Monday, December 31, 2007
Honey Mustard mayonnaise
I just got some lunch at Chic-Fil-A and realized that I had ketchup and honey mustard, but no mayonnaise. Besides, how cumbersome to dress a sandwich in the car. So I asked myself, why not distribute a mayonnaise honey mustard? Maybe by putting it here, someone will develop it.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Religion, The Government, and Abortion
OK, So I was just thinking about a recent conversation I had. Not too long ago I asked my mother if my half-sister had had her ultrasound to determine the sex of her twins. Mostly I was curious if she and my West-Point graduate brother-in-law were going to have FIVE girls with NO boys! It turns out that she had not had it yet, but since my sister is of a certain age where considering amniocentesis would be within reason, I asked. The answer, a no, is not so worth blogging about. But the reason for it is. According to our mother, there is no reason to have an amniocentesis because--again, according to her--the only reason to have one is if one were going to consider abortion, which she presumptuously surmises, is not on the table, so the risk of having a spontaneous abortion is without merit.
I disagreed, saying that there is justification for amniocentesis, for example, an unviable fetus. I proposed a scenario in which the test revealed that the fetus could not be expected to survive long, even say, up to two years. Death is therefore inevitable and the only result of carrying the pregnancy to term is human suffering. Death is imminent. The matriarch's voice gets stoically cold and austere and says, "Yes, but it matters by whose hand it comes."
Obviously, I disagree. I see such an abortion as a hand of mercy for mother, father, and child. And really, let's look at the religious aspect of this. If it matters by whose hand death comes, what about when blasphemers and homosexuals (et al) were stoned in the Old Testament under Moses' direction? Death comes at the hand of the individuals throwing stones. But I suppose that no one would accuse another of participating in murder if all the men in the community were involved. So is the issue here about consciousness of guilt? Or is it about an abiding fear of being accused (or even being perceived) of having unclean hands? Does this just go back to the early Christian animus against the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ? This is not to say that all Christians feel this way, but it is undeniable that there are those who do...but I digress. This entry is entitled "Religion, The Government, and Abortion." So on to the conclusion.
Why shouldn't abortion be left up to the states to decide? Sure, I have my personal feelings on the issue, but who am I to mandate to another what he or she must do? Ultimately, is it not a tenet of Protestantism that the individual is directly accountable to God for his/her own actions? So if a woman decides or if a couple jointly decide to terminate a pregnancy, is she or they not accountable personally to God? So how does one derive a religious obligation to lobby the government to outlaw abortion? I'm not saying that the government should or should not regulate this or any other issue. Ultimately, democracy is a social contract (Locke, Rousseau, et al) so if the people should decide the scope of government's intrusions. But abortion legality is not the basis of this post. My point is that religion has no theological justification to make elective abortions illegal. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to adopt his religious/moral views. His mission time and time again was to educate those who were willing to hear about a higher way. He didn't force his sermons on anyone and there is no record that he shouted at those who didn't want to listen. The closest approximation to this type of behavior is when he ran the money changers and merchants out of the Temple. I have to admit that this is a little subversive, but at the same time, I sort of admire a righteous indignation and hey, organized religion has always needed the corruption driven out so I don't see this as a substantive weakness to my argument. The Gospels record how Jesus principally spoke to the lower class masses, who were perhaps uneducated, but never lobbying the government! I'm not saying that Christians should not lobby their government(s), they have that right as citizens, but to try to take away another citizen's ability to choose right and wrong and to remove his or her personal accountability before God is a slippery slope. It suggests that the Christian believes she is superior to her fellow citizen. And if the Christian is superior to his brother or sister who must therefore be inferred as incapable of making decisions that impact his or her personal standing before God, how then can that person be capable of deciding to have a personal relationship with God? If man is unable to decide moral issues, how can man decide spiritual issues. If his judgement be faulty in one area, how can it be anything less in another area?
But if the religion makes it its mission to educate...then the educated decision is a solid decision. The same free will that establishes a personal relationship with a deity is the same free will that allows one to choose not to have that relationship, and it's the same free will that allows one to choose a personal relationship with God and also decide moral issues that might run contrary thereto. So, religion is at its best when it governs least.
I disagreed, saying that there is justification for amniocentesis, for example, an unviable fetus. I proposed a scenario in which the test revealed that the fetus could not be expected to survive long, even say, up to two years. Death is therefore inevitable and the only result of carrying the pregnancy to term is human suffering. Death is imminent. The matriarch's voice gets stoically cold and austere and says, "Yes, but it matters by whose hand it comes."
Obviously, I disagree. I see such an abortion as a hand of mercy for mother, father, and child. And really, let's look at the religious aspect of this. If it matters by whose hand death comes, what about when blasphemers and homosexuals (et al) were stoned in the Old Testament under Moses' direction? Death comes at the hand of the individuals throwing stones. But I suppose that no one would accuse another of participating in murder if all the men in the community were involved. So is the issue here about consciousness of guilt? Or is it about an abiding fear of being accused (or even being perceived) of having unclean hands? Does this just go back to the early Christian animus against the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ? This is not to say that all Christians feel this way, but it is undeniable that there are those who do...but I digress. This entry is entitled "Religion, The Government, and Abortion." So on to the conclusion.
Why shouldn't abortion be left up to the states to decide? Sure, I have my personal feelings on the issue, but who am I to mandate to another what he or she must do? Ultimately, is it not a tenet of Protestantism that the individual is directly accountable to God for his/her own actions? So if a woman decides or if a couple jointly decide to terminate a pregnancy, is she or they not accountable personally to God? So how does one derive a religious obligation to lobby the government to outlaw abortion? I'm not saying that the government should or should not regulate this or any other issue. Ultimately, democracy is a social contract (Locke, Rousseau, et al) so if the people should decide the scope of government's intrusions. But abortion legality is not the basis of this post. My point is that religion has no theological justification to make elective abortions illegal. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to adopt his religious/moral views. His mission time and time again was to educate those who were willing to hear about a higher way. He didn't force his sermons on anyone and there is no record that he shouted at those who didn't want to listen. The closest approximation to this type of behavior is when he ran the money changers and merchants out of the Temple. I have to admit that this is a little subversive, but at the same time, I sort of admire a righteous indignation and hey, organized religion has always needed the corruption driven out so I don't see this as a substantive weakness to my argument. The Gospels record how Jesus principally spoke to the lower class masses, who were perhaps uneducated, but never lobbying the government! I'm not saying that Christians should not lobby their government(s), they have that right as citizens, but to try to take away another citizen's ability to choose right and wrong and to remove his or her personal accountability before God is a slippery slope. It suggests that the Christian believes she is superior to her fellow citizen. And if the Christian is superior to his brother or sister who must therefore be inferred as incapable of making decisions that impact his or her personal standing before God, how then can that person be capable of deciding to have a personal relationship with God? If man is unable to decide moral issues, how can man decide spiritual issues. If his judgement be faulty in one area, how can it be anything less in another area?
But if the religion makes it its mission to educate...then the educated decision is a solid decision. The same free will that establishes a personal relationship with a deity is the same free will that allows one to choose not to have that relationship, and it's the same free will that allows one to choose a personal relationship with God and also decide moral issues that might run contrary thereto. So, religion is at its best when it governs least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)