Morality, Religion & Philosophy: July 2003 Archives

Continuing my streak of commenting on questions Megan from Page Three asks: should Christians get involved in politics? Her comments aren't working (switch to Movable Type), so you all luck out and get to read my thoughts here.

It's an interesting question, and I have a pretty simple answer. Yes, Christians should be involved in politics, but churches should not. As Christians we have to deal with the social structures that are around us, and as I've written before, God intends government to be a tool for good. We have a responsibility to ensure that everyone maintains the liberties and free-will that God has given us. Arguably, as individuals we also have the prerogative of advocating specific policies that we reasonably believe may serve to affirm those who choose good and dissuade those who choose evil. (This prerogative carries a burden, as well, since the results of every policy may not be as clear or obvious as we initially believe.)

Churches, however, were instituted by God for a specific purpose:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

This charge applies to individual Christians, of course, but the local church as an institution exists wholly for this purpose. When a local church takes sides in political issues it alienates those who disagree, and pushes them away from the gospel over purely carnal concerns.

In my opinion, local churches should stay entirely out of the political arena. Yes, even when it comes to that issue, and that one.

It's an interesting question, especially phrased in that way (since we're all evil). My initial reaction to the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein was happiness; it seemed like a reasonable emotion, considering that justice demanded their death. I'm still glad they're dead, but Megan brought up an interesting passage from the Old Testament, and from that I found:

Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD . Repent and live!

The whole chapter is about justice and punishment, and the gist of it is that God wants everyone to repent of their evil actions rather than be punished. Meting out punishment is described as a regrettable necessity, despite the fact that God loves justice.

So, I'm re-evaluating my reaction. Yes, I'm glad that justice was served, and I'm glad that those two monsters won't be able to murder, rape, and torture anyone else ever again. They got what the deserved. Perhaps my lack of compassion is due to my near-certainty that neither one of them would have ever repented. Whatever the reason, I need to temper my thirst for justice with compassion, even for the worst of humanity.

Part of the reason why I don't take college ranking systems too seriously is because UC Berkeley is consistently placed near the top of every list. And they put out drivel like this.

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management

Go read The Angry Clam's take on the matter, and then grin wistfully at his picture from the Good Old Days.

The Berkeley authors manage to lump Hitler, Mussolini, and President Reagan together, and then toss in well-known conservatives Stalin, Khrushchev, and Castro for good measure. Bah, go read the whole thing, it's very condescending. Oh no, we're not saying conservatives are simple-minded, they're just less "integratively complex".

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

Or maybe we're just smarter than you, and your pathetic leftist "brains" can't even comprehend our mental processes.

Because the US has been urging him to resign his "presidency", Charles Taylor of Liberia says that our country has "blood on its hands". Then again, he offered to step down two weeks ago and reneged. Seems like that's happened a few times now.

Taylor said he did not know if the U.S. would require his departure before their arrival in Liberia.

"I don't understand why the United States government would insist that I be absent before its soldiers arrive," Taylor told a meeting of Liberian clerics. "It makes a lot of sense for peacekeepers to arrive in this city before I transit."

Maybe it's important because we don't want you to suddenly change your mind again once everything is peaceful?

So what's the deal with Africa? Conventional wisdom ascribes the near-perpetual civil wars to ethnic divisions and tribalism, but I just read a fascinating paper titled "Why Are There So Many Civil Wars in Africa? Understanding and Preventing Violent Conflict" which argues persuasively that such heterogeneity may in fact be beneficial, if proper democratic institutions can be developed.

The authors, Ibrahim Elbadawi and Nicholas Sambanis, suggest that there are three main factors hindering Africa's development: heavy dependence on natural resources, a lack of democratic institutions, and a lack of political freedom. The dependence of Africa's economy on natural resources is important because such resources can be easily looted by rebels, and tend to concentrate geographically in the territory of a handful of ethnic groups. Little can be done to diversify Africa's economies, however, until there is significant economic growth away from agriculture and mining.

That economic growth will come about once the last two problems are solved: the need for political freedom and democratic institutions. The authors claim that based on their statistical analysis, political freedom isn't required for a ethnically homogenetic nation to prosper, but Africa's fractured cultures make it a necessity. (On a side note, America's broadly diverse population also flourishes under a strong democratic system; Europe's weaker democracies are floundering with an influx of immigrants.) Past attempts to introduce political freedoms in Africa have failed because they did not construct institutions that practically allowed Africa's various ethnic groups to bargain politically and reach acceptable compromises.

Such institutions are the critical building block. They must be created with Africa's tribal culture in mind, and the authors suggest giving major ethnicities formal political recognition. In my own mind, a federal-type system would seem ideal; using America's political system as reference, imagine the bicameral Congress of an African nation composed of a Senate wherein each tribe is equally represented, and a House built of representatives from geographically-based districts all of nearly equal population. There are certainly significant details that need to be worked out during the process of creating such a government -- which tribes get representation, for instance -- but such a bicameral system should allow both the large and small tribes to reach a concensus.

As economic development takes hold, the opportunity cost of civil war rises. As employment rises, fewer men are available for fighting, and there are fewer grievances to fight about. What disagreements still exist can be resolved peacefully though the democratic institutions in place. The important thing to realize is that economic developement follows political development, and not the other way around. Siphoning money from rich nations into Africa won't solve anything if there aren't significant political reforms first. And once the political reforms take place, Africans will have no use for our money; they will prosper on their own.

Update:
Clayton Cramer gives an example of how graft and corruption run rampant in Africa.

Update 2:
Via Donald Sensing, here's an excellent two part description by Vessel of Honor of Charles Taylor's ties to Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and al Qaeda. It's almost too incredible to believe.

Best of the Web Today points to a Washington Times article which indicates that the Saudi royal family is starting to fire and ban jihad-loving, al Qaeda-sympathizing Wahhabi clerics in the wake of the al Qaeda suicide bombings in Riyadh two months ago.

I suppose this is good news, but wouldn't it be even better if there was some hint of actual religious freedom, rather than just a switch to state religious tyranny that's more to our liking? After all, American approval of friendly dictators is supposely one of the Arab street's prime grievances against us. Taranto looks at these moves as "halting steps toward joining the civilized world", but in the civilized world the government doesn't tell you what is and is not accepted religious doctrine.

So yes, I'm glad that our staunch allies in Saudi Arabia are firing the most anti-American clerics, but not as glad as I'd be if the Saudi government fired all the clerics and took their mitts out of the religion business entirely. Iraq, even under Saddam Hussein, has had one of the most religiously free governments in the region, and I hope now that a truly free nation is being established there will be some concrete moves away from state-sponsored/-mandated Islam.

Three months ago, Time Magazine ran an excellent interview with Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Although I'm sure that many non-Christians cringe when they read about Christian missionaries lining up by the hundreds to spread the gospel to Arab Muslims, this interview might give you a new perspective.

"No one is going to flip a switch and make Iraq a Christian nation. America is not a Christian nation; it's a mission field. Conversion can't come at the point of a gun. I think this is a true test, in a post-modern, post Cold War age, of how America is going to establish a model for the recovery of freedom. Religious freedom has to be at the center and foundation of that freedom. If Iraq were to be established in a way that religious freedom was honored, it would stand out from its neighbors in the area."

"It would be an appalling tragedy if America were to lead this coalition and send young American men and women into battle, to expend such military effort, to then leave in place a regime that would lack respect for religious liberty. I think one of the major Christian concerns, and one of my personal concerns, is to see religious liberty, religious freedom," take a prominent position in "the vision of freedom that America holds up to the world."

The Diablogger, Mark Aveyard, has a good post up that warns of the slipperly slope that gapes before us if we buy into that argument that:

a) Some people P are more likely to perform behavior X because of genetic predisposition.
b) Therefore, the way society views P and X should be based on that genetic predisposition, and not wholly on the effects and consequences of X on their own.

That way lies legal confusion. If the goal of law is to protect people from the dangerous and harmful effects of other people's actions, then it shouldn't matter why a crime was committed, only that it was, in fact, committed and that it did cause harm to another party.

Some very dangerous behaviors are unquestionably based in genetics, such as psychopathy. Does that mean that society should not act to protect itself from psychotics? Clearly not, and even when a murderer is acquitted due to insanity he is locked up for "treatment" (despite the fact that his malady is entirely untreatable).

The law makes a distinction between motive and intent. If I want your money and decide to rob you, my motive is to get money. However, when I then pull out a gun and shoot at you, my intent is to kill you. If I didn't use deadly force and only threatened you, my intent would have been different even though my motive would have been the same.

Motive should play no part in sentencing, only intent should count. It doesn't matter why you threatened me or why you shot me -- my hair color, race, clothes, money, attitude, revenge, or genetic predisposition? Irrelevent. Judges, juries, and lawyers can't read people's minds, but they can determine intent based on observed actions.

Note: that's not to say that motive is irrelevent when considering the morality of an action or behavior. More on that later, perhaps.

Motivated by Donald and Bill, I'd like to solicit as many opinions as possible: is speeding morally wrong? If so, always? Or under what circumstances? Please be as brief or as detailed as you like, but I want everyone to leave a comment!

Update:
Aw man, Donald beat me to the question and discusses whether or not speeding is sinful. But no one has commented on his post except me, so, everyone comment here!

Most people who believe that abortion should be legal don't consider themselves "pro-death", but what about people and groups who condone and support coerced and forced abortion? Well, China's communist government has been forcing women to abort their "unauthorized" babies for over 20 years. China denies that forced abortions are a part of their population control policy, but admits that "there may have been isolated abuses by overzealous local officials, but that these were strictly unauthorized."

From the 2001 House hearings I linked to above:

Some of us were skeptical about whether UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] was really the right organization to ensure against coercion in China. UNFPA officials had consistently defended the Chinese family planning program against accusations of forced abortion and forced sterilization, even long after other observers had concluded that these abuses did occur. Judging from this unhappy experience, we worried about whether UNFPA officials would recognize coercion when they saw it. But hope triumphed over experience, and the then Administration supported the new agreement.

Today's testimony suggests that, after 3 years, the new arrangement is not working. Our lead witness today, Josephine Guy, just returned from one of UNFPA's 32 model counties. She will testify and present videotaped evidence of forced abortion, of the destruction of houses belonging to families who have had unauthorized children, and of similar abuses that have been associated with the People's Republic of China population control program. Other witnesses will testify that this new evidence is consistent with the history of the program and with the current situation in the rest of China.

So, now in 2003, Congress is preparing to strip funding from UNFPA, and pro-choice advocates are going nuts. I guess they don't have a problem with women being forced to abort their babies. Doesn't sound very "pro-choice" to me.

And then there's people who just don't get it:

Other family planning groups like Population Communications International have expressed concern about the wider impact of defunding the UNFPA.

"From an international development point of view, it's going to tie the hands of a lot of really important work that's being done," said Michael Tatu Castlen, the group's executive vice president. "UNFPA not getting money from the U.S. government has already crippled them, but the people who they give money to are in danger of being crippled further."

Duh. The whole point is to tie the hands of the people doing the "really important work" of dragging women into filthy clinics and sucking their babies out with a vacuum.

Go read the speech President George Bush delivered on Goree Island, Senegal, on July 8th, 2003, posted on Opinion Journal.

Too bad the liberals are distracting the country from Bush's trip to Africa by complaining about 16 words from a speech six months ago.

Bill Hobbs and Donald Sensing both link to this Charles Krauthammer piece which explains liberals' willingness to use force in Liberia but not in Iraq thusly:

What is it that makes liberals like Dean, preening their humanitarianism, so antiwar in Iraq and so pro-intervention in Liberia? ...

They all had a claim on the American conscience. What then was the real difference between, say, Haiti and Gulf War I, and between Liberia and Gulf War II? The Persian Gulf has deep strategic significance for the United States; Haiti and Liberia do not. In both Gulf wars, critical American national interests were being defended and advanced. Yet it is precisely these interventions that liberals opposed.

The only conclusion one can draw is that for liberal Democrats, America's strategic interests are not just an irrelevance, but a deterrent to intervention. This is a perversity born of moral vanity. For liberals, foreign policy is social work. National interest - i.e., national selfishness - is a taint. The only justified interventions, therefore, are those which are morally pristine, namely, those which are uncorrupted by any suggestion of national interest.

Hence the central axiom of left-liberal foreign policy: The use of American force is always wrong, unless deployed in a region of no strategic significance to the United States.

Bill and Donald both seem to imply that liberals' aversion to using force is based on a belief that America is bad. Maybe I'm putting words in Bill's mouth, but Donald says directly:

I think it is the Left's belief, no longer subject to empirical analysis, that America is bad for the world. Actions, whether military or not, that enhance America's national self interests are therefore anathema. If old "Engine Charlie" Wilson's motto was, "What is good for General Motors is good for America," the Left's motto runs perversely: "What is good for America is bad for the world." ...

In their mind, America is an imperialist nation, imperialist in many forms - economic, cultural, linguistic and especially militarily. If America's gross transgressions are to be corrected, then America's national power must be turned away from promoting America's national interests. Hence, America's armed forces can be used only for reasons that do not serve its interests.

I don't dispute that some liberals view America this way, but I don't think that most do. Hey, I'm as cynical as the next guy, but Charles Krauthammer has a better analogy when he compares foreign policy to social work. I don't think that most liberals want to hurt America; rather, they think that our nation should act more like a world judge or referee rather than a participant. We have the most power, and we should use it to enforce fairness, not to promote our own interests.

The backbone of liberal ideology is arrogance and elitism, and this perspective on foreign policy follows directly (and strikes me as very European). America should act as the third world's daddy, because we're smarter, richer, and just better in general. It's not fair for us to use our power to our own advantage, and as a judge would we should recuse ourselves from any situation that presents us with a "conflict of interest", such as Iraq. On the other hand, we're allowed to intervene in Liberia precisely because we have nothing to gain; we can be neutral and fair and calm the squabbling children.

Donald Sensing has written a good amount (including his MS thesis) on the subject of human free will, but I have another question: does God have free will?

On one hand, if God is all-powerful and reigns supreme over the entire universe, then it seems logical to conclude that he has free will. But on another, subtly compelling hand, can God lie? Could Jesus have sinned while he was on earth, and simply chose not to? Or, because of his divine nature, would it have been impossible for Jesus to murder, rape, steal, or disbelieve? If God is perfect, then in any given circumstance he must perform the perfect action. Can multiple actions be equally perfect? Considering that God knows the ultimate result of any action he may take, it doesn't seem likely that any two alternate decisions would end up with the exact same level of holiness.

Perhaps it would be impossible for God to lie, by definition. Whatever God says is True; anything that disagrees with God is False. Any decision God makes is Perfect, by virtue of the fact that he made it. That sort of reasoning (legitimate as it may be) does not easily extend to Jesus in the flesh. Living as a mere man, Jesus voluntarily decided to restrict his power and his actions, even though he had the authority to take whatever he wanted and to kill whomever he pleased. Looking at Jesus doesn't necessarily give us a true picture of God's behavior. Absent these assumed restraints, could Jesus have succumbed to Satan's temptations?

It would be hard to believe that I have a more free will than God himself has. If mankind was created in God's image, then we must share his essential attributes, and he ours.

Continuing the topic of Love and Marriage, here's an excellent post by Cypren that expresses much of the frustration that I experience myself.

Update:
Via Megan at Page Three (who flatters some of my recent posts, although I am not a five-point Calvinist), here is a very long article about marriage by Mike McNichols that explores in plodding detail the legalistic way that many Christians look at marriage. Our society leads us to give a great deal of weight to a piece of paper issued by the state that says "you're married", but in reality that's not the point. Getting married doesn't require a ceremony or government recognition, and in fact a great many people are functionally married and probably don't even realize it (such as Ed Weathers from my previous essay).

I've written before about the total depravity of mankind, and so the question naturally arises: if humans are inherently and thoroughly depraved, why is there good in the world? That's a good question, and the answer is the existence of what is called "common grace".

"Grace", in a theological sense, refers to a favor or blessing that God bestows on us and that we do not deserve and have not earned. Most often, Christians talk about "saving grace" -- that is, the grace that God shows us through Jesus Christ that allows us to be forgiven for our evil acts. We do not earn forgiveness by doing good things to "balance" out our evil; rather, God forgives us freely by his grace. Saving grace is available to all mankind, but some people do not accept it, and thus do not reap the benefits of God's benevolence.

However, there is another type of grace that God gives to all humanity called "common grace", and this grace is the root cause of the goodness that we can see in ourselves and in the world around us. Common grace is manifested in many ways; some are very simple and direct, while others are more subtle. The most obvious example of common grace is creation itself; if you acknowledge the existence of God, then no matter how you believe he brought the universe into being, the fact that he did so at all is a result of his common grace. Likewise, the physical laws of nature that govern our universe are both an effect of common grace (because of creation), and the proximate cause of many forms of common grace that we experience. The earth provides us all, believer and unbeliever alike, with food, clothing, shelter, and everything else that makes life possible. As with saving grace, some people may choose to reject common grace (e.g., by taking their own life). Most people, however, accept God's common grace without a conscious thought of its origin or an acknowledgement of its existence.

God created the church (and local churches individually) as his instrument for spreading saving grace to humanity. God uses churches to reach people with his saving grace. In a similar manner, God instituted governments to administer much of his common grace. Some governments are corrupt and ineffectual (as are some churches), but those that function properly bring the benefits of God's common grace to their people: peace, safety, prosperity, productivity, liberty.

Romans 13:1-7
1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

A ruler or government fulfills God's purpose when it punishes those who do evil and commends those who do good. Although every government I can think of extends itself beyond this simple mandate, these dual responsibilities should form the foundation for a just and proper nation. Consider also that the first few verses give governments considerable discretion in administrative matters; Paul was writing to Christians living under a rather oppressive Roman empire, and we should step very carefully when we consider overthrowing an authority that God has set up. (Nevertheless, taken in context I believe it's clear that when a government ceases to implement God's common grace it loses its legitimacy, but that's a discussion for another day.)

On the 4th of July, the day we celebrate the founding of these United States of America, it's important to be thankful for the grace that God has shown us by allowing us to live in the freest and most prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. Not one of us has earned this privilege, and most of us inherited it through the circumstances of our birth. It is by God's grace that we live freely, speak freely, worship (or not) freely, assemble together freely, hold property securely, and pursue happiness with fewer restaints and more opportunity than any people ever have before us.

In Luke 12:48 Jesus says, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." We in America have been given a great deal; we have not earned it, but it was given to us freely by God because of his grace. God expects us to use our freedom and power wisely, justly, and generously as an instrument of his common grace.

Donald Sensing has a great essay up about God, Life, and Liberty, but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.

The Law of Moses defined freedom in two ways. On the one hand, the law defined what was forbidden. On the other, it stated what was obligatory.

There is always a tension between the forbidden and the mandatory. But the Bible seems clear that human freedom is found somewhere between the limits of what must not be done and what must be done. With no limits there is no freedom because there is no orientation on God. Without obligations there is no justice. Without prohibitions there is no community. When either individuals or societies attempt to ignore either prohibitions or obligations, bondage results. Falling into slavery is easy, staying free is hard. Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The reason is that the natural state of human beings is not freedom, but slavery.

Some people expect freedom to mean that there are no boundaries, no limits, but that's not the case. For example, if everyone were free to kill on a whim, how free would we as a society really be? I could go on, but I basically agree with everything Donald wrote, so just go read his essay.

Via many sources (and specifically Drudge and The Washington Times), the results of a poll by the Center for the Advancement of Women show that a majority of American women (51%, margin of error 3%) believe that abortion should be prohibited or limited to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. This is quite a jump from the 45% who felt that way in 2001. In 2003 only 30% of women believe that abortion should be readily available, down from 34% in 2001. Further:

The results, announced with a series of women's responses to issues such as domestic violence and affirmative action, found that fewer women — 41 percent — consider protecting abortion a top priority, an 8 percent drop from 2001. Of the 12 top priorities, keeping abortion legal was second to last, beating only the percentage of women who want to increase the number of girls participating in organized sports.

It goes without saying that these changes are probably related to demographic shifts, and reflect that younger women tend to view abortion with far more aversion than baby-boomers do. 100 years from now, I think we'll look back at the 40 million babies killed in America over the past 30 years with disgust and revulsion.

As an additional note, it's not often reported that although blacks make up only 12% of the population they account for one-third of abortions. According to BlackGenocide.org, 3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child. Where's the outrage from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? [crickets]

It seems impossible to draw a hard line in the sand and say "This is when life begins." Conception? Birth? Most people think it's sometime in between. Via Matt D. (and via talk radio this morning on the way to work), here's an article in the Independent about using eggs from dead female unborn babies (or fetuses, if you prefer) to conceive children. Thus, someday a child will be created whose mother was never born.

Scientists announced yesterday that they have been able to remove immature ovaries from four-month-old foetuses. The theory is that they can then be stimulated in the test tube to go through the later stages of development before the creation of fully mature eggs.

Look, science can do a lot of things, but just because something is possible doesn't mean that it should be done. I hate to succumb to Godwin's Law so early in this post, but Nazis performed all sorts of interesting medical experiments on Jews and other concentration camp prisoners, but just because they gathered new data and made scientific discoveries doesn't mean that their "research" was justified. No one likes falling back on the Nazi argument, but it's an argument of extremes; if a position can be used to justify creating babies from the eggs of aborted babies, then such a position can be used to justify just about anything.

Françoise Shenfield, an ethicist at University College London and a former member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, also voiced concerns about where this sort of research was leading.

"I would be very troubled by this not only for ethical reasons but for psychological reasons, because what is the public going to think about where the eggs come from?" Dr Shenfield said. ...

"The authority does not consider the use of tissue from this source to be acceptable for infertility treatment. But the authority does allow the use of foetal material to produce eggs for research provided that it is taken only with full, explicit consent," she said.

Roger Gosden, a leading fertility specialist working at the Jones Institute in Norfolk, Virginia, said the ethical issues centre on the issue of informed consent - the foetus cannot give its consent.

Yeah well, aborted babies don't give consent either, so what's the difference? Again, see Nazi Germany for reference. The whole issue is disgusting to me, as are the people involved.