades in guilty deeds. Or perhaps my compulsion to confess feeds your compulsion to justify yourself. In such ways entire groups, entire societies may drive themselves downhill, as the revenge of the conscience grows more and more terrible.

My examples focus on abortion, which is both the chief means by which our is losing our moral sanity and the greatest symptom of its loss

I am still not interested in a pie-fight on abortion - I just want to make you understand that this isn't a "wedge issue", or a "distraction from the real moral issues", or a "single-issue" for a large number of US voters. Committed pro-life folk weigh other issues; and if you want to "balance their view" then you have to place "values" greater than a million lives on the other side of the scale. That is not really very easy to accomplish. If you thought fetuses were imago dei and rights bearers, just like you, because they have intrinsic worth based on what they are rather than what they can do, it would be hard to distract you from this issue as well. A million lives is a million lives.

The other solution is to "lower the weight" of the million lives so that it is easier to balance that weight on the other side. However, the more

• they are called "believers in forced childbirth" without any discussion of who "forces" women to get pregnant
• they hear fetuses called clumps of cells
• Democrats "support" the continuation of procedures like Intact D&X's
• Democrats oppose parental notification (supported by 80% of the population);

- then the more they believe that the Democratic Party is incapable of compromising on abortion on demand. They believe, as sometimes I feel, that the Democratic Party has never met an abortion they didn't like - and certainly none they deeply despise.

I doubt if many expect (even if they hope for) the repeal of Roe (I don't - I think the SC appointments were made for that not to happen) but what they expect is to nibble away and restrict abortion, both nationally and at the state level: they want to get it to the point where it is only available in cases of risk to the life of the mother, rape and incest. I think health of the child will be added to that list. Health of the mother may be added if it isn't used to create to large a loophole. Keep in mind: two-thirds of Amercans want abortion restricted from its current levels. They also want abortion unchosen, even if they are not committed, as many are, to making it illegal. Do folks who want to see abortion severely lowered have reason to believe the Democratic Party is going to lead this fight?

I am not trying to change your view of abortion (although that would be nice), just make you understand the passion underlying this issue - and the way folks see it connected to the moral health and life of the whole culture. This is not a "single issue" for these folks; but a nearly impossible to balance "life and death" issue.

Now, if I believe it is this wrong then why do I not support efforts to make it illegal? J. Budziszewski:

To the question "Should the civil law enforce the precepts of the faith?" the biblical answer is, "Some yes, but some no; which ones do you mean?" The New Testament contains literally hundreds of precepts. However, Christianity is not a legislative religion. While the Bible recognizes the Torah as a divinely revealed code for the ruling of Israel before the coming of Messiah, it does not include a divinely revealed code for the ruling of the gentiles afterward. To be sure, the Bible limits the kinds of laws that Christians can accept from their governments, for "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). However, it does not prescribe specific laws that they must demand from them.

It is not even true that all of God's commands limit the kinds of laws that Christians can accept. To see this, contrast two such precepts: (1) I am prohibited from deliberately shedding innocent blood; (2) I am prohibited from divorcing a faithful spouse. Both precepts are absolute in their application to me, but that is not the issue. If we are speaking of governmental enforcement, then we are speaking of their application to others. The former precept should require very little watering down in the public square, for even nonbelievers are expected to understand the wrong of murder. That is why I may be confident in condemning the legalization of abortion.

J. Bud may be confident, but regretfully there is no common view that abortion is not a justified taking of life, or even the taking of a "life" at all - which means legal solutions do not exist. We must "win hearts and minds" and make it unchosen - even if we cannot make it illegal.

Read more!