Almost all TV is sensationalistic.
I grow so tired of ultra-conservatives always calling the media, "the liberal media." But I also grow so tired of liberals making cracks at radio and Fox news as "those people" with an air of indifference and elitism. Both understandings are stupid, and neither is redeeming our culture.
Take Glenn Beck for example. Time did a cover story on him recently, asking, "Is Glenn Beck bad for America?" From what I can tell, his televised rants are largely populist, incoherent, and fear-mongering. He's also got a new book, and from what I can tell, it also lacks civil and intellectual discourse. It does no one any good to stoke irrational or overblown fears and it does no one any good to disseminate half-truths just to prove one's point. If you have to resort to logical fallacies like ad-hominem to prove your point, then your argument is weak. And it doesn't serve the public any good just to make people mad without knowing why. We have a real healthcare problem in this country, and it does need some kind of federal solution. So let's talk about the merits or demerits of those solutions without getting people in a big heap of irrationality. Yes, Time, Glenn Beck is bad for America.
But let's go to the other side as well. Barack Obama doesn't get a pass. He frequently makes insinuations about "those radio shows" and "those cable TV news shows" such as Beck's to make his point. This is just more ad hominem. No one is dealing with anyone's arguments (well, some are, but it's a rarity), but alluding your political opponent doesn't make your argument stronger, Mr. President. It makes you look like you're stooping low to slam a hack, which just makes you another hack. It also makes me think that you're too obsessed with your press clippings and your public image.
Furthermore, reader, the White House has a website called "Reality Check" where they, among other things, put talking heads on TV again to convince you that they're right, and the other side is wrong. This proliferates more ignorance, and not honest dialogue. Convince me in writing, please. Don't do another press conference, or Joint Session of Congress, or put your administration on video. Besides that, the White House is posing their solutions as facts, when many honest evaluators of the healthcare debate would disagree with these "facts." This is a heavy-handed form of ignorance disbursement.
Almost all TV is sensationalistic and resistant to honest truth searching. So stop talking to me over the airwaves and start convincing me with good arguments, while you consider (among other things in a strong worldview) the value of human life with the understanding of human depravity. That includes you, Glenn Beck and President Obama.
9/23/09
The American Myth of Self-Reliance
I have several good friends without jobs. They are trying hard to get jobs, though. They are well-educated- all have bachelor's degrees, some have master's degrees, and one is a Jurisdoctor. They are smart, they are hard workers, and they rightly place some dignity in their work. While I do not believe work gives each person his or her inherent value, I do believe it is a source of satisfaction and an exercise of calling. These people are doing everything in their power to get a job. Thankfully, none of these folks are homeless. But many in Denver, where I live, are. Some things you need to know from this linked news story:
These people, like my friends, are reliant upon a system of economy for jobs, security, for their housing, and yes, their very health. But we don't think like that, do we? We as Americans (generally of the suburban variety) think that production is based solely on the individual, don't we? We think that homeless people are "lazy" and "worthless." Our Puritanical roots and our Romantic transcendentalism fool us into thinking that what we get is simply and solely what we have worked for. But it isn't true.
I'm reminded of this every summer living here in Colorado. That's because there's often the spector of draught looming over the Rocky Mountain region. If we don't get enough snow, then the resevoirs aren't as full, then people don't get to water their lawns, and we are forced to ration whatever water we have. We haven't had to deal with this in a few years, but the discussion is always at hand.
And that discussion is a potent reminder that we as Americans truly aren't self-reliant. We need an interstate system to move around and to see family. We need an infrastructure to heat our homes and water our lawns. And we need an economy to produce jobs for enough Americans so that they're not homeless. To a generation of people that are taught the American work-ethic, this is a painfully true reality when one cannot find a job.
We Americans have so bought into the lie of self-reliance that these words of Jesus are almost rendered meaningless. But hear them, and believe them.
Relying on God doesn't discount hard work- in our jobs or in our faith. It is a simple reminder that we aren't in control. It is the reminder that self-reliance is a myth. We all rely on something, we just need to choose to rely on the one, true Person.
There are 11,061 homeless people in the seven-county metro region, and about half of them say they are homeless for the first time, according to the results of a 24-hour survey conducted Jan. 27 by the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative...
During this year's point-in- time survey, nearly 5,000 people, or 45
percent, said they were homeless for the first time.
The most common cause was losing a job, according to 35 percent of
the homeless. The second-most-common cause, affecting 31 percent, was being unable to afford their rent or mortgage. Sixty families blamed their homelessness on foreclosures.
These people, like my friends, are reliant upon a system of economy for jobs, security, for their housing, and yes, their very health. But we don't think like that, do we? We as Americans (generally of the suburban variety) think that production is based solely on the individual, don't we? We think that homeless people are "lazy" and "worthless." Our Puritanical roots and our Romantic transcendentalism fool us into thinking that what we get is simply and solely what we have worked for. But it isn't true.
I'm reminded of this every summer living here in Colorado. That's because there's often the spector of draught looming over the Rocky Mountain region. If we don't get enough snow, then the resevoirs aren't as full, then people don't get to water their lawns, and we are forced to ration whatever water we have. We haven't had to deal with this in a few years, but the discussion is always at hand.
And that discussion is a potent reminder that we as Americans truly aren't self-reliant. We need an interstate system to move around and to see family. We need an infrastructure to heat our homes and water our lawns. And we need an economy to produce jobs for enough Americans so that they're not homeless. To a generation of people that are taught the American work-ethic, this is a painfully true reality when one cannot find a job.
We Americans have so bought into the lie of self-reliance that these words of Jesus are almost rendered meaningless. But hear them, and believe them.
"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of
these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown in the fire, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith!" -Luke 12:27-28
Relying on God doesn't discount hard work- in our jobs or in our faith. It is a simple reminder that we aren't in control. It is the reminder that self-reliance is a myth. We all rely on something, we just need to choose to rely on the one, true Person.
9/15/09
The Glad Sound
My good friend, and church theologian and pastor Zac Hicks with the help of 30 in our church, releases The Glad Sound, out today on his website. This CD is a reworking of old hymn texts into modern, rock-style music.
Many of the hymn texts would be unrecognizable in the church today, even to those who love hymns and sing them often. Zac has poured over many old hymn texts, including many that aren't in your hymnal, and has found ways to revive beautiful, old texts that contain rich theology. This is a remarkably well-produced album and the songs are fun, serious, and deep (plus, yours truly finds himself whistling and clapping on track 7!). Do yourself a favor and head over to Zac Hicks website right now and get it!
9/14/09
Reflections on the Death of the World's Oldest Person
Gertrude Baines, at the ripe old age of 115, passed away last week.
What a long life to live! This is a person who was born 1894, was an adult by the time WWI hit, was in her 40s during the Great Depression, and lived to see a world of internet and mass media and mass electricity. The fact that a person can see the world change multiples times over in her lifetime fascinates me.
And something else fascinates me. It's quite an obvious observation: everybody dies. While the human body is a remarkably resillient organism and a biological wonder and it can endure and live through such lengths, it still meets its end. Baines was living proof of that.
Every person dies. All of the optimism of modern technology and health care and all of the immediacy of the glory of the present moment cannot escape this truth. But even though every person dies, it isn't the end of every person's life. And it isn't the end of their material existence either.
Christians have this curious belief, you see. Many Christian traditions recite the Apostles Creed (and pretty much all true Christians accept it as orthodoxy), and there's this phrase in there that is cause for hope (a phrase that is admittedly straight out of Scripture). It says: "We believe in the immortality of the soul."
Oh wait, no it doesn't. It doesn't say that. It really says: "We believe in the resurrection of the body." That's right, our bodies get resurrected. They get redeemed and used all over again for eternity. Material existence matters to God. To hope in heaven is to hope in earth. But to hope just in modern progress is to hope in nothing. You get just death in the end. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, aim for heaven and get earth too but aim just for earth and you get nothing. Revelation 21 and 22, the most hopeful passages in all of Scripture, depict a New Heaven and a New Earth: redeemed and glorified souls united with new bodies.
Baines death has cause to give us hope. Everybody dies, but those who believe in Jesus receive a resurrection of their body.
And I believe in the resurrection of the body.
What a long life to live! This is a person who was born 1894, was an adult by the time WWI hit, was in her 40s during the Great Depression, and lived to see a world of internet and mass media and mass electricity. The fact that a person can see the world change multiples times over in her lifetime fascinates me.
And something else fascinates me. It's quite an obvious observation: everybody dies. While the human body is a remarkably resillient organism and a biological wonder and it can endure and live through such lengths, it still meets its end. Baines was living proof of that.
Every person dies. All of the optimism of modern technology and health care and all of the immediacy of the glory of the present moment cannot escape this truth. But even though every person dies, it isn't the end of every person's life. And it isn't the end of their material existence either.
Christians have this curious belief, you see. Many Christian traditions recite the Apostles Creed (and pretty much all true Christians accept it as orthodoxy), and there's this phrase in there that is cause for hope (a phrase that is admittedly straight out of Scripture). It says: "We believe in the immortality of the soul."
Oh wait, no it doesn't. It doesn't say that. It really says: "We believe in the resurrection of the body." That's right, our bodies get resurrected. They get redeemed and used all over again for eternity. Material existence matters to God. To hope in heaven is to hope in earth. But to hope just in modern progress is to hope in nothing. You get just death in the end. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, aim for heaven and get earth too but aim just for earth and you get nothing. Revelation 21 and 22, the most hopeful passages in all of Scripture, depict a New Heaven and a New Earth: redeemed and glorified souls united with new bodies.
Baines death has cause to give us hope. Everybody dies, but those who believe in Jesus receive a resurrection of their body.
And I believe in the resurrection of the body.
9/10/09
Being Right vs. Being Righteous
We need to eat apples, and not oranges. We need to read the newspaper, and not magazines. We need to wear a watch, not carry a pocket watch.
These previous three sentences all have something in common. Aside from the fact that they are things I generally do, the sentences present a problem. Each action seems to be set up as the opposite action of what follows, and thus the need for the other intensifies. But it is a mistake to do such a thing. It is, in fact, a logical fallacy to such a thing.
To be more specific, these sentences present false dichotomies. For instance, why not both? Or why not neither? This kind of bad thinking often creeps into the way we do church as well. I've heard a specific false dichotomy running wild in Christian circles recently. It's the idea that to present a winsome picture of Christianity to those not in the faith, we need to worry more about being righteous than about being right. We need to be good people, we don't need to be concerned with telling other people they're wrong.
Well it's a nice sentiment, but it's garbage. Why not both? It's like this crowd denigrates a reasonable method to share the faith just to buttress their case for their own. This act is intellectually lazy and morally weak.
Being right about certain theological truths is absolutely essential. Paul demonstrates this when he gets raving mad about the abuse of the gospel that Galatians are prepetrating. "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" (Gal. 3:1). His pain and anger proceeds later on, "How I wish I could change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!" (Gal. 4:20). Paul cared about the message. Paul cared about being right, and he cared about people even in his anger. And he wasn't nice about the message being distorted.
The sentiment about exclusively being righteous is wrong because it assumes that if Christians are just a bunch of nice people to a bunch of people that are not Christians, then people will magically accept the truth-claims of Christianity. This might happen, and I hope it does. But it's a bit delusional to think that we shouldn't worry about getting the message right, especially if it contradicts someone else's worldview.
Newsflash for Christians: you have a vastly different worldview than secularists, naturalists, postmodernists, New Agers, and other eastern worldviews. You'd be foolish to think that merely being nice is going to influence people to believe in Jesus. Paul opened his mouth when others developed a different worldview. We shouldn't be any different.
My consistent question then becomes, why not both? Why can't we be both right and righteous? Why is there a false dichtomy? What is wrong with winsomely explaining one's own view of the world, God, and human liberation? Christians can love people too and have them over to dinner. I don't think most people will mind either. Let's do both.
And for you other Christians (the false dichotomy crowd) that are worried about all us Christians telling other people about the Gospel, stop hijacking Christianity.
These previous three sentences all have something in common. Aside from the fact that they are things I generally do, the sentences present a problem. Each action seems to be set up as the opposite action of what follows, and thus the need for the other intensifies. But it is a mistake to do such a thing. It is, in fact, a logical fallacy to such a thing.
To be more specific, these sentences present false dichotomies. For instance, why not both? Or why not neither? This kind of bad thinking often creeps into the way we do church as well. I've heard a specific false dichotomy running wild in Christian circles recently. It's the idea that to present a winsome picture of Christianity to those not in the faith, we need to worry more about being righteous than about being right. We need to be good people, we don't need to be concerned with telling other people they're wrong.
Well it's a nice sentiment, but it's garbage. Why not both? It's like this crowd denigrates a reasonable method to share the faith just to buttress their case for their own. This act is intellectually lazy and morally weak.
Being right about certain theological truths is absolutely essential. Paul demonstrates this when he gets raving mad about the abuse of the gospel that Galatians are prepetrating. "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" (Gal. 3:1). His pain and anger proceeds later on, "How I wish I could change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!" (Gal. 4:20). Paul cared about the message. Paul cared about being right, and he cared about people even in his anger. And he wasn't nice about the message being distorted.
The sentiment about exclusively being righteous is wrong because it assumes that if Christians are just a bunch of nice people to a bunch of people that are not Christians, then people will magically accept the truth-claims of Christianity. This might happen, and I hope it does. But it's a bit delusional to think that we shouldn't worry about getting the message right, especially if it contradicts someone else's worldview.
Newsflash for Christians: you have a vastly different worldview than secularists, naturalists, postmodernists, New Agers, and other eastern worldviews. You'd be foolish to think that merely being nice is going to influence people to believe in Jesus. Paul opened his mouth when others developed a different worldview. We shouldn't be any different.
My consistent question then becomes, why not both? Why can't we be both right and righteous? Why is there a false dichtomy? What is wrong with winsomely explaining one's own view of the world, God, and human liberation? Christians can love people too and have them over to dinner. I don't think most people will mind either. Let's do both.
And for you other Christians (the false dichotomy crowd) that are worried about all us Christians telling other people about the Gospel, stop hijacking Christianity.
9/8/09
Dan Brown Strikes Again
I like a good yarn just as much as the next guy. A good plot with good characters told in an interesting way can go along way to winning my consumer dollars. And Dan Brown is admittedly good at winning many other people's dollars. But Dan Brown is also a historical revisionist and has an insidious plan to reconstruct his own religion on the American masses. Don't believe me? Believe the New York Times:
There you have it: Brown is writing a theology he wants and trying to make you like it. And he's doing it again. The Lost Symbol is out next week. What's the problem with this? Well, what Brown does just isn't true. Don't believe me? Read the New York Times:
I must be honest and say I didn't think it possible to read such a thing in the New York Times, but an honest intellectual pursuit will often get you honest answers. What liberal theologians such as Bart Ehrman have been doing for decades now continues to get beaten back by good historical research and archeology. The Ehrman and Brown arguments are tired and false. The New York Times sees this, but does America?
And it also seems like the Times is actually reading the Bible. Jesus is "jealous, demanding, and apocalyptic." Darn right. Is this the Jesus you're following? Or are you following your own version of Jesus, one constructed by Brown or yourself, to make yourself feel better?
Brown is explicit about this mission. He isn’t a serious novelist, but he’s a deadly serious writer: His thrilling plots, he’s said, are there to make the books’ didacticism go down easy, so that readers don’t realize till the end “how much they are learning along the way.” He’s working in the same genre as Harlan Coben and James Patterson, but his real competitors are ideologues like Ayn Rand, and spiritual gurus like Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra. He’s writing thrillers, but he’s selling a theology.
There you have it: Brown is writing a theology he wants and trying to make you like it. And he's doing it again. The Lost Symbol is out next week. What's the problem with this? Well, what Brown does just isn't true. Don't believe me? Read the New York Times:
But the success of this message — which also shows up in the work of Brown’s any thriller-writing imitators — can’t be separated from its dishonesty. The “secret” history of Christendom that unspools in “The Da Vinci Code” is false from start to finish. The lost gospels are real enough, but they neither confirm the portrait of Christ that Brown is peddling — they’re far, far weirder than that — nor provide a persuasive alternative to the New Testament account. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — jealous, demanding, apocalyptic — may not be congenial to contemporary sensibilities, but he’s the only historically-plausible Jesus there is.
I must be honest and say I didn't think it possible to read such a thing in the New York Times, but an honest intellectual pursuit will often get you honest answers. What liberal theologians such as Bart Ehrman have been doing for decades now continues to get beaten back by good historical research and archeology. The Ehrman and Brown arguments are tired and false. The New York Times sees this, but does America?
And it also seems like the Times is actually reading the Bible. Jesus is "jealous, demanding, and apocalyptic." Darn right. Is this the Jesus you're following? Or are you following your own version of Jesus, one constructed by Brown or yourself, to make yourself feel better?
9/1/09
Ted Kennedy
I fashion myself as a political junkie, but not a political expert. And so my knowledge of Ted Kennedy is really limited to what liberals hail about him and what conservatives derail about him in the regular press. So I wanted to share my observations of how the media is digesting his death and funeral.
First of all, there seems to be a fascination with his religious views. Kennedy was seemingly a staunch Catholic, despite his pro-choice views. Even Time is fascinated by his correspondance with the conservative Pope Benedict. While I do believe Kennedy's views on abortion (and anyone who says that abortion is wrong but should be legal, just in case) are wrong and completely illogical and incoherent, this does not disqualify him from the eternal splendour of enjoying Jesus Christ.
I don't know what he said to the Pope in his last days, and I don't know what the Pope said back to him, and I don't know either of them personally so I can't speak to Ted Kennedy's salvation (I have prayed for it, though), but he did say one thing in one of Time's articles about him (they had at least 6 online) that gives some clues. The story is recounted in one of his last days:
It's hard to imagine someone saying a more Christian thing than "I believe in the Resurrection." My excitement about that is tempered a little bit by the postmodern uncertainty mixed in right before- "don't know where...(or) when." Maybe Kennedy was just saying he didn't know what heaven would be like. Maybe he thought that everybody goes to heaven. But generally when postmoderns steal Christian terminology, they use different phraseology: love, God, or salvation all change meanings. I have yet to hear anyone change the meaning of "Resurrection." The meaning of Jesus' resurrection and our union with him spiritually and in our bodily resurrection is central to Christianity. While I cannot know for certain, Kennedy hopefully followed this path.
Second, the media establishment loved him. He even, apparently, merited Time's "Commemorative Issue," given when strongly influential people die. Sure he does have moral failings in his past, and I don't wish to rehash those. Sure he had political views that I strongly disagree with. But neither of those reasons are why I think he shouldn't be hailed. Ted Kennedy is just not worthy of a Commemorative Issue.
These kinds of cultural honors should go to people who really did influence world events. I know many will argue disagree, citing Ted Kennedy's legislative legacy and his role in South Africa's overturning of Apartheid, but if Ted Kennedy gets this honor then why not many other powerful legislators of time's past? There are many more influential American and world leaders that haven't gotten this cultural honor. Why Ted Kennedy, then? The answer is because Time has an older editorial staff that thinks the Kennedys are more significant than they are. Baby boomers and older just don't understand that the Kennedy's have been irrelevant for at least 28 years now.
Time magazine is a cultural gatekeeper. While they don't sway or influence public opinion, they do tell the public what is important. They don't tell people which way to go once they're in the gate, but they do determine what issues come in. That's why I subscribe to them. While other magazines such as the Economist are more well-done on world events, Time holds more cultural influence. As such, I strongly disagree with their stance on making Ted Kennedy "Commemorative Issue" worthy.
First of all, there seems to be a fascination with his religious views. Kennedy was seemingly a staunch Catholic, despite his pro-choice views. Even Time is fascinated by his correspondance with the conservative Pope Benedict. While I do believe Kennedy's views on abortion (and anyone who says that abortion is wrong but should be legal, just in case) are wrong and completely illogical and incoherent, this does not disqualify him from the eternal splendour of enjoying Jesus Christ.
I don't know what he said to the Pope in his last days, and I don't know what the Pope said back to him, and I don't know either of them personally so I can't speak to Ted Kennedy's salvation (I have prayed for it, though), but he did say one thing in one of Time's articles about him (they had at least 6 online) that gives some clues. The story is recounted in one of his last days:
The sound spilled out past the porch, into a night made lighter by a full moon whose bright glare bounced off the dark waters of Nantucket Sound, beyond
the old house where Teddy — and he was always "Teddy" here — mouthed the lyrics to every song, sitting, smiling, happy to be surrounded by family and friends in a place where he could hear and remember it all. And as he sang, his blue eyes
sparkled with life, and for the moment it seemed as if one of his deeply felt
beliefs — "that we will all meet again, don't know where, don't know when" — was nothing other than true. "I love living here," Ted Kennedy once said. "And I believe in the Resurrection."
It's hard to imagine someone saying a more Christian thing than "I believe in the Resurrection." My excitement about that is tempered a little bit by the postmodern uncertainty mixed in right before- "don't know where...(or) when." Maybe Kennedy was just saying he didn't know what heaven would be like. Maybe he thought that everybody goes to heaven. But generally when postmoderns steal Christian terminology, they use different phraseology: love, God, or salvation all change meanings. I have yet to hear anyone change the meaning of "Resurrection." The meaning of Jesus' resurrection and our union with him spiritually and in our bodily resurrection is central to Christianity. While I cannot know for certain, Kennedy hopefully followed this path.
Second, the media establishment loved him. He even, apparently, merited Time's "Commemorative Issue," given when strongly influential people die. Sure he does have moral failings in his past, and I don't wish to rehash those. Sure he had political views that I strongly disagree with. But neither of those reasons are why I think he shouldn't be hailed. Ted Kennedy is just not worthy of a Commemorative Issue.
These kinds of cultural honors should go to people who really did influence world events. I know many will argue disagree, citing Ted Kennedy's legislative legacy and his role in South Africa's overturning of Apartheid, but if Ted Kennedy gets this honor then why not many other powerful legislators of time's past? There are many more influential American and world leaders that haven't gotten this cultural honor. Why Ted Kennedy, then? The answer is because Time has an older editorial staff that thinks the Kennedys are more significant than they are. Baby boomers and older just don't understand that the Kennedy's have been irrelevant for at least 28 years now.
Time magazine is a cultural gatekeeper. While they don't sway or influence public opinion, they do tell the public what is important. They don't tell people which way to go once they're in the gate, but they do determine what issues come in. That's why I subscribe to them. While other magazines such as the Economist are more well-done on world events, Time holds more cultural influence. As such, I strongly disagree with their stance on making Ted Kennedy "Commemorative Issue" worthy.
8/26/09
For My Postmodern and Skeptical Friends
Generally when I lack creativity I go for quotes. There's this old saying that good writers borrow from great writers, but the great writers steal outright. I don't claim to be either good or great, but I have really been enjoying the non-fiction and fiction of G.K. Chesteron as of late and so wish to quote him. I'm into my 5th book of his this year and have found him highly refreshing to my stage of life.
The following quotation occurs in his novel, Man Alive, which describes a seemingly insane person as the only truly sane person (a common motif of Chesterton), because he is so full of life. In the context of one of these exhuberant episodes, Chesterton writes:
Leave it to Chesterton to frame things in a way that totally spins our contemporary sensibilities. Prescient even to our time, Chesterton exhorts us to accept and love our organizations and institutions, not distrust them. This exhortation is something I try to live by daily in the context of church ministry, despite the postmodern skepticism of institutions.
The following quotation occurs in his novel, Man Alive, which describes a seemingly insane person as the only truly sane person (a common motif of Chesterton), because he is so full of life. In the context of one of these exhuberant episodes, Chesterton writes:
It is the fashion to talk of institutions as cold and cramping things.
The truth is that when people are in exceptionally high spirits, really wild
with freedom and invention, they always must, and they always do, create
institutions. When men are weary they fall into anarchy; but while they
are gay and vigorous they invariably make rules. This, which is true of
all the churches and republics of history, is also true of the most trivial
parlour game or the most unsophisticated meadow romp. We are never free
until some institution frees us; and liberty cannot exist till it is declared by
authority.
Leave it to Chesterton to frame things in a way that totally spins our contemporary sensibilities. Prescient even to our time, Chesterton exhorts us to accept and love our organizations and institutions, not distrust them. This exhortation is something I try to live by daily in the context of church ministry, despite the postmodern skepticism of institutions.
8/17/09
Michael Vick and Moral Priorities
"Going on from that place, [Jesus] went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, 'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?' He said to them, 'If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! [emphasis mine] Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.'" -Matthew 12:9-12 (NIV)
I grew up with pets and both my sisters are veterinarians, so I can speak with some moral authority on the following subject.
Humans are more important than animals, but our culture mixes this up. Michael Vick kills dogs and gets a 2 year jail sentence. Donte Stallworth kills a human and gets a 30 day jail sentence.
We protest the return of Michael Vick to the NFL. Donte Stallworth won't get an interview on 60 minutes if he returns.
Michael Vick is regularly chastised by PETA and the humane society. Donte Stallworth was the more inhumane by driving drunk and killing someone.
Perhaps the retort from an outraged citizen goes like this, "But Vick's actions were deliberate, ongoing, and intentionally cruel. Stallworth's action was unintentional." That's a fair argument, but the results should matter to, not just what's in a person's head. Stallworth was negligent and should hold full culpability for his moral failings.
Furthermore, a person's sense of moral outrage against Vick is fine if it is morally consistent and prioritized correctly. A pro-choice person cannot be outraged at Vick, though. One of the most consistent arguments for the pro-choice movement is that human life isn't really destroyed during an abortion. Well it must also be true, then, that human life is also not destroyed by electrocuting dogs because dogs aren't humans. [Some may argue that dogs are alive but babies not so much, but science is universal that whomever is in the womb is "alive" by scientific standards] What, then, is the problem with Vick if you are pro-choice? And, if you think that abortion isn't as gruesome, what facts are you looking at?
Our culture has screwed up our priorities. We practially deify animals and impersonal forces of New Age spirituality, but we don't value human life. The Christian religion values all of life and prioritizes life properly. Creation matters, animals more, and humans most of all.
We go wrong when we mix up this priority list.
I grew up with pets and both my sisters are veterinarians, so I can speak with some moral authority on the following subject.
Humans are more important than animals, but our culture mixes this up. Michael Vick kills dogs and gets a 2 year jail sentence. Donte Stallworth kills a human and gets a 30 day jail sentence.
We protest the return of Michael Vick to the NFL. Donte Stallworth won't get an interview on 60 minutes if he returns.
Michael Vick is regularly chastised by PETA and the humane society. Donte Stallworth was the more inhumane by driving drunk and killing someone.
Perhaps the retort from an outraged citizen goes like this, "But Vick's actions were deliberate, ongoing, and intentionally cruel. Stallworth's action was unintentional." That's a fair argument, but the results should matter to, not just what's in a person's head. Stallworth was negligent and should hold full culpability for his moral failings.
Furthermore, a person's sense of moral outrage against Vick is fine if it is morally consistent and prioritized correctly. A pro-choice person cannot be outraged at Vick, though. One of the most consistent arguments for the pro-choice movement is that human life isn't really destroyed during an abortion. Well it must also be true, then, that human life is also not destroyed by electrocuting dogs because dogs aren't humans. [Some may argue that dogs are alive but babies not so much, but science is universal that whomever is in the womb is "alive" by scientific standards] What, then, is the problem with Vick if you are pro-choice? And, if you think that abortion isn't as gruesome, what facts are you looking at?
Our culture has screwed up our priorities. We practially deify animals and impersonal forces of New Age spirituality, but we don't value human life. The Christian religion values all of life and prioritizes life properly. Creation matters, animals more, and humans most of all.
We go wrong when we mix up this priority list.
8/14/09
Pro-Life Polls Revisited
Back in May, I blogged on the significant news of the Gallup poll asking people's questions on abortion (read here). Now, there's a follow-up poll and Amy Sullivan from Time magazine is gloating a little bit from the more settled numbers:
My skeptical interpretation of the poll didn't turn out to be terribly popular. The idea that just a few months after the election of a pro-choice president, Americans were racing to embrace the pro-life cause was too tempting a storyline. The poll made headlines everywhere, and we ran an essay on it anyway.
Now along comes a follow-up poll from Gallup and whaddya know, the much ballyhooed pro-life majority seems to have disappeared. The percentages of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are essentially the same (47% for pro-life; 46% for pro-choice). Meanwhile, the positions they hold--a more useful indicator than the labels people choose for themselves--haven't budged. A solid 78% think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances.
Besides the fact that a journalist shouldn't use the non-word "whaddya," Sullivan's point to undermine the numbers are meaningless. Saying that abortion should be legal in "some" circumstances is very different from "all" circumstances. Heck, "some" is very different from "most" circumstances. Consider:
-"Some" can include cases of rape, incest, and the risk of the life of the mother (which all-told constitute a small number- in most cases less than 5%- of all abortions). See Francis Beckwith (Defending Life) on this- he allows abortion only when the life of the mother is at risk. He falls in the "some" camp, I suppose, but he has written an impressive and compelling treatise on the illogical nature of the pro-choice movement.
-"Most" can include other unwanted pregnancies like teenage pregnancy, women in poverty, etc.
-"All" is morally egregious (as is "most") but I do not wish to think of the mere fancy that a baby can be killed merely because someone doesn't want the baby.
Morally speaking, there is a vast difference from "some" to "most" here, and Sullivan shouldn't be so giddy as to presume the moral sensibilities of Americans. The "enligtened" course of action would be to make murder illegal. Apparently there's still a significant number of Americans who agree with this.
My skeptical interpretation of the poll didn't turn out to be terribly popular. The idea that just a few months after the election of a pro-choice president, Americans were racing to embrace the pro-life cause was too tempting a storyline. The poll made headlines everywhere, and we ran an essay on it anyway.
Now along comes a follow-up poll from Gallup and whaddya know, the much ballyhooed pro-life majority seems to have disappeared. The percentages of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are essentially the same (47% for pro-life; 46% for pro-choice). Meanwhile, the positions they hold--a more useful indicator than the labels people choose for themselves--haven't budged. A solid 78% think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances.
Besides the fact that a journalist shouldn't use the non-word "whaddya," Sullivan's point to undermine the numbers are meaningless. Saying that abortion should be legal in "some" circumstances is very different from "all" circumstances. Heck, "some" is very different from "most" circumstances. Consider:
-"Some" can include cases of rape, incest, and the risk of the life of the mother (which all-told constitute a small number- in most cases less than 5%- of all abortions). See Francis Beckwith (Defending Life) on this- he allows abortion only when the life of the mother is at risk. He falls in the "some" camp, I suppose, but he has written an impressive and compelling treatise on the illogical nature of the pro-choice movement.
-"Most" can include other unwanted pregnancies like teenage pregnancy, women in poverty, etc.
-"All" is morally egregious (as is "most") but I do not wish to think of the mere fancy that a baby can be killed merely because someone doesn't want the baby.
Morally speaking, there is a vast difference from "some" to "most" here, and Sullivan shouldn't be so giddy as to presume the moral sensibilities of Americans. The "enligtened" course of action would be to make murder illegal. Apparently there's still a significant number of Americans who agree with this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
