Politics

Archived Posts from this Category

October 30, 2006

Logical consistency please

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 

In today’s USA Today there was an article about partial birth abortion titled “ ‘Partial-birth’ cases test abortion rights’ limits”. Several things struck me about this article.First, I was surprised at both the candor and callousness with which the D&X (partial birth abortion) method of abortion was described: “The methods involve dilating a woman’s cervix to allow most of the fetus to emerge into the vagina intact, rather than dismembering the fetus in the uterus by using forceps and other instruments. In the intact method, a doctor then suctions out the fetus’ brain to collapse the head and allow delivery.” One would think the author was describing something as mundane as demolishing a house.

Second, I was astonished at the logical reasoning of the U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. Clement will be arguing on behalf of the U.S. government to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. According to the article Clement claims the procedure is “gruesome” and “resembles infanticide.” I agree, and I support his moral outrage at the practice. But Clement doesn’t stop there. According to the author “Clement has said Congress’ ban is not unconstitutional because there are alternative methods of second-trimester abortions that would remain legal. Those include a standard D&E procedure in which a doctor dismembers the fetus in the uterus, and another method known as ‘induction,’ in which a woman is given drugs that cause her to go into labor and deliver the fetus.”

I am at a loss to understand this reasoning. How is it any less gruesome to dismember the baby in the womb and evacuate it, than it is to partially extract it intact, and then proceed to kill it? One seems just as bad as the other. The issue is not how close the fetus comes to breathing air, but the killing of a human life. Maybe Clement is arguing this way for legally strategic reasons, rather than for logical reasons. I don’t know.

 

October 26, 2006

Should Gays Have Marriage Rights?: NJ Supreme Court rules they should, Part II

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
[10] Comments 

Read the previous post for relevant context….

The headline read: “New Jersey High Court Leaves Gay Marriage Rights to Legislature.” When I first read the Fox News headline I thought to myself, “Wow! A court that refuses to legislate from the bench, and that respects the democratic process.” That was…until I read the article. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

 

I will say from the outset that I have only read news articles about the decision. I have not yet been able to read the 90 page decision itself. But from the quotes I am reading in the news articles, the NJ Supreme Court seems to have done almost the exact same thing the Massachusetts Supreme Court did three years ago in Goodridge: they have declared that same-sex couples must be given the same rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples, and have given the legislature 180 days to reflect this in the law. Unlike MA, however, the court said the NJ legislature can either amend the existing marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or create a separate statutory structure that offers identical benefits (without calling it marriage). MA insisted that same-sex couple unions be called marriage as well.

 

Even if the legislature opts to create “civil unions” rather than amend the marriage laws, the fact of the matter is that what’s been created by judicial fiat in NJ is same-sex marriage. Why? Because gay couples would have the same social recognition, the same responsibilities, the same obligations, and the same rights as heterosexual married couples. If two animals walk like ducks, talk like ducks, and look like ducks…they are both ducks. The NJ Supreme Court has de facto instituted same-sex marriage in the state, but is merely allowing the legislature to name this new right they just created: “The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.” I’m glad they left something to the democratic process!

 

They can call it marriage, or they can call it something else. It doesn’t really matter. What’s so ironic is that many conservatives will feel better if the legislature calls it a “civil union” rather than “marriage,” as if avoiding the “M” word is all that matters. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…the fight is not over who gets to use the “M” word, but about the social recognition of homosexual relationships. See my article titled “Marriage by Any Other Name is Still Marriage”.

 

While I am bothered by many of the excerpts I have read thus far, two are very troubling to me (this is how this post ties into the previous post):

 

  • “The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.”
  • “We conclude that denying to committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

How can it be said that homosexual relationships are “similarly situated” to heterosexual relationships? How can they say there is no rational basis for privileging heterosexual marriage? There is a clear rational purpose. I wrote about it in my last post. But it doesn’t even need to be clear. Under rational basis scrutiny (which it seems the court used to decide the case) all that needs to be demonstrated to uphold the constitutionality of a law is that it is possible to conceive of a legitimate governmental purpose. Is it possible to conceive that privileging heterosexual marriage bears a rational relation to some legitimate end? Of course it does. Then how can the court say there is no legitimate governmental purpose for the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges?

 

Justice Cordy, in his dissenting comments to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s Goodridge ruling, addressed the assertion that there is no rational basis for privileging heterosexual marriage:

 

Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized. … The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other. The partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with children the probable result and paternity presumed. … The marital family is also the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children. Children learn about the world and their place in it primarily from those who raise them, and those children eventually grow up to exert some influence, great or small, positive or negative, on society. The institution of marriage encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow, thereby encouraging a stable venue for the education and socialization of children.

…

Civil marriage is the product of society’s critical need to manage procreation as the inevitable consequence of intercourse between members of the opposite sex. Procreation has always been at the root of marriage and the reasons for its existence as a social institution.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> (italics mine)

 

Justice Cordy made it clear that there is only one reason the government has promoted and protected marriage: they produce the next generation of society. Only opposite sex couples can “be the biological parents of shared children. Tying those parents to those children is a crucial social objective.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> Apart from a concern for children the government has no reason to regulate private relationships. If there are no children involved, there is no reason for the government to regulate and protect the relationship (which is why the government does not regulate friendships). How can the NJ court not see that? I would argue it’s because their decision was not motivated by the text of their state constitution, but by their own opinions on the matter. I’ll have to read the opinion for myself to see if that assessment holds true.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>

[1]Available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–>Justin Katz, “Scandinavian Marriage by the Numbers”; available from http://dustinthelight.timshelarts.com/lint/000460.html; Internet, accessed 16 September 2004.

 

October 26, 2006

Should Gays Have Marriage Rights?: NJ Supreme Court Rules They Should

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
Leave a Comment 

An anonymous lesbian expressed why she wants to marry. Her sentiments are representative of many gays:

 

“I want to know that if I have children with my partner that they will not be taken away from their parent if I die. I also want to know that if I do die that my partner can make that [sic] decisions for a funeral as she knows I would want it. I want to know that my insurance will cover my partner who may not have the luxury of having a job that provided insurance. I also want to know that if I die my partner and children will not be ripped from our home because they are not my ‘family’. These are the rights that you ‘straits’ get from marriage. You don’t have to acknowledge me…but I do serve this country and pay my taxes just as you do, I deserve the same rights as you do, nothing more, nothing less.”

 

Does she deserve the right to marry?

 

Same-sex couples think they are entitled to the legal, financial, and social benefits of the institution of marriage. When they are denied access to the institution of marriage and its attendant benefits they cry Discrimination! just as this anonymous lesbian did. But why think they are entitled to the institution and benefits of marriage in the first place? On what grounds are they entitled to them? Is it because they are given to others? That’s not a good reason. Most governmental benefits are given to some but not others.

 

For example, the government offers welfare benefits only to those who fall below certain income thresholds. Why? Because our government has an interest in helping the poor of our society. The economic stability of the poor is necessary for the good of society. Is it discriminatory for our government to withhold welfare benefits from Tom Cruise? Yes, but the discrimination is justified because Tom does not meet the criterion. Should the criterion be changed so as to include Tom simply because he wants to be included? No, because his inclusion is unrelated to the purpose for which the benefits exist in the first place.

 

Are same-sex couples entitled to the institution and benefits of marriage because they love one another? As important as love may be, the government is not interested in promoting romantic love. (Besides, marriage neither brings nor secures love. Just ask all the cohabiting and divorced couples!) Love is unrelated to the reason our government regulates and affords benefits to those willing to enter into a marriage contract. The reason the institution of marriage has been privileged by our government is because the pairing of a man and woman is the only thing that produces what every society needs for survival: children. The only way to produce children is by the pairing of a man and woman. And because the government has a vested interest in having those children raised in a stable environment, they want to promote the long-term pairing of the man and woman who created those children. The best way to accomplish these goals is by reward those who are willing to take on the obligations and responsibilities that come along with marriage and children.

 

Given the reason our government privileges marriage, why should the institution of marriage be opened up to include same-sex couples, and how is it that they qualify for the benefits of marriage? Do homosexual couples fulfill the purpose of marriage? Do they have anything to offer society that society could not obtain from them if their relationships are not recognized by the government? No. Then society is justified in denying them access to the benefits and institution of marriage, in the same way we are justified in barring Tom Cruise access to welfare benefits.

 

The demand of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriage on the grounds that they love one another is tantamount to my demand that the government pay for my education because I have blonde hair. The color of my hair is unrelated to their subsidizing of my education. In the same way, the love homosexual couples have for one another is unrelated to the purpose of marriage. Benefits are given to those who deserve them; to those who fulfill the purpose for which the benefits exist in the first place. So long as homosexuals are unable to produce children without the help of the opposite sex, society has no reason to privilege their relationships the way they do heterosexual relationships. It’s simply good social policy.

 

That leads me to what I want to talk about: New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. I will create a separate post for this.

 

P.S. The rights Ms. Anonymous wants can be secured through legal means wholly apart from marriage.

 

October 24, 2006

Legal Absurdities Involving Abortion in CA

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 

In a recent debate with the Planned Parenthood of CA, pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf spoke of the legal absurdities involving abortion in CA. I thought they were worth sharing. He said (reproduced by Scott in note form on his blog):

 

In California, public tax-dollars are used for what we’re all told is a totally “private” choice.

At the same time, minor children can’t smoke or drink soda pop at school, but they can be driven by school officials to get an abortion without their parent’s knowledge or consent. In short, PP believes your kids can’t be trusted to eat right but they can be trusted to abort without you knowing a thing about it.

Meanwhile, the state of California spends millions on television ads warning pregnant women not to harm their unborn offspring with cigarette smoke–an admirable goal indeed–but then turns right around and spends even more money paying for poor women to destroy the very unborn humans the ads were designed to save.

Indeed, in a majority of states, a woman may not harm her unborn offspring with alcohol or drug abuse, but she may kill it with legalized abortion. If that’s not crazy enough, imagine this scenario: A woman is driving to the abortion clinic when her car is accidentally broadsided by the same man who is scheduled to perform her abortion a few minutes later. Because of the accident, the fetus dies. Guess what the abortionist is charged with in a majority of states? You got it: homicide. Yet if the woman makes it to the clinic, that same abortionist can kill her offspring at any point in the pregnancy with no penalty at all.

Bottom line: In America today, unborn humans have a right to life if and only if their mothers want them.

 

October 19, 2006

Imposing Morality through Political Involvement?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Politics
Leave a Comment 

Melinda Penner wrote, “Christians aren’t trying to ‘impose’ their views – they are vocally participating in the public square and the democratic process, like every other citizen and group with a stake in this country. It’s really impossible to impose a view view [sic] the democratic process. After all, all candidates and propositions are up for vote for everyone to weigh in on. … On most of the contentious and controversial social issues, Christians are on the defense not the offense. Christians are defending the status quo or the historically status quo from radical social change, very often being applied through the courts rather than the vote. Abortion, same-sex marriage, much going on in education are examples where proponents are aggressively advancing their views. Christians have not introduced ‘attacks’ on homosexuals. They are responding to and defending the what has been the accepted norm in America.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

 

This got me thinking: how do you “impose” anything in a democracy? By getting a majority of people to agree with you. If people have a problem with that, then their real problem is with the concept of democracy itself. It doesn’t make any sense to say in a democratic society that it is wrong for the majority to legislate its views on the minority. If the majority have to give sway to the minority, then the minority hold the power, and we don’t have a democracy. This is absurd!

 

[1]Melinda Penner, “Imposing Religion”; available from http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2006/09/imposing-religion-guest-comment-sk.html; Internet; accessed 20 September 2006.

 

October 19, 2006

Fasting from Politics?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Politics
Leave a Comment 
Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason blogged on David Kuo’s call for conservative Christians to fast from politics. Her comments were quite perceptive, and cut to the heart of why this suggestion is foolish.

“60 Minutes” this past Sunday night featured an interview with David Kuo, described as a politically-conservative Christian and Federal-government employee for the faith-based initiative office. He claims that politically-conservative Christians are being manipulated by the Republican party so he suggests a “fast” from politics to be able to evaluate the relationship of Christianity and politics. He said that Christians have been sold a bill of goods that Jesus came “primarily” with a political message. Who claims that? What Christians are interested in doing is linking up their values and their politics. Isn’t that what everyone should do? How can value-less, unprincipled voting be a virtue?


Certainly Christians need to be very wary of the allure of political power for power’s sake. Perhaps individual Christians might evaluate whether this suggestion is appropriate for them. However, it would be very unwise Christians en masse “fast” from politics because it would be abandoning our responsibilities as citizens and Christians. Other citizens who have their own ideas of what our country should be like aren’t going to “fast,” and Christians walking out of the public square would leave it without our input and balance to issues being decided. Christians have an interest in the kind of country we live in and the activities of the government we live with because it has immediate impact on the ability we have to be salt and light in our country. “Fasting” even for a time, as a group, could lead to policy changes that are difficult or even impossible to change.


Kuo discussed the issues raised by his book with Chuck Colson this morning on the Laura Ingraham show. Colson pointed out that the earliest letters recovered are letters from Christian leaders to the Roman emperor appealing for justice, so influencing the culture and politics for justice sake has been a model of the church from the beginning. Kuo is concerned that in an effort to stay politically-connected, evangelical leaders will sacrifice their values. There is that danger and that would abandon the purpose of being politically engaged. But Colson also pointed out that the church must be involved in issues of justice, which are often time by nature political. And to leave the political realm is to abandon these vital issues of responsibility that the church should be known by.

 

Christians should not “fast” from politics because it is an abandonment of our duties as Christians to be “salt and light” and it’s shirking our duties as citizens to participate in the important discussions and decisions taking place in our country.

 


 

October 11, 2006

Courts are Not Morality Fixers

Posted by Jason Dulle under Politics
Leave a Comment 

—Note, for context see the two previous posts—

 

In this post I want to explore a little further the attitude expressed by Shannon Minter and Dennis Herrera, that the courts–rather than the people–are to decide important moral issues in this country. An anonymous commentator recently posted a comment to one of my blog entries, arguing that contrary to my complaint, courts are supposed to decide these moral issues for America.

 

S/he wrote: “That’s the point of having courts – to avoid the main flaw of democracy, majoritarianism. In the early 20th century the majority of americans were happy with segregation, and it was the job of the courts to choose the moral right despite the will of the people. Our courts, on the highest levels, are free from election for this reason. As a side note, I have no interest in seeing polygamy legalized and I don’t believe that religion should ever be afforded these special rights by reason of their participants credulity.”

 

This is a widely held belief among Americans. They have become so accustomed to courts deciding controversial moral matters for this nation that they have come to believe it is their job to do so. Some of my questions/comments to the anonymous poster are worth repeating here:

 

Where do you get the idea that the purpose of the courts is to choose the moral right despite the will of the people? Do you find that in the Constitution? No. Do you find that in the writings of the Founding Fathers? No. You are talking about how the government is supposed to function. If you are going to assert that the purpose of the judicial branch is to choose the moral right when the majority won’t, you’ll need a reference in the Constitution that says so, because that is the document detailing the function and responsibility of each branch of government.

 

What makes you think judges are in a better place to judge what is right than the rest of us are, including the other two branches of government? You seem to presuppose (whether aware of it or not) that judges are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else. Nonsense. If judges can overrule the will of the majority whenever they do not like it, then we do not have a democracy; we have an oligarchy.

 

You also seem to presuppose that whenever judges make a decision that goes against the will of the majority, that such a decision is for the moral good. But why believe that? It may be easy to think that these days given the liberality of our judges and their judicial philosophy. But what if the tables were turned? You sound like you might be a social liberal. What if the majority of Americans were social liberals like yourself, and yet the justices were social conservatives? If they kept overturning the will of the people on the basis that the will of the people was immoral, would you be saying “the purpose of the courts is to choose the moral right despite the will of the people”? I highly doubt it. You would be saying the courts are interfering with democracy. I would agree. Let me give you an example.

 

I oppose embryonic stem cell research (but support the morally neutral adult stem cell research). I happen to live in CA, a state that recently approved $6 billion dollars in research dollars for this kind of research. My fellow citizens voted this in. While I am completely opposed to it, and while I am being forced to fund it with my tax dollars, I would not think of trying to overturn the law by shopping my case to some court that would do just that. It was the will of the people. And clearly, it is Constitutional. I know so because our Constitution says nothing about ESCR; therefore, judges have no business ruling on its legality. What I will do, however, is work to persuade my fellow citizens to change the law. I will work to change their mind/will, so that the majority will shift to my position. That is democracy. Unfortunately liberals cannot persuade the majority to adopt their view, so they circumvent the democratic process by taking their case up before unelected judges who share their views, and get the law pronounced “unconstitutional” (even though 99% of the time the Constitution has nothing to do with it).

 

The fact of the matter is that the personal opinion of a justice should have nothing to do with his/her decision. Their job is to interpret what the law is, not what they would like it to be. When the Constitutionality of a law is in question, again, the purpose of a justice is not to determine whether they think it ought to be permitted, but whether the Constitution permits it. That is a question of interpretation of a historical document. It’s not a question of a judge’s own personal views on the issue.

 

October 11, 2006

What do you know…a CA court upholds the will of the people while the governor ignores it through word games, Part II

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
Leave a Comment 

Now for the good news on the judicial front (see last post). Last week the 1st District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision in 2005 that CA’s laws against same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. I’m not excited about this ruling simply because it agreed with my own position, but rather because it demonstrated the judicial restraint that is integral to a properly functioning judiciary, and a properly functioning democracy. Listen to what the justices had to say in this 2-1 decision:

 

“We conclude California’s historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right.”

“Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.”—William McGuiness, presiding justice of the 1st District Court of Appeal

“Marriage has historically stood for the principle that men and women who may, without planning or intending to do so, give life to a child should raise that child in a bonded, cooperative and enduring relationship.”—Justice Joanne C. Parrilli, in a concurring opinion. [She noted that it is hardly irrational for the state to recognize this, and thus privilege marriage to a man and woman].

A resounding YES! I’m so happy to know there are still courts out there who are interested in justice, but recognize that their job is to interpret the law, not make the law. It’s a breath of fresh air; a departure from the many cases in which judges impose their moral views on the rest of America under the rubric of interpreting the law.

 

As you can guess, not everyone was happy with the decision. Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, claims that the “majority abdicated their judicial responsibility.” How? “It is incorrect and unfair to say that the courts don’t have the responsibility to decide whether excluding a group of people from marriage is constitutional. That is their job. That is exactly what the governor said.”

 

She is referring to a statement the Governator made last year (I believe) when he was faced with having to sign or veto a bill that would approve same-sex marriage in CA. He said the issue was one the courts needed to decide. Interestingly he vetoed the bill on the grounds that the people had decided the issue in 2000 through a ballot initiative (Prop 22), and the will of the people should not be overturned. I think he was right about the latter, but wrong about the former. Personally, I think the Governator was trying to find any way he could to pass the responsibility to someone else for the decision he had to, and did make. Clearly he was not expressing the way the government is supposed to function, and Minter should no better. What the courts are supposed to do is determined by our constitution, not the comments of a governor. Rather than abdicating their judicial responsibility, the court submitted to it.

 

San Francisco attorney, Dennis J. Herrera, was not happy either. He said, “If other courts had followed this reasoning, schools would still be segregated, and married couples would not be able to use birth control.” That may be true, but as I have argued previously on this blog (when it was still an e-blog), while the opinion of the justices on these issues may have been the right opinion, they thwarted and undermined democracy by ignoring the will of the majority:

 

[T]he Supreme Court is not the place to decide social issues such as slavery, abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, access to contraception, etc. Those issues properly belong to the people to decide through their elected legislators. Was it wrong to have slavery legal in this country? Yes! Was it wrong to prevent a white and black couple from marrying? Yes! Was it wrong to discriminate and segregate based on gender and race? Yes! But the Court is not the place to correct such social injustices. I’m glad we no longer have unjust laws against interracial marriages, but I am upset that the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to decide those matters for us. The people should have decided them. The Supreme Court is so haughty that it thinks it can wrest away every political issue from the states and decide it for us, and then we have to simply bite our tongues. Nonsense!

There’s more I would like to say about this, so I will do so in a new post.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>

<!–[endif]–>

 

October 11, 2006

What do you know…a CA court upholds the will of the people while the governor ignores it through word games, Part I

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
Leave a Comment 

I often report on where courts go wrong. It’s easy to do with so much judicial activism going on these days. But if I am going to report on bad decisions, I should report on good decisions as well. So here’s a good report. Well…a good report is coming. First I have a bad report, but not about the courts.

 

On September 30 the governor of CA, Arnold Schwarzenegger (a.k.a. the Governator), signed a barrage of bills, including a very important bill affecting the fight for marriage. If you follow the mass media, you probably didn’t even hear about it. The bill allows for same-sex couples in CA to file their state taxes as a married couple. Why does that matter? Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason explains:

 

[T]he people of California passed Propositions 22 several years ago making it the law of the state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Did that law protect the word “marriage” or a privileged recognition by the state? The Governor and the representatives who passed this law are playing word games.

Marriage, in the legal sense, is a government-recognized status marked by privileges and responsibilities given by the government. When the legislators an [sic] the Governor start handing out those privileges that constitute the government recognition of marriage they are treating same-sex partnerships as married without legally using the word. They’re treating marriage as only a word, not a status. They apparently think that by not using the word “marriage” that they aren’t violating the people’s wishes. When the voters of California passed Prop. 22 we weren’t just interested in protecting the word marriage – we weren’t playing word games. We were protecting the thing – the government-recognized status.

Governor Schwarzenegger has stated in the past that Proposition 22 was the will of the people and it had to be respected, even if it wasn’t his personal view. The governor has now violated that will he professed to respect by playing this game started by the state legislators. And here’s the larger game: If they cane [sic] gradually parcel out the privileges and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex partners, one of these days they’ll declare that we might just as well use the word “marriage” since we’re already treating them as married.

Marriage from the government’s perspective isn’t just a word, it’s a recognized status. It’s the status, the recognition, that is at issue here. Lawmakers should stop playing word games.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

That’s the bad news. In my next post I will give you the good news.

 

 

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>Melinda Penner, “Word Games”; available from http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/word_games.html; Internet; accessed 03 October 2006.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>

<!–[endif]–>

 

October 6, 2006

Is Church Discipline an Invasion of Privacy?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Politics, Theology
[6] Comments 

If a church member commits adultery, and the elders enact church discipline via informing the congregation of their sin, is that an invasion of privacy? That’s the issue a couple of churches in Texas are facing since they have been sued by their congregants for doing just this.

Andy and Seni, I’d be interested to get your legal take on this.

This brings up an important matter: the proper interpretation of I Timothy 5:20–“Those guilty of sin must be rebuked before all, as a warning to the rest.” Many pastors understand this passage to mean they are to publicly rebuke saints for personal moral failure. Many use this passage as an excuse to publicly rebuke saints for violating certain pastoral standards as well. Does this verse give them authority to do either? The answer is a resounding NO! The context makes it abundantly clear that those to be rebuked are elders who sin. Consider the preceding verses:

Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 5:18 For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.” 5:19 Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it can be confirmed by two or three witnesses. (5:17-19)

The reason elders are to be rebuked is because of their leadership role. Others are following them as they follow Christ. If they are not following Christ, those following them need to know. Furthermore, if the sin is hidden rather than publicly dealt with it opens the church up to the charge of mishandling and cover-up. Just ask the Catholic Church! But when it comes to non-elders it is a different story. According to Proverbs 10:12 “love covers all sins.” I Peter 4:8 says “love covers a multitude of sins.” Love seeks to hide the moral failures of the repentant, not make them public.

 

September 27, 2006

Yet Another Pro-Cloning Cloning Ban Bill

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Politics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

 

 

Congressman Meisner from the state of Michigan introduced House Bill 4900 to amend sections of the public health code dealing with embryonic stem cell research (http://www.rtl.org/html/legislation/prolifeleg/pdf/EthicsTechnology/1998-SB864.pdf). It is being sold by Rep. Andy Meisner as a bill that will both permit embryonic stem cell research and prohibit human cloning. As with the Missouri and federal proposals, this bill legalizes human cloning while pretending to ban it.

 

It is similar to the other bills in that it:

 

  1. Avoids using the word “embryo” as much as possible (the MI law currently contains the word, but Meisner’s bill proposes to replace all but one occurrence with “fetus”)
  2. Prohibits human cloning by falsely defining human cloning as implanting a cloned embryo in a womb to gestate through birth.

 

Regarding the second, the bill boldly states, “A licensee or registrant shall not engage in or attempt to engage in human cloning.” Sounds good! I guess this means MI will not engage in research involving cloned embryos. But wait! That would be the proper conclusion if words meant something, but in the Meisner bill words don’t mean anything at all. Words mean whatever Meisner says they mean. He defines human cloning, not scientifically as the asexual creation of a human zygote through somatic cell nuclear transfer, but rather as “creating or attempting to create a human being by using the somatic cell nuclear transfer procedure for the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being.”

 

As with the other bills, Meisner’s bill claims to ban human cloning by redefining the term. Rather than defining “human cloning” in terms of the process involved, and the resultant product of that process, Meisner defines human cloning in terms of what a scientist purposes its creation for. If you use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human being for the purpose of implanting it in a womb and gestating it through birth, that is considered “human cloning” and is illegal. What about using somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human being asexually for the purpose of destructive research? According to Meisner that is not cloning. Why? Is it a different process from the one he described? No. Was the product of that process different? No. So why is one considered human cloning and the other not? Because Meisner says so!

The fact of the matter is that what one purposes to do with the product of “somatic cell nuclear transfer” does not make it, or fail to make it a clone. A clone is a clone regardless of what we do with it. Intentions do not create reality. Reality is what it is apart from what we purpose. The fact of the matter is that the act of cloning is complete at somatic cell nuclear transfer. What one decides to do with the clone (gestate it through birth, kill it for research) subsequent to the act of cloning does not change the fact that the entity itself is a human clone. But that doesn’t matter to those like Meisner. It’s much more convenient to just define cloning in such a way that it has nothing to do with cloning, ban the pseudo-form of cloning, and then go on about your cloning business all the while affirming your opposition to cloning! Wouldn’t it be funny if someone stole Meisner’s car, get apprehended, and then tell Mr. Meisner that they did not “steal” his car because they did not intend to sell it. When Meisner protests they can explain to him that “theft is the taking of someone else’s property without their permission for the purpose of selling it.” Since they had no intentions of selling it, it is not stealing. I don’t think Meisner would be persuaded. Neither should we be persuaded by his disingenuous bill.

 

Since this bill is the amending of an existing law it is important to look at what Meisner wants to take out. The law currently reads: “A person shall not use a live human embryo or neonate for nontherapeutic research….” Meisner proposes to delete “human embryo” and insert “fetus” in its place. It’s obvious why he wants to swap “fetus” for “embryo.” It’s hard to justify killing embryos when the law says you can’t. By changing the language to “fetus,” experimenting on humans up to 8 weeks old becomes legally justifiable.

 

But what about the deletion of “human”? Why delete that word? Is a fetus not human? Yes it is. Is it scientifically inaccurate to call it human? No it’s not. Then why delete the word? It is being deleted for political purposes, not clarity or scientific accuracy.

 

Thankfully the Michigan congress is controlled by pro-life Republicans, so currently the bill is going nowhere. Let’s pray it stays that way.

 

August 10, 2006

Robert George: It’s Not Bush Who is Holding Up Cures

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics, Stem Cell Research
1 Comment 

Robert P. George (law professor at Princeton and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics) and Eric Cohen wrote a terrific piece in National Review about the politicization of the stem cell controversy. They discuss a couple of important votes that took place in the U.S. Legislature in late July regarding bills that would fund stem cell research. A bill supporting the federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research was passed by both houses of Congress, but vetoed by President Bush. As important as that is, George and Cohen focused on another bill that did not pass both houses of Congress. This second bill would have funded alternative forms of creating embryonic-like stem cells. While the Senate approved it unanimously, and the House approved it with a majority, key supporters of the destructive embryonic stem cell research bill pulled some shenanigans to kill the bill in the House.

 

This is important because one of the mantras the pro-embryonic stem cell research crowd repeats over and over again is that Bush is anti-science, and not interested in finding cures. And yet here is an example where embryonic stem cell research supporters had a chance to federally fund stem cell research that is currently more fruitful and more promising than embryonic stem cell research, but refused to do so. As George and Cohen wrote:

 

 

Some opponents of the Bush stem-cell policy have argued that we should support any and all stem-cell research, and not limit any particular type, so that science can advance on all fronts at once. The president has argued that we should support all ethical stem-cell research, so we may advance medical science while always respecting human dignity and protecting human life.

 

But those members of the House who voted against the Specter-Santorum bill did not choose all effective avenues of science or all ethical avenues of science. Instead, they would support only ethically controversial stem-cell research. They would support the research only if it involves the destruction of embryos. Otherwise, they are not interested.

 

That is not a position for the advancement of science on all fronts, but for keeping a political issue alive even as science advances and leaves it behind. It is hard to imagine a more blatant example of political cynicism overpowering a constructive solution. As the president put it: “It makes no sense to say that you’re in favor of finding cures for terrible diseases as quickly as possible, and then block a bill that would authorize funding for promising and ethical stem cell research.”

 


It is not Bush who is anti-science, or holding up potential cures. It is a group of Congressman and the lobbyists who support them. It is they, not Bush, who is putting ideology ahead of cures.

 

May 3, 2006

Who Should Fear Whom?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Politics, Quote of the Day
Leave a Comment 

Quote of the day:

Thomas Jefferson said, “When the people fear government, that’s tyranny; when the government fears the people, that’s liberty.”

 

April 27, 2006

More on Spain’s Ape-Person Proposal and the Genetics of it All

Posted by Jason Dulle under Animal Rights, Apologetics, Bioethics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Politics
Leave a Comment 

Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online wrote the following concerning the proposed bill in Spain:

Lord how [I] hate it when people do those DNA comparisons. I’m all for being nice to monkeys and gorillas, but please. We share a lot of the same DNA with dogs and, if memory serves, a big chunk of our DNA matches up nicely with some fruits and vegetables. What, exactly, should that tell us? We share 100% of our DNA with fetuses — as Ramesh would likely note — and yet that never seems to argue much in their favor among the crowd that wants animals to have rights.

This is a powerful argument to make when dealing with PETA people who are typically pro-animal rights and pro abortion rights.

I would add to Goldberg’s list that mice are said to 97.5% genetically similar to humans.Will the Socialist Party in Spain include them in the bill?Of course not.Clearly it’s not all in the DNA.

Turning to the evolutionary aspect of this discussion, the amount of genetic similarity between man and chimps is not surprising given the amount of morphological similarity between chimps and man (By the way, the article claims the two are 98.4% similar.Actually, it’s more like 95.2%).It’s important to understand that the genetic similarity does not mean the genes function in the same way.It is similar to the way in which authors use most of the same words and yet write radically different stories. As William Dembski wrote:

It’s like going through the works of William Shakespeare and John Milton, and finding that almost all the words and short phrases they used are identical. Such a similarity would not be surprising since what separates Shakespeare from Milton is not so much their vocabulary but how they used their vocabulary to express their thoughts. Different authors might use nearly identical sets of words. The crucial difference is in how those words are utilized in their respective contexts. The overall meaning only emerges from the way the words are put together. Likewise, two organisms might have nearly identical sets of genes, and even situate those genes in roughly the same order; and yet they can utilize those genes so differently as to produce markedly different organisms.

While the genetic alphabet of man and chimp may be the same, the way in which those letters are put together create vast differences.Consider the following to sentences:

Charles Darwin was a scientific god.

Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.

Both sentences contain the same number of letters, and in almost identical order.The slight difference, however, makes their meaning very different.The same goes for living things.The gene sequence diversion between humans and chimpanzees has been “found to have significant effects both on the amino-acid sequences of proteins and on the ways those proteins are regulated.”[1]About 20% of proteins are different between the two species.An examination of chimp and human brain cells reveals that humans have accumulated 5.5 times the changes as chimps over the same period of time.The human brains produce 31% more proteins than chimps.

Evolutionists tend to overemphasize the similarities between chimps and humans and underemphasize the differences, but the challenge of evolutionists is to explain their differences.

Physical Differences between Humans and Chimpanzees[2]

(1) The feet of chimpanzees are prehensile, in other words, their feet can grab anything their hands can. Not so for humans.

(2) Humans have a chin, apes do not.

(3) Human females experience menopause; no other primates do (the only known mammal besides humans to experience menopause is the pilot whale).

(4) Humans have a fatty inner layer of skin as do aquatic mammals like whales and hippopotamuses; apes do not.

(5) Humans are the only primate whose breasts are apparent when not nursing.

(6) Apes have a bone in their penis called a baculum (10 millimeters in chimpanzees); humans do not.

(7) Humans have a protruding nose.

(8) Humans sweat; apes do not.

(9) Humans can consciously hold their breath; apes cannot.

(10) Humans are the only primates that weep.

For humans to have come from chimps (actually it is said to be a hominid ancestor common to both man and chimps) we have to explain how 600 million base pairs in the DNA sequence were changed over a period of only 6 million years.There are only about 600,000 generations during this expanse of time, and given mutation rates we end up with a mere .6% change in DNA (and this assumes that every mutation is inheritable).This is 7x short the 4.8% genetic difference we find between man and chimps.The math simply does not add up even in optimal circumstances.

[1]William Dembski, “Reflections on Human Origins”; available from http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_HumanOrigins_062204.pdf; Internet; accessed 11 January 2005.

[2]Taken from Geoffrey Simmons, What Darwin Didn’t Know (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 2004), 274-278, as found in William Dembski, “Reflections on Human Origins”; available from http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_HumanOrigins_062204.pdf; Internet; accessed 11 January 2005.

 

April 27, 2006

Spain Seeks to Include Chimps as “Persons”

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
[3] Comments 

One day in Spain a Spaniard might be able to sue a gorilla, or better yet, be sued by a gorilla. The Socialist Party in Spain will introduce a bill to the Congress of Deputies to give simians (chimpanzees, gorillas, and apes) the same moral and legal protections given to human beings. Why? Because our DNA is so similar! This is where evolutionary, reductionistic thinking leads: the obliteration of the doctrine of human exceptionalism (the idea that humans are qualitatively different from all other animals. These people reason that if humans are valuable, and simians are genetically comparable to humans, simians must be just as valuable as humans. They fail to realize that our value is not rooted in our DNA, but in the One who created us. We are valuable because we are created in the image of God. But what else should we expect from materialists? In a materialistic worldview DNA and functionality are the only contenders for value-defining properties. There can be no such thing as transcendent value beyond the material realm. Check out the news release for yourself.

 

April 24, 2006

Clinton and Reid on Contraception and Abortion

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
[10] Comments 

On Tuesday April 18th Senators Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid co-wrote a piece for the Times Union regarding abortion and contraception. Here is an excerpt:

We believe that it is necessary for all Americans to join together and embrace policies that will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, decrease abortions and improve access to women’s health care.

There is no question that the rate of unintended pregnancy is too high in the United States. Half of the 6 million pregnancies each year in this country are unintended, and nearly half of these unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. It doesn’t have to be this way. Most of these unintended pregnancies — and the resulting abortions — can be prevented if we eliminate the barriers that prevent women from having access to affordable and effective contraception.

Only senators could say so much wrong in so little space!

First, I find it schizophrenic that abortion-choice advocates like Clinton will champion abortion rights on the one hand, and yet want to reduce the number of abortions on the other. If abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being we should no more want to reduce the number of abortions than we want to reduce the number of tooth extractions. The reason some abortion-choicers want to reduce the number of abortions is because deep down they know abortion is morally wrong. At the end of the day the only sure way to reduce the number of abortions is by making it illegal.

Can you think of any other Constitutional right where even advocates of the right want to reduce the number of times it is exercised? As Jivin Jehoshaphat once wrote, “It obviously doesn’t work for many of the rights we consider foundational. Imagine someone being a champion for the right to free speech yet saying that we should work to reduce the number of nonviolent protests. Or a champion of voting rights working to reduce the number of votes that are cast in a given election. Both situations are absurd.”

Secondly, what barriers to receiving affordable and effective contraception are Clinton and Reid talking about? How hard is it to buy a condom from the local drug store or Wal-Mart? Getting the Pill is as easy as walking in to a Planned Parenthood clinic. People choose not to use contraception.

Thirdly, both senators are perpetrating the myth that there is a tandem between increased access to contraception and a decrease in abortion. It sounds logical, but is not necessarily supported by statistical data.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute recently released a report on contraception in America. They ranked each state according to its efforts to help women obtain and properly use contraception. The three categories against which each state was measured were service availability, public funding, and laws/policies. California was ranked first in the nation for their superior contraceptive services, and New York was ranked fifth. What’s so ironic about this is that these two states also have among the highest percentages of abortion per pregnancy in the nation (NY = 2nd highest with 31%; CA = 6th highest with 26%). If greater access to contraceptives is the key to significantly reducing the number of abortions, why is it that the states with the greatest access to contraception are also the nation’s greatest abortion mills?

 

April 3, 2006

In CA You Can Have an Abortion, but Not a Coke

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 


Back in September 2005 CA enacted legislation that will ban pop (soda for all of you in the West) in CA schools beginning in July 2006. Margo Wootan, the nutritional policy director for the DC-based Center for Science in the Public Interest commented on this legislation saying, “The money from soda contracts comes out of children’s and parents’ pockets. Coke, Pepsi, and other junk-food marketers enjoy being in schools because they know it is one of the only places they can target kids without parental interference.”

 

Serge over at Life Training Institute picked up on the issue of parental control Ms. Wootan capitalized on. While a child cannot choose what to drink in school because such a choice may circumvent parental control, that same child can choose to leave the school campus to have an abortion without parental notification and that is acceptable. So much for choice! It’s ok to hide an abortion from your parents, but not a Coke!

 

To show the stupidity of these policies Serge created a mock conversation between a student and her school counselor:

 

14 year old Student: My boyfriend and I have been having sex and I’m late for my period. Do you know where I can get a pregnancy test?

 

Counselor: Here is the location if the nearest Planned Parenthood. Although I would never dare comment on your personal decision to engage in sex, they can help you with your options.

 

14 year old Student: I’m not sure when I can get to the clinic.

 

Counselor: That won’t be a problem. In fact you can go during the time you would otherwise be in class.

 

14 year old Student: If I am pregnant, can I get an abortion?

 

Counselor: Sure, you can even have it done during the school day.

 

Student: Is there any way my parents can find out?

 

Counselor: Not from us – we cannot tell them where you are even if they call when you are at the clinic.

 

Student: Wow. I’m so nervous talking about this that my throat is dry. Is there anywhere that I can buy a Coke for the trip to the clinic?

 

Counselor: A Coke! Don’t you know what kind of effect drinking a Coke can have on your health and future well being! You are just a child and clearly not responsible enough to make that decision! In fact, because your parents cannot control what you drink while you are here we have banned the sale of all pop from the school campus. You should be more careful with your behavior and what you choose to drink!

 

http://prolifetraining.com/pro-life_blog/?p=348

 

March 20, 2006

Are Christians Too Involved in Politics?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Politics
Leave a Comment 

Pro-life leader, Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute, was tackling the charge that evangelicals are too involved with politics. He argued that you can’t say Christians are too political unless you can demonstrate the following:

1. that Evangelicals as a whole are spending more money on political campaigns than they are on world missions and evangelism

2. that Evangelicals as a whole are spending more time lobbying their Congressmen than sharing Christ with friends at work

3. that Evangelicals as a whole are talking with their friends more about George W. Bush than they are Jesus Christ

4. that a majority of Evangelicals are politically savvy enough to know how a bill gets introduced in Congress and how to either defeat it or affirm it with coordinated lobbying efforts

5. that a majority of Evangelicals could tell you the current political state of affairs on key issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning (for example, what does Roe v. Wade and it’s companion case Doe v. Bolton really say? What are the two competing cloning bills before Congress for the last three years and how do they differ?)

6. that a majority of Evangelicals could convey the moral logic of the pro-life position to friends and neighbors

7. that a majority of Evangelicals could name their Congressman, two federal Senators, State Senator, and State Representative.

8. that a majority of Evangelicals actually vote in most elections

9. that even 1 percent of Evangelical churches with 500 members or more are equipping their people to persuasively defend a pro-life worldview in the secular marketplace of ideas

Based on this test I would say only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of conservative Christians are too politically involved. Indeed, most need to become more politically involved, living out their faith in the public square where they can make a real moral difference.

 

March 17, 2006

Democrats, Abortion, and Conscience

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 

Father Thomas Williams had much to say regarding the recent statement issued by 55 Catholic Democrats from the House of Representatives, trying to reconcile their pro-choice views with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Some excerpts:

To justify their position, the authors of the statement appeal to the so-called “primacy of conscience.” Yet conscience is not a pass to excuse wrongdoing. Would it make any difference if a serial killer claimed he was following his conscience when he murdered his victims? Even if the politicians are following their conscience, Catholic morality makes an important distinction between good conscience and bad conscience, and a conscience that sees nothing wrong with killing the innocent falls decidedly in the second category….

 

And as regards its “undesirability,” this poorly chosen term will likely provoke only indignation. Hangnails are undesirable; under-seasoned salads are undesirable; lines at the cash register are undesirable. Abortion is repugnant and evil.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/williams200603140813.asp

 

March 13, 2006

South Dakota Bans Abortion

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 

I’m sure some of you have already heard that the state of South Dakota passed legislation banning all abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is at stake (Mississippi and Tennessee are considering similar abortion-banning laws). They know such a law is unconstitutional. They passed it as a direct challenge to Roe. They know it will be challenged by pro-abortion groups, and overturned by the lower courts. Their desire is to have it reviewed by the Supreme Court, and their hope is that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe.

While I am pro-life to the core, heartily support the content of this legislation, and want to see Roe challenged, I am strongly opposed to South Dakota’s actions…on a tactical level. As Scott Klusendorf has said, it is the right bill but the wrong time. The strategy seems doomed to fail, and its failure could set the pro-life movement back for years to come, resulting in the unintended effect of more dead babies.

The problem with SD’s strategy is that they forgot how to count. While conservatives have been excited over the recent appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the fact remains that there are still only four judicial conservatives on the Court. We need five votes to overturn Roe. It’s almost certain that Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy will uphold Roe. Only Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are likely to vote for its demise. Some even doubt that Roberts and Alito would vote against Roe because new justices are less likely to overturn such a precedent.

SD may be betting on the death or retirement of one of the Roe supporters (maybe Stevens) prior to the case reaching the Supreme Court (which I think would take 1-2 years—correct me if I’m wrong Andy or Seni). That could happen but it’s not likely, and is a risky gamble. As Steve Chapman wrote, “But that’s not counting chickens before they’re hatched — it’s counting them before the eggs are even laid.” Besides, if a vacancy did open up on the Court it would make the next nomination battle extremely intense, with the Democrats filibustering any nominee that even hints s/he does not support Roe. If the seat remains vacant when the case is heard, it would be a 4-4 vote and Roe would remain the law of the land. Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t even have to hear the case, in which case it is dead on arrival.

SD may also be betting that Kennedy will decide to vote against Roe. I think this is a false hope. Counting on Kennedy to vote to overturn Roe is quite a gamble, and if the gamble doesn’t go in our favor we’ll be in worse legal position than we are now because Roe will have been directly reaffirmed twice, setting a “super” precedent. A legal defeat now could set us back years in the legal landscape.

I don’t think Kennedy would vote to overturn Roe for two obvious reasons. First, he is fairly liberal in his constitutional philosophy, and Roe rests on that sort of an approach to constitutional interpretation. Secondly, and most importantly, he has already voted to uphold Roe in the past, even if the decision was at the last minute (It’s been said that he was going to vote against Roe in Casey, but was persuaded by O’Connor to change his opinion at the last moment. I don’t know if that is true or not.). So even if he wants to overturn Roe now he is fighting against two precedents: Roe, and his own vote in Casey. Not only does he have the negative pressure of casting a vote to overturn a well-established precedent that millions of women have come to rely on, but he also has the pressure of admitting that his past ruling was mistaken. I think those two hurdles combined are too much for him to overcome, even if he thinks Roe should be overturned (and that is only speculation).

Hopefully SD will have enough sense not to appeal the case once the law is ruled unconstitutional. If we want to see Roe overturned it is best to do so in a piecemeal fashion as we have been (parental notification laws, waiting periods, partial-birth abortion bans, etc.) until we have enough judicially conservative justices on the bench who will overturn Roe for the bad law it is. Then we can challenge Roe. We must be mindful of both the legal and political landscape in which we are working. I don’t think SD considered either. Their legislation makes a wonderful statement, but I don’t think it will be effective for furthering the pro-life cause…at this time.

What do you think?

For further reading on the strategical problems of South Dakota’s approach I would recommend the following:

Costly Gestures

South Dakota’s Impatience on Abortion

A Pro-Life Mistake

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »