|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Abortion on the Docket Again
The new Supreme Court heard arguments today in a high-profile case involving an abortion parental-notification law in New Hampshire. As would be expected with any chance to change abortion law in the United States, the case is receiving a great deal of media attention and is being billed as having substantial influence on the future of the judicial debate over the issue.
The Washington Times editorializes:
The most important question the court will consider, then, is this: Will the Roberts court endorse the 1st Circuit's strict interpretation of the health-exception rule? In the past, more liberal Supreme Courts have upheld parental-notification laws, but the court has not ruled definitively on what health-exception rules are required by the Constitution when a state passes a parental-notification law. Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 ruling on a Nebraska abortion statute authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, befuddled the issue by ignoring standards set in the cases U.S. v. Salerno (1987) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
It should be noted, though, that there's more to the case than just whether health exceptions must exist in parental-notification laws. Looming in the background is a hugely important procedural question: Did the court in Boston overreach? Specifically, was it justified to throw out New Hampshire's parental-consent law before the law even took effect?
That seemingly technical question matters greatly. The 1st Circuit effectively pre-empted New Hampshire's lawmakers and governor from so much as testing out a parental-notification arrangement with a death-only exception. Since the Supreme Court has yet to forbid this and could yet sanction it, it's worth examining why the 1st Circuit thought it could throw it out. Meanwhile, the NY Times takes a predictably more critical stand:
The substantive issue first: The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require that doctors notify a pregnant teenager's parent before performing an abortion. But the court has also made it clear, beginning with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, that any restrictions on abortion rights must contain exceptions to protect a woman's health and life. This is a core principle that New Hampshire lawmakers ignored in 2003 when they passed a parental notification law that omitted any exception for medical problems that were not life-threatening....
The implications of the procedural issue are even more serious. With support from the Justice Department, Ms. Ayotte is asking the court to end, or severely constrict, the longstanding power of federal courts to do what the trial judge in New Hampshire did: bar the enforcement of potentially dangerous and unconstitutional abortion restrictions before they go into effect and injure people. Though it is obscured by technical-sounding legalese, this issue concerns what would essentially be a radical court-stripping plan, one that would leave state legislatures free to ignore the Supreme Court's parameters for abortion regulation until a minor, already unconstitutionally endangered and in the midst of a medical crisis, somehow made it to court to challenge the law.
The Supreme Court should see this argument for what it is: an attack on the federal courts and on women's rights and health. The case is also being hyped as John Roberts' first chance to prove on which side of the ideological fence he sits. That may become clear as the decision is reached, but much more important are the underlying principles at stake in the issue. Not only does the case hold sway on the abortion debate, but it could also reflect the Court's view of the rights of parents in the lives of their children -- a role the Ninth Circuit Court recently found inadequate.
And perhaps even more fundamentally, denying teenagers the requirement of obtaining parental support to have an abortion will add further cultural acceptance to the procedure, adding to the message to young people that both having sex and removing its consequences are healthy and normal -- no matter what Mom and Dad say.
Absolute Torture
Jonah Goldberg questions the "moral absolutism" often inherent in the debate over whether torture should be permitted in or expelled from the U.S. military's interrogation of terrorists.
It's funny, for years now Bush's critics have denounced the president for his "moral absolutism." His "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric was too "black and white." The French, intellectuals, liberals, diplomats -- these are the enlightened who can see in shades of gray. John Kerry, the master of nuance, was the real statesman because he understood that one must draw fine distinctions and grasp the "complexities" of every situation.
Well, we now have a situation where the Bush administration is asking for liberals -- and some conservatives -- to see beyond the spectrum of black and white. But the supporters of the McCain Amendment, which would ban "coercive" measures and impose constitutional strictures of due process on the war on terror, insist that there are only two choices. Either you can agree with them and support the bill or you must love torture. Complete and total moral absolutism is the order of the day.
This inconsistency -- or hypocrisy, if you're so inclined -- is itself instructive insofar as it demonstrates that almost all political arguments boil down to moral absolutism at some point. It's just that we have disagreements about where we should be absolutist and where we should make compromises with necessity. As a firm believer that moral absolutes exist in a much more prevalent basis than the postmodern world is typically willing to admit, I think I would be willing to concede that certain forms or degrees of torture should be always kept off the table of options, regardless of circumstances. Yet as in many current issues, the debate becomes blurred not so much by confusion over moral absolutes as by misapplication of moral equivalency. Beating up an innocent person in the street, for example, carries a far greater moral burden than roughing up a terror suspect in order to extract information. On the same token, depriving a suspect of sleep is hardly the same as cutting off a finger with a dull knife or more gruesome treatment. But as Goldberg notes, in general the circumstances and degree of "torture" are vital to making any kind of moral judgment.
Unmistakably, however, the question is not an easy one to answer. And if we are uncomfortable with real, actual torture -- well, we should be. No question that we should err high in setting the bar of humane treatment, even for enemies who show no adherence to rules of war. Yet I find it difficult to muster a great deal of compassion for the largely psychological "torture" supposedly inflicted upon captured terrorists. To be sure, we must not allow our resentment to degrade into the same hateful disregard for human life that fuels the enemies' dark souls, but neither can we be overly squeamish about standing firm -- and at times violent -- against evil men and evil ideas.
Where does the line get drawn in terms of "torture"? I'm not sure, but it is difficult to accept a broad, sweeping abolition of rough tactics toward terrorist enemies.
--- Tuesday, November 29, 2005
It's ------mas Time Again
Gene Edward Veith at World Magazine laments an apparently growing reluctance to acknowledge Christ and His gospel within modern literature -- even when it's on the Christian bookstore's shelf.
This is the time of year when Christians stress the importance of putting Christ back in Christmas. To be sure, the forces of commercialism, secularism, and the desire not to offend anyone have all but expelled Christ from His birthday, turning Christmas into just another generic holiday. But those same forces are also expelling Christ from the faith He established, turning Christianity into just another generic religion.
I have been reviewing Christian videos, reading Christian books, and looking at Christian education material. These typically teach good morals, advocate sound politics, and grow out of a biblical worldview. But I have been struck with how so much of this Christian material says nothing about Jesus Christ.
I have even heard ministers preach about self-esteem, politics, and principles for successful living rather than proclaiming Christ. I have heard a Christmas sermon on "How to Avoid Stress at Christmas Time" that never got around to mentioning the Christ child....Many nonbelievers assume Christianity is about morality or politics and have never even heard of the Incarnation. No wonder our evangelism and efforts to live the Christian life are floundering. But, ironically, the pop culture is now raising the issue of Christ in artifacts of Hollywood and the bestseller lists. The very stones are crying out (Luke 19:40). It seems fair enough to conclude that the hard words and reality of Christ are often forsaken for the more "positive" and -- seemingly -- practical applications of His teaching and doctrine. I think the reasons for this trend, however, are probably wide and varied. Certainly Christmastime (or the "holiday season," if we must) routinely provides ample demonstration that the broader culture has grown squeamish in glorifying a Man who claimed to be God and demanded submission to Himself for access to Heaven. And we can even, perhaps, understand such a reaction from a world that has largely abandoned the very idea of absolute truths at all. Yet the Church has, in many ways, itself become defanged in representing the Lion of Judah, preferring to offer the message of feeling good, living well, and being nice to the challenge and promises of a walk with Christ.
The latter, of course, will cause us to shift a little more in our seats, but also provides a richer and deeper pursuit of life than anything the world could otherwise offer. So why do we get so obsessed with self-help, often at the expense of Christ-devotion?
Clearly, this criticism is not a universal condemnation of every congregation in America, but the cultural pressure is clearly to keep the power of Christ contained, marginalized, and repackaged in ways acceptable to all and offensive to none. But the Lamb of God entered human flesh not to bring harmony to the world and give its residents a chance to be content with themselves; He came to purge wickedness from a fallen humanity and bring the utmost glory to the all-powerful God. So this Christmas (and every other day), I'd say we owe Him a lot more than our self-esteem.
Born Again Free?
A feature story in the LA Times sheds a soberingly blunt light upon the mindset that is inevitably produced by a culture that accepts an anomaly like abortion as a normal part of life. The article profiles an unapologetic abortion doctor, but in the process seems to expose the numbness to morality that the abortion has produced.
Harrison warns every patient he sees that abortion may be illegal one day. He wants to stir them to activism, but most women respond mildly.
"I can't imagine the country coming to that," says Kim, 35, in for her second abortion in two years.
A high school senior says the issue won't weigh heavily when she evaluates candidates. "There's other issues I see as more important," she says, "like whether they'll raise taxes."
Patients asked to be identified only by their first names or, in some cases, by their ages to protect their privacy.
Harrison is beyond such concerns. For several years in the 1980s, his clinic was picketed, vandalized and once firebombed. Protesters marched outside his home and death threats became routine. Harrison responded by making his case.
He answered every phone call, replied to every letter in the newspaper and appeared at public forums to defend abortion rights. Eventually, the protesters in this college town left him alone. (Arkansas Right to Life focuses instead on educating women about alternatives to abortion, Executive Director Rose Mimms said.)
In the years since, Harrison has become more outspoken.
He calls himself an "abortionist" and says, "I am destroying life."
But he also feels he's giving life: He calls his patients "born again."
"When you end what the woman considers a disastrous pregnancy, she has literally been given her life back," he says.
Before giving up obstetrics in 1991, Harrison delivered 6,000 babies. Childbirth, he says, should be joyous; a woman should never consider it a punishment or an obligation.
"We try to make sure she doesn't ever feel guilty," he says, "for what she feels she has to do." I suppose we are meant to find it refreshing that someone could be so forthright about his participation in letting women live their lives on their own terms. The doctor may be successful in that venture of removing the consequences of promiscuity and impulsive passion, but the cost is far greater -- both to the women who come into his office and to the society at large -- than would be indicated by his callous detachment to the unborn lives he ends.
On second thought, that detachment is a fair representation of the symptoms of a culture that does not find appalling the idea of stripping a child from the womb as a means to "giving women their lives back." Indeed, these women are losing not just a baby, but a piece of their soul that won't easily be repaired (and, I would submit, will never be repaired outside of the grace of Christ). At best, they will be left with a feeling of regret and guilt that will follow them through the remainder of their lives and affect every relationship they have. At worst, they will become immune to the pangs of moral conscience that scream on behalf of their unborn children, pleading to let them live. Such a resistance to conviction is bound to result in further desensitization to self-restraint and integrity in sex, personal relationships, and other areas of life.
Every abortion is a tragedy, but this is the failure that could prove terminal to a moral society. The idea that prematurely purging and destroying an unborn child could become so distorted a concept that we would actually view it as merely a woman's prerogative for keeping control of her life and body, is the sign of a deep degradation of conscience. And it can only come through the gradual -- or perhaps not so subtle -- acceptance and tolerance of that which was once considered abhorrent. Clearly, abortion is not the only cultural arena in which such an inversion is taking place, but it could prove to be the most deadly -- to everyone involved.
--- Friday, November 18, 2005
Evolution, Theoretically Speaking
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer offers another harsh critique of intelligent design and a glowing defense of evolution -- seemingly as both a science and a religion.
Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?
How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education too. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of much of Krauthammer's work, but his metaphysical support for evolution lacks any of the scientific backing that is supposedly such an undebatable requirement for a theory of origin. However "elegant" evolution may be, I would think its defenders are not prepared to offer that as reason for the theory's believability.
Evolution is not, of course, an elegant or simple idea. It is rooted in death and destruction, where the weak are eliminated and the strong are made stronger by mutation and genetic reconstruction. It is the progression of trial and error, hardly the realm of an omniscient and omnipotent being.
This, of course, is not a scientific discussion. To credit God with the initiation of evolution is merely another form of filling in the gaps with supernatural intervention, which neither proves that Darwinism is true nor disproves that life was actually designed basically as it is. How does the former achieve status as "science" while the latter is relegated to a naive, foolish notion?
The bottom line, it seems to me, is that while evolution may be interesting as a theory, as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some are of scientific knowledge -- in this case, the appearance of design -- they are to be filled by naturalism. Giving the glory to a wise and all-powerful Creator makes more sense to me.
--- Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Sunflower State Sinks Science?
The New York Times reports on the critiques of the Kansas state school board's altered approach to science.
In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.
The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science.
The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin's opponents, said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations."
Gerald Holton, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, said removing those two words and the framework they set means "anything goes."...
But many scientists say that characterization is an overstatement of the claims of science. The scientist's job description, said Steven Weinberg, a physicist and Nobel laureate at the University of Texas, is to search for natural explanations, just as a mechanic looks for mechanical reasons why a car won't run. The problem with using mechanical analogies to defend evolution is always that the analogy always dead-ends at a creator/designer. If science's only goal were to discover the intricacies of nature and how nature works, the evolution-design debate would be fairly inconsequential in that pursuit. The mechanic dissects the way a car operates, but he never suggests that the car came into being through a series of unguided, chance events.
There would be little room for controversy if science education was limited to observing the moving parts of nature, rather than speculating how they came to be -- though, frankly, I don't think that would be a full scientific exploration. Thus, one finds it difficult to any dark agenda in Kansas's redefined pursuit of science that would result in textbooks championing the flat earth on which we live. While we are left with natural evidence upon which to base our claims, to ignore the possibility of supernatural explanations does not boast of our great enlightenment; rather, it narrows our vision so tightly as to miss the glory of the Creator surrounding us.
Abortion Down the Tube
In a further effort to soften society's uneasiness toward abortion, a column in the Villiage Voice laments the fact that more characters on television aren't beginning pregnancies -- and then ending them.
It seems like everyone in TV land is pregnant these days. All of those plot-pushing hookups that keep us tuned in week after week have resulted in positive pregnancy tests for Housewives and high schoolers on every channel. This is often an unwelcome surprise, but none of these fictional characters, unlike their real-world counterparts who might agonize over the choice to have a baby, will choose to end their pregnancies. In fact, we might as well be living in an era before Roe v. Wade as far as TV is concerned. Characters these days rarely even say the word abortion when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy -- let alone have one....
Elsewhere on the same network, the new drama Reunion covers the territory of teen pregnancy to a similarly conservative effect. Samantha (Alexa Davalos), a supposedly brilliant girl with a scholarship to an unnamed British university, discovers upon graduating high school that she's pregnant by her boyfriend's best friend. Now perhaps Sam didn't go to her unnamed "appointment" (there is always a euphemism -- God forbid any girl actually say the A-word!) because the writers or the network thought that the plotline -- which involves her having the baby, giving it up for adoption, and then stalking the child -- would make for great drama. Sadly it doesn't. But worse than being bad television, it is just irresponsible.
Regardless of your personal feelings about abortion, the fact is that millions of women have them. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that in 2001 (the last year for which statistics are available) more than 1.3 million pregnancies were terminated in the United States. But where are these women's stories on television? Where is their voice? The answer is: on premium cable.
The only abortion on TV in recent memory (where the woman didn't go crazy or die or meet some other hokey morality-tale end) was Claire's on Six Feet Under. When the pragmatic teenager (Lauren Ambrose) got pregnant by her ambiguously gay boyfriend while still in school, she nonchalantly had an abortion. It was the right thing to do for her; she wasn't prepared to be a parent. The author seems to confuse America's coasts with the rest of the television-viewing audience, which probably does not immediately think about aborting a baby the instant a pregnancy test comes back positive. Does it really serve the public good to continue the slide toward nonchalance with this "choice"? The reality that "millions of women" abort their unborn babies hardly means that we must accept this cultural facet as an inevitable and unexceptional part of American life.
Granted, it might be surprising for TV not to move in that direction, especially if our society does indeed numb its conscience to the harrowing evil that the concept of abortion represents. In the meantime, we must resist the urge to grow comfortable -- or "tolerant" -- of the moral and physical tragedy of every abortion, however common they may become.
A Choice Worth Rethinking
A sobering -- and deeply tragic -- column in the Washington Post explores and dissects the writer's decision to abort her baby, who would have been born with Down syndrome.
While I have no doubt there can be joys and victories in raising a mentally handicapped child, for me and for Mike, it's a painful journey that we believe is better not taken. To know now that our son would be retarded, perhaps profoundly, gives us the choice of not continuing the pregnancy. We don't want a life like that for our child, and the added worry that we wouldn't be around long enough to care for him throughout his life.
For some reason, I expected our baby would look like Mike -- sandy-colored, silky hair, hazel eyes. I hoped he would inherit Mike's personality -- mellow, an antidote to my not-so-mellow.
One night, a few days after we learned of the diagnosis, I dreamed that I saw our baby: he had black hair like mine, but it was long, like a hippie's, the way I'd seen Mike in yellowed black-and-white photos from the '60s. In the dream, we were in a bookstore, the three of us. I heard gunfire. Then, the baby crawled away. I woke up missing him, mourning the child we wouldn't have.
I'm sure pro-lifers don't give you the right to grieve for the baby you chose not to bring into the world (another euphemism, although avoiding the word "abortion'' doesn't take any sting out of the decision to have one). Only now do I understand how entirely personal the decision to terminate a pregnancy is and how wrong it feels to bring someone else's morality into the discussion.
I was lucky. When I walked into the hospital, no one knew why, or cared. The nurses were kind and the doctor held my hand as the anesthesia took over.
As for that baby that will never be, I will remember him always. But I'm quite certain that I made the right choice for the three of us. These emotional and touching words certainly merit the sympathy they are bound to evoke, but it is a testimony of a shifting culture if they don't also elicit shock and a great moral discomfort. Indeed, the real anesthesia has ultimately numbed the soul much more than the body.
There was nothing with this baby that would truly inhibit his joy and purpose as a human being, save from his parents' conclusion that his life would be too large of a burden to bring into the world. To be sure, we offer nothing but empathy to the deep grief of a mother and father discovering that their child would have to endure a life likely more difficult than most people's. But how can we justify the tranfer of that grief to the decision to end the child's life before his first breath is drawn?
Yes, this is a question of morality -- a profoundly essential question that must transcend the supposedly "personal" nature of determining to have an abortion. And only by detaching our hearts from the truly devastating consequences of discarding the fruits of the womb can we find solace in the ability to "choose" whether that tiny individual gets the chance to see life.
--- Monday, November 14, 2005
Flawed Design?
William Saletan uses recent statements by Pat Robertson and Pope Benedict to suggest that even if there is an "intelligent designer" for the universe, maybe we really don't know that much about him.
Which is it? Does the designer operate by love or punishment?
A core principle of modern science is that theories have to make predictions. A belief that doesn't make testable predictions isn't a theory and can't be taught in science classes.
Proponents of ID claim that complex systems found in nature -- the cell, the bacterial flagellum, the immune system—are evidence of "intelligent activity" by a designer. But what kind of intelligence? Is the designer brutal or loving, jealous or forgiving? Look at the ancient crocodilelike predator we just dug up. Its mouth is a perfect killing machine. Does the same intelligence that designed us design our murderers?
Is the designer love, as the pope suggests? Or does the designer turn on you if you stick a finger in his eye? Robertson says our spiritual actions have consequences, but he can't tell us whether problems will arise in Dover as a result of the school board ouster: "I'm not saying they will," he shrugs. Nor can he tell us what the designer will do if such problems arise: "He might not be there," says the televangelist. And even if Robertson eventually figures out what he thinks, how can we decide which version of the designer -- Robertson's or the pope's -- to teach in biology class?
"If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them," Robertson joked the other day. Since the immediate problem in Dover is figuring out which theories are scientific, that's not bad advice. At least Darwin is predictable. In what is largely a sarcastic and purposely (I assume) nonsensical commentary, Saletan actually ends up presenting a strong case for the serious, scientific consideration of the merits of intelligent design. The question he asks -- Is God good? -- has been on the hearts of man since the beginning. And indeed, biology and other fields of science have never produced a satisfactory answer. But nobody's asking them. Not only can hard sciences not offer a suffient analysis of the goodness of God, but they have no real basis upon which to determine what qualifies as "good." Is evolutionary theory able to declare whether murder is right or wrong? Can naturalism explain from where we even derived the concepts of love, jealousy, or forgiveness?
These aren't the questions we ask in a biology classroom -- and they aren't the truths that either evolution or intelligent design are seeking to uncover. Certainly, the presence (or absence) of a designer holds powerful moral consequences, but those implications could never be discovered in a laboratory.
Planned Parenthood Stands at the Door and Knocks
A Planned Parenthood chapter in Kentucky has found difficulty -- to one's surprise -- in its quest to reach out to local church leaders.
Hoping to show that it is not anti-Christian, Planned Parenthood's Lexington affiliate is bringing the organization's national chaplain to speak with area clergy this week. But so far, only a handful of religious leaders have agreed to meet with him.
David Bowman, board chairman of Planned Parenthood of the Bluegrass, said it hasn't been easy to spread the word about chaplain Ignacio Castuera's visit.
"Most church organizations would not give me names and e-mail addresses for their clergy," he said. "There were many organizations, both denominational and ecumenical, that didn't want to get involved."...
"The closer Jesus got to the cross, the smaller the crowds got," the chaplain said. "This is pretty close to the cross because people have to take derision, ostracism, all that."
In 2003, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America provided contraception, HIV testing and other services to 2.8 million people and performed 244,628 abortions.
Castuera's position on abortion: "It's always a tragedy," he said. "I don't think it's a sin." I don't know whether the crowd in Jerusalem became smaller as Jesus drew near to the cross -- but it is appalling and absurd to suggest that spreading the message of abortion and safe sex has any comparison to the cross of Christ, save that those were among the sins for which He died. Kudos to the churches who rejected that pathetic message.
But it is, perhaps, a shrewd move to attempt to tie the objectives of Planned Parenthood to the Gospel, in an effort, presumably, to draw sympathy among some of their more conservative critics. If anybody buys it, now that's a tragedy.
Declaration of Spiritual Independence
Renowned atheist Michael Newdow is apparently preparing the next steps toward building a God-free America.
Michael Newdow said Sunday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit this week asking for the removal of the national motto, "In God We Trust," from U.S. coins and dollar bills. He claims it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God."
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer who is an avowed atheist, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God." He took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter....
Newdow said his efforts are not spurred by an atheistic agenda, but rather by a desire to see the government adhere to the U.S. Constitution. He dismissed opponents' arguments that references to God in government honor the country's religious roots, saying constitutional rights should take precedent. What Newdow may have managed accomplish in this case is initiating an even more absurd legal complaint than the presence of "under God" in the Pledge. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to realize that if God's name is prohibited from appearing on money, then it must be removed from most state constitutions, federal buildings, and monuments -- not to mention the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't take a psychologist to surmise that Newdow's ambition would not stop with removing the national motto from currency (and the motto itself would necessarily be deemed unconstitutional if his case were successful).
The logical outworking of these actions would be to purge the acknowlegement of God from every vestige of the public square. Does it truly protect the rights (or "feelings") of the nontheistic majority to abandon the recognition of a divine authority from the national consciousness? Pursuing such a course would not, in fact, transform America into a genuinely pluralistic society, nor would it bring fair treatment to those who choose not to believe in God. Rather, eliminating God's presence from public view declares a freedom from the loving, protective -- and jealous -- hand of the Almighty. I would hope that most Americans still become quite uncomfortable at that idea.
--- Friday, November 11, 2005
Into the Mind of the Designer
A column in Time Magazine suggests that science has no business peering into the mind of God, meaning that concepts like intelligent design should be left to the realms of theology of philosophy.
Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens: "Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue because blue is the color God wants it to be.
My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't speak to that answer.
Before we understood Rayleigh scattering, there was no scientifically satisfactory explanation for the sky's blueness. The idea that the sky is blue because God wants it to be blue existed before scientists came to understand Rayleigh scattering, and it continues to exist today, not in the least undermined by our advance in scientific understanding. The religious explanation has been supplemented--but not supplanted--by advances in scientific knowledge. We now may, if we care to, think of Rayleigh scattering as the method God has chosen to implement his color scheme.
Right now there is a federal trial under way in Dover, Pa., over a school policy requiring teachers to tell students about "intelligent design" before teaching evolution. The central idea of intelligent design is that nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way. This is not an assertion that can be tested in a scientific way, but studied in the right context, it is an interesting notion. As a theological idea, intelligent design is exciting. Listen: If nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way, then, by looking at nature, one can learn what it is that God wants! The microscope and the telescope are no longer merely scientific instruments; they are windows into the mind of God. While the author may make a valid point that the science lab cannot satisfactorily explain the blueness of the sky by merely declaring that God made it that way, that answer really addresses a different question entirely: "How did the sky get there in the first place?" The scattering of light may provide a useful explanation of certain visible processes, but it does nothing to answer why there is a sky at all, and it hardly contradicts the divine influence in painting the sky the hue of His choice. Thus, while one can demonstrate why the sky is blue, that simple matter of fact requires invoking neither a naturalistic process nor the presence of a Creator.
None of this, however, serves as sufficient criticism toward teaching intelligent design in schools. Design theory does not, in fact, pivot on the suggestion that nature is established in its form because God deemed that it should be so. Rather, it takes (or at least attempts to take) an objective inventory of natural processes and forms and discovers that nature itself testifies to a designer's hand.
Evolutionary biology claims no less lofty a mission than to analyze the universe and discern its origins -- but clearly that theory is itself burdened with broad-reaching assumptions about the self-sufficiency of nature and its rejection of spiritual forces.
Explaining the properties of light does not alone serve as evidence in favor or against the existence of God, nor in favor or against His absence. But both design and evolution are themselves prisms by which that information is viewed, and I am yet to find it especially scientific to deem the latter as the only conceivable way of dispersing the light of truth.
Not in the Lord's Army
Gatherings of atheists never cease to confound me. While I can comprehend (somewhat) a disbelief or rejection of the reality of God, teaming together to celebrate that "faith" seems to be a bit nonsensical. Perhaps today's Washington, DC, event for "Atheists in Foxholes" compounds that bewilderment more than most.
It's an old canard: "There are no atheists in foxholes."
But it's not true for thousands of current and former military personnel such as 80-year-old Donald Peterson, an atheist who flew in 39 combat missions during World War II.
Service members of no faith deserve the same respect as those espousing one, he said...
"For those who choose to believe, it can help them, and for those who choose to not believe, it is not a barrier for their service."
That is why today, thousands of people are expected to gather in Washington, D.C., for a first-ever parade and rally honoring atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, secular humanists and others who served in the nation's military or are on active duty.
Organized by American Atheists Inc., a national advocacy for nontheists, the event on the National Mall coincides with Veterans Day to draw attention to the role that nontheistic people play in the nation's armed forces. While there are no doubt numerous soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces fighting valiantly in spite of an absence of faith in God, there isn't reason to single them out as deserving unique praise -- though I suppose one might find it an accomplishment to survive a combat environment without discovering the presence and need for the Lord of the universe. But atheist troops ought neither to be excluded from service nor punished for their lack of faith, and we are humbly grateful for their defense of the country. So such a gathering can really only serve as a distraction to today's broader reflection of all those who have fought so bravely.
But as we stand in appreciation on this Veterans Day, I certainly pray for all of the men and women in uniform to cling tightly to God and take a trust in Him onto the battlefield.
--- Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Give Parents Back the Car Keys
Voters in California must decide today whether to pass a proposition that would require teenage girls to acquire parental consent to have an abortion. According to an AP story, however, somebody apparently neglected to ask the kids what they thought of this.
For almost as long as abortion has been legal in California, minors have been guaranteed the same unrestricted access to the procedure as adult women. If it passes, Proposition 73 would break that 34-year practice. The amendment's sponsors hope the notification requirement would reduce California's teen abortion rate - the nation's fourth-highest - by getting parents in on the decision.
Yet virtually unheard in the debate over the measure are voices of the people it would affect most - teenagers not yet old enough to vote.... Not surprisingly, perhaps, the proposed amendment was a lot more unpopular in liberal Berkeley, where the local health department operates a high school clinic that provides condoms and emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill," as well as pregnancy testing, counseling and other services.
Out of 14 girls interviewed as a group, all but one said they knew someone who had an abortion. Six said they would voluntarily tell their parents if they got pregnant, but none thought Proposition 73 was a fine idea.
Teens being disowned, beaten or forced to have unwanted babies were just a few of the disastrous results they envisioned if the law passes and takes effect in 90 days. A similar article in the San Francisco Chronicle focused exclusively on negative teen reaction to the initiative.
While most teenagers are too young to vote, they have plenty to say about Tuesday's special election, when adults will decide whether a pregnant minor must notify her parents before getting an abortion.
In an election that is getting only minimal attention from the general voting population, those who can't vote say they wish they could have a voice about Proposition 73, which would amend the California Constitution to require any doctor with a patient younger than 18 to notify the girl's parents at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. One might think that an age group deemed not mature enough to cast a vote for a state referendum probably isn't prepared to make such a life-altering decision as having an abortion. (Though for that matter, they probably aren't ready to make such a life-altering decision as having sex.) Sorry, kids. The AP and the Chronicle may care what you think about this matter, but I don't -- and outside of Berkeley, your parents likely don't, either.
What is especially discouraging is how trivial these young girls seem to approach topics of sex, pregnancy, and abortion -- a result, I would assume, of successful desensitization by entertainment media and groups like Planned Parenthood.
Let's be clear about why this issue of parental notification is important, however. Proposition 73, and similar laws in effect around the country, are not meant to bolster the rights of parents or diminish the rights of teenagers (although that balance has been corrupted enough in recent times). Such legislation finds significance instead by prohibiting counselors and doctors from taking matters into their own hands on such a delicate matter. The LA Times argues that California's proposition is an unnecessary intrusion of law into an area that is generally under control already. Perhaps, but without these measures, the negative impact of the Supreme Court's abortion decisions plunge deep within the heart of the culture.
I, on the other hand, question the appropriateness of Prop. 73 because I see no way a parent could justify consenting to their daughter's abortion -- and I am heartbroken both for the daughter who would find herself in a position to make that decision and for the culture that tells her to merely make a "choice."
Western Meccas?
Even amidst a war against ruthless terrorists, Western media and leadership are quick to add an extensive list of disclaimers to any criticism of the Islamic religion's role in the evils brought upon New York, Washington, Jersualem, London, and elsewhere. But shouldn't it be self-evident by now that taking a soft stance toward the radical and wicked elements of Islam serves no one well? Jeff Jacoby warns that the West's "tolerance" toward Muslims must not lead to the forsaking of morality and justice.
Too intolerant? Considering that America is at war with the forces of Islamofascism, and that for 25 years Americans have been bombed, hijacked, kidnapped, gunned down, beheaded, and otherwise attacked and killed by radical Muslim terrorists, the president's words about Islam were remarkably benign and uncritical.
As indeed they have been since 9/11, when he went out of his way to proclaim the peacefulness of Islam -- sometimes in the company of Muslim leaders whose history has been far from peaceful....
Could anything more perfectly capture the moral bankruptcy of multicultural relativism? The Koran may tolerate wife-beating (Sura 4:34: "As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to bed apart and beat them"), but why on earth should Australia tolerate it?...
The war against radical Islam is above all a war of values -- the values of liberty, equality, and human dignity against the values of jihad. The jihadis don't hesitate to proclaim their values. We must not be shy about defending ours. Certainly, those deeply held values include defending the rights of even those who worship another god or hold a different set of beliefs. But we must stop being apologetic for a religion that largely opposes everything for which the West stands. All Muslims are not bad people, but that doesn't mean we must pretend their religion is right, or ignore the fact that innocent civilians around the world are being slaughtered every day by maniacs who cling to those beliefs. If we do not hold to a strict standard of moral truth, then we will be left with no basis to expose evil and defend good.
--- Friday, November 04, 2005
Advice, Consent, and Choice
Charles Krauthammer and William Saletan have wildly different interpretations of the controversial opinion by Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that offered support for a law requiring married women considering an abortion to inform their husbands of that rather consequential decision.
Saletan writes:
First of all, Judge, I notice that in your concluding footnote to that case, you mentioned that the plaintiffs had asked your court to hold the statute unconstitutional because it "violates the rights to marital and informational privacy and equal protection." You wrote that you wouldn't address those arguments because your colleagues had relied on a different argument, the right to abortion. Since you rejected the abortion argument and didn't bother addressing the other arguments, I guess we can infer that they wouldn't have changed your vote. So, you don't think privacy or equality entitles a woman, constitutionally, to make the decision without consulting her husband....
Now, I'm seeing two arguments there. One is that the woman has some kind of misperception about her marriage or her situation, and her husband can set her straight. And the other argument is that the husband has such a profound interest in keeping the fetus alive -- and his wife has such a small interest in controlling what happens to her body -- that the government can force her to consult him even if she's so afraid of him, or so certain she can't have this baby, that she won't talk to him unless we threaten her with criminal charges. And you implied that Justice O'Connor, the justice you're planning to replace on this court, would agree with you....All that stuff you wrote about the woman not being sufficiently informed to make the decision without her husband's help -- not being competent, evidently, to decide whether consulting him was a good idea -- Justice O'Connor pretty much whacked that one out of the park, didn't she? And the same for your point about the husband's interest in the fetus -- "Does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority," she says. That's pretty clear, isn't it? Krauthammer, on the other hand, contends that Alito's dissent merely applied the Supreme Court's own troubled logic.
[W]hen, in 1991, Judge Samuel Alito was asked to rule in Planned Parenthood v. Casey on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement, Supreme Court precedents on abortion had held that "two-parent consent requirements" for a juvenile with "a judicial bypass option" do not constitute an "undue burden" and thus were constitutional. By any logic, therefore, spousal notification, which is far less burdensome, must also be constitutional -- based not on Alito's own preferences but on the Supreme Court's own precedents.
This may all seem arcane, but it requires slogging through arcana to see just how dishonest, disreputable and disgraceful is the charge, trumpeted by just about every liberal interest group, that Alito is so extreme and insensitive to women's needs that he supports spousal notification for abortion.
Alito's Casey opinion no more tells you whether he "supports" the policy of spousal notification than whether he likes foie gras with his pudding. The only thing it tells you is that based on scrupulous parsing of Supreme Court precedents -- or more particularly, of Sandra Day O'Connor's precedents on permissible restrictions on abortion -- he concluded that spousal notification met the court's own standard for constitutionality. As Krauthammer seems to imply, the dispute in Casey had nothing really to do with a woman's "right" to an abortion, but rather to a husband's right to know about such an intricate, intimate decision involving his wife and their child. The only conceivable way one could see fit to leave a husband ignorant of that knowledge is if the "fetus" is assumed to be an amoral, insignificant mass in a woman's body, the elimination of which is of no more import than the removal of a wart. Perhaps it is not for a court to decide just how valuable the product of the womb is, but certainly common sense dictates that abortion is more than just the typical medical procedure -- to limit its impact solely to the "woman's body" is quite self-deceptive and abhorrent.
Legally speaking, I find it difficult to grasp a constitutional mandate that would protect either wives or daughters from revealing to their husbands or parents about the decision to have an abortion. It would seem that only the blind defense of an invented "right to choose" has created such a debate.
The moral concerns run even deeper, however, especially if society is willing to accept the notion that a woman can justifiably withhold from her husband the elimination of their unborn child. To counter this insanity with exceptions of abused wives serves not to lessen the moral sting, but rather to expose even further residence of depravity. The unfaithfulness of some wicked husbands only deepens the tragedy of abortion -- it doesn't redeem it.
Nevertheless, this isn't Judge Alito or his colleagues' problem to fix. The Supreme Court certainly must restrain itself from spreading the culture of deceit and destruction that allows an act so untenable as abortion to become morally neutral. But it's society's mission to look evil in the eye and refuse to submit to its validation.
--- Thursday, November 03, 2005
New Parental Hierarchy: State, Dad, Mom?
The appeals court that found an unconstitutional establishment of religion within the Pledge of Allegiance has now, apparently, determined that state authority trumps parental guidance in matters of sex education.
On Wednesday the court dismissed a lawsuit brought by California parents who were outraged over a sex survey given to public school students in the first, third and fifth grades.
Among other things, the survey administered by the Palmdale School District asked children if they ever thought about having sex or touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."
The parents argued that they -- not the public schools -- have the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."
But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit dismissed the case, saying, "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children...Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the panel, said "no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty." It might be a bit overdramatic to suggest that the 9th Circuit court has rendered parenthood unconstitutional -- after all, the same court found no problem siding with one angry parent (albeit one without legal custody) in shielding children from the undue religious proselytization of hearing the name of God in the Pledge. Those same kids will surely be less corrupted by studying graphic sexual information.
Still, the court seems to have a warped interpretation of the proper limits and duties of the government in regard to the upbringing of young students. Appallingly, the decision places the burden of proof upon parents to defend their right to protect the moral innocence and purity of their children, when the matter at hand is clearly the extent of the rights of the state to interfere with that teaching. Indeed, the Constitution certainly does not include a clause that would grant parents the sole ownership of sexual education. But even more certain is that it can't be interpreted to give the government authority to usurp their wishes in this area.
--- Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The Looming Battle Royale?
After several weeks worth of mind-numbing politics standing at the fore of too many hurricanes, lawsuits, indictments, protests, and judicial appointments, one wonders whether President Bush's new nomination of Judge Samuel Alito will be the final death knell to civility in Washington. Similarly unclear is whether such an ugly fight is a blessing or curse upon this nation's moral and legal landscape.
George Will, who was adamant in his opposition to the selection of Harriet Miers, suggest that this judicial debate is very much necessary.
When Reid endorsed Scalia for chief justice, he said: "I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are (sic) very hard to dispute." There you have, starkly and ingenuously confessed, the judicial philosophy -- if it can be dignified as such -- of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Regardless of constitutional reasoning that can be annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results. How many thoughtful Democrats will wish to take their stand where Reid has planted that flag?
This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- "results" -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?
This is a debate the president, who needs a victory, should relish. Will it, as Democrats mournfully say, "divide" the country? Yes. Debates about serious subjects do that. The real reason those Democrats are mournful is that they correctly suspect they are on the losing side of the divide. Needless to say -- I think -- the cultural debate that we need to have is not over a Supreme Court nomination. Rather, the deeper divide comes over more fundamental understandings of how the Constitution is interpreted, what the role of law should be, and, of course, how the nature of life and truth are perceived.
It is, perhaps, a sign of a crumbling moral society that the latter concerns have found their forum within the arrangement of a court. Yet as the United States is now established, the Supreme Court stands as an unavoidable obstacle in the battle for the culture (and it is unlikely to ever be -- and perhaps it oughtn't be -- an ally in that battle). As Stephen Carter suggests at Christianity Today, the long-term good might not be served best by a seemingly "revolutionary" sweep of Court decisions.
In the years to come, the justices will face several opportunities to chip away at the corners of Roe. In the current term, the Court will likely decide on parental notification for minors seeking abortions. This is a perfectly sensible restriction that is popular even among Americans who describe themselves as pro-choice. Soon the Court will confront statutes restricting the availability of abortions late in pregnancy, especially partial-birth abortions.
A moderate, thoughtful nation might be gently led to see the error of Roe by a moderate, thoughtful Court. A revolutionary attack on its center will certainly fail. If the justices lead the revolution, it will justifiably fail. If it is wrong for the Supreme Court to insist on revolutionary change according to the passions of its members, it does not become right simply because of a change in personnel. The more pragmatic side of me tends to agree. At the same time, I don't think it can be understated how "revolutionary" Roe v. Wade was in shifting the dynamic of the abortion debate and thrusting it into the national consciousness, with the burden of proof upon those who would defy the Court's cultural mandate. In the meantime, I do hope that Judge Alito can bring some of that thoughtfulness back to the Supreme bench.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
