Morality, Religion & Philosophy: July 2004 Archives

One of the more interesting discoveries I made at Cato Univeristy is that although most of the older libertarians there seemed to be strongly pro-choice, the majority of the younger libertarians were pro-life. I'm sure there's a selection factor at work, since the older attendees paid their own way to the conference and the youngsters were often there on scholarship (like me), but it was still an interesting dynamic.

For a libertarian (and, I'd argue, for everyone) the abortion question rests solely on one issue: is a fetus a human being? If so, then a libertarian must seek to protect that life on the same terms as any other. If not, then there's no reason for government to get involved with abortion at all.

Kofi Annan, the UN's chief secretary and genocide observer, seems to have a twisted motivation for encouraging abortions around the world.

The U.S. administration has withheld funding from the U.N. Population Fund, known as UNFPA, for three years, accusing it of supporting China's policy of coercive abortion. [True or not, there's no dispute over whether or not UNFPA supports abortion in general.] ...

Annan said the U.N. agency was doing "very essential work on reproductive health" and particularly in confronting the AIDS epidemic, which strikes so many women it "today has a woman's face and is producing so many orphans."

I know some orphans, and they're generally just as happy as everyone else, despite often having to endure a series of unfortunate events. It's hard to say whether or not orphans are happier than aborted babies, though, since I've never met any of the latter.

Fred Reed has an essay on why not to get married, and offers the following observations and advice:

Were I to offer thoughts on marriage to young American men today, in these the declining years of a once-great civilization, my advice would be as follows: Don't do it. Or, if you do, do it in another country. In America marriage is a grievous error.

And why so? Because of The Chip. The Attitude. The bandsaw whine of anger, anger, anger that makes American women an international horror. It's there. It's real.

You, a young man, may not recognize the Chip if you have never seen normal, warm, happy women. If you are twenty-something and haven't been out of the US, you haven't seen them. They exist by the billion--in Latin America, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaya, China and, last I looked, France and Holland. And of course not every woman in America carries the Chip. None of them think they do. Yet it is the default, the usual, what comes out of the box. ...

Now, you might well wonder, why are American women carrying the Chip? Practically, it doesn't matter: They do carry it, and will continue. Still, it is partly because from birth they are fed the notion that they have been oppressed, battered, cheated, deprived, harassed, used as sex objects, not used as sex objects, on and on. Being rational, you are perhaps inclined to point out that never has a female population been less any of these things, but don't bother. It will have no effect. The Chip is an emotional artifact to which they respond emotionally. ...

Spend a year overseas, however you have to do it. For smart, classy, just plain glorious women who often speak English, try Singapore. Argentina is splendid. Many places are. You would be amazed. See what's out there before you marry a gringa with her Inner Susan, who will one day burst from her chest like one of those beaked space-aliens in the movies, dripping venom. They're death.

I looked around a bit for someone who typifies what I imagine to be the reaction of average Democrats to John Kerry's irrational position on abortion, and I finally found her. First, as a reminder, Mr. Kerry says:

"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

It should be obvious why this position is absurd, but I'll sum it up anyway: if life begins at conception then abortion is killing, and killing is bad no matter what religion you are (almost). The only reasonable way to support abortion is to deny that an unborn baby is a living human being. If you agree that life begins at conception but still support abortion that means you support murder, by your own admission.

Still, to rori'd at one girl's life it makes perfect sense.

While Kerry personally does not support abortion, he still supports a woman's right to choose.

THIS is the man I want for President. I do not want one who pushes a Christian agenda on the entire country.

Preventing unnecessary killing of human life isn't a particularly "Christian" agenda; most everyone is in favor of that. Further, rori'd is saying that she wants a president who doesn't "fight for what he believes in", despite the fact that John Kerry repeatedly tells people that he does fight for what he believes in.

Vote Kerry. Liberty and justice for all.

Except, of course, for an unborn baby, who Kerry believes is a living human being that should still be subject to murder according to the whim of his or her mother.

As others have pointed out, Mr. Kerry's stated position makes him either a liar or a cold and calculating killer. He claims to believe that life begins at conception, but he's never said so before and has always championed abortion laws at every opportunity -- if he's telling the truth, shouldn't that bother his conscience? If he's telling the truth, then he's facilitated -- by his own admission -- countless millions of murders during his tenure in the Senate just because he doesn't want to "force his beliefs" on others. But isn't that what our representatives are supposed to do? We elect them to enact laws, that's their whole job. If he doesn't want to do that he should go home.

He apparently has no problem forcing his views on taxation and social spending on the rest of us. Therefore, it's most likely that he's lying about his view of abortion and that he's simply telling people what he thinks they want to hear. Actually, it may be too strong to say he's lying, because he may not have an opinion of his own at all. He may be entirely apathetic towards the issue except insofar as it affects his chances of being elected.

And most Democrats are probably okay with all of that, as long as it means defeating George Bush. They claim to stand on truth and principle, but when they have an opportunity to show it they instead vacillate and take whatever position appears the most "electable".

The first post on this topic was quite controversial, but now there's more polling evidence that suggests that modern Christians -- particularly teens -- don't really know what they claim to believe.

It turns out that, while they may profess the faith and indeed love Jesus, the vast majority of Christian teenagers in this country actually hold beliefs fundamentally antithetical to the creed. The forces of moral relativism and "tolerance" have gotten to them in a big way. In fact, some leaders believe that mushy doctrine among the younger generation ranks as the No. 1 crisis facing American Christendom today.

About one-third of American teenagers claim they're "born again" believers, according to data gathered over the past few years by Barna Research Group, the gold standard in data about the U.S. Protestant church, and 88% of teens say they are Christians. About 60% believe that "the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings." And 56% feel that their religious faith is very important in their life.

Yet, Barna says, slightly more than half of all U.S. teens also believe that Jesus committed sins while he was on earth. About 60% agree that enough good works will earn them a place in heaven, in part reflecting a Catholic view, but also flouting Protestantism's central theme of salvation only by grace. About two-thirds say that Satan is just a symbol of evil, not really a living being. Only 6% of all teens believe that there are moral absolutes--and, most troubling to evangelical leaders, only 9% of self-described born-again teens believe that moral truth is absolute.

"When you ask even Christian kids, 'How can you say A is true as well as B, which is the antithesis of A?,' their typical response is, 'I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me,'" says George Barna, president of the Ventura, Calif.-based research company. "It's personal, pragmatic and fairly superficial."

Although the survey was of teenagers, I doubt the numbers would be much different among the older generations. I'm not really sure if these numbers are something to be concerned about, or if they're just hot air. Not that I question the poll itself, but in my experience the vast majority of everybody -- from all religious/philisophical systems -- has very little real understanding of what they purportedly believe.

There's a term for this: rational ignorance. It means that people make decisions without undergirding every position with a strong foundation. Why? Because it's impossible to know everything and we have to cut some corners. For instance, we trust building inspectors to make sure our buildings are safe; we don't each individually inspect every building we enter. We decide to be rationally ignorant. We know that building inspectors exist, but we don't take the time to learn every detail about how they do their job, and we don't take the time to check out many buildings for ourselves. If we did, we'd never have time for anything else.

Similarly, even though religious questions are potentially very important -- eternity itself hangs in the balance -- many people just aren't interested enough to worry about the details. They hear something that makes sense, they decide to believe it, and then they go on with their lives. From a Christian perspective, this attitude is short-sighted because it will cause us to miss out on many of God's greatest blessings which can only be obtained by serving him vigorously. However, the Bible teaches that very little is required of us to actually ensure our salvation.

First, we must confess our evil actions. "Confess" simply means to agree with God that the things we do are wrong, and that we break his laws (abridged) on a regular basis.

Second, we must realize that the punishment we earn for our evil is eternal separation from God and that our only hope for salvation is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

That's it. That's all God requires of us; but lest you think it sounds too easy, remember that Jesus did the real work. There are no additional facts to be learned, no political positions to affirm, and no theological truths to comprehend. Is it highly advantageous to seek wisdom beyond these mere basics? Of course. But such understanding is not required for salvation.

As Dale Buss notes, he teaches truth to the youth under his care, and I do the same for mine. However, many Christian leaders probably don't have very firm convictions, so it's no surprise than many of their students don't, either.

Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal notes that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has gone loony with regards to terrorism -- with which I agree -- but then extrapolates from their position and says that Protestantism is doomed. The first double-blockquote below is from a resolution by PCUSA, and Mr. Johnson's response follows.

The resolution calls for Presbyterians to “acknowledge our complicity in contributing to the circumstances that prompt individuals to engage in acts of terrorism.” It asks church members to accept blame for: “our disproportionate consumption of the earth’s resources”; “the export of the artifacts of our popular culture such as movies, music, and television programming”; “military responses to terrorism [that have] too often been motivated by a desire for vengeance and not a desire for justice”; and “condemn[ing] the religious faith of those who are different without taking the time to understand that faith.”

... Since nobody cares what the PCUSA thinks about anything, resolutions like this one are basically meaningless. Every mainline Protestant denomination has at one time or other passed something similar. But if you want a reason why mainline Protestantism is dying and deserves to die, this resolution will tell you everything you need to know.

Huh?

First off, my church isn't a part of any denominational organization, but we're Independent Baptists so I suppose we can be somewhat grouped in with other types of Baptists. Although I don't follow the Southern Baptist Convention very closely, they're pretty "mainline" and I highly doubt they've ever passed a resolution like the one passed by PCUSA. What this does illustrate, however, is exactly why my church has decided not to be affiliated with any larger organization. We try to avoid politics altogther (as a corporate body) because our mission isn't political, it's spiritual, and it would be a shame to hinder someone's walk with God due to a political disagreement.

I think Mr. Johnson is a bit premature in declaring a "MAINLINE DEATH THROES WATCH", but he may be right in thinking that the large denominational organizations are on their way out. Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that the leaders of these organizations are quite out of touch from their membership, politically and doctrinally, and generally far more liberal.

Europe, always the continent most comfortable with mass murder, has decided that when a doctor performs an abortion on an unwilling baby it's not a crime. Not even if the mother is also unwilling.

A woman whose pregnancy was wrongly terminated in a French hospital has lost her fight at the European Court to enshrine a foetus' right to life.

Mrs Thi-Nho Vo went to the court after French courts said the doctor could not be prosecuted for homicide as the foetus did not have the right to life.

I suppose the decision is more consistent with the pro-choice position than our own laws are, but that -- obviously -- also makes it more disgusting and barbaric. Which -- also obviously -- is no surprise, coming from Europe.

There's a to-do among female Senators over President Bush's recently-confirmed judicial nominee J. Leon Holmes. More than anything, the controversy reveals that many people are quicker to condemn the Bible than to understand it.

Women senators are expressing outrage at a controversial judicial nominee who co-authored a 1997 article with his wife in which he suggested biblical passages about wives being subservient to their husbands should be taken literally.

J. Leon Holmes (search) — nominated by President Bush to serve on the federal district court in Arkansas — and his wife wrote the article for the Arkansas Catholic Review (search) that reads "the wife is to subordinate herself to the husband ... the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man."

Holmes said the words have been taken out of context, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (search), D-Calif., calls Holmes unacceptable.

"How can I or any other American believe that one who truly believes a woman is subordinate to her spouse [can] interpret the Constitution (search) fairly?" she asked during a debate Tuesday on the candidate.

Even Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas claim Holmes does not have a "fundamental commitment to the equality of women in our society."

There are a few passages on this topic in the New Testament, but the most relevant is probably:

Ephesians 5:22-33

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[1] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[2] 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The majority of the controversy is based on the worldly assumption that the person in charge is in a better position than the person following. But is that really the case? Jesus says no.

Luke 22:24-27

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

Throughout the Bible the virtues of humility are extolled, as are the dangers of pride.

Which is better then, to serve or to be served? Which is better, to strive for earthly mastery and displease God, or to submit in love to others and receive an eternal reward? After all, the command to submit isn't given only to wives -- humility is the path to greatness. Further, the verse directly before the passage about marriage above is this:

Ephesians 5:21

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

We are all to show humility and love towards each other, regardless of our positions.

Anyone who complains about submission reveals that he or she is more concerned with earthly praise and position than with pleasing God.

See also John 13.

Update:
Another thought. Most men don't strive to be worthy of submission, and most women don't strive to be worthy of dying for.

The first in this series was by John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and now the candidate himself echos his wife's bizarre position:

But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters there.

Translation: abortion kills a human being and ends a human life, but what authority does a lawmaker have to force people not to kill? What a strange middle-ground he's searching for here. I'm almost amazed, but that's the sort of illogical, indefensible moral position that pro-choicers are facing now that scientific advancement is demonstrating that their disregard for prenatal life is untenable.

Update:
I'm not the only one who finds Kerry's position ludicrous. Captain Ed says it reveals the "intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy of the Democratic nominee" and Mr. Minuteman calls it a "muddle".

I've noted before that American teens are over-educated and that the American education system fosters a ridiculous artificial social structure that doesn't reward teens for actually contibuting to society. It's also pretty obvious that teens are over-sexed, but I hadn't made the connection between the two issues the way Glenn Reynolds does by identifying teens as America's new leisure class.

Consider this analogy: Unmotivated teen-agers who are idling away their time in school, protected from the real world and supported by their parents, are more like welfare recipients than they are like responsible citizens. However, since the implementation of welfare reform has forced a degree of personal responsibility, illegitimacy rates are way down, and so are many other social pathologies associated with welfare dependency. Maybe what teen-agers need is some "welfare reform."

Perhaps if teen-agers were encouraged to take on adult responsibilities and win status and recognition in constructive ways, they'd probably start acting more like citizens, and less like a leisure class, with all the vices that have historically attended leisure classes.

If teen-agers weren't infantilized in so many other ways, they'd have a better base of judgment and self-respect, and could make better decisions about when they were ready to have sex and be more responsible about precautions and consequences when the time came.

Good stuff.