Why Instructions for Mammograms is Statism

Would an individual woman decide differently than a group of insurers or the federal government as it pertains to screening for breast cancer?

That indeed is the question. Read this Washington Post article or NY Times editorial to get up to speed. The issue at it's core involves the fact that women in their 40's shouldn't get every year mammograms because the risks outweigh the benefits.

It is a "recommendation by United States Preventive Services Task Force, a government-appointed group of 16 outside experts created 25 years ago to advise the Department of Health and Human Services... That recommendation was based on an analysis showing that every-other-year screenings could provide 80 percent of the benefits of annual screening while cutting the risks almost in half." From NY Times.

A quote from the Post article has a different angle:

"The only conclusion I can come to is it's economically motivated," said Carol H. Lee, who chairs the American College of Radiology's breast-imaging commission. "In this climate, when we are all paying attention to how we can decrease the cost of health care, in my opinion that's the primary motivation." From Washington Post.

The NY Times editorial claims that this issue has nothing to do with healthcare and thus should stay out of the debate. And yet, no matter how much anybody scours any article on this issue, the only risks discussed are unnecessary biopsies, radiation and stress. Now the first one isn't a risk for the patient, really. Exposure to radiation only happens if somebody actually finds real cancer (Admittedly, some of the articles parse the different between more harmless cancers and more dangerous cancers. Even still, this doesn't seem like an important distinction as it relates to radiation exposure. If somebody has cancer, they want it gone). So the only real risk is stress. And so the real question becomes: why does the government care about our levels of stress?

The answer is because the government doesn't care about our stress. Insurers care about reducing costs, and so does the government. But if you were a women in your 40's, do the risks outweigh the benefits? Of course not. You're getting that mammogram done.

And herein lies the danger. When the government starts to tell its people what to do on a collective level regarding our health (or our right to exist, or what role religion is supposed to play- just to name a few examples), we run the dangerous risk of statism: the idea that the state is the answer to all human problems. And the state isn't. It's run by imperfect people in an imperfect system and cannot answer deep questions on human existence.

The further we continue to go down this road, beware. While this issue isn't directly related to the healthcare bill currently in the Senate, they both have the same statist aims in common. The more the government runs things, the more it will have a stake in wanting to reduce costs, and thus have a significant say in the role of a human life, and ultimately whether we live or die. Death will be couched (and often already is) in compassionate terms, either for the unborn infant or the elderly. Beware, and fight back with the power of ideas.

Drawing the Line

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know that I strongly and sincerely believe that Christians should care about certain issues in our political climate. And you'll also have come to know that Christians should care more about some issues than others. Please read this article from the NY Times that highlights important Christians who agree with me.

Life issues- war and abortion- will always be more important than other issues, no matter the political climate and no matter the trends in the air. A highlight in the article:

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”

Right on, Chuck, keep it coming. The environment isn't as important as our stance on abortion. Healthcare isn't as important as our stance on abortion. Somebody please remind Ron Sider and Jim Wallis. (For a defense and further arguments of my views, among other blogs you can read these recent ones here and here.)

Evil vs. Insanity

Time Magazine's cover story this week is on Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood killer. Minor kudos goes to Time for being one of the first major media (read: liberal) outlets to actually discuss the fact that this was motivated by Islam. Well, at least they suggest it more than the other options. They are still weak on the issue, as they try and feign neutrality, though. At one point in this story, they suggest that Hasan said, "God is great" in "another language."

To be more precise, and thus to be a better journalist, he said "Allah uh ahkbar" (forgive my transliteration here). He said the Islamic war cry of an Islamic martyr/terrorist in Arabic. Time sidesteps that reality. While Time opens the door of admitting religious motivation, it doesn't go through it.

The truth is that so many media outlets have rushed to call this act of Hasan insanity. Perhaps that's easier. If people are crazy, what they did is not as bad, or so it would seem. But calling this act "insanity" is to confuse terms. Allow me to help most of the country with a term we've long lost (and only briefly used for a time after 9/11). What Hasan did was and is and always will be "evil." And make no mistake, his act was motivated by his worldview. It was perfectly sane, with respect to the fact that it was reasoned.

Hasan was motivated by Islam. Note that I'm not using the term "radical Islam." The more I read the Koran and become familiar with Islamic history, I'm more inclined to think that "radical Islam" is the norm, and the most true reading of the Muslim holy Scriptures (also note that most Muslims worldwide are sympathetic to radical Islam even if they won't take the last leap and kill themselves).

And to the extent that Hasan believed in the Koran and Allah, that is the extent to which his actions are extremely rational. If one thinks that any person who is not a Muslim is an infidel and detestable in God's sight, then one will not hesitate to kill them. If one thinks that they will receive a reward in heaven for killing an infidel, then what is stopping them? Hasan was rational, but was he moral? If we think his actions were immoral, we have to seriously consider the logical conclusion: that Islam is not moral. Consider another example.

Many revisionist historians like to note that Hitler may have been insane. He could not have been further from it. As evolution and naturalist philosophy flourished in the early 20th century, we got introduced to 2 ideas: 1) that humans evolved and are not different in kind than any other creature and 2) species survive through the survival of the fittest. So guess what Hitler practiced? The naturalist worldview as a grand experiment on humankind.

It was extremely rational, but was it moral? And if it wasn't, then we have to seriously consider the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for lack of morality in naturalist philosophy. If Hitler's actions were immoral, then we have to consider the fact that naturalism is not moral.

And how do we consider something moral? How does a liberal Muslim call Hasan's actions wrong? How does an atheist call them wrong, then? I have two responses.

First, the true God sets on the hearts of all humans a deep and inner sense of right and wrong (Rom. 2:14-15). Second, the influence and scope of worldwide Christianity is so vast that many people borrow our worldview. And if we like what we see in Christian ethics, then perhaps we might reconsider what it means for the church to be separate from the state.

The church shouldn't be the state, and vice versa, but it can and should influence it. And no matter how hard the state tries to divorce itself from religious influence, it will always have a worldview. The U.S. government, besides our founding documents (it's early worldview accepted and acknowledged a personal God and eternal law), is now largely a secular institution. And in the case of Hasan, this secular worldview, without analysis of other's worldviews, cost the lives of many people.

NY Times Majoring in Obfuscation

Update: David Harsanyi of the Denver Post says the same thing today, and says it better (except he doesn't acknowledge the philosophical implications of abortion- that it's murder- as much as I do).

The NY Times Editorial staff is misleading and wrong to a great degree in this editorial about paying for abortion.

Apparently, "women's reproductive rights" (to kill babies) were hampered by the pro-life Democrats stance on the new health care bill. To read this article is to think abortion ceased to be legal (would that it were so!). That did not happen. The language in the bill that passed the house prevents any tax subsidy whatsoever of any insurance plan that covers abortion.

The Times would have you believe that this is a restriction on "rights." After all, the taxpayers wouldn't really be paying for the abortions anyways because individual taxpayers would have premiums and co-pays that would cover the real cost. If this were really true, my question becomes: "then why do you need the government at all to pass any meaningful legislation? Why can't private insurance policies cover these kinds of things?"

The fact is that taxpayers would be on the hook for paying for other people's choice in murder. There's no way around the logic here; those people need the government and its taxpayers on the hook for the money. Thus, pro-life democrats were wise to take the abortion provision out of the bill (brief aside: some republicans have argued that better political tactics would have kept the pro-abortion provision in the bill so it would be easily beat in the Senate. I can't speak to the benefits of political tactics here as I'm not well-versed in Congressional political tactics).

And even if the government won't pay for other people's choice in murder via insurance plans, that does not restrict anyone's ability to do it of their own accord. To use the Time's logic, if they're paying for it anyways, why don't they just pay for it without the use of the any insurance at all. Nobody's rights or even wrongful liberties were restricted at all by this bill's passage.

And to cap it off, I do hope the bill is still defeated in the end.

More Chesterton

I've quoted a fair amount of G.K. Chesterton on this blog recently. That's because I just started reading him this year and am into my 7th book of his. I find his fiction and non-fiction fascinating. Like C.S. Lewis, he's very quotable and pithy. Like this:

"Indeed, [H.G. Wells] defends the only sort of war I thoroughly despise, the bullying of small states for their oil or gold; and he despises the only sort of war I really defend, a war of civilizations and religions to determine the moral destiny of mankind."

I suppose if humankind will always be at war- mostly deeply because of our sin nature- then we ought to fight for more eternal reasons than for strictly material ones. Islamic Fundamentalists certainly get this, but Americans don't. We will continue to lack the fortitude to fight terrorism until we recognize that it is primarily a religious fight. The television media, the mainstream print media, and the federal state department largely ignore this.

Capitalism on Trial?

In a poll I'd expect the BBC to report on (it is, after all, government run), apparently most of the world is dissatisfied with free market capitalism.

In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well.

First of all, don't tell that to the thousands of entrepreneurs in third world countries (see www.kiva.org for more evidence). Second, that is indeed a low number. The interesting aspect about those 27 countries is that most of those countries likely do not practice mostly unregulated free markets. With the amount of government interference in the US with the previous two Presidential administrations, not even the US can be called a mostly unregulated free market anymore. After all, there were very effective arguments last fall that the depth of our recession was due in large part to too much government regulation with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. News from the poll, though, gets jucier.

And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries.

What?! Apparently people polled in these 27 countries have the shortest-possible-term memory when it comes to authoritarian regimes. The only way for the government to assume control of wealth distribution is for it to be bigger and communist. Do I need to remind most of the world that Marxist and soviet communism is a reprehensible and moral evil? It's infiltrated with a low view of the nature of humans, utilitarian philosophy, and a need to worship the state and thus squash religious freedom (See: Communist USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and many many more).

In communism, humans are means to the state's industrial end and thus are not crafted in the image of God. Because those regimes are utilitarian, the most disenfranchised are sacrificed in the society "for the greater good." Human beings are mercilessly killed in industrial plans and restricted resources because their individual lives do not matter as much. And because the state must assume so much control, any threat to it's absolute allegiance must go- and religious freedom most of all.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it assures the greatest amount of liberty on this earth that is possible. Socialism hasn't saved Africa, but microfinance might. Communism didn't make Asia more wealthy, but the effects of capitalism are having a small effect on human rights in China.

It is my sincere belief that most people's dissatisfaction with capitalism is actually a dissatisfaction with something people think is capitalism, but actually falters for too much government interference.

TV News: A double-edged sword

Time is running an interesting article on a Pew poll of the public's views of TV news networks. The highlights: people think Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is liberal, and most people are okay with their choice in programming. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't, I suppose.

The poll is okay. It kind of told me what I already knew. "Ideology" has become a bad word in our attempted "post-partisan" era (hint: we're not in a post-partisan era. If we were, healthcare would have passed 4 months ago. It didn't.). Apparently, Fox News is the most ideological of all the news networks, so it must be bad. At least, that's the tone the Time article insinuates. But there's a different issue that often gets left out of this ideological mess.

Fox News makes more money than any other news network. They regularly have the highest ratings. So, many Americans must also have ideologies and beliefs that align with Fox News. To be conservative on TV news is to make money in a crowded liberal market. I'm sure that many commentators on Fox News are honest in their own conservative opinions, but it is convenient that it happens to be a money-making proposition.

And that gets to my main point: Americans generally know what they feed themselves with. We know when we hear a conservative on the radio, or a liberal on the TV. I know what I'm going to get with Keith Olberman, and I know what I'm going to get with Glenn Beck (and neither of them do I like). The real issue in the media is one the media never talks about: gatekeeping.

By and large, liberals and conservatives on the radio or the television disagree, but they disagree about the same things. Remember that media is a money-making proposition, and they discuss the issues that bring the ratings. They debate the issues that the Americans want to hear but not what they need to hear. The media won't really convince Americans what to think, but it will tell them what to think about. It can't tell us where to go once we're in the gate, but it can tell us what gate to enter.

So let's not pretend that conservatives or liberals are above the fray here. Media is big business, and like many big business ventures, we always run the danger of a monopoly- not in the ideologies, but in the gatekeeping. Our ultimate concern should always be for truth, fairness, and significant issues. I really don't care if that comes in a certain political stripe. That's why even as a conservative I watch 60 Minutes and PBS, because they generally introduce me to issues the broader TV media doesn't cover. And reading from a broad range of sources is the best option of all. After all, I could really care less about what so-and-so wore to whatever political engagement.

New Blog Plug

Correction: Dr. Stackhouse, via the comments section below, noted that I misstated the name of his school. It is Regent "College" in Vancouver, not Regent University. I apologize for the inaccuracy. See Dr. Stackhouse's comment for more info.

I just found a new blog that I find interesting and well done. John Stackhouse of Regent University has a good way of thinking about worldview. See this recent blog about Eckhart Tolle.



The sad thing is that Tolle and his ilk- Chopra, Oprah, and other non-thinking new agers- are so convinced that they're right even though they don't believe in right and wrong. Logical fallacies abound!

For a post I did on the contradictory views of Eckhart Tolle about a year ago, see here.

Beyond Simplicity: My Christian View of the Role of Government

One of the most favorite professors I had in seminary recently posted on his blog some musings about the role of the church and the government. Dr. Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary does a nice job of laying out the historical positions of the church and how it related to the state. And while he's a scholar, and would probably publish a much more thorough view of government and church in an article (as opposed to his blog), I must take issue with his stance. It is as follows:

Unfortunately, within the last generation of evangelicalism and liberalism, each side has chosen to apply this strategy very selectively. So one group is eager to use government in support of its views concerning abortion and homosexual behavior but then abdicates its responsibility to use the same mechanisms for helping the poor or providing adequate health care. The other group excels at times with the latter but often fails with the former. Ron Sider’s long-standing vision of Christians seeking a “completely pro-life” platform inculcating biblical values on all of these (and other) issues seems more lacking today than ever.

Quite frankly, it's just not that simple. The logical conclusions of Blomberg's view is that a thoroughly Christian view of the state would have the state involved in all life issues, whether quality of life or the very existence of it. To Blomberg (and to Ron Sider and to Jim Wallis), the state would be bigger, and not smaller. It is this sadly simplistic view of voting and a Christian's view of the state that a Christian uses to rationalize voting for a statist platform.

In fairness to this view, it's heading in the right direction. It is attempting to uncover biblical values amidst an entire canon of just law- the Old and New Testaments. But it does us no good to say that the theocracy or monarchy of ancient Israel or the small church during the time of the powerful Roman empire have directly translatable principles to our own day. Allow me to tease this out a bit.

God cares about foreigners and immigrants and refugees. I agree with that. But unless we deal with a philosophy of the state that addresses questions of legality and fairness, we cannot apply this principle. It does us no good to say, "God cares about immigrants and tells Israel to, so undocumented immigrants should be granted amnesty." If we say that, we've missed a step in there. Or the popular Sider argument, "God cares about babies and grownups equally, so we need a completely pro-life ethic, and the government should be involved with providing health care on some level, or at least making sure it's provided for." These are weak arguments. How are we at any level placing an adult's health with the very existence and right to live for a baby in the womb? They are not at all on the same moral level. God always shows more concern for the disenfranchised, even if he loves all equally. It does us no good to deal with the simplicities of Blomberg's or Sider's arguments.

Christianity ought to reject statism in all it's forms. Statism is the worldview that claims the state as the answer to all human problems: social, civil, economic, and even religious. A quick glance at the Voice of the Martyrs prayer page will show you that much persecution of Christians happens at the hands of statist governments. The more the government has control anywhere in the world, the more religious liberty is compromised. Let us be wary of Christians who advocate more state control.

But that would be a simplistic argument too. We need a biblical ethic that allows that state it's proper role to arbitrate justice (Romans 13), but not dispense it. We need a state to ensure a just playing field, but we don't need an active state within the playing field. The state should be a referee, but not the quarterback. The state should play the role of keeping babies alive and thereby outlawing and working against abortion. But it should not play economic or healthcare quarterback. The state should arbitrate justice, not dispense it. I will, of course, outline my own view of government more in the future. Stay tuned.

Idols for Destruction

I just finished the most insightful book I have ever read on contemporary Western culture. I wholeheartedly recommend Idols for Destruction by Herbert Schlossberg written in 1990. No book review I do could do it justice. So the following is some the best quotations from the book.

"The pragmatist, as Hilaire Belloc said, suffers from 'an inability to define his own first principles and an inability to follow the consequences proceedings from his own action.' He cannot define his first principles because he is not interested in first principles; that is what makes him a pragmatist. The ultimate consequences of what he does escape him because he focuses his attention on the immediate ones." pg. 81.

"The [Christian] doctrine of creation meant that there was nothing of the divine in a rock, a plant, or a human body, permitting them to be studied rather than feared or worshiped. Clearing the world of spooks made it possible for us to learn about it. Now the spooks are back..." pg. 169.

"This concern with the poor, which could have the healthy effect of sending the churches back to rediscover the biblical meaning of service and wealth, has instead all too often thrown them into the arms of the state." pg. 243.

"It should be clear from all this that what is widely regarded as a struggle between the religious and the secular is really a struggle between religions. The current strife over such issues as abortion is perfectly in order, because it is an attempt by both sides to establish a rule of order in accordance with basic religious precepts. Man is the autonomous ruler of himself, able to define right and wrong and frame statutes according to whatever he defines as just. Or else man is created and sustained by a holy and just God who declares matters of right and wrong in the form of law. Both are religious views held in faith." pg. 275.

This one struck me in relation to current conversations on healthcare and the perceived evil of profits: "The mistaken assumption of zero-sum economies is self-fulfilling. If people believe that their gain must come from someone else's loss, they seize what they are able; and if they can do it under cover of the law, they do it with impunity. A society imbued with this vision of economic life finds taking what others have to be more rational than producing what others need in return for fair payment." pg. 282.

"As the famous report to the Club of Rome explained it, the world's situation will worsen progressively with the rising population and will find relief only when the death rate increases. Death, then, is the answer to our economic problems. The elderly will be called selfish if they insist on living, and it will be a humanitarian deed and moral duty to see that they do not continue to lvie and so deprive others of the quality of life to which they aspire." pg. 289. We've already heard Nancy Pelosi make this argument earlier this year.

I could quote much more, but you may have surmised that the book, in a scholarly fashion, outlines our culture's idols. What do we worship? Schlossberg analyzes that and shows how it will ultimately bring our culture's demise, if we do not repent and follow the God of the Bible.