Refugee from the Culture War

Of Morality, Politics and Tolerance

2007-09-29T13:12:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking recently about the confusion that exists on both sides of the culture war between morality and politics. This confusion, or better stated, blending of the two makes rational discussion of how the legal structure of a country should (or should not) respond to moral questions.

First, some definitions. Morality refers to the personal choices one makes based on a standard of right and wrong. Some of these standards may be personal. For instance, I do not drink alcohol at all. That's a moral standard for me, but I would not be willing to say it would be wrong for everyone. Why? Because there is not definitive Biblical guidance on the subject, beyond not drinking to excess. Other moral standards are absolutes and should be held as absolute. The taking of a human life, stealing, lying, hating another, worshiping any God but Yahweh, etc. These are Biblical absolutes. These are the sort on which there can be no personal compromise. In other words, I can say, "Well, I don't drink, but if you don't feel guilty about it, go ahead." (Which is consistent with the guidelines in Romans 14). But I can't say with a clean conscience, "Go ahead and lie to get that contract. I wouldn't do it, but if it works for you fine."

Now, of course, I may well make a choice which violates my own moral standards. I may take a drink because of peer pressure or I may lie to get that contract, but I will feel the pangs of conscience over doing so.

The Law (which is formulated in most western cultures through some form of representative democracy through a political process) attempts to influence human behavior in such a way as to ensure the survival and prosperity of the society as a whole. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution states this principle well:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The emphasis is on society as a whole rather than on the control of the individual. As a practical matter, though, to provide for justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare and ensuring liberty, laws are often made which attempt to influence the moral choices people make such as forbidding robbery, controlling corporate monopolies, banning rape, prohibiting drunk driving, etc.

Laws attempt to be a practical response to a perceived societal need. Two individuals may see the same need, yet disagree about how to resolve it. For instance, a married couple may be facing financial difficulties. The wife may have taken a hiatus from her job until her children reach school age. She may feel the best way to resolve the financial problem is to go back to work. Her husband may think taking a second mortgage on the house is a better solution. They both agree on the problem, but disagree about how to solve it. Neither in such a situation would accuse the other of wanting the family to go under financially, they would simply be disagreeing about how to solve the problem.

Unfortunately, in the current culture war mentality such can be the case. As a Christian, I feel abortion to be a sin. However, I do not believe putting desperate women in jail for making a tragic mistake will solve the problem. I believe that we will do better by making the case against abortion as a personal choice rather than as a legal issue. Now, other pro-life Christians disagree with me believing that only the penalty of the law will bring about a solution. I respect their position, but cannot agree with them. Yet, I don't consider them evil people. I would hope that they could say the same about me.

In the culture war, though, such is wishful thinking. Whatever the issue abortion, death penalty, war, prayer in the schools, homosexuality both sides prefer to demonize the opposition instead of finding our common ground of understanding and debate without rancor the practicality of different approaches to helping people make the proper moral choices and how the law can and cannot help in that process.

This brings us to the issue of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean agreement. It means to be willing to allow a diversity of viewpoints to be shared without vilifying the proponents of those points of view. This is especially important to do when the point of view is being expressed by a fellow Christian. We must remember, just because a Christian disagrees with a particular legal solution to a moral question does not mean s/he doesn't have a moral standard. S/he may just not feel that enshrining it in the law is the best way to solve the problem.

Conversational Intolerance

2007-01-28T22:51:00.000-08:00

I got this in an email earlier today:

http://blog.wired.com/biotech/2007/01/clone_me_clone_.html

C. Ben Mitchell, director of the Center for Bioethics
and Human Dignity, says, "The answer is in the
question itself. A cloned human being would in fact be
a person and would therefore be ensouled. To be human
is to be a person is to be a soul." This is neither an
argument in favor of human cloning nor the final
answer to various theological questions about the
existence or nature of a human soul, topics best left
to mouthbreathing Pentecostals, infallible men in
funny hats, and Mitch Albom. It is simply to say, as
Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical
Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania does, "If
humans have souls, then clones will have them, too."

It reminded me of a presentation I saw by author Sam Harris speaking on C-Span. He used a term about the religious right, but I think it applies to all parts of the culture war. He spoke about "Conversational Intolerance." In the field of conflict resolution we call them stoppers. They stop the conversation.

He used the example of stem cell research. He said, in essence, when you begin a conversation about stem cell research immediately someone raises the issue that a three-day old embryo is a soul and therefore use of those cells constitutes murder. No proof is offered. It is expected to be accepted on their word. No further discussion is possible. One cannot even continue the conversation about whether or not a handful of unformed cells is a human being with a soul. Thus, with a whole segment of society, the discussion ends right there.

He seemed to imply that only religious individuals are guilty of this conversational intolerance. I contend that the conversation stops not only because the religious right won't listen, but that the irreligious left won't either.

The above quote is a prime example of this "conversational intolerance" on the left. It implies that if you don't believe as he does you are a stupid, a religious fanatic, or don't think for yourself. I happen to be one of those "mouthbreathing Pentecostals," and a good friend of mine became a nun. Neither of us are idiots or fanatics. But by using that term, he cuts off any chance for a rational discussion of the merits of his logic.

Basically, it is an argument from definition and a circular one at that. If a human is cloned, then the human would have a soul because by definition a human is a creature with a soul. The argument avoids the possibility that someone might claim that a clone would not be human because it would not have a soul. In other words, he claims the clone is human and therefore has a soul because human beings have souls. The other side though could just as easily take the same logic and say the clone does not have a soul because by definition a clone is not human and only humans have souls. Therefore, a clone does not have a soul.

Regardless, of the merits of the argument, no one has time to evaluate it because the opposing side is characterized as unintelligent and therefore one should discount their arguments out of hand.

Perhaps it is only natural for us to avoid difficult ethical issues. By calling it sin by religious people or by simply labeling it as reactionary by the left we can avoid dealing with these tough issues and blame the other guy at the same time.

Truthfully, as a Christian, I feel in some groups intimidated by expressing anything other than the "party line" laid out by a handful of powerful televangelists and Christian activists. If I opposed the death penalty, say, in certain groups, or expressed an opposition to the war in Iraq, there would be no conversation of the merits of the argument, but a rather summary dismissal of my point of view as being unAmerican or even unChristian. We could not even engage in a Bible study on such questions. The article of faith is grounded more in a political religion than a Biblical one.

But I have found myself equally intimidated by the left. I am a college instructor. If I expressed a view that said that I believed that homosexual behavior is a sin, it would not be seen only as my opinion which I had formed through a study of my religion, I would be villified as a homophobe and bigot. It would be assumed I also opposed equal rights for gays and lesbians, job protection, fair housing and marital rights. Thatwould be wrong. I support all of that. One does not exclude the other. But the conversation would be stopped as soon as I expressed the less favored opinion among my peers.

In fact, the mention of God in any context other than some vague lifeforce of the universe in some settings causes people to pull away. Being a little religious is okay. Just don't let it interfer with your real life. And above all don't talk about a living, daily relationship with God. Certainly, don't talk about Jesus as anything more than a good man or prophet.

I remember back in college having some wonderful arguments with an atheist on the debate team. We were pretty evenly matched in terms of debating skill. Neither of us were ever condemned for our beliefs. Indeed, we didn't even condemn each other. I doubt such conversations would be approved of on either side of the political spectrum today.

It's time we start conversations about these difficult issues instead of stopping them by refusing to listen to the opposite site.

Who's Really Pro-Life? The Stem Cell Controversy

2007-01-14T23:58:00.000-08:00

I have to admit that I have not totally settled about whether embryonic stem cell research using frozen embryos which would be discarded by fertility clinics should be allowed or not. My problem with this is that I am Pro-Life and it seems like this is a no-win Pro-Life issue.

On one hand, we have embryos consisting of a few cells which might become human beings if implanted in a woman, although there is no guarantee that they would. But you have at the very least potential human beings here who would be destroyed. On the other hand, though, treatments for life-threatening diseases probably could be developed using lines of stem cells produced from embryos which would likely be destroyed anyway.

In other words, whatever way you turn on this issue, lives are at stake. Is it pro-life to deny research that might produce life saving treatments for living human beings to save potential lives. Or do we destroy potential lives in order to develop potential treatments which may or may not work?

Sloganeering won't bring us close to resolving this type of ethical dilemma. We have to decide which lives are more important frozen embryos likely to be destroyed or kept frozen indefinitely or children and adults with diseases which might be cured by treatments which would certainly deny those embryos any chance at life.

Frankly, I don't have a good answer for this. But I suspect that as we continue into the future more such dilemmas will emerge and simply saying you are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" won't bring you any closer to making a rational assessment of the ethical consequences.

I must say, I'm disturbed by the idea that either way you go on this issue, you are denying someone the right to life.

Beyond Greetings - The True Meaning of Christmas

2006-12-18T10:51:00.000-08:00

My favorite TV Christmas Special is A Charlie Brown Christmas I like it because of one particular scene in the show. Charlie Brown is a bit depressed around Christmas time. Everyone is talking about what they want Santa to bring them. Lucy tells Charlie that Christmas is a "Big commercial racket run by a syndicate in the east." Charlie Brown is called on to direct the Christmas play and no one listens to him. They are all into their own thing. Charlie brings in a small natural Christmas tree because he thinks it needs him and everyone laughs at him.

Finally, in frustration, Charlie yells, "Doesn't anyone know what Christmas is all about?" Linus steps forward and says, "Sure, Charlie Brown, I do" A spot light shines down on him and he recites:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
(Luke 2:8-14)

He concludes by saying, "That's what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown."

It seems that the commercial interests, the right wing radicals, the left wing radicals, even the passionate Christian activists have forgotten this. We are so focused on what is said in a greeting or a corporate ad campaign that we have forgotten "the reason for the season." Whether we say "Happy Holidays," "Merry Christmas," or even "Merry X-mas" we all know the holiday being referred to. It is the one and only national holiday based entirely on a Biblical event. We can't escape that.

This is much more important than a word in a greeting. Some people have become so focused on the word "Christmas" they have forgotten about the Christ of Christmas. He came to bring Peace on Earth, Good will toward men, to lead us to glorify God. The recent debates have done little to promote peace, good will or the glory of God. And it has done the devils work by distracting from the true meaning of Christmas.

Christmas cannot be separated from Good Friday and Easter. They are a package deal. Although Christmas has become the most celebrated holiday in our culture, the early church celebrated Easter for almost two centuries before celebrating Christmas. Why? It was what Christianity was all about. The miracle of the virgin birth would be only a physiological novelty or a less vulgar version of the Pagan stories of young women seduced by anthropomorphic Gods giving birth to heroes. But this story is different. This is not a half-divine hero. This is not even the story of a great teacher. This is the story of a redeemer, who pays the price of redemption by his own death. This is the Holy God who becomes the perfect man so he can die, not for his own sins, but for those of others. He is not dying for the "sin of the world" in the abstract, but for my sins, for those times I was hateful, or prideful, when I lied, when I stole, when I wanted someone dead, when I was unkind, when I did wrong. He died for me. He died for you. He didn't die for the "sin of the world" in the abstract. He died for the "Sin of Terri" up close and personal. He was the redeemer and the redemption together.

And then he rises from the dead, triumphant on the third day. He gives us the hope of eternal life. Not just an extension of our regular lives indefinitely, but of a transformed, transphysical existence which transcends the boundaries of regular physical existence. It is a great promise and a great hope.

The fight over Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas will soon be over. It will be a small scrimmage in the culture war, soon forgotten. What will endure is the work of Christ on the Cross. God gave you and me a gift. It is a gift of eternal life. It lies under your Christmas tree today (even if you don't have a tree). It is wrapped with a tag with your name on it and signed "Love Jesus". Will you leave it under the tree, or will you open it up? The choice is yours. He gave you the gift. But will you receive it.

Have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday Season, but most of all, have a joyous Easter of the Soul as you celebrate your own Resurrection in Christ.

Corporate Greed, Timidity, Hypocrisy and Merry Christmas

2006-12-18T10:49:00.000-08:00

Okay, for the past several days I've been focusing mostly on the anti-"happy holiday" crowd and the silliness of such an outcry over a rather minor point. But now, to be fair as a refugee from the culture war, I must say, the corporations stumbled big time on this one through a combination of greed, timidity and hypocrisy.

Certainly, many businesses instituted a "Happy Holidays" policy which played down or eliminated any mention of the word Christmas. This was likely done in part to reach out to those who do not celebrate Christmas and to be inclusive of such holidays as Kwanzaa and Channuka. Even though those celebrating such holidays represent a small portion of the total population when measured by millions of purchases in hundreds of stores, the potential profit is significant. And, even conservatives should agree that the main business of business is business.

However, sometimes you can be pennywise and pound foolish. Once such a policy became known, they were bound to know the Political Religious Right would make a meal of it. Ironically, this is one place where two traditional allies Big Business and Conservatism found themselves on opposite sides of the fence. The fact that there have not been wholesale firings of clerks saying "Merry Christmas" or any real sanctions or the fact that Christmas decorations dominate does nothing to ameliorate the fanatics on either side of the aisle.

Secondly, businesses which were founded by risk takers have been inherited by risk managers. Fear of giving offense in even minor ways has reached new levels in society. This is not without reason. I have heard unofficially that some businesses are claiming that they were in fear of lawsuits if they didn't back away from the use of "Merry Christmas." Of course, such a lawsuit would have little if any chance of even making it to court, simply fighting the filing could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They probably figured that no one would be offended by "Happy Holidays" which was a reasonable assumption. But we live in unreasonable times and suddenly they find themselves caught between pressure groups being used as pawns in the culture war. And as we all know, pawns are the first pieces to be sacrificed in a chess match.

The thing that personally irritates me is the basic hypocrisy behind this. If the point was to be more inclusive of diverse people and their religious systems, the stores need to do something more than change their greeting. Look around these stores. Their clerks and signs say "Happy Holidays" but their merchandise and decorations say "Merry Christmas". You see Christmas Trees (even if called Holiday Trees, only one holiday uses a tree for decoration these days and that's Christmas), Christmas decorations, Santa Clauses, Frosty's, Nativity Scenes, Angels, Stars, Christmas Cards (with a tiny section of Channuka cards featuring little or no selections if any), Santa Hats on every head, and Christmas movie DVD's everywhere. The fact is that no one entering the store would know any other holidays were celebrated in December.

No matter what is said at the door, the truth is, it's a Christmas promotion. The stores would respond rightly that Christmas decorations dominate, because that is the most widely celebrated holiday with nearly 98 percent of the U.S. population celebrating it in some way. So, then why not be honest about it. You are targeting those who celebrate Christmas as your main customers. Why not be honest about it? You are not really promoting Channuka or Kwanzaa. So, why pretend to be interested in consumers who celebrate those holiday? Until you have a menorah in a display next to an angel or a Santa Claus, don't pretend that a generic greeting at the door makes your store one committed to diversity.

Again, the silliness of the culture war is seen. Greed and Timidity lead to a poor, offensive, and ineffective policy to give the illusion of inclusiveness. And gave the Religious Right a cause to be angry even at the most joyous and happy time of the year.

Merry Christmas to All. (Like I have a consumer base to worry about?)

The Real Threat to Christmas

2006-12-18T10:47:00.000-08:00

I was watching “Miracle on 34th Street” (the original version with Natalie Wood as Susan) the other day. In one scene Kris Kringle complains about how commercialism is ruining Christmas. Alfred, the young janitor Kris has befriended, says, “Yeah, there are a lot of ‘ism’s out there, but commercialism is one of the woist.”

Certainly, I find that the greatest dangers to the true spirit of Christmas are not coming from some left wing conspiracy or “political correctness” but from some of those “ism’s” we see.

Let’s start with Alfred’s – Commercialism. As we noted in another posting, there is no way to actually separate the sacred from the secular in Christmas celebrations and, indeed, I’m not sure they can or should be separated. And part of the “secular” celebration of Christmas is the giving of gifts. What has started as a way to remember others in a special way, has turned into what a former pastor of mine called “an orgy of spending.” I knew one woman who would give a price tag to every gift when she was asked what she got. For instance, she wouldn’t say, “John, gave me a necklace.” Rather she would say, “John, gave me a $500 necklace.”

I know one woman who was offended that she was given the same gift as another woman in her office. She read some sort of insult into that fact. One wonders if the other woman who received the same gift felt the same way.

Indeed, it seems as if Christmas is defined by the gifts given. A Christmas tree without gifts under it seems barren. And Christmas Day is over once the gifts are opened in many households.

Businesses then respond to this and amplify it through their advertising and marketing of Christmas (whether they use the name or not) as being basically about the gifts given. Love = Expensive Gift seems to be the equation taught.

But that isn’t the only “ism” that is hurting Christmas. A second is secularism. I remember my mother telling a joke when I was a child about two women looking into a store window. Among the other Christmas decorations was a Nativity scene. One woman asked the other what that was, and the other woman explained. Upon hearing it, the first woman snorted in disgust, “They’re dragging religion into everything nowadays.”

Certainly, the secular is part and parcel of Christmas and always has been, but at it’s heart isthe sacred celebration of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Even if one only sees him as a great teacher, he is worthy of the honor. However, in our popular culture you would think the holiday is about a jolly old fat man in a red suit. In fact, in more than one TV movie, Christmas is “saved” by someone helping out Santa in some way. At least, the book The Grinch Who Stole Christmas without mentioning the Nativity made the point that Christmas came without the decorations or gifts or dinner of “roast beast.”

Only one of the classic TV specials aired on the major networks even mentions Christ. That one is “A Charlie Brown Christmas” in which Charlie Brown in desperation asks if anyone knows the meaning of Christmas, and Linus steps into the light and tells the Christmas story.

I was watching a show on the Bravo network called something like “100 Things we Like about the Holidays.” Someone mentioned this special and said, “It seems like every other special sort of tap dances around this, but Linus says it outright.” Indeed, our whole society seems to be tap dancing around what we are celebrating.

While I am a big believer in the separation of Church and State, I have problems with Nativity Scene lawsuits. It’s like saying you can’t have a picture of Lincoln on display on Lincoln’s birthday. I can see fairness coming into play. You could add a menorah and some kwanza candles for the other holidays, but it seems odd that you have a birthday celebration and the one being honored is hardly ever mentioned.

Perhaps the greatest danger to Christmas is Activism and Fanaticism. And this comes from both the right and the left. I already mentioned in passing the Nativity scene lawsuits which marginalize the very core of the Christmas celebration. But the right wing, fundamentalists are not without fault here either. I’ve noticed that this year some Christians are almost militantly snapping “Merry Christmas” not so much as a greeting but as a quasi-political statement. Christmas itself has been co-opted by the conservatives as their own private property and are using it to drive a wedge between people of faith. By creating this false war on Christmas, they are hoping to undermine their political opponents. They are casting liberals in the role of a 21st century Scrooge trying to ban Christmas.

On the other hand for the past 20 years or so, there have been a core of Christian extremists who claim that Christmas is a pagan celebration and should not be celebrated. These condemn Christmas trees, decorations, gifts, and dinners as part of pagan debauchery because of the historical fact that Christmas was scheduled at about the same time as a Pagan celebration by the fourth century church in order to evangelize the pagans.

These are the real dangers to Christmas. The holiday will never be banned. It’s a big moneymaker. However, its vitality, its spirit, can be drained. But that can only happen if we let it. As for me, I choose to be joyful and try to remember the lessons of Peace, Love, and Joy taught by this season. I will remember the Christ child born in a manger, attended by angels and adored by shepherds and magi alike. I will also remember that child grown to an adult, teaching a wayward generation and eventually dying for my sins and being raised again giving me the hope of eternal life. I will remember my lessons of Christmas and none of the “ism’s” can take them away from me.

History or Nostalgia?

2006-12-18T10:45:00.000-08:00

One characteristic of the culture war seems to be the substitution of nostalgia for history. I was watching a TV special about the history of the celebration of Christmas recently in which one historian commented that each generation remembers the Christmases they experienced as children and assume that those celebrations were and will continue to be eternal.

The evidence of history however shows that the celebration of Christmas has not been a completely stable tradition even in Western Civilization. For instance, the celebration of Christ’s birth was banned by the early church. While the death and resurrection of Christ was celebrated as early as the second century A.D., the birth of Christ was not celebrated until the middle of the fourth century.

The early church lived in a world where emperors were deified and their birthdays were made holidays usually celebrated with drunken reveling and bloody gladiatorial games. The church felt it was wrong to celebrate the birth of Christ as if He was an earthly ruler. Early church leaders even banned scholars from attempting to ascertain the date of Christ’s birth.

As the sway of paganism in Rome was being displaced by Christianity in the fourth century, Church leaders saw an opportunity to evangelize the “barbarian” Germanic tribes through the creation of a winter festival to coincide with pagan festivals. So, even though, much of the best scholarship of the time placed the birth of Christ in late March or early April, they decided to celebrate His birth in December (and early January).

So, the celebration of a Mass in honor of Christ (Christ-Mass) was instituted. Some pagan customs were Christianized. Holly, for instance, came to represent the shed blood of Jesus.

As an institution in the Catholic church, Christmas was carried over into the “high church” protestant traditions of the Lutheran and Anglican churches. However, with the rise of Puritanism, the traditions of both Catholicism and the “high church” were rejected. So, when the puritans immigrated to the New World, they made a conscious effort to reject such celebrations.

Massachusetts colony actually had a law on the books banning the celebration of Christmas which was on the books until the mid-1800’s. Other colonies (particularly those with higher numbers of Catholics or Lutherans) were less strict, but still the celebration of Christmas was not widespread in the New World. Even the United States Congress for it’s first 67 years did not recess for Christmas.

It wasn’t until the early 1800’s that Christmas began to make a comeback in the New World. But even then, it was a largely secular holiday. Most protestant churches had their roots in the puritan tradition and did not generally have Christmas programs. It was only when they saw their congregations visiting Catholic churches during the holidays that they began in the late 1800’s to respond with programs of their own.

The American tradition of Christmas has not ever been a mostly sacred holiday. It has always been largely a secular one. I’m not saying this to justify such an attitude but rather to create a perspective. Before we look back at some “ideal” time when Christ was the center of Christmas is more fantasy than historical reality. Even in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, Christmas celebrations often became bacchanalian events with little concern about the Christ child.

We cannot look to history for a period when Christ was the center of Christmas. Such periods are brief, if they existed at all. However, we can individually make Christ the center of our Christmas and create a “historical” tradition in our own families that they will carry on to the next generation. The culture at large may not keep Christ always in Christmas, but you and I can.

Orson Wells, War of the Worlds and the "War on Christmas"

2006-12-18T10:44:00.001-08:00

In 1938 Orson Wells and the Mercury Theatre of the Air threw the American public into panic with the broadcast of an adaptation of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. Presented as a news broadcast, the radio drama "reported" on an invasion of the world by martians. Those who had not heard the beginning of the program actually believed a real threat was posed by martians. People panicked, packed churches, evacuated towns, picked up arms and even committed suicide all because of an imaginary threat.
So, what does this have to do with Christmas? Well, in 2005 we have another imaginary war being reported, and as in 1938, the media is at the center of this tempest in a teapot.

Perhaps no single event emphasizes the silliness of the culture war more than the "attack" on Christmas being reported by Christian activists and even the mainstream media. To listen to some in the media, you would believe that the celebration of Christmas is threatened by governmental and corporate efforts.

Of course, a drive through any town or a stroll through any department store will belie the idea that Christmas as a celebration is in any real danger. At the intersection of the two busiest streets in my small town is a 30 foot Christmas tree. Looking out my window I see an inflated Santa on the lawn across the street from my house. I'm listening to the traditional Christmas music channel on MusicMatch radio, specifically "Joy to the World." A couple of mornings ago, I heard the high school marching band practicing "Silent Night" and "Angels We have heard on High."

So, why are the reports of the death of Christmas circulating on cable news shows and through the various Christian media? Is this totally made up? Where did it come from?

Well, there is not a simple answer. But much of it comes from two Fox News commentators John Gibson who wrote the book The War on Christmas: How the liberal plot to ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse than you Thought. I must have missed the newscast where anyone proposed banning Christmas. I'm sure the corporate interests alone would squash that one.

But hold on, according to some these corporate interests are in on the plot. They point out that many retail outlets do not use the phrase "Merry Christmas" in their advertising. This is true enough. Many do use Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings. Isn't that an attack on Christmas?

Well, take a stroll down their aisles. We see Christmas trees, Christmas decorations, Christmas wrapping paper, Christmas Cards, Santa Clauses, and even nativity scenes for sale. The last I heard none of these were used in the celebration of Hannuka or Kwanza. In fact, you would be hard put to find a Mennorah or Star of David in any one of them.

But what about that "Happy Holidays" policy? Well, it's an attempt to appear to be inclusive of all the holidays when in reality the only holiday actually represented in the decorations is Christmas.

Besides you can put up the signs before Thanksgiving and not take them down until after New Years. And, in spite of reports to the contrary, there are no official punishments for clerks saying "Merry Christmas."

Companies are out to make money. By including Hannuka and Kwanza (even with using Happy Holidays) they hope to increase the bottom line. That is something that pro-business conservatives should understand.

So, what is really up? Just my take on it. I think some Christian activists are afraid that people will stop being angry for a few minutes over the holidays. Activism of any sort requires anger and a type of us-vs-them attitude. Christmas, by it's nature, inspires unity, setting aside differences, and extending love and tolerance (not acceptance or agreement, but tolerance) of others.

So, they begin to stir up some sort of false controversy. However, unlike Orson Wells' broadcast, where the panic was unintentional, the outrage is intended. They actually hope that people will believe that there is some sort of attack on our most beloved holiday. That way, they can promote other aspects of their agenda. Now, some parts of that agenda I agree with, but it is disingenuous to try to create a "war" where none exists.

This is the ultimate silliness.

9/11 Remembered: A Christian Response to an American Crisis

2006-09-10T16:48:00.000-07:00

[This was my first response to the tragedy of 9/11. At first, I felt that there might be a national revival because of so many people turning to God in the midst of the tragedy. Of course, such fear driven conversions rarely persist. But I thought it might shake up America's arrogance and help us re-evaluate our values. Unfortunately, we have become more arrogant and fear has actually caused many of our values to erode. The America I grew up in did not start wars (at least not openly), detain prisioners of war years after the war was declared over, and didn't condone, excuse or turn a blind eye to torture. Unfortunately, I'm afraid many Christians swept along with the cultural tides of our time have let this national paranoia erode many of their values as well. I think in remembering that tragic day we must mourn not only the dead, but the living legacy of 9/11 in terms of the fear and hatred it has spawned in the hearts of many of our citizens. This article is as relevant today as it was when it was published just a few days after the event.

A Christian Response to an American Crisis

There are events that happen that years later you will remember exactly where you were when you heard the news. For me, those events include the death of President Kennedy, the Lunar Landing, the Challenger disaster and last Tuesday, September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center towers were leveled and the Pentagon Damaged by terrorists using fully loaded jet airliners as flying bombs.

The numbers themselves are staggering. The 110-story World Trade Towers brought down to a 5 story pile of rubble. Four or five other buildings nearby destroyed. Over 200 firefighters and police killed in rescue efforts. Nearly 200 persons killed at the Pentagon and close to 5000 lost in New York. 50,000 National Guard and Reservists called to active duty. Troops mobilizing around the world.

It's a frightening time. The question is how do we as Christians respond to this tragedy? Here are a few reflections in the shadow of this event.

Pray. The next few weeks are going to be difficult ones for everyone. As the days pass and bodies are recovered, hope will wane and vanish for the families and friends of the victims. Pray that God will be with them during this time of grief. Also pray for the world's leaders. Difficult, dangerous decisions must be made in the coming months which are going to require divine wisdom.

Manage Your Fear. Yes, these are scary times. We do need to take reasonable precautions, but we also need to continue to live our lives. Scripture says that He has not given us a "spirit of fear but of love and power and a sound mind" (2 Tim. 1.7) Fear brings one into bondage (Romans 8.15). Besides, God is our refuge and our strength. He will either keep us safe or take us home. Either way, we are in His hands. Fear steals your testimony. If people see you trembling in fear over the affairs of this life, you cannot point them to your source of hope. But if you are confident in the time of trouble then you have the opportunity to share why you can feel that way.

Continue in Love. Right now we are experiencing a lot of anger. The desire for revenge and retribution is strong. We also feel frustration in not knowing exactly who is responsible for these horrific attacks, how to apprehend them and how to bring them to justice. Consequently, many people are expressing that anger and frustration by venting it on people of Arabic descent. Just recently, at least two people have been killed simply because of this heritage. I have a number of Arabic students in my classes. It was nearly a week before they returned to class and they have been distant in their interactions with other students. We must not allow a righteous anger to turn into unfocused hatred. God loves your Arab neighbor just as much as He loves you. And by extending that Love to them at this difficult time, you may well be an instrument of God which can draw them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Redeem the Time. We have seen much talk of God and Prayer in the public arena in the past few days. Admittedly, much of it is window dressing. A tragedy is often followed by a public call to prayer or reference to God. But the magnitude of this particular tragedy has shaken people's confidence to a point that there is an opportunity for witnessing like never before.

We as a people have in the past century placed our trust in our economy and our military might. We have felt safe from upheavals often found in other countries because we are a wealthy nation with a strong military. The attack struck deep at both our centers of economic power and military might. We have seen that even the greatest, wealthiest, and most powerful country in the world is vulnerable to attack from a relatively small group of conspirators. So, if we can't trust in the power of this world, what can we trust? This is the question that many people are asking themselves now.

Of course, we have the answer. You can trust Jesus Christ. I was impressed that in much of the talk about prayer and God among our media and political leaders this past few days, I have heard nothing about Jesus. People are thinking about God, but not about salvation. We have a golden opportunity to lead them from that God consciousness to Christ Consciousness. Our message is simple. This world is unpredictable. Life is often tenuous. But there is hope. Jesus Christ came to this world, taught us how to live, then took upon himself our sin, died and rose again so that we might be made Children of God and given peace and comfort in times of trouble and the hope of an eternity with Him.

Perhaps today, you are one of those who are feeling anxious. You fear that which is coming on the earth. Perhaps you have been trusting in all the wrong things. Perhaps, you are looking for meaning in the midst of a senseless world. You have wanted to seek God in this time of trouble, but don't know how. You want peace, confidence and assurance that God really does have everything under control. You can have that peace today. Admit that you are a sinner, that you fall short of what you know God wants for your life. Turn away from that sin and ask Christ to come into your life, take control and give you that hope of eternal life. If you want you can pray this prayer right now.

"Dear Lord Jesus, I want to have your peace in my heart. I ask you to forgive me of my sins, to come into my heart and help me live a righteous life. I commit myself to you and promise to live for you. Thank you for coming into my life today. Amen"

If you prayed that prayer, you are now part of God's forever family. Your name has been written in His Book of Life, you have a home in heaven and a place in His family here on Earth. You need to connect with a good Bible Believing church.

Whatever your circumstance today, remember, no matter what happens GOD IS FAITHFUL! He will be with us during this time, and that comfort is one thing the terrorists cannot destroy.

No Spirit of Fear!!!

2006-09-10T16:36:00.000-07:00

[This was amazing. I was looking for another article I wrote immediately following 9/11 and discovered this one. At the time I didn't realize how deep our national paranoia would eventually run. I couldn't have imagined people taking off their shoes before getting on a plane or being barred from taking cough medicine on a plane. I couldn't imagine people of color agreeing that racial profiling could be a good thing (as long as it isn't the police officer on the corner pulling them over because they came into the wrong neighborhood). The troubling compromising of civil liberties, issuance of secret search warrants, unwarranted wiretapping, the turning over of virtually everyone's phone records, and the justification of torture out of fear of terrorism. So, this article for Christians following 9/11 is even more on point today. Read it in light of what has happened in the past 5 years as a result of rampant fear of terrorism.]

No Spirit of Fear

The events of September 11 left America with more than buildings destroyed and lives lost. They left us with a spirit of fear. These attackers are not called terrorists for nothing. Their most powerful weapons are not bombs or guns, explosives or anthrax. Their most powerful weapon is fear.

A few recent news stories shows how pervasive this fear has become. An airliner was forced to land and fighter jets scrambled because a man of Arab descent was smoking in the rest room and became angry when told to stop. An IRS processing facility was shut down today because a woman found some sort of powdery substance on an envelope. Tweezers and fingernail files are not being allowed on planes. While these may or may not be reasonable precautions given the current situation, they are indicative of the level of fear present in the country.

This spirit of fear is even infecting the church. I heard someone a couple of weeks ago decide not to go to a church meeting unless she could go with someone, because she was afraid.

A month after the attacks, many people are still depressed and unable to sleep for fear. This brings to mind the scripture referring to the last days with "Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken" (Luke 21.26) Yet, I Timothy 1.7 says "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." If anything, Christians should be the calm presence in the midst of the storms facing us today.

So, then how can be fight the fear.

1) Trust in God first, and man second.

While security precautions are good, your protection as a Christian does not depend on them. The Psalmist said, "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God." (Psalm 20.7) Our security lies in God. Does this mean we don't
take reasonable precautions? Certainly not. As always, one needs to lock their doors at night, be aware of their surroundings, be patient with the delays at airports, but lets not become obsessive about safety. Nothing is totally safe, but God is always faithful.

2.) Don't Overdose on News Reports.

Certainly we are all interested in what is happening, but don't spend hours of your time watching the same scenes of the World Trade Towers collapsing. Set a limit on the number of hours you spend watching such reports. Get more of your news from newspapers and news magazines. These are less visually involving than television.

3.) Turn a deaf ear to rumors.

Especially with the Internet, rumors can spread rapidly. Somebody'scousins, sister's wife's best friend's husband's brother heard from his butcher whose son is in the CIA that..... These types of stories are invariably untrue and serve only to inspire unwarranted fear. If there is a legitimate, imminent, known threat, the official agencies will make the announcement through regular media outlets. Even in these cases listen for specifics. A warning that "Officials are reporting that a terrorist attack is likely to occur during the next few weeks, possibly on the west coast," may be useful for law enforcement officials to keep their eyes open, but means very little in the way of assessing your own personal vulnerability.

4.) Assess the real level of personal vulnerability.

The events of September 11 were horrific, but put in perspective, your chances of being killed in an automobile accident are much higher than being killed in a terrorist attack even on the ground in the Middle East. If you live in a small town, it is unlikely that you will be hit by a terrorist attack simply because, terrorists go after population centers for the most carnage. If you fly, consider that only a few planes have been hijacked out of American airports in the past 25 years.

5.) Live a normal life.

If you cancel your vacation plans, stop going to large gatherings, fear drinking water, check for bombs everywhere, stop going to concerts, plays, or evangelistic crusades, or willingly sacrifice your basic freedoms of travel, assembly, and free speech then the
terrorists have already won. Fear is their weapon and their goal. They have no realistic hope of conquering a superpower, but they can bring us to our knees in fear and in so doing we conquer ourselves. The pay off for conquering the fear in our own hearts is more than simply more joyful living for us as Christians, but by replacing the spirit of fear with the spirit of confidence in Christ, we can share peace with others around us. We can point those who are fearful around us to the one who has conquered all fear.

In so doing, we defeat Satan's plans. We turn what he meant for evil into something God is transforming into good.

When the terrorists win!

2006-09-09T17:44:00.000-07:00

I was browsing through some writing I had done years ago and came across this which I wrote about a week after 9/11. If you remember, there was a general panic. I knew a woman who didn't even want to come to a county wide church conference because she was afraid to go out in public -- and we live in California!

The problem is that they are called "terrorists" for a reason. They do not realistically expect to invade America and turn it into an Islamic state by force of arms. They don't even realistically expect to do that in Isreal. Their victory comes in the fear of their enemies. When their enemies are afraid of them, they have succeeded as surely as if we signed articles of surrender with Al-Queida.

I was trying to put that into words and wrote the following email to a discussion group:

I will take a trip to San Francisco this weekend and cross the Bay Bridgefrustrated by traffic delays but not in fear of attack because if I don'tTHEY WIN!

I will plan a trip for summer without thinking about airport security,because if I don't THEY WIN!

I will begin my retirment investment portfolio and I will include some bluechip stocks in the portfolio without fear of loss because if I don't THEYWIN!

I look at my Arab neighbors without suspicion, hatred or fear. Because ifI don't THEY WIN!

I will greive for the loss of so many innocents, but I will not live as a slave to fear or hatred, because if I don't THEY WIN!

I will walk tall and straight without fear.I will breathe the air of my homeland as a Free American, and I will not give up freedom for safety, because if I don't THEY WIN!

Since September 11 many of us have let the terrorists win by succumbing to fear and hatred, by being willing to bargain away our freedoms for the illusion of perfect safety.

Terrorists have no goal of taking over Governments or running countries. Their goal is to punish those whom they hate with fear.

When a country gives into that fear and the people live their lives based on avoiding attack or responding to such attacks, whenpolice are replaced by soldiers, when freedom is considered a luxury, when the people live their lives looking over their shoulders in fear, when hatred and suspicion reign, when I fear man more than I trust God,then THEY WIN!!!

Whether they win or not is my choice.

And I for one, will not let them win.

Religious Neutrality or Religious Freedom?

2006-09-04T17:06:00.000-07:00

Today, I got a flyer in my mail box at the college. It read:

Stressed Out!

Difficulty Concentrating Don't Medicate....

Meditate

Free Meditation Instruction for faculty, staff, and students

It then gave the time and place. And it was printed with the college logo on the page. Okay, I don't have problems with meditation, per se. Some forms are simply relaxation techniques with no religious significance. And on the religious side, many religious systems practice meditation of different types including Christians and Jews as well as Eastern Religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Without knowing how the instructor would approach the practice, I couldn't say whether it would be essentially secular in nature or religious. After all, I don't know that they are going to have the person sit cross legged on the floor and chant mantras.

However, that's the problem. There is a picture on the page of a woman doing exactly that. She is sitting in the lotus position touching thumb and forefingers together. I had to wonder, if instead of that pose, she had been kneeling serenely with hands folded together what would happen.

Transcendental Mediation and yoga based meditation is a religious practice. The body positioning and the chanting of the mantras have religious significance as much as saying "Our Father who art in heaven" has for the Christian.

As readers of this blog know by now, I am not exactly a fan of the religious right (nor the religious left for that matter) but some of the more intelligent writers on that side of the culture war have made the point that there is a type of hypocrisy bound up in the protestations of religious neutrality by school administrators. They claim that the issue of religious neutrality only arises when the religion in question is Christianity.

For instance, one university is requiring reading from the koran, but have no such similar requirement for Biblical study. Turbins are allowed in some school districts, but crosses and crucifixes banned. This is yet another example that religious neutrality tends to work mostly against Christians.

I believe in religious neutrality in the schools. I oppose prayers led by administrators, posting of the 10 commandments, and I really don't care if the Pledge of Allegiance includes the words "under God" or not considering that they were added at a later date anyway. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. One may argue that even though it is a religious practice, it is being used for a secular purpose - Relaxation.

One can argue that saying Christian prayers also can reduce stress. And those on the left argue -persusasively - that the teaching of "intelligent design" as an adjunct to the theory of evolution is simply a back door attempt to get the book of Genesis taught in the classroom. (Personal opinion is that at the lower grades it is silly to discuss creation from either perspective since the lack of evidence on both sides is overwhelming).

If this was simply a private individual using the school facilities, that's cool. If it was a campus student group, great. But as a school sponsored, faculty directed activity, it, in my opinion, crosses the line. The doctirne of religious neutrality must extend to all religions and not just Christianity. To do otherwise would be to violate a basic tenant of the first admendment.

Christian Foundation???

2006-09-04T04:01:00.000-07:00

One of the things which bothers me about the Christian right, but also to a lesser extent the Christian left as well, is the historical myth that the founding fathers set with a Bible in one hand and a quill pen in the other writing the constitution.

We hear it all the time. "This country was built on Christian prinicples." However, when you look at our form of government, it bears little resemblance to any type of Biblical government Old Testament or new.

God's plan for Isreal was a sort of theocratic socialism. The prophet would be in charge as a "Judge" over Isreal and receive instructions from God for the big issues. Otherwise, they would follow a code of laws which were quite interesting in light of America's preoccupation with capitalism. Now, I'm not opposed to capitalism, per se. We have benefitted as a nation from it, but we must not enshrine it as essentially Biblical. There was a type of free enterprise in the sense of individuals such as farmers and craftspeople selling their own goods, but the foundation of capitalism is loaning money at interest which was forbidden under the Law.

One of the most interesting elements of the law had to do with land ownership. Here's what Leviticus has to say about it:

And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
(Lev 25:10)

As you read further, you find out that every 50 years all of the land which had been sold to other people was redistributed to the original families so that no one could build up a monopoly on wealth because in those days wealth was measured in land and cattle and the produce of the land.

Also, they were not allowed to sell the land at whatever they could get for it. The price was fixed based on the produce of the land for the years the owner held it. They were not allowed to "charge what the market would bear." Such profiteering which is the American way of life in business was forbidden.

Since Isreal is not free in the New Testament, we must look at the organization of the church community for hints as to Government. In this case we see a type of communal living at the beginning. The church shared their funds with each other so that all could share in the prosperity of others. Of course, this was necessary considering the persecution of the times. There was a rude democracy at work, but it was direct democracy in the sense of coming to a consensus on issues rather than voting on them and taking the 51 percent solution.

So, where did our form of government come from? Well, most of the models had their roots in Greece and Rome. The original form of government in the U.S. was a type of elected oligarchy. The franchise was limited to males and landowners. With the exception of local offices and the house of representatives, Senators and Presidents were elected by the electoral college. The electors were not bound by law to vote for their candidate either, although they usually would.

The Roman senate was composed of the heads of ancient families for the most part and the Procounsuls were elected by popular vote of a limited citizenry as well. In the period before the emperors this provided a type of representative form of Government which was later refined into the Parliaments of Europe and eventually that of the U.S.

Likewise, our legal system has its roots in Roman Law. The Justinian Code laid the groundwork for legal codes throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. Those codes were the models upon which our legal system is built. The Romans were the first to set forth the principle of presumption of innocence which is the hallmark of western Juris Prudence. The Justinian Code more than the 10 Commandments laid the foundation of our laws. Indeed, only the laws concerning theft, murder, and perjury are based on Mosaic law and those are shared by nearly all legal systems.

So, does this mean that our system is bad? No, not at all. What it does mean is that we cannot turn American History into some sort of apologetic for tearing down the wall of separation between church and state. Contrary to the assumptions of some, the founding fathers did not consider themselves to be setting up a "Christian" nation, even though most of them would consider themselves Christian (even though probably not by the standards of modern day evangelicals or the early church). They were driven more by classical ideals and the French enlightenment. The produced a good system. Would God's system be better? Probably, but I fear you need God to run it, since I don't think we have very many humans capable of doing so equitably.

Abortion: A pro-realist approach

2006-08-30T11:53:00.000-07:00

I was talking about this issue with someone the other day who said she wasn't pro-life or pro-choice. She was pro-realist. I liked that. At least in terms of politics, you have to think in terms of what will be practical. If you don't, your laws, no matter how "moral" will fail. The most obvious example of this was Prohibition. There was a strong moral basis for banning alcohol. Also, drinking inflicts many other social ills and kills thousands of people a year. But trying to find a legal solution to a moral and social problem just wasn't the best approach.

First, before moving into my proposals, I want to finally state my moral position on this subject. I am pro-life morally. I believe except in cases where the mothers life or physical health is seriously endangered that one should not opt for an abortion. I don't believe that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human life. I don't think that occurs until the brain begins to develop toward sentence. However, I am at a loss as to say at what point that occurs, so I would opt for not pursuing abortion at all, with the exceptions already mentioned.

However, simply passing a law banning abortion is unlikely to work. If we are serious about solving the problem of abortion, the approach cannot be totally legislation-based. So, here is my solution.

1. Return to Roe

Roe, while allowing abortions in the last trimester, did not encourage them. Roe stated that a legitimate concern for fetal life could be considered in the last trimester. I would say a total ban on "late term" abortion is legitimate with the health exceptions already mentioned. It is hard to argue that by the time a child is moving independently in the womb that he or she is not a "person." Charges have been leveled against individuals murdering a late term pregnant mother for two murders in some states which has withstood challenge. It is inconsistent to not consider the fetus a person in a late term abortion

Penalties, however, I feel should not involve jail time for the mothers. Fines and community service should be adequate. However, doctors performing late term abortions should be held to a higher standard with loss of license, heavy fines, and possible jail time for repeat offenses.

2. Waiting Periods

I don't see anything wrong with a "coolingoff" period. A one-week cooling off period seems reasonable. It doesn't interfere with a woman's right to an abortion, but it gives her time to think about what she is doing.

3. Parental Notification

Okay, I agree that teenagers should be provided with contraception without parental notification. That will prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. However, an abortion is a serious surgical procedure, parents of minor children should be notified. As far as that goes, they should have some say in the decision. I understand that there may be extenuating circumstances such as an estrangement or a non-custodial parent interfering, but a reasonable appeal process and medical emancipation could solve those problems.

On the other hand, I do not believe that parents should be able to force a girl to have an abortion against her will.

4. Pre-teen Sex Education

Okay, I'm not suggesting showing movies of the sex act in kindergarten, but with kids having sex at younger and younger ages, we need to begin to deal with the issue just as they are entering adolescence. What does this have to do with abortion? Research shows that the more accurate information a young person has about sex and sexuality, the longer they will delay first sexual contact and the more responsible they will be when they begin having sex.

Yes, I believe in pre-marital celibacy and as a Christian single I practice that, but again a pro-realist approach recognizes that kids are inundated with images of sexuality in the mass media and some accurate information about sex is necessary to make decisions about sex.

5. Informed Consent

A woman considering abortion should be given information about the risks, both physically and emotionally, of abortion. However, this should be research-based and not anecdotal in nature. We actually need more neutral research done. I would like to see long term outcome studies done by a coalition of pro-choice and pro-life researchers.

For instance, post abortion trauma seems like a legitimate outcome, but I have to wonder how many women are affected and how this compares to other types of post-surgical depression or even postpartum depression.

But, no one should make such a major decision without having all the information available.

6. More prenatal care

Women should have greater access to competent pre-natal care. Even though such is available, many are ineligible or don't know they are eligible. Many have concerns about pregnancy which knowing they had the costs covered would relieve their concern.

7. More Day Care programs

Cost is often a factor in abortions. Young women often worry how they will be able to take care of the costs of raising a child on their own. Many have jobs, but those jobs don't pay enough to cover a babysitter or preschool. Increasing the number of such programs and getting the word out about those that exist could help.

On a related note: family leave plans need to be required of employers. A woman should not have to choose between having a baby and having a job.

8. Liberalizing Adoption

Currently, only a few people find themselves eligible to adopt children. Adoption agencies prefer couples over singles, higher income individuals over lower income ones. The very process of adoption is long, frustrating and complicated. It is also expensive costing from $5000 to $20,000 and more. Many good loving families simply cannot afford to adopt.

While it is important to protect the child, that can be accomplished while streamlining the adoption process.

Telling a mother that she can opt for adoption over abortion sounds good, but the adoption process is fraught with peril. Many adoptive parents worry that the biological mother will assert parental rights several years down the road. Making adoption easier and more secure would help both adoptive families and the biological mothers.

Of course, adoption is not the absolute solution many pro-lifers make it out to be. Most adoptive parents are looking for white, healthy infants. A downs syndrome baby or an African-American child will find it difficult to be adopted. Still, by opening up adoption to more people the chances of an unwanted child being adopted increases dramatically.

8. Tone down the rhetoric

Someone has said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that definition, the pro-life movement is insane. Protests in front of clinics have been going on for three decades with no effect. Yelling at young women that they are murdering their babies has not reduced the numbers of abortions. Marches, insults, bombings and voting Republican has not done a single thing to impact abortion.

We need to show our concern for the young girl facing motherhood before her senior prom. We need to share the worry of a couple who have four children already and don't know how they will afford a fifth. We need to cry with the college student whose parents kicked her out of the house when she "got knocked up." These are generally ordinary people who don't see any hope except abortion. Insulting them is not going to help them make a rational decision.

9. Seek non-legislative solutions

Perhaps the best use of pro-life resources is for Crisis Pregnancy Centers (as long as they are honest about their Pro-life philosophy). Many women seeking abortions simply don't think they have any other alternative. Helping them see the alternatives, providing them with practical help with pre-natal care, planning, placement of an unwanted child with a family, or helping with paying for maternity clothes, and baby supplies. Just helping a woman solve some problems can go a long way toward preventing an abortion.

I'm sure this plan will not set well with everyone. The pro-lifers won't like it because it recognizes that abortion is not going away. The pro-choice crowd won't like it because of issues like parental notification and waiting periods. The fact t hat the extremists on each side won't like it probably means it is workable.

But in a diverse, democratic society, we have to realize that none of us are ever going to get everything we want. This plan does have the potential of reducing the numbers of abortion and maybe begin to change attitudes toward it.

Of course, I'm not in power, and my words may mean little to those who are in power, but this may be a starting point for a discussion with those who do have the power.

Abortion: A Reality Check

2006-08-30T11:48:00.000-07:00

Since some changes in the high court there has been a lot of hand wringing on the part of pro-choice advocates and some cautious optimism on the part of the pro-life lobby. However, now is the time for a reality check. First, it is highly unlikely for Roe v. Wade to be overturned entirely. This is unlikely for two good reasons. First, even a court sympathetic to an anti-Roe position is unlikely to over turn a decision which has lasted 30 years. Both of the new nominees stated that they respected previous court rulings and it would take something extraordinary to entice them to overturn such decisions.

Most Supreme Court justices are loath to go against a previous court decision. Supreme Court decisions become the precedents on which other decisions are based. There needs to be a sense of finality or at least stability in those decisions which outlasts the terms of the justices themselves for the legal system to function with any degree of certainty. The justices understand this and, thus, will not easily overturn a previous court's ruling without some massive change in the cultural millieau.

This brings us to the second reason that Roe is unlikely to be overturned. This is a court decision that enjoys a great deal of public support. Polls repeatedly show 70-80 percent of the American public support legalized abortion. While the courts, theoretically, are to not consider public sentiment, and only the limits of the law and the constitution, they can't totally ignore the will of the public.

So, Roe is safe for the time being, however, as we pointed out Roe was much more limited than many current abortion laws and pro-choice philosophy would like us to believe. One could easily see a tightening of abortion regulations within the scope of the Roe limitations.

We could see parental notification (and possibly parental permission) laws be passed and survive court challenges. Late term abortion bans will likely stand scrutiny by the Supreme court if the laws are written well with safeguards for those women whose life or health is threatened. Informed consent and waiting period laws will probably find a friendlier hearing at the court than in the past.

However, even the overturning of Roe would not eliminate abortion in the U.S. Before Roe nearly 1/3 of the states had some sort of legalized abortion on the books. And the laws were not always vigorously enforced. If Roe was overturned, the majority of the states under pressure from constituents would probably pass their own abortion laws and the expedient of traveling to a pro-abortion state would return.

The pendulum is swinging back, but it has lost most of it's momentum. If we are lucky, it will land somewhere close to center ground.

Bringing Back the Sanity Part III

2006-08-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

Critiquing the Pro-Choice Stance

I was riding BART a few weeks ago when I saw a poster by some pro-life group. It read something like "Because of Roe v. Wade a woman can be pregnant for nine months and still abort her baby. Abortion rights have gone too far." Okay, the message implies that Roe legalized abortion for the full term of pregnancy which is not the case. We already discussed the limits of Roe. But the basic idea of abortion rights having gone too far is legitimate.

Just as the pro-life group goes too far when they consider a single fertilized egg to be a human being, the pro-choice group goes too far when they consider an 8 month old "fetus" to not be one. Although, I feel it to be impossible to mark a specific point where a bunch of cells ceases to be a potential human being and becomes an actual human being, I have to say that any reasonable person knows that it does occur in the womb and not at birth.

Recently a couple I know had a baby born two and a half months premature. The doctors have worked heroically to save the life of this tiny infant. Yet, radical pro-choice advocates would say that child is only a child because it is outside the womb. That may make legal sense, but it is rational nonsense.

Pro-choicers have gone too far in several ways. First, they have gone too far in their rhetoric. The mantra of "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body" is flawed logically. At some point, the fetus ceases to be a part of the woman's body and becomes a living human being. Since I could not determine exactly when that point occurs I would rather not take chances at all, but certainly after the first trimester, it is clear that there is someone inside the womb who while dependent on the mother's body is not part of the mother's body. Whether or not the woman has the right to make a life and death decision for that other person (which is another question entirely) she cannot claim that her decision only affects her.

Pro-choicers have also gone to far in defining the term "woman." Pro-choice groups point to a "woman's" right to choose even when the "woman" in question is a teenage girl. It is ironic to the point of lunacy, that a school nurse cannot give a teenager an aspirin without parental consent, but that same girl, in many states, can have an abortion. The teenage brain is different than the adult brain, and at time teenagers make impulsive decisions that the same person in later years would not. These decisions (and not just abortion) can leave scars that last for a lifetime. Certainly, there needs to be some limits on parental involvment such as when the life of the mother is at stake or some other serious physical or mental health issue is at stake. But the basic principle of parental notification is no infringement on the rights of an adult woman to make an informed decision to terminate her pregnancy.

Pro-choice advocates have gone too far in supporting late term abortions. This stance even goes beyond Roe v. Wade. In that decision, the justices agreed that there was a legitimate interest in protecting viable fetuses. Consider the so called "partial birth" abortion. The doctors induce labor, the baby is almost born, but before the head comes out of the mother, an instrument is inserted into the brain to kill the child. Three or four inches further and an abortion become infanticide. It would be laughably absurd, if it wasn't so tragic.

Finally Pro-choice advocates have gone too far in denying the humanity of the fetus. The difference between having a baby inside of you and having a fetus often turns solely on whether or not you want to keep the child. A mother desirous of having a child considers that child growing inside them as a person from the moment she hears the news. It is a legal fiction to deny a fetus, particularly after it is capable of independent movement, and has a well formed brain and nervous system, the status of a person. Any parent, who wanted a child knows it is a person. Any mother awaken in the middle of the night by a well place kick, knows it is a person, and any father placing his hand on the mothers abdomen to feel his child move beneath the skin, knows it is a person. It is only when the child is unwanted that it becomes a fetus and denied the humanity it is accorded when it is anticipated with joy.

So, yes, I feel the pro-lifers have gone too far in their rhetoric and have denied Christ by their hatefulness in pursuing what they consider a "holy mission." But the pro-choicers have gone too far. They have moved from a pragmatic approach to dealing with abortion laws which were inconsistent and outdated to actually promoting abortion as not only a viable alternative to birth control, but in some cases the preferred alternative. They have denied the humanity of the fetus far past the stages of pregnancy where such humanity is questionable. They have even taken the law on a ride where infanticide is called legalized abortion with the partial birth procedure.

So, no one has clean hands in this debate.

Bringing Back the Sanity Part II

2006-08-30T11:42:00.000-07:00

Critiquing the Pro-Life Stance

Several years ago in an 60 Minutes commentary Andy Rooney said something like, "I generally agree with the position of the pro-life advocates, but pro-choicers on the whole are nicer people." It isn't a direct quote, but that is the essence.

Of course, Mr. Rooney was referring by and large to t he most vocal opponents of abortion. I'm sure, even he knew many very nice people, loving and kind, that held a pro-life stance politically.

But this does raise a significant issue with the pro-life movement. When Roe V. Wade was decided approximately 60 percent of the American public believed a woman had a right to choose to have an abortion. After 30+ years of agitation by Pro-lifers ranging from prayer vigils to bombings to murder, those numbers have risen to 70-80 Percent depending on how the question is stated.

Pro-life presidents, congressional representatives, senators, governors and judges proclaim their pro-life credentials, yet few are effective in making any substantial changes in abortion law, because in a democratic society, the majority viewpoint wields a great deal of power. You notice, after the primaries, republican candidates for office usually avoid discussion of abortion like the plague. They know that while it plays well with the party faithful, it doesn't play with the country at large.

Now, does this mean that the majority is always right? Hardly. Witness the election of Richard Nixon. However, it does mean that politically the pro-life movement fights an uphill battle. Now, there are subissues such as parental notification and late term abortion where the public sentiment rests more with the pro-life stance than the pro-choice extremists, but the core issue of the legality of abortion in general, definitely lies in the pro-choice win column.

So, it is no wonder that some frustrated pro-life advocates focus on intimidation, insults, and overblown rhetoric to make their points.

Just as a sid note, it would be unfair to judge the pro-life movement as a whole with the violent extremists who bomb clinics and murder doctors. They do not represent most pro-life advocates. However, on balance, I wonder how much of the heated rhetoric calling abortion clinc workers "Murderers" and comparing them to the engineers of the Holocost contribute to some disturbed individuals taking the cause to a violent extreme. Still, as a personal advocate of free speech and expression, I defend the Pro-lifer's right to use inflammatory rhetoric, while at the same time exhorting them to consider the potential consequences of such rhetoric.

And this brings me to my main criticism of the Pro-Life movement. Certainly, one has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to advocate changes in a democratic society they feel strongly need to be made. However, few think beyond the rhetoric. I teach public speaking and argumentation. So, I hear the pro-life/pro-choice debate ad infinitum, ad nauseum. All I hear are the same old tired "arguments" which are not real arguments since they are not based on any actual evidence, that abortion is murder, we could be killing the next Einstein (they never think we could also be killing the next Jeffrey Dalmer. That argument cuts both ways and thus is a useless one for either side to us), that human life is sacred and begins with the fertilzation of the egg by the sperm, and that the Bible says it is wrong (which is not technically true, but can be inferred from some passages of scripture which they don't even seem to know.)

In other words, they simply spout off the party line without any actual critical thinking going on. And they never present a plan. For instance, what will be the penalties for a woman having an abortion? Will she be charged with premeditated murder and be sent to death row? Will she be charged with second degree murder and spend 25 years to life in prision? Will it be manslaughter with a 5 year sentance? Or will she be fined. If abortion is murder, then it would need to be treated as such by the law. Most are unwilling to send a young girl faced with a desperate situation to jail for a first trimester abortion. Even my mostvehement pro-lifers hesitate to assign any jail time to the woman.

Yet, there needs to be a plan that is workable. This was one of the problems in the pre-Roe era. Women often simply traveled to another state or another country to obtain a legal abortion frustrating individual state laws. And local police departments were hesitant to spend limited resources hunting down college girls who went to a medical student for a "back room" abortion.

If one is going to change the law, then one needs a workable plan for doing so. But in leiu of a workable plan, most of the activists substitute inflammatory rhetoric for actual problem solving proposals. They stand at abortion clinics with gory pictures or yell at the women telling them they are murderers.

Is it any wonder that even people sympathetic to the pro-life philosophy have problems with the movement as a whole. It is supposedly based in large part on Christian principles, but very un Christ-like actions belie that basis. There are exceptions, of course. Pro-life sponsored Crisis Pregnacy clinics (which are open and above board about their pro-life perspective) providing assistance and counseling to unwed mothers and poor families, Christian adoption services matching infants with families (assuming the infant is white and healthy, it has a good chance of adoption.)

Some savvy pro lifers are now proposing laws which can stem the tide of abortion without banning it altogether. Proposals for informed consent, bans on late term abortions, waiting periods, parental notification all well within the bounds of Roe and enjoying some support from a plurality or even in some cases a majority of the public.

The pro-life movement needs to pull back from the wild-eyed fanaticism which has come to symbolize the movement and refocus on compassion, concern for the mother (and not just the child), and legislation which is actually workable.

And in general, for all of us, regardless of our beliefs on this issue, we just need to be a little nicer to each other and those we want to persuade.

Abortion: Bringing back the sanity

2006-08-13T14:19:00.000-07:00

Perhaps no issue so fully defines the culture war as the debate over abortion. In the next several posts I'll be discussing this issue and I'm going to try to bring both sides of the debate back to a level of sanity which both pro-life and pro-choice extremists have abandoned.
In this post, I want to simply lay a historical groundwork for the debate, discuss what roe v. wade did and did not do, so that we are proceding with accurate information and not the distortions of history on both sides of the debate.

First, the practice of abortion is ancient. The Egyptians in dynastic days practiced it as did the Persians. Persian Law exacted severe punishments for abortion. However, in spite of the sanction in the Hippocratic Oath, Greek and Roman cultures were tolerant of the practice. When punished, it was largely based on the violation of paternal rights. In other words, the father claiming that he had been deprived of his offspring. It was not considered murder by any means.

The Hebraic Law is silent on the practice of voluntary abortion. The only reference to it in scripture is found in Exodus 21:22. The verse reads in the King James:

(Exo 21:22) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The Contemporary English Version clarifies this scripture:

Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.

Neither of these treats the "abortion" as murder. Nothing is said at all about voluntary abortion that I can find.

Likewise, the early church did not consider life to begin at conception as most modern pro-life advocates do. They believed that the soul entered the body at some point about the 16th to 18th week when the mother begins to feel movement. This was called "The Quickening." and was used from ancient times through the 19th century indetermining proscription of abortion and/or it's penalties.

Under common law, abortions performed before "the quickening" were not considered actionable. In fact, in America, the first law banning abortion was enacted in 1821 in Connecticut, but it wasn't until 1860 that state criminalized abortions before quickening. The law in New York in 1828 made abortion before quickening a misdemenor, but after quickening, it became a felony. Such distinctions remained in American law up until the 1950's when the distinction by time was phased out. By the late 1960's, though, many states were liberalizing their abortion laws so that by the time of Roe v. Wade abortion was legal under certain restrictions in about 1/3 of the states and women who wanted an abortion could usually obtain one legally simply by traveling to another state.

In January 1973 Roe V. Wade was decided. In many ways it took a step back to the laws that postulated a "quickening" occurring some days or weeks into the pregnancy. Contrary to popular belief, Roe did not legalize abortion in all cases throughout the pregnancy. Here is the text of the critical court order:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in waysthat are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in thepotentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

In other words, during the first trimester, the traditional period before the "quickening" the woman and her physician have virtually unfettered ability to choose to abort the fetus. After the first trimester but before viability, the state may regulate abortion based on the health of the mother. Once the fetus could live outside the womb, the state could regulate or ban abortion completely.

So, even conservative theologians over the centuries have debated when life begins and that debate has been reflected in the abortion laws up until the first half of the 20th century when abortion laws began to predicate that a fertilized egg was a living being with a soul. This is a belief that was not shared by the ancients nor by the early church.

Now, they may have been wrong. One can build a case that life begins at conception. One can postulate that the soul enters when the sperm connects with egg. Although, it is hard to really maintain that when one considers how many fertilized eggs never reach maturity. It would seem that God would not set up a reproductive system which destroys so many souls. The concept of "the quickening" I personally find compelling. The difficulty I find is that I'm not sure when that happens. That is one reason why I personally on a moral basis oppose abortion at any stage of development. However, I can see a legitimate argument that such a quickening is unlikely to occur in the first trimester.

We will be critiquing the Pro-Life assumptions in the next posting, but not to worry, the pro-choice people get theirs in the following. After that, I'll present a "reality check" on what it likely to occur with abortion laws in the future. Finally, I'll present my "solution" to the problem. So, please don't shoot me until you read the whole series.

The Politics of life

2006-08-07T01:24:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the flashpoint that started the culture war was the issue of abortion. This issue pre-dated the famous Roe v. Wade decision by several years. By the time of Roe many states already had various types of legalized abortion on demand. Roe simply made it a constitutional issue. Any belief that overturning Roe would immediately make abortion illegal nationally is foolish thinking. It will simply return the country to where it was before Roe with a patchwork quilt of state laws which meant women seeking abortion simply crossed state lines to obtain them or, if poor, resorted to things like taking poisons or, as a friend of my mother's did, jumping off a kitchen counter on her stomach to force a miscarriage.

This was the beginning of the "pro-life" movement. The term "Pro-life" was a master stroke of public relations at the time. At that time there were many groups that were "anti" things such as "anti-war" and "anti-racism." Here was a group that was technically anti-abortion, but they turned it into a positive. They were saying, "We aren't against abortion, we are in favor of life, and abortion destroys life." At the time is was a subtle and effective way to set them apart from the "protesters" of the time which were identified with liberal causes.

Thus the politics of life was formed. One group claimed to be pro-life saying that abortion was murder because it took an innocent life. On the other hand the pro-choice crowd shifted the debate away from when life begins to a matter of freedom of choice. So, we had the battle of values. Life vs. Freedom. In American culture you can't imagine two more powerful archetypes.

The problem was that both sides, once again, were essentially hypocritical. The political religious right claims to be "pro-life" but apparently that stance only extends to the unborn. The PRR has not yet seen a war it didn't like, supports the death penalty, fights environmental regulations which can save lives, and some radical elements support assassination as a tool of foriegn policy.

Even on the abortion issue, the PRR doesn't even pay much attention to church history. Throughout the middle ages and rennaissance clerics argued about when life began with ideas ranging from conception to the sensation of movement in the mother's womb to one group that said it didn't begin until the baby took the first breath. This latter position was rooted in Genesis 2:7 where Adam becomes a living soul when God breathes the breath of life into him.

But what about all the other life issues. I'm not claiming that it is always wrong to go to war. Certainly, when the governmental integrity of a country is at stake, when it has been attacked with the intent of invasion and conquest as with Pearl Harbour, then the country has little choice but to go to war. However, initiating a conflict or simple military adventurism is hardly proper. The early church actually debated if serving in the military was ever justified. Many Christians died rather than be conscripted into the Roman army. I think that is a bit extreme, but it certainly shows that the church hasn't always been pro-war.

The death penalty is interesting because religious people from both sides of the fence call scripture to the foreground to defend or oppose the practice. Certainly, the Old Testament practices the death penalty, but it also requires blood sacrifices of animals and makes the eating of shell fish an abomination. The Law of the Old Testament we are told is fulfilled in Christ. And when Christ faced judging a death penalty case (the woman taken in adultery) he opted for mercy rather than judgement. Many will say, "But Jesus said, "An eye for an eye."" Unfortunately, they don't quote the entire verse:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Mat 5:38-39)

This is hardly an endorsement of retribution. At the very least, it means that there are justifiable differences on this life issue.

I could go on about the hypocrisy of the PRR's "pro-life" proclamations, but now I have to turn to the problems on the left.

With abortion, the pro-choice group sidestep an important issue: Is a fetus a living soul? Certainly, there is the legal fiction of a person vs. a non-person. But the law recognizes certain corporations as "persons" for the sake of discussion. I'm not talking law now, I'm talking philosophy.

Can even the most strident pro-choice advocate deny that when a woman is feeling movement in her womb, that the "fetus" is not a person? Can they deny the anguish that a woman feels when a wanted pregnancy miscarries? Do they deny the heroic work of the doctors who work with premature children to keep them alive?

There is an inconsistency here that says simply that one life is worth more than another. Whatever the questions about whether a fertilized egg or an embryo consisting of only a few cells constitutes life or life potential, when we get to the point where there is a possibly viable fetus that has movement and can respond to outside stimuli, can we deny this PERSON some sort of protection from it's own mother.

The knee-jerk response against any types of limitation on abortion by the left needs to be examined as critically as the hypocricy of the right.

Likewise, the various ways we have developed to justify cold blooded murder needs to be examined. Liberals have championed such defenses as the "twinkie" defense blaming the sugars in junk food for an uncontrollable murderous rage, battered spouse syndrome in which the wife is allowed to kill her husband as he sleeps instead of leaving him, blaming parenting, TV, video games and rap music instead of placing the responsiblity on the murderer belies any type of suggestion of honoring life on either side of the issue.

Life is indeed precious. I find it hard to justify abortion, while having sympathy with the desperation of the expectant mother. But I can't see that making abortion illegal is any solution. Providing more alternatives, setting a waiting period, providing full disclosure of objectively conducted studies of post-abortion trauma and medical complications makes sense as does requiring parental notification and approval. It seems ridiculous that a school nurse can't give a minor an aspirin without parental permission, but that same girl could have an abortion without the parents even being notified.

So, I must say I am Pro-Life, but I consider that to be universally pro-life. I'm morally opposed to most abortions, but also to the death penalty, wars of opportunity, assassination as foreign policy, and toxins in the atmosphere which kill people. I'm for the pre-born and the post-born being protected. Again putting me at odds with both the right and the left.

Conversational Intolerance

2006-08-07T00:24:00.000-07:00

I was just watching author Sam Harris speaking on C-Span. He used a term about the religious right, but I think it applies to all parts of the culture war. He spoke about "Conversational Intolerance." In the field of conflict resolution we call them stoppers. They stop the conversation.

He used the example of stem cell research. He said, in essence, when you begin a conversation about stem cell research immediately someone raises the issue that a three-day old embryo is a soul and therefore use of those cells constitutes murder. No proof is offered. It is expected to be accepted on their word. No further discussion is possible. One cannot even continue the conversation about whether or not a handful of unformed cells is a human being with a soul. Thus, with a whole segment of society, the discussion ends right there.

He seemed to imply that only religious individuals are guilty of this conversational intolerance. I contend that the conversation stops not only because the religious right won't listen, but that the irreligious left won't either.

Perhaps it is only natural for us to avoid difficult ethical issues. By calling it sin by religious people or by simply labeling it as reactionary by the left we can avoid dealing with these tough issues and blame the other guy at the same time.

Truthfully, as a Christian, I feel in some groups intimidated by expressing anything other than the "party line" laid out by a handful of powerful televangelists and Christian activists. If I opposed the death penalty, say, in certain groups, or expressed an opposition to the war in Iraq, there would be no conversation of the merits of the argument, but a rather summary dismissal of my point of view as being unAmerican or even unChristian. We could not even engage in a Bible study on such questions. The article of faith is grounded more in a political religion than a Biblical one.

But I have found myself equally intimidated by the left. I am a college instruction. If I expressed a view that said that I believed that homosexual behavior is a sin, it would not be seen only as my opinion which I had formed through a study of my religion, I would be villified as a homophobe and bigot. It would be assumed I also opposed equal rights for gays and lesbians, job protection, fair housing and marital rights. Thatwould be wrong. I support all of that. One does not exclude the other. But the conversation would be stopped as soon as I expressed the less favored opinion among my peers.

In fact, the mention of God in any context other than some vague lifeforce of the universe in some settings causes people to pull away. Being a little religious is okay. Just don't let it interfer with your real life. And above all don't talk about a living, daily relationship with God. Certainly, don't talk about Jesus as anything more than a good man or prophet.

I remember back in college having some wonderful arguments with an atheist on the debate team. We were pretty evenly matched in terms of debating skill. Neither of us were ever condemned for our beliefs. Indeed, we didn't even condemn each other. I doubt such conversations would be approved of on either side of the political spectrum today.

It's time we start conversations about these difficult issues instead of stopping them by refusing to listen to the opposite site.

Infotainment and the Culture War

2006-08-07T00:21:00.000-07:00

First, let me make clear that I am not one of those people who are constantly bashing the news media. I've worked in news at a local level, and I have found that most working reporters make every attempt to be fair and as objective as possible when writing their stories. A lot of handwringing goes on behind the scenes by reporters and editors over how to balance the people's need to know certain things in a democratic society against sensationalism and public interest. I heard one speaker on a conference panel entitled, "How We Get it Wrong as Journalists" say, "Can you imagine a panel at the American Medical Association conference entitled: 'Why do we kill so many patients?'"

Nor am I one who believes that the major media represent some sort of liberal or conservative conspiracy to hide or distort information. Again, you can find just about any political spin you want in the media.

No, I have respect for the members of the fourth estate. When they do their jobs right, they are criticized from both sides of the culture war for not reporting only their side of the issue. And they have to do their jobs under ever shortening deadlines making fact-checking and just basic writing more difficult.

What I want to address is not so much the reporting on the news as the way news is analyzed. News by itself is sometimes confusing. To tell the whole story one must put it into some sort of context. This means often interviewing people with differing interpetations of events. Fairness dictates that you need to allow different sides of controversial issues to present their interpretations and positions.

However, with the proliferation of cable news outlets, this attempt at balanced reporting often ends up being nothing more than a verbal fist fight between extremists with the moderators being referees and the network news organizations being little more than fight promoters. In journalism school we called this generating "more heat than light."

This brings us to the problem of "infotainment" a word which was coined to describe TV news programming which is mainly for the entertainment of the audience while presenting itself as news. At it's best, it can produce programs like 60 Minutes and 20/20. At it's worst it produces programs like Hard Copy, Scarborough Country and The Oreilly Factor. While I may enjoy watching these programs (even O'reilly sometimes), they hardly shed any real light on the subjects covered.

The typical show will bring together passionate proponents of different sides of a controversial issue to "discuss" it. Within a few minutes, the people are yelling at each other, interrupting one another, and trying to keep the others from talking. Often, the moderators are as bad as the participants joining one side or the other in the fight.

Certainly, this is amusing and entertaining. It really stirs the passions of the audience. You can root for the guy you agree with, and boo the one you don't like. But after the show is over what have you learned? Mostly, you have just been confirmed in your own belief on the subject without learning anything about the other side.

Perhaps more dangerous in this approach is that it reduces complex questions to a simple either/or proposition. Few issues are that simple. For instance, one might oppose the war in Iraq, as I do, but to simply pack up our bags and leave in the next 30 days is impossible at this point. However, that doesn't mean that a phased withdrawal over say 6 months couldn't work. When congressman Murtha proposed such a plan which was detailed and moderate, the debate was framed in the context of "get out now" vs. "stay the course." His plan called for the troops to be redeployed in the region where they could be called back when needed. There was no immediate abandonment of the mission, just a redeployment of the troops. Now one could argue the merits of such a plan, whether it would work or not, whether it is wise or not, but instead it was reduced to it simplest dynamic of "get out now, go home and ignore Iraq" which was not the entire plan.

We used to call television news "Talking Heads." Today, I'm afraid the cable news programs have turned that into "Yelling Heads." We need to reduce the volume and increase the analysis.

Persecution Complex

2006-08-07T00:15:00.000-07:00

If you go out to a sporting match you will see people with big signs up reading "We're Number 1!" The team could be 0-6 in the season but you will still see those silly foam fingers pointing to the sky proclaiming their dominance. Likewise, political leaders during wartime will proclaim how successful they have been and how victory is within their grasp regardless of the actual results on the ground.

In this regard the culture war is rather odd. It seems like one of the main competitions between the sides is to proclaim how little power they have and how the other side is winning. Of course, I understand the dynamics. If you want to really energize a social force, let them feel that they are being persecuted or in danger of being crushed and they will really get out the workers.
Both the left and the right claim to be the underdogs in this fight. Both say the other has gained the upper hand. Ironically, they are both right to a certain extent. Certainly, Evangelical Christianity has taken it's hits over the years in the political world and especially in pop culture. Sometimes over-reaching court decisions and most particularly overly cautious interpretations of those decisions have hampered Christians even in their private observances of their faith in certain public governmental settings. Students have been denied a place to hold an on-campus Christian club meeting, even though it is perfectly legal. Some Christians working in governmental offices have been reprimanded for Bible verses on their desks or Bibles on their bookshelves.

However, one can hardly claim that Christianity is truly in danger of being eliminated in the United States by Government edict. Churches are found in abundance. The local TV cable company has two religious channels, politicians play to the religious right and the religious left to obtain support. An avowed atheist would not even make it past the primaries in a national election.

In some ways, Western Christians speaking of "persecution" is almost an insult to those around the world who have truly suffered for their faith. Those who have been imprisioned, shunned by families, starved, refused any but the most menial work, or who have been killed for their faith, those who must meet in secret to hear about Christianity, must be amused by our stories of "persecution" which amounts to little more than inconvenience and bad press.

The left, though, also complains of persecution. Certainly, the turn to the political right over the past 20 years has made it difficult for people to proclaim themselves as liberals. Liberal in many areas is uses as a dirty word and politicians will distance themselves from the word. Some liberals have claimed persecution from the Religious right. A story surfaced recently of pressure by "Christian" cadets at a military academy have been "harrassing" Jewish cadets. Whether such tales are true or not, it illustrates the fear on the left.

But again, if we look at the true legacy of liberalism, even "conservatives" stand to defend many of the classic "liberal" programs. People may talk about fixing social security, but no one seriously suggests doing away with some sort of government mandated retirement program. While many may worry about the costs of medicare, no one is willing to go back to the days when an older person would have to choose between food and a doctors visit or would just die rather than have a life saving operation.

Liberals certainly fare better than conservatives in most parts of the popular culture. In spite of Fox News and a few right wing programs on other Cable news outlets, the bias remains slightly left of center by most TV commentators.

The problem with this is that it paints the opposition, not as well meaning people who are simply wrong, but rather as evil people trying to crush us good people. It is part of the politics of division that has become all too common and threatens to tear us apart as a people.

On the Morality of Comparison

2006-08-07T00:13:00.000-07:00

The other night I was channel surfing, and I heard some commentators discussing the lastest pictures from Abu Ghiraid prison. One of the men, a Christian activist, suddenly said, "Well, maybe they should show the torture chambers of Sadaam Hussein." Aside from the tacit approval of torture, if it is done by us, this illustrates what is a disturbing trend in our culture. I call it the morality of comparison.

We are familiar with it. It may even be human nature. How often a motorist is stopped by a police officer for driving 50 in a 30 mile zone only to self-righteously excuse himself or herself by saying, "Yes, but where were you when that guy went by me going 70?" The defense then is "I'm bad, but someone else is worse, that makes what I did alright."

It's not an excuse which will help our speeding motorist, yet, it seems to work in the political arena. I have found the whole debate about the American use of torture in Iraq and Gitmo disturbing for several reasons. First, the fact that we are seriously debating whether or not torture is okay is disturbing. Aside from it's general uselessness in obtaining reliable information, it has traditionally been seen by modern Western civilization as being inherrently immoral. If used, it is something that one ought to be ashamed of, and not defended.

But almost equally troubling is this diversion of saying, "Yes, we tortured people, but it was restrained torture. It certainly wasn't as bad as what Sadaam Hussein did." First, there is the obvious logical fallacy inherent in this argument. An action is or is not immoral regardless of whether or not someone else has committed the same act in a worse manner. I am not responsible for anyone's actions but my own. And a country is only responsible for its own actions. Just because someone else exceeded the speed limit by 40 miles per hour, doesn't mean I have license to exceed it by 20.

What I find even more disturbing is how many "Christian" personalities and those in the pews who buy into this. The infliction of pain, stripping men naked to humiliate them, forcing them to sodomize each other or appear to do so for a camera, attaching wires to their genitals, etc. should not be the type of thing any Christian can approve of regardless of the nobility of the ends.

Some in the political world, moving away from torture, have come to believe that immoral acts by ones opponents not only validate, but demand response in kind. I was at a Democratic strategy meeting several years ago for a candidate for state office. The candidate had pledged to run a clean campaign and avoid smear tactics. His opposition had begun to run personal attack ads having nothing to do with the candidates qualifications for office. For half this meeting we talked about how horrible and immoral it was for this man to do such a thing. Finally, near the end of the meeting, someone said, "Well, there's no choice for you now. He started it, but you have to finish it. You're going to have to be as nasty as him." I tried to point out the hypocrisy of this stand. If attack ads are immoral for a republican, they are just as immoral for a democrat. But in the end, the morality of comparison won out, and the election turned out to be one of the ugliest I ever saw.

This "tit-for-tat, he-started-it" childish exercise permeates politics, the culture war and even daily life. More than once I've visited a "Christian" discussion board to see individuals posting vile, vicious and even obscene messages and justifying themselves by saying "I'm just defending myself." I have to wonder how this is a defense. I mean, does it stop the attacks? On the contrary, it usually just generates more attacks. In fact, following the Biblical injunction to remain silent and turn the other cheek would likely stop the attacks much sooner and provide a better defense than responding in kind.

But we have good models. If even Christian activists can justify torture, and our political leaders can justify libelous campaign messages, by appealing to the morality of comparison, then how can we expect the man and woman in the pew to act any better.

Evangelical=Conservative? Not Necessarily

2006-08-01T23:31:00.000-07:00

I was discussing this new blog with a friend in England the other day. He is an Evangelical Christian as am I. In fact, we both belong to the same denomination. He expressed his disdain for American news broadcasts that equate Evangelical with the political agenda of a certain group of conservatives in the United States. He pointed out that Evangelicals in the UK were not as likely to be linked to the same causes as those in the U.S. He mentioned that Evangelicals in the UK were generally opposed to the war in Iraq and would oppose the death penalty if it were reinstituted in England.

I have been in church all my life, and it has only been the last few years that Evangelicals have become totally identified in the public mind with a certain political position. This is not to say that evangelicals, as a group, haven't taken political positions in the past ranging from abolition to civil rights to prohibition to abortion. What has changed recently is the blending of theology and political philosophy so thoroughly that the public perception of Evangelicals is that these political positions are somehow written into our doctrine. Also, many have taken an all or nothing approach in the past few years which was missing for a long time.

The other day, someone wrote me politely criticizing something I had written and said something like, "Why I can't accept liberals as Christians is that they believe abortion to be alright." There are two problems with this. First, just because someone opposes the criminalization of something doesn't mean they approve of the action. That is a distinction lost on a lot of people. But more to the point of this article is the fact that this person has reduced the entire spectrum of liberal philosophy to a single issue. He mentions nothing about civil rights, governmental responsibility to aid the poor, health care, day care for children, curbing governmental intrusion into private expression, or the many other "liberal" issues out there.

The same happens on the left. People who reduce conservatism entirely to either opposition to abortion or making war. Indeed, the concepts of economic conservatism tend to get lost entirely in this debate over the other issues like abortion, war, and gay rights. Even many conservatives lose sight of classic conservative issues like small government, states rights, and economic restraint. Likewise, many liberals also will have nothing to do with Christianity because they have identified the theology of Christianity with the political philosophy of conservatism.

In reality one can build a case for liberalism as strongly from Christian scriptures as one can for conservatism. It kind of depends on whether one is an Old Testament Christian or a New Testament one. Although, it's not quite as simple as that either. But that's for another day.
So, what do Evangelicals believe? While there are minor differences, for the most part we accept the Apostles Creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic (meaning in this case the Universal church not the denomination) church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

We also believe that we are called to share this "Good News" with others. Admittedly, many of our leaders have more of a penchant for sharing the Bad News, than the good, but that's not part of the theology.

Jesus tells his disciples right before he goes into heaven, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)"

The Greek word from which we get the words Evangelism and Evangelical means to "proclaim good news." It is the word used in the Christmas story when the angel says "Behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy." (Luke 2.10) We have found something wonderful and we are called to proclaim it to others. We do not have the option of sitting by and watching smuggly in our personal relationship with God in Jesus Christ, in our experience of peace, joy, freedom from guilt, and assurance of eternal life while others are ignorant of this great gift. Indeed, eternity would judge us harshly if we kept this a secret.

So, we Evangelize. We tell the good news to others.

Now, within this definition of Evangelicalism, you don't see any political agenda. Jesus continually sidestepped people who wanted to draw him into the politics of his day. He said, to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" (Luke 20.25) This is actually, the first recorded statement of the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.

Being Evangelical does not require one to be of any political party, to vote a certain way, or to support certain political issues. What it requires is a personal experience with God through repentance and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal savior and a committment to live one's personal life by the precepts of the Bible.

I remember C.S. Lewis writing in The Screwtape Letters about how a person that a demon is supposed to tempt has come down with a bad case of "Mere Christianity." Screwtape laments that if they could just get him to add something to Christianity like "Christianity and Social Reform" or "Christianity and the War" they would have a way in.

Unfortunately, too many of our Christian activists have given the enemy an opening by discarding Mere Christianity for Christianity and Political Power. But please do not confuse that with what Evangelicalism really is all about.

Escaping the Culture War

2006-08-01T23:29:00.000-07:00

Over the past 4-5 years particularly we have heard much divisive rhetoric from both the right and the left. Evangelical Christians have demanded their voice not only be heard but enshrined in law and represented by political appointment. Liberals in almost knee jerk reflex action have immediately assumed certain political and behavioral traits of Evangelicals. This has been described as "The Culture War."

It represents a type of polarization of society (and I am speaking primarily of American culture which I know best) that has resulted in a nation for which the motto "E Plurabus Unim" is an ironic joke. Although we give lip service to diversity, both right and left only want a nation filled with people just like them.

Ironically, the bulk of society does not fall neatly into one category or another. For instance, take the hot button issue of abortion. While national polls show that most people support the right to an abortion, they don't fully accept "abortion on demand" as an absolute right. They tend to agree that minors should not get abortions without parental notification. They are split on the idea of waiting periods. They generally oppose late term or "partial birth" abortions. But asked if they would support laws that virtually eliminated the abortion option, the answer is "No." So, where does this fall? Left (pro-choice) Right (parental notification, limits on abortion) or somewhere else.

I submit that many of us don't fit the neat categories useful for political discussion on the cable news networks. We don't take absolutists stands. And we are concerned about the politics of division and especially concerned when religion is employed as a tool of that division.

Just to clarify. I am a born-again, spirit-filled, Bible believing, Evangelical Christian. I believe the Bible from cover to cover to be the inspired and infallible word of God. But I also believe that folks from both sides of the political spectrum have co-opted scripture for their own purposes. I also believe that so much of the "culture war" has been an effective diversion by the enemy (that's Satan, in case you are wondering) to neutralize the effectiveness of the Gospel message by making it seem like a political agenda.

So in these articles, I'll be looking at the culture war and try to bring a bit more balance to the table. Sometimes that will mean looking like a flaming liberal. Other times it will mean looking like the most conservative of conservatives. But it should be thought provoking.

Now, I am interested in seeing "intelligent" and "respectful" responses. Any name calling or "You're going to hell" type of posts will be removed. But if you have a reasoned response or rebuttal I'm interested in seeing it. I may not respond to everything. But I will moderate the responses to maintain decorum. One part of the politics of division has been the language of division. I'll speak to that in a future article.

I am interested right now in what parts of the culture war concern you, not as an advocate of one side or the other, but in terms of what you see dividing our society and how we might be able to bring people back together even if they disagree.