It seems that every so often some church comes up with what they take to be a new gimmick to get people into its doors. The latest is this advertisement campaign boasting that: ‘Christians have the best sex!’ Others hold parenting seminars or economic forums in order to demonstrate how their faith will help you have a more pleasant family life or more money in your pocket for which to indulge yourself.
Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a better parent or being more responsible with money. What is wrong with this approach is that it treats Christ as a means. One may continue to value the things they value apart from Christ (sex and money) and they may continue to seek after them and place them first in their lives. Christ is only valuable in that He is the most effective means to attain one’s ends.
But this is false. Christ is the end, the only End that lasts or matters. Only in Him do we become fully us. If we do not put Him first we will lose Him and all else. Think of the parable of the men with the talents. Those with much (Christ) will get even more; him without Christ will lose even the little that he has.
So instead of treating Christ as a frosting to which we add to our already sweet life, I would like to see Christians scorn at the things of the world in favor of Christ. Instead of a sermon that promotes better sex, I would like to see one entitled: ‘We live in a world that values sex and money above all else. REPENT! So long as you seek after things besides Christ you will never be satisfied and if you continue to persist you will ultimately forfeit your very self, your soul!’
The church should offer a true alternative to the world; not just what the world has to offer, but in a better way. Doing so will require that people repent and change their thinking. In this case it will require them to make Christ their Lord in the place of sex. The purpose of our faith is not to make our life more pleasant here; the purpose of our faith is to reconcile us with God so that we may know Him and spend eternity in bliss with Him. No matter how great our life is on this earth it is but a shadow of the True Life which is to come. As a church we should spend more of our time brining men into this True Life rather than aiding them in their quest to construct the best possible shadow (a task in which we often lose sight of the Light).
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Counter-Cultural Church
Every society has its peculiar emphasizes: some they get right, some they get wrong. For example, the Romans excelled in both courage and chastity, but were often times very cruel. We modern westerners are much more kind, but we are far more cowardly and far less chaste.
Every society in which the church has existed has influenced the church. For example, the church under the Roman Empire excelled both in courage and chastity (one need but consider for a moment the bravery of the martyrs), but they often lacked kindness (in St. Augustine’s time a rival group of Christians known as the Donatists murdered rival bishops and sacked their churches). In our age the church, like society, is cowardly and unchaste (see our identical divorce rates for proof), but we are more kind (accepting those who are different, etc).
Before I proceed I must make one thing clear: the values of God are incommensurate. That is to say, they cannot be compared. Our kindness does not make up for our lack of chastity just as the chastity of the earlier church did not excuse its cruelty. We cannot compare sins just as we cannot compare the things God values (e.g. justice is not twice as valuable as beauty).
Given that all the things that God values are, well, valuable, the church should ideally value and display them all. But short of that, I believe the church has a responsibility to intentionally value those values of God which are ignored or mocked in our society.
Courage and chastity were held as virtuous by all men during earlier periods. Yes the church was right in being both courageous and chaste, but it need not emphasize them for in doing so they merely reinforced what people believed. Their time would have been much better spent promoting kindness. In the same way, today kindness (tolerance, diversity, etc) is in the very air we breathe. It is not to say that this is not valuable (rightly understood, it is), but only that the church should spend more of its time promoting values (like chastity) that are not widely held and are in fact openly mocked.
But instead we see the opposite. We see the church more and more moving toward accommodation, wanting to be more like the world in tolerating a lack of chasteness and worshiping tolerance so that the world we see us as one of their own and maybe somehow we will be able to trick them into our pews.
I do not see mega churches as a testimony to the church’s success, but rather to its failure. The world killed Christ and His disciples. Yet significant parts of the church today our accepted by our increasingly worldly society. The fact that they are accepted and not persecuted is probably evident that they are too much like the world, not only in it, but of it, that they have lost their light, for the darkness cannot tolerate the light.
Should the church not try to be so friendly or cool? The church should not focus on results. We are to preach the gospel and have faith in God to take care of the rest. If we do any more we risk perverting our task (preaching the gospel) in order that we may do something we are not asked to do (save the souls of men—that is God’s job). In doing this we not only corrupt our rightly given goal, but put into jeopardy that which we were never asked to do (it is difficult for a man to repent if he is not given the true gospel message!)
Every society in which the church has existed has influenced the church. For example, the church under the Roman Empire excelled both in courage and chastity (one need but consider for a moment the bravery of the martyrs), but they often lacked kindness (in St. Augustine’s time a rival group of Christians known as the Donatists murdered rival bishops and sacked their churches). In our age the church, like society, is cowardly and unchaste (see our identical divorce rates for proof), but we are more kind (accepting those who are different, etc).
Before I proceed I must make one thing clear: the values of God are incommensurate. That is to say, they cannot be compared. Our kindness does not make up for our lack of chastity just as the chastity of the earlier church did not excuse its cruelty. We cannot compare sins just as we cannot compare the things God values (e.g. justice is not twice as valuable as beauty).
Given that all the things that God values are, well, valuable, the church should ideally value and display them all. But short of that, I believe the church has a responsibility to intentionally value those values of God which are ignored or mocked in our society.
Courage and chastity were held as virtuous by all men during earlier periods. Yes the church was right in being both courageous and chaste, but it need not emphasize them for in doing so they merely reinforced what people believed. Their time would have been much better spent promoting kindness. In the same way, today kindness (tolerance, diversity, etc) is in the very air we breathe. It is not to say that this is not valuable (rightly understood, it is), but only that the church should spend more of its time promoting values (like chastity) that are not widely held and are in fact openly mocked.
But instead we see the opposite. We see the church more and more moving toward accommodation, wanting to be more like the world in tolerating a lack of chasteness and worshiping tolerance so that the world we see us as one of their own and maybe somehow we will be able to trick them into our pews.
I do not see mega churches as a testimony to the church’s success, but rather to its failure. The world killed Christ and His disciples. Yet significant parts of the church today our accepted by our increasingly worldly society. The fact that they are accepted and not persecuted is probably evident that they are too much like the world, not only in it, but of it, that they have lost their light, for the darkness cannot tolerate the light.
Should the church not try to be so friendly or cool? The church should not focus on results. We are to preach the gospel and have faith in God to take care of the rest. If we do any more we risk perverting our task (preaching the gospel) in order that we may do something we are not asked to do (save the souls of men—that is God’s job). In doing this we not only corrupt our rightly given goal, but put into jeopardy that which we were never asked to do (it is difficult for a man to repent if he is not given the true gospel message!)
The Danger of Attaching God to our Idiosyncrasies
We all have different personalities (which is obvious enough). There is nothing wrong with a personals personality: it is not better to be naturally outgoing or inverted or sanguine or melancholy. What is wrong (or in the least, foolish) is claiming that our certain predisposition is somehow blessed by God and model to be imitated by other Christians.
For example consider the notions of obstinacy and pliability. Some of us are more naturally obstinate. Once we come to an idea we are slow to change our minds. Use rightly this could be considered the gift of faith; used wrongly it can become stubbornness or even pride. Others of us are more naturally pliable. That is we are more apt to change our minds. In its right form this is humility (the ability to admit when one is wrong), in its wrong form one becomes double-minded (in the sense used by St. James) and without faith.
It is neither wrong nor right to have either characteristic—both are naturally occurring tendencies. What is wrong (or, if it is not wrong, it can certainly lead one to wrongs), is to say that one or the other is Christ like. For example, one should not say that it is better that they are more naturally full of faith (for it is just as true that they are more naturally prone to be stuck in a false idea). Nor should one attach these things to denominations (Catholics are too dogmatic, etc), for being that these are a personality traits, they are found across all denominations (and even all faiths).
What should one do? Recognize their tendency and be on guard against it. If one is more prone to obstinacy, they should pray for humility and that God will guide them away from false beliefs while they retain the true. If one is prone to pliability, they should pray for faith and being that they are so easily influenced from one view to another, they should do all they can to surround themselves with good influences. And each should recognize the weaknesses of others: the obstinate man may be able to be around great sinners without falling, but the pliable man may not. If the obstinate man calls the prudence of the pliable man sinful, he risks causing his brother to fall into sin.
For example consider the notions of obstinacy and pliability. Some of us are more naturally obstinate. Once we come to an idea we are slow to change our minds. Use rightly this could be considered the gift of faith; used wrongly it can become stubbornness or even pride. Others of us are more naturally pliable. That is we are more apt to change our minds. In its right form this is humility (the ability to admit when one is wrong), in its wrong form one becomes double-minded (in the sense used by St. James) and without faith.
It is neither wrong nor right to have either characteristic—both are naturally occurring tendencies. What is wrong (or, if it is not wrong, it can certainly lead one to wrongs), is to say that one or the other is Christ like. For example, one should not say that it is better that they are more naturally full of faith (for it is just as true that they are more naturally prone to be stuck in a false idea). Nor should one attach these things to denominations (Catholics are too dogmatic, etc), for being that these are a personality traits, they are found across all denominations (and even all faiths).
What should one do? Recognize their tendency and be on guard against it. If one is more prone to obstinacy, they should pray for humility and that God will guide them away from false beliefs while they retain the true. If one is prone to pliability, they should pray for faith and being that they are so easily influenced from one view to another, they should do all they can to surround themselves with good influences. And each should recognize the weaknesses of others: the obstinate man may be able to be around great sinners without falling, but the pliable man may not. If the obstinate man calls the prudence of the pliable man sinful, he risks causing his brother to fall into sin.
Public and Private Choices
All agree that liberty requires a private sphere free from government influence. But what exactly is a private choice?
Sexuality in all its forms has become the quintessential example of a private choice. But how private are our sexual choices?
For example, say a man and women copulate and the woman is impregnated by means of this coupling. If they stay together and raise the child as a family, the choice remains a private one. But say the woman wants to get an abortion. She has to go to an abortionist—not so private anymore.
Or say the woman keeps the child but the man does not stick around. A child raised by a single mom is more likely to require additional educational assistance, the mother and child are more likely to get food stamps and housing subsidies (for the number one cause of poverty in this country is the breaking up of families; and indeed is this not logical? It takes twice the income to support two households than one) and the child is more likely to commit violent acts and require incarceration of some type. This does not sound like too private of a choice anymore.
We do ourselves a disservice when we assume that our ancestors were idiots or fascists or religious zealots to try to regulate the family structure (regarding the religious argument, see Plato and Aristotle). There is a reason people have done things (like regulate family structure and promote man and wife as the idea) certain ways for long periods of time—it has worked! Just because we cannot see the benefits of their customs and traditions does not mean we should discard them. They learned things the hard way so that we would not have to. Yet if we mock their lessons we will find ourselves subject to repeating them.
Sexuality in all its forms has become the quintessential example of a private choice. But how private are our sexual choices?
For example, say a man and women copulate and the woman is impregnated by means of this coupling. If they stay together and raise the child as a family, the choice remains a private one. But say the woman wants to get an abortion. She has to go to an abortionist—not so private anymore.
Or say the woman keeps the child but the man does not stick around. A child raised by a single mom is more likely to require additional educational assistance, the mother and child are more likely to get food stamps and housing subsidies (for the number one cause of poverty in this country is the breaking up of families; and indeed is this not logical? It takes twice the income to support two households than one) and the child is more likely to commit violent acts and require incarceration of some type. This does not sound like too private of a choice anymore.
We do ourselves a disservice when we assume that our ancestors were idiots or fascists or religious zealots to try to regulate the family structure (regarding the religious argument, see Plato and Aristotle). There is a reason people have done things (like regulate family structure and promote man and wife as the idea) certain ways for long periods of time—it has worked! Just because we cannot see the benefits of their customs and traditions does not mean we should discard them. They learned things the hard way so that we would not have to. Yet if we mock their lessons we will find ourselves subject to repeating them.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Machiavelli on Obama
Men get tired of prosperity, just as they are afflicted by the reverse. This love of change, then, so to speak opens the way to everyone who takes the lead in any innovation in any country.
The Discourses III, 21.
The people are often deceived by an illusive good, desire their own ruin, and, unless they are made sensible of the evil of the one and the benefit of the other course by some one in whom they have confidence, they will expose the republic to infinite peril and damage.
The Discourses I, 53.
The Discourses III, 21.
The people are often deceived by an illusive good, desire their own ruin, and, unless they are made sensible of the evil of the one and the benefit of the other course by some one in whom they have confidence, they will expose the republic to infinite peril and damage.
The Discourses I, 53.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Evolution and the Reliability of Man's Thought
Those who have said that a blind fate has produces all the effects that we see in the world have said a great absurdity; for what greater absurdity is there than a blind fate that could have produced intelligent beings?
-Montesquieu
We see two things in the universe: mind (intelligence that is immaterial) and body (thoughtless matter). There are but two solutions: either ultimate reality is intelligence (that is, that which does not think came from that which does think) or it is matter (in that case, all that thinks came from that which does not think).
If we accept the latter, we are forced to abandon a cardinal and basic rule of logic (that an effect cannot be greater than its cause). If we accept the former, we are forced to accept God (and thereby admit the possibility that we may have to submit our wills to one other than ourselves). In their rebellion and enslavement to their passions, most men have decided to abandon their intellectual integrity rather than give up the unhindered pursuit of their sinful passions.
Furthermore, if we admit that matter is the ultimate source of all intelligence, our minds are included in that calculus. That is, our minds are no more than random chemicals and electrons reacting. Who would trust a computer programmed by hailstones? We do not trust intelligence, unless a greater intelligence lies behind it. In rejecting an Intelligent Designer men destroy their very argument by undermining the very basis for that argument (that is, man's reason). For if man's reason is randomly programmed, then all its conclusions are unreliable, including the one that denies intelligence.
-Montesquieu
We see two things in the universe: mind (intelligence that is immaterial) and body (thoughtless matter). There are but two solutions: either ultimate reality is intelligence (that is, that which does not think came from that which does think) or it is matter (in that case, all that thinks came from that which does not think).
If we accept the latter, we are forced to abandon a cardinal and basic rule of logic (that an effect cannot be greater than its cause). If we accept the former, we are forced to accept God (and thereby admit the possibility that we may have to submit our wills to one other than ourselves). In their rebellion and enslavement to their passions, most men have decided to abandon their intellectual integrity rather than give up the unhindered pursuit of their sinful passions.
Furthermore, if we admit that matter is the ultimate source of all intelligence, our minds are included in that calculus. That is, our minds are no more than random chemicals and electrons reacting. Who would trust a computer programmed by hailstones? We do not trust intelligence, unless a greater intelligence lies behind it. In rejecting an Intelligent Designer men destroy their very argument by undermining the very basis for that argument (that is, man's reason). For if man's reason is randomly programmed, then all its conclusions are unreliable, including the one that denies intelligence.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Quote of the Day II
For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave.
-St. Augustine
I'd like to add something, but what else is there that one can say?
-St. Augustine
I'd like to add something, but what else is there that one can say?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Quote of the Day
If a man is just and resolute, the whole world may break and fall upon him and find him, in the ruins, undismayed.
-Horace
-Horace
Peter Kreeft on Education
Society should prepare its members for death; if it cannot do that, it cannot prepare them for life. This is the fundamental task of education, and it is totally and fatally refused by modernity’s educational establishment. We know more and more about less and less. We dare not teach anything worth teaching—wisdom, morality, and religion. If the reasons for this are political—if pluralistic democracy is incompatible with learning true wisdom—then by all means and for the sake of saving our children’s souls, let us quickly sweep away pluralistic democracy.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Error of Pelagius
Pelagius was of course the contemporary and great opponent of St. Augustine. He contended that man could be saved on his own, apart from the grace of God.
Pelagius observed that men can be good without God. Some men may be more generous, kind, etc without God than others with. Because men could be good without God, there was no need for the sacrifice of Christ.
First off, the comparison is false. We should not compare how some act with God to how others act without Him (something we can indeed know), but how distinct people would act with God that have Him not and how those who have Him would act without Him (something we cannot know).
Second, and this is key, Pelagius holds a false premise—he believes that moral perfectibility is the goal of Christianity. If moral perfection (or at least goodness), is the goal of Christianity than indeed Christianity is not the only ‘true’ religion for many are good apart from it. Likewise, Christ could have taught us His moral code (not original in itself, by the way) without dying.
But the fact is moral perfectibility is not the goal of Christianity—reconciliation of God with men is. There was no way man could reconcile himself with a perfect God. Pelagius may be right according to his premise, but he holds a false view of the end of our faith.
Similar to the question ‘can man be good without God’ is the question ‘can man be happy without God?’ That all depends on what we mean by happy. If we mean temporary contentment or momentary subjective satisfaction, of course man can be happy without God. But this is not true happiness. True happiness is objective (so we may say: you think you are happy, but you are not) and eternal. That is why one may be happy while in prison (like St. Paul) or miserable in the lap of luxury because their toast is burnt.
We all experience pain. Some may experience less, but because of their accustomed level of comfort, the most minor inconveniences are as unendurable to them as the greatest tortures are to others.
Finally, though we may not believe this, we must think like Asaph. In the seventy-third Psalm Asaph wrote :
I was envious of the arrogant; I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pain; their bodies are sound and sleek. There are not in trouble as others are; they are not plagued like other people… That is what the wicked are like—always carefree, they increase in wealth. Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure; in vain have I washed my hands in innocence.
In other words, he felt like the wicked lived blessed, happy lives while he lived justly in vain for he faced a whole host of calamities. He lived in envy until ‘he entered the sanctuary of God and perceived their final end.’
‘You who rejoice now mourn for the coming wrath.’ And ‘blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.’ The ‘happiness’ of the wicked will die away (if indeed it even is more than show) like grass on a hot summer day.
All that is unjust is fading while that which is pure and right is day by day coming more concretely into being.
Pelagius observed that men can be good without God. Some men may be more generous, kind, etc without God than others with. Because men could be good without God, there was no need for the sacrifice of Christ.
First off, the comparison is false. We should not compare how some act with God to how others act without Him (something we can indeed know), but how distinct people would act with God that have Him not and how those who have Him would act without Him (something we cannot know).
Second, and this is key, Pelagius holds a false premise—he believes that moral perfectibility is the goal of Christianity. If moral perfection (or at least goodness), is the goal of Christianity than indeed Christianity is not the only ‘true’ religion for many are good apart from it. Likewise, Christ could have taught us His moral code (not original in itself, by the way) without dying.
But the fact is moral perfectibility is not the goal of Christianity—reconciliation of God with men is. There was no way man could reconcile himself with a perfect God. Pelagius may be right according to his premise, but he holds a false view of the end of our faith.
Similar to the question ‘can man be good without God’ is the question ‘can man be happy without God?’ That all depends on what we mean by happy. If we mean temporary contentment or momentary subjective satisfaction, of course man can be happy without God. But this is not true happiness. True happiness is objective (so we may say: you think you are happy, but you are not) and eternal. That is why one may be happy while in prison (like St. Paul) or miserable in the lap of luxury because their toast is burnt.
We all experience pain. Some may experience less, but because of their accustomed level of comfort, the most minor inconveniences are as unendurable to them as the greatest tortures are to others.
Finally, though we may not believe this, we must think like Asaph. In the seventy-third Psalm Asaph wrote :
I was envious of the arrogant; I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pain; their bodies are sound and sleek. There are not in trouble as others are; they are not plagued like other people… That is what the wicked are like—always carefree, they increase in wealth. Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure; in vain have I washed my hands in innocence.
In other words, he felt like the wicked lived blessed, happy lives while he lived justly in vain for he faced a whole host of calamities. He lived in envy until ‘he entered the sanctuary of God and perceived their final end.’
‘You who rejoice now mourn for the coming wrath.’ And ‘blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.’ The ‘happiness’ of the wicked will die away (if indeed it even is more than show) like grass on a hot summer day.
All that is unjust is fading while that which is pure and right is day by day coming more concretely into being.
The Abortion Question
There are three things that can go wrong with an argument: 1, your terms can be ambiguous, 2, you can have false premises, 3, you can have faulty logic connecting your premises to your conclusion. If none of these things go wrong you have to admit the argument is valid. Let’s apply this to the abortion question.
The moral premise: it is wrong to intentionally end the life of an innocent person.
Factual premise: an embryo is an innocent person and abortion intentionally ends their life.
Conclusion: because abortion intentionally ends the life of an innocent person it is morally wrong.
Most would agree with the moral premise. The factual premise is the contested issue. When does one become a person? Before Roe every textbook agreed that life began at conception (every textbook within the last few hundred years—that is every text book written since we have gained knowledge of the working of conception). Now things are convoluted.
But if life begins not at conception, when does it begin? At birth? Why? Because one moves (so to speak) from one room (the womb) to another (the world)? Because one is able to breathe on their own? Why breathing, isn’t that arbitrary? Why not feed oneself? Because one is fully developed? A child’s sexual system does not fully develop for at least ten years and their bone structure is not finalized for ten more—would anyone argue it is less wrong to kill an eight year old than a thirty year old because the later is fully developed? Any and every argument used to defend abortion can also be used to defend infanticide.
Many say: how can an embryo have value, it is so small? So value is relative to size? Is an elephant more valuable than a man or another galaxy than Africa?
Think of it like this: either abortion is the killing of a innocent human life or it isn’t. Either we know it is or it isn’t. If we kill an innocent person and we know we do so it is the highest degree of murder. If we kill and we don’t know for sure that it is a person it is reckless (think of a man driving down the road. It is foggy, but there is something in the road that looks like the outline of a man. It may be a man or it may be a man’s coat, if he runs over the object and it is in fact a man and he kills this man he has committed reckless homicide). If it isn’t a life and we don’t know it is like running over the object and finding out that the object was in fact only a man’s cloak (which is certainly irresponsible, or rather, criminal negligence). If it is not life and we know it is not a life then abortion is not wrong and we should leave women alone.
But no one claims to know this! No one claims that we can prove it is not a human life! In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court admitted that we do not know when human life begins, therefore it is unconstitutional to limit abortion (which goes against hundreds of years of English and American common law precedence). In Casey v. Planned Parenthood (which is the guiding case for abortion) Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that every American has the right to define for themselves the meaning of life and the government can in no way hinder that pursuit.
But the fact is we do not allow people to redefine their morality in any area of life except for sex. Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe and Scalia’s in Casey, when compared to the respective majority opinions in both cases, demonstrate clearly that according to our jurisprudence the government may regulate abortion. Legal scholars who are proponents of abortion rights admit that Roe is the most ‘unconstitutional’ – for lack of a better term – ruling by the Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott the Court violated well established principles, of comity, federalism, and the separation of powers. In Roe the Court violated principles of federalism and separation of powers, but also flipped the very notion of a fundamental right on its head. A fundamental right is a right that has been practiced without interruption since the inception of our nation (like being able to travel freely between states). If government tries to regulate a fundamental right it is unconstitutional. The Court found a fundamental right for abortion, even though every state had banned it since the inception of our union.
Still, even though the government can (at least in reference to American jurisprudence) regulate abortion, should it? In the very least the government should protect the weak and the innocent from the strong and guilty. Who is weaker and more innocent than the unborn? Who is guiltier than those who kill them?
Still, as opponents of abortion, shouldn’t we approach the problem from outside the legal system? If we didn’t live in a democracy, I would argue yes. But we do and we may elect our officials and the legal system is the most direct way to approach this problem. Consider it this way: if one lived in Germany in 1942 wouldn’t one’s foremost moral duty be to try to end the Holocaust? If one could do so immediately and politically would that not be preferable to trying to get to the root cause (replacement theology and anti-capitalism)?
And besides, trying to go after root causes assumes that law does not affect opinion. It may be that the most direct way to change opinion is to change the law. Furthermore, what are the root causes? Poverty and lack of education come to mind. But that is because we live post Dewey and Marx where man is viewed as a tabla rasa (blank slate) that is written upon by his education and environment. Education and material wealth are the solution to everything (from terrorism to STD’s).
I think the root problem is different. From time immemorial sex was viewed as transcendent because in it life is created. The 20th is the first century where man has successfully separated sex from reproduction (allowing sex without babies and babies without sex). This is not all bad and I can’t say that I understand it all, nonetheless I think there are some unforeseen (maybe even indiscernible) consequences of separating the two in such an unnatural manner. Because at its base what more is abortion than sex without babies? Do economics play a role? Yes, but only because we see children in economic terms and our happiness connected with our economic standing. Does education play a role? Of course. Education can decrease abortion. But at its root seems to be this notion of disconnecting sex and reproduction. Taking sex from a quasi-mystical experience where life may come and degrading it to the release of hormones and chemicals that makes one happy (indeed we even call masturbation sex with one self—but that is the anti-sex for it pushes one into oneself rather than pulls oneself out into another).
But isn’t the role of the church to transform the mind and not limit a man’s actions? Indeed, but who said anything about the church. I have been speaking of the government; I have been speaking of the duty of a just man, not a Christian. One can make plenty of arguments against abortion without reference to Christianity (for example: the feminist argument, worldwide 8 out of every ten children aborted is female; the multi-cultural argument, non-white races are aborted at a much higher rate than whites; the utilitarian argument, justice is increasing pleasure for the greatest number. Abortion deprives the aborted of all pleasure as well as the women who abort them for most women regret having abortions; the Aristotelian argument, observation shows us that no other species aborts its young, therefore abortion is unnatural and unjust; the Platonic argument, the best men (philosophers) across time have all condemned abortion; the argument from tradition/the democracy of the dead, our ancestors had good reason prevent abortion we should not be so quick to override them; Kant, one could not wish this act to be a universal norm; Marx, those aborted are disproportionately poor; Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus (in particular the former) believe that we should not interfere with the life force in such a way; and Muslims believe that Allah forbids it).
Not only do most in most times disagree with abortion, but even most today (save our self-appointed elite in the media, universities, and entertainment industries). What should we do? Oppose abortion. Will that do any good? I don’t know. God only asks for our obedience (here an obedience to the simple notion of justice), God leaves for Himself the responsibility of results.
The moral premise: it is wrong to intentionally end the life of an innocent person.
Factual premise: an embryo is an innocent person and abortion intentionally ends their life.
Conclusion: because abortion intentionally ends the life of an innocent person it is morally wrong.
Most would agree with the moral premise. The factual premise is the contested issue. When does one become a person? Before Roe every textbook agreed that life began at conception (every textbook within the last few hundred years—that is every text book written since we have gained knowledge of the working of conception). Now things are convoluted.
But if life begins not at conception, when does it begin? At birth? Why? Because one moves (so to speak) from one room (the womb) to another (the world)? Because one is able to breathe on their own? Why breathing, isn’t that arbitrary? Why not feed oneself? Because one is fully developed? A child’s sexual system does not fully develop for at least ten years and their bone structure is not finalized for ten more—would anyone argue it is less wrong to kill an eight year old than a thirty year old because the later is fully developed? Any and every argument used to defend abortion can also be used to defend infanticide.
Many say: how can an embryo have value, it is so small? So value is relative to size? Is an elephant more valuable than a man or another galaxy than Africa?
Think of it like this: either abortion is the killing of a innocent human life or it isn’t. Either we know it is or it isn’t. If we kill an innocent person and we know we do so it is the highest degree of murder. If we kill and we don’t know for sure that it is a person it is reckless (think of a man driving down the road. It is foggy, but there is something in the road that looks like the outline of a man. It may be a man or it may be a man’s coat, if he runs over the object and it is in fact a man and he kills this man he has committed reckless homicide). If it isn’t a life and we don’t know it is like running over the object and finding out that the object was in fact only a man’s cloak (which is certainly irresponsible, or rather, criminal negligence). If it is not life and we know it is not a life then abortion is not wrong and we should leave women alone.
But no one claims to know this! No one claims that we can prove it is not a human life! In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court admitted that we do not know when human life begins, therefore it is unconstitutional to limit abortion (which goes against hundreds of years of English and American common law precedence). In Casey v. Planned Parenthood (which is the guiding case for abortion) Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that every American has the right to define for themselves the meaning of life and the government can in no way hinder that pursuit.
But the fact is we do not allow people to redefine their morality in any area of life except for sex. Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe and Scalia’s in Casey, when compared to the respective majority opinions in both cases, demonstrate clearly that according to our jurisprudence the government may regulate abortion. Legal scholars who are proponents of abortion rights admit that Roe is the most ‘unconstitutional’ – for lack of a better term – ruling by the Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott the Court violated well established principles, of comity, federalism, and the separation of powers. In Roe the Court violated principles of federalism and separation of powers, but also flipped the very notion of a fundamental right on its head. A fundamental right is a right that has been practiced without interruption since the inception of our nation (like being able to travel freely between states). If government tries to regulate a fundamental right it is unconstitutional. The Court found a fundamental right for abortion, even though every state had banned it since the inception of our union.
Still, even though the government can (at least in reference to American jurisprudence) regulate abortion, should it? In the very least the government should protect the weak and the innocent from the strong and guilty. Who is weaker and more innocent than the unborn? Who is guiltier than those who kill them?
Still, as opponents of abortion, shouldn’t we approach the problem from outside the legal system? If we didn’t live in a democracy, I would argue yes. But we do and we may elect our officials and the legal system is the most direct way to approach this problem. Consider it this way: if one lived in Germany in 1942 wouldn’t one’s foremost moral duty be to try to end the Holocaust? If one could do so immediately and politically would that not be preferable to trying to get to the root cause (replacement theology and anti-capitalism)?
And besides, trying to go after root causes assumes that law does not affect opinion. It may be that the most direct way to change opinion is to change the law. Furthermore, what are the root causes? Poverty and lack of education come to mind. But that is because we live post Dewey and Marx where man is viewed as a tabla rasa (blank slate) that is written upon by his education and environment. Education and material wealth are the solution to everything (from terrorism to STD’s).
I think the root problem is different. From time immemorial sex was viewed as transcendent because in it life is created. The 20th is the first century where man has successfully separated sex from reproduction (allowing sex without babies and babies without sex). This is not all bad and I can’t say that I understand it all, nonetheless I think there are some unforeseen (maybe even indiscernible) consequences of separating the two in such an unnatural manner. Because at its base what more is abortion than sex without babies? Do economics play a role? Yes, but only because we see children in economic terms and our happiness connected with our economic standing. Does education play a role? Of course. Education can decrease abortion. But at its root seems to be this notion of disconnecting sex and reproduction. Taking sex from a quasi-mystical experience where life may come and degrading it to the release of hormones and chemicals that makes one happy (indeed we even call masturbation sex with one self—but that is the anti-sex for it pushes one into oneself rather than pulls oneself out into another).
But isn’t the role of the church to transform the mind and not limit a man’s actions? Indeed, but who said anything about the church. I have been speaking of the government; I have been speaking of the duty of a just man, not a Christian. One can make plenty of arguments against abortion without reference to Christianity (for example: the feminist argument, worldwide 8 out of every ten children aborted is female; the multi-cultural argument, non-white races are aborted at a much higher rate than whites; the utilitarian argument, justice is increasing pleasure for the greatest number. Abortion deprives the aborted of all pleasure as well as the women who abort them for most women regret having abortions; the Aristotelian argument, observation shows us that no other species aborts its young, therefore abortion is unnatural and unjust; the Platonic argument, the best men (philosophers) across time have all condemned abortion; the argument from tradition/the democracy of the dead, our ancestors had good reason prevent abortion we should not be so quick to override them; Kant, one could not wish this act to be a universal norm; Marx, those aborted are disproportionately poor; Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus (in particular the former) believe that we should not interfere with the life force in such a way; and Muslims believe that Allah forbids it).
Not only do most in most times disagree with abortion, but even most today (save our self-appointed elite in the media, universities, and entertainment industries). What should we do? Oppose abortion. Will that do any good? I don’t know. God only asks for our obedience (here an obedience to the simple notion of justice), God leaves for Himself the responsibility of results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
