Got this email from my boss. Thought it was kinda funny, so thought I'd pass it on.
One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and
decides to take a nap.
Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the
boat out.
She motors out a short distance, anchors, and reads her book.
Along comes a Game Warden in his boat.
He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning, Ma'am.
What are you doing?" "Reading a book," she replies, (thinking,
"Isn't that obvious?"
"You're in a Restricted Fishing Area," he informs her.
"I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading."
"Yes, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could
start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."
"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says
the woman.
"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.
"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you
could start at any moment."
"Have a nice day ma'am," and he left.
MORAL: Never argue with a woman who reads. It's likely she can also think.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Book Review
Okay. I did the unthinkable (I can only hope that Justin is too busy studying for the bar to read this and fill my ear or my email inbox with rantings about my betrayal of Christianity for this action).
I bought a copy of The DaVinci Code.
Now, before you get all judgmental, I bought it for two reasons: 1. I needed a fluff book at the time and 2. I wanted to see what all the hype was about, and I happen to prefer books to movies (when possible).
I finished the book this evning. Now, on to the review.
First, the good: I can see how, if it were well done, this could make a good movie (I really don't know if I'd enjoy it, but maybe). There's an interesting story line, if you happen to be a conspiracy theorist.
Okay, now that the good is over and done with, let me tell you what I honestly thought about the book in one sentence and then I'll explain. This was one of the stupidest books I have ever read.
Step by step:
The writing - sophomoric at best. As one of my friends put it (better than I could), the writer is exceptionally aware of his own writing. I add, the writer is also very aware of what he is saying and the effect it would have on people. He writes a lot of short sentences that seem to carry the story along, but they are not very artful, more like a highschooler trying to think of a way to move his creative writing story along. There's not much more that can be said about the writing itself.
The storyline - intriguing, but not exceptionally so. It's a conspiracy theory that, if you ask me, is a little overdone as a story.
The lies (sorry, but I'm not going to call them misconceptions because I don't really believe that Brown believes what he is writing, it's much too off-the-wall for someone who claims to study history, although, I don't really believe that claim either) -
Blatant. I do not believe that Brown has read the Gnostic gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the New Testament.
It's rather annoying and frustrating. Check that, it's very annoying and frustrating.
Anyway, let me just repeat my opinion of the book in summary: one of the worst I've ever read. It works as light reading, but don't expect much from it.
Hope everyone else is reading more interesting and entertaining literature!
I bought a copy of The DaVinci Code.
Now, before you get all judgmental, I bought it for two reasons: 1. I needed a fluff book at the time and 2. I wanted to see what all the hype was about, and I happen to prefer books to movies (when possible).
I finished the book this evning. Now, on to the review.
First, the good: I can see how, if it were well done, this could make a good movie (I really don't know if I'd enjoy it, but maybe). There's an interesting story line, if you happen to be a conspiracy theorist.
Okay, now that the good is over and done with, let me tell you what I honestly thought about the book in one sentence and then I'll explain. This was one of the stupidest books I have ever read.
Step by step:
The writing - sophomoric at best. As one of my friends put it (better than I could), the writer is exceptionally aware of his own writing. I add, the writer is also very aware of what he is saying and the effect it would have on people. He writes a lot of short sentences that seem to carry the story along, but they are not very artful, more like a highschooler trying to think of a way to move his creative writing story along. There's not much more that can be said about the writing itself.
The storyline - intriguing, but not exceptionally so. It's a conspiracy theory that, if you ask me, is a little overdone as a story.
The lies (sorry, but I'm not going to call them misconceptions because I don't really believe that Brown believes what he is writing, it's much too off-the-wall for someone who claims to study history, although, I don't really believe that claim either) -
Blatant. I do not believe that Brown has read the Gnostic gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the New Testament.
It's rather annoying and frustrating. Check that, it's very annoying and frustrating.
Anyway, let me just repeat my opinion of the book in summary: one of the worst I've ever read. It works as light reading, but don't expect much from it.
Hope everyone else is reading more interesting and entertaining literature!
Monday, July 03, 2006
Happy 4th of July!
I was going to attempt to one-up Kevin (as though that were possible through a blog...) and post the entire Constitution, but, after an epoxy incident and talking to a four and a 2 1/2 year old in Lowe's, and the first three words of the Constitution on here, I decided I couldn't do it. So, I thought I'd merely say Happy Fourth of July and leave it at that :). I think I'll try a longer post on the Bill of Rights (or at least my favorite Amenedments) when I have time.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
We have no 'Right to Happiness'
That's the title of the latest C.S. Lewis essay I have read. It's great, so I thought I'd share it with everyone else (or at least those who read this blog :)).
"'After all,' said Clare, 'They had a right to happiness.' We were discussing something that once happened in our own neighbourhood. Mr. A had deserted Mrs. A and got his divorce in order to marry Mrs. B, who had likewise got her divorce in order to marry Mr. A. And there was certainly no doubt that Mr. A and Mrs. B were very much in love with one another. If they continued to be in love, and if nothing went wrong with their health or their income, they might reasonably expect to be very happy."
Rather than retype the entire thing, I have found it reproduced online. Read the entire thing - it really is good.
Other stuff:
Things that have ceased to surprise me:
1. The clothes people wear to court. Sometimes people walk in with these bizarre outfits, and I wonder what they were thinking when they walked out of their houses to go out in public, much less walked into the courthouse.
2. The stupidity of intoxicated persons. I have read so many case reports about people who have been drinking and get behind the wheel of a car, that I think I'm going to go blind. Probably not, but maybe. (maybe people are intoxicated when they get dressed to go to court)
3. The paternalism of commercials. I really dislike most commercials (as I have probably made abundantly clear) because they assume that the public is infantile. I have been informed, to my dismay, that the public really is at that level. How depressing!
4. The amazing grace of God. Okay, that really doesn't go on this list. God's grace actually never ceases to amaze me. :)
"'After all,' said Clare, 'They had a right to happiness.' We were discussing something that once happened in our own neighbourhood. Mr. A had deserted Mrs. A and got his divorce in order to marry Mrs. B, who had likewise got her divorce in order to marry Mr. A. And there was certainly no doubt that Mr. A and Mrs. B were very much in love with one another. If they continued to be in love, and if nothing went wrong with their health or their income, they might reasonably expect to be very happy."
Rather than retype the entire thing, I have found it reproduced online. Read the entire thing - it really is good.
Other stuff:
Things that have ceased to surprise me:
1. The clothes people wear to court. Sometimes people walk in with these bizarre outfits, and I wonder what they were thinking when they walked out of their houses to go out in public, much less walked into the courthouse.
2. The stupidity of intoxicated persons. I have read so many case reports about people who have been drinking and get behind the wheel of a car, that I think I'm going to go blind. Probably not, but maybe. (maybe people are intoxicated when they get dressed to go to court)
3. The paternalism of commercials. I really dislike most commercials (as I have probably made abundantly clear) because they assume that the public is infantile. I have been informed, to my dismay, that the public really is at that level. How depressing!
4. The amazing grace of God. Okay, that really doesn't go on this list. God's grace actually never ceases to amaze me. :)
Sunday, June 04, 2006
It's been awhile...
Since it has been awhile since I have posted anything, I may save a more substantive post for later, and just do a general update in this one - we'll see how it goes.
First, after a very valiantly fought two rounds (7 games each), the Phoenix Suns fell in Game 6 to the Dallas Mavericks. Everyone take a moment to grieve... okay...now, we must all cheer for the Mavs as they take on the Miami Heat.
Wedding plans update - the planning is going fine everyone - seriously, everything's under control.
I have been thinking lately about one particular letter out of C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters". I thought I'd transcribe a bit here. In this letter, Screwtape is writing to his nephew about the 'patient's' mother and the gluttony of Delicacy (in contrast to what we generally think of as gluttony).
"[W]hat do quantities matter, provided we can use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern? Glubose has this old woman well in hand. She is a positive terror to hostesses and servants. She is always turning from what has been offered her to say with a demure little sigh and a smile 'Oh please, please...all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crip toast.' You see? Because what she wants is smaller and less costly than what has been set before her, she never recognizes as gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be to others. At the very moment of indulging her appetite she believes that she is practising temperance. In a crowded restaurant she gives a little scream at the plate which some overworked waitress has set before her and says, 'Oh, that's far, far too much! Take it away and bring me about a quarter of it.' If challenged, she would say she was doing this to avoid waste; in reality she does it because the particular shade of delicacy to which we have enslaved her is offended by the sight of more food than she happens to want.
The real value of the quient unobtrusive work which Glubose has been doin gfor years on this old woman can be gauged by the way in which her belly now dominates her whole life. The woman is in what may be called the 'All-I-want' state of mind. All she wants is a cup of tea properly made, or an egg properly boiled, or a slice of bread properly toasted. But she never finds any servant or any friend who can do these simple thinbgs 'properly' - because her 'properly' conceals an insatiable demand for the exact, and almost impossible, palatal pleasures which she imagines she remembers from the past; a past described by her as 'the days when you could get good servants' but know to us as the days when her senses were more easily pleased and she had pleasures of other kinds which made her less dependent on those of the table. Meanwhile, the daily disappointment produces daily ill temper: cooks give notice and friendships are cooled. If ever the Enemy introduces into her mind a faint suspicion that she is too interested in food, Glubose counters it by suggesting to her that she doesn't mind what she eats herself but 'does like to have things nice for her boy'. In fact, of course, her greed has been one of the chief sources of his domestic discomfort for many years."
There is more to the letter, but it addresses another side of gluttony, and I have been focusing more on this one.
Incidentally, in light of the recent sermons at Trinity about spiritual warfare, I believe that Lewis' allegories concerning the supernatural ("The Screwtape Letters", "The Great Divorce") are worth revisiting. Lewis has a way of making the supernatural seem so accessible and brings it into a very realistic sense, and always gets me to thinking about the reality of what he is talking about (even if it doesn't happen exactly as the book says).
But, as to the gluttony of delicacy - I think Lewis makes a valid, excellent point. Some people can be very concerned with having things 'just this way,' while consoling themselves (and, in my opinion, blinding themselves to the truth) with statements like the mother in Lewis' book - "it is to prevent waste", "this is for the benefit of someone else - I just want it nice for X". At any rate, it's an interesting idea.
I'm in the middle of a good book - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" by Salman Rushdie. It's not as good as "The Satanic Verses", but I think I like it better than "The Moor's Last Sigh" although a couple of the minor characters are the same as the major characters in "The Moor's Last Sigh", a fact which I find fascinating.
I just found an interesting blog post on the Jolly Blogger.
Okay, well, that's enough from me for now. Everyone have a great week!
First, after a very valiantly fought two rounds (7 games each), the Phoenix Suns fell in Game 6 to the Dallas Mavericks. Everyone take a moment to grieve... okay...now, we must all cheer for the Mavs as they take on the Miami Heat.
Wedding plans update - the planning is going fine everyone - seriously, everything's under control.
I have been thinking lately about one particular letter out of C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters". I thought I'd transcribe a bit here. In this letter, Screwtape is writing to his nephew about the 'patient's' mother and the gluttony of Delicacy (in contrast to what we generally think of as gluttony).
"[W]hat do quantities matter, provided we can use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern? Glubose has this old woman well in hand. She is a positive terror to hostesses and servants. She is always turning from what has been offered her to say with a demure little sigh and a smile 'Oh please, please...all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crip toast.' You see? Because what she wants is smaller and less costly than what has been set before her, she never recognizes as gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be to others. At the very moment of indulging her appetite she believes that she is practising temperance. In a crowded restaurant she gives a little scream at the plate which some overworked waitress has set before her and says, 'Oh, that's far, far too much! Take it away and bring me about a quarter of it.' If challenged, she would say she was doing this to avoid waste; in reality she does it because the particular shade of delicacy to which we have enslaved her is offended by the sight of more food than she happens to want.
The real value of the quient unobtrusive work which Glubose has been doin gfor years on this old woman can be gauged by the way in which her belly now dominates her whole life. The woman is in what may be called the 'All-I-want' state of mind. All she wants is a cup of tea properly made, or an egg properly boiled, or a slice of bread properly toasted. But she never finds any servant or any friend who can do these simple thinbgs 'properly' - because her 'properly' conceals an insatiable demand for the exact, and almost impossible, palatal pleasures which she imagines she remembers from the past; a past described by her as 'the days when you could get good servants' but know to us as the days when her senses were more easily pleased and she had pleasures of other kinds which made her less dependent on those of the table. Meanwhile, the daily disappointment produces daily ill temper: cooks give notice and friendships are cooled. If ever the Enemy introduces into her mind a faint suspicion that she is too interested in food, Glubose counters it by suggesting to her that she doesn't mind what she eats herself but 'does like to have things nice for her boy'. In fact, of course, her greed has been one of the chief sources of his domestic discomfort for many years."
There is more to the letter, but it addresses another side of gluttony, and I have been focusing more on this one.
Incidentally, in light of the recent sermons at Trinity about spiritual warfare, I believe that Lewis' allegories concerning the supernatural ("The Screwtape Letters", "The Great Divorce") are worth revisiting. Lewis has a way of making the supernatural seem so accessible and brings it into a very realistic sense, and always gets me to thinking about the reality of what he is talking about (even if it doesn't happen exactly as the book says).
But, as to the gluttony of delicacy - I think Lewis makes a valid, excellent point. Some people can be very concerned with having things 'just this way,' while consoling themselves (and, in my opinion, blinding themselves to the truth) with statements like the mother in Lewis' book - "it is to prevent waste", "this is for the benefit of someone else - I just want it nice for X". At any rate, it's an interesting idea.
I'm in the middle of a good book - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" by Salman Rushdie. It's not as good as "The Satanic Verses", but I think I like it better than "The Moor's Last Sigh" although a couple of the minor characters are the same as the major characters in "The Moor's Last Sigh", a fact which I find fascinating.
I just found an interesting blog post on the Jolly Blogger.
Okay, well, that's enough from me for now. Everyone have a great week!
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Suns emerge victorious in Game 7
CORRECTION: Steve Nash has been named the NBA MVP for the second year in a row. Well done Steve and congratulations (whenever you read this, you can say thank you in the comments ;)).
Good for him.
MVP twice in a row? He probably doesn't deserve it over some of the players out there (perhaps even Bryant deserves it over my personal favorite, Steve Nash - yes, I admit that Bryant is a good player), but he just might get it after managing to lead his team to victory after being down 3-1 in the series.
So, what is next for the indomitable Suns? Bring on L.A.'s 'other team' the Clippers!
Good for him.
MVP twice in a row? He probably doesn't deserve it over some of the players out there (perhaps even Bryant deserves it over my personal favorite, Steve Nash - yes, I admit that Bryant is a good player), but he just might get it after managing to lead his team to victory after being down 3-1 in the series.
So, what is next for the indomitable Suns? Bring on L.A.'s 'other team' the Clippers!
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Studying is for the birds...
 | Arwen If I were a character in The Lord of the Rings, I would be Arwen, Elf, the daughter of Elrond. In the movie, I am played by Liv Tyler. Who would you be? |
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The Ultimate Battle of Good vs. Evil
UPDATE: Game One to Phoenix! 107-102
One battle down, bring on the rest of the war.
(Read this in the 'movie promoter's voice' - if you don't know what that is, call me and I'll explain (or I'll read it to you in the voice))
On Sunday, April 23rd, the battle begins...
Two teams will meet on up to seven occasions...
One team will emerge victorious...
Will Good...
Or Evil...
Prevail?
The World waits and watches to see...
(This message was not paid for by the NBA. The author of this post disclaims any possible connection of this post with the NBA other than the author's personal view on the NBA, the Phoenix Suns, or the Los Angeles Lakers.)
One battle down, bring on the rest of the war.
(Read this in the 'movie promoter's voice' - if you don't know what that is, call me and I'll explain (or I'll read it to you in the voice))
On Sunday, April 23rd, the battle begins...
Two teams will meet on up to seven occasions...
One team will emerge victorious...
Will Good...
Or Evil...
Prevail?
The World waits and watches to see...
(This message was not paid for by the NBA. The author of this post disclaims any possible connection of this post with the NBA other than the author's personal view on the NBA, the Phoenix Suns, or the Los Angeles Lakers.)
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Taking the miracle out of the miraculous
Rhetorical question: what is the point of a miracle if it is not miraculous and has an explanation that completely excludes the possibility of the supernatural stepping into nature?
Rhetorical answer (I know you've figured this out by now, but I thought I'd provide it): there is none.
Apparently the scientists are claiming that, instead of Jesus walking on water, it is possible that he was walking on (take a seat before you read this) invisible patches of ice. Yes, that is right. Invisible patches of ice. Well...I wonder if Peter knew that when he walked on water out toward Christ?
Here is a snippet of what C.S. Lewis has to say on the topic of miracles:
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." He describes the integration of miraculous intervention and the natural world in this way: "It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, so that a Nature which had had a different history, and therefore been a different Nature, would have been invaded by different miracles or by none at all. In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."
This quote is from Miracles.
My point is merely that, in attempting to deprive us of the miraculous, science does a serious disservice and focuses our attention on nature itself in a wrong way rather than on the glory of God who is infinitely able to insert Himself into His creation because He sits outside it as Shakespeare sat outside Hamlet.
Rhetorical answer (I know you've figured this out by now, but I thought I'd provide it): there is none.
Apparently the scientists are claiming that, instead of Jesus walking on water, it is possible that he was walking on (take a seat before you read this) invisible patches of ice. Yes, that is right. Invisible patches of ice. Well...I wonder if Peter knew that when he walked on water out toward Christ?
Here is a snippet of what C.S. Lewis has to say on the topic of miracles:
I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power." He describes the integration of miraculous intervention and the natural world in this way: "It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn't. ... If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. ... The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. ... And they are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, so that a Nature which had had a different history, and therefore been a different Nature, would have been invaded by different miracles or by none at all. In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. ... The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply "stuck on" and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. ... In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them."
This quote is from Miracles.
My point is merely that, in attempting to deprive us of the miraculous, science does a serious disservice and focuses our attention on nature itself in a wrong way rather than on the glory of God who is infinitely able to insert Himself into His creation because He sits outside it as Shakespeare sat outside Hamlet.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Martyrs
UPDATE: realized that the link to the article was not working - so I fixed it.
Ran across this article on Michelle Malkin's website about a Christian on trial in Afghanistan. Since Sharia law is part of the new Afghani Constitution (in a sense), a Muslim who leaves the faith can be executed. Read the article and Michelle's comments.
Here is LaShawn Barber's take on the same story. She discusses the first Christian martyr - Stephen.
These are clean (meaning no blood, for sure not in the manner of Mel Gibson's The Passion) depictions of the first martyr, Stephen. (Acts 6:8-8:2)
Short discussion about the persecution of Christians.
First, the use of persecution to scatter the believers to where God wanted them. God says, you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). And then, when they stay too long in one place, God sends persecution to scatter them to those places. (Acts 8:1) Oh He will do whatever it takes to get His will done!
Second, something that we should, if not expect, not be surprised about. "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also." (John 15:19-20) Since we know that Jesus was persecuted, I think we can be pretty sure that Christians will be as well.
Third, something through which to, if not be thrilled about, rejoice. Because first, persecution will not separate us from our Savior. "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" (Romans 8:35) And, second, when we are weak, we are strong. "But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)
So, anyway, maybe American Christians are complacent. The extent of the persecution in America is a bit of ragging by the atheists or those who just think Christianity is nonsense. Maybe what we need is a good dose of persecution to wake the American church up! (I don't know that I want to go through that, though) Just something to think about :).
All this is not to say that we should just sit by and watch as Christians throughout the world are persecuted!
There are things we can do to help. We can contact the Voice of the Martyrs or the White House (email - comments@whitehouse.gov). Or see International Christian Concern. (Hat's off to LaShawn Barber for collecting these helpful links).
In other news:
If you haven't watched the OU women's basketball team lately, you have missed out on some quality basketball. They are quite good (concession - they've only played 16 and 7 seeds in the tournament, but they have dominated both games). Tonight they beat BYU by a score of 86-70.
Ran across this article on Michelle Malkin's website about a Christian on trial in Afghanistan. Since Sharia law is part of the new Afghani Constitution (in a sense), a Muslim who leaves the faith can be executed. Read the article and Michelle's comments.
Here is LaShawn Barber's take on the same story. She discusses the first Christian martyr - Stephen.
These are clean (meaning no blood, for sure not in the manner of Mel Gibson's The Passion) depictions of the first martyr, Stephen. (Acts 6:8-8:2)
Short discussion about the persecution of Christians.
First, the use of persecution to scatter the believers to where God wanted them. God says, you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). And then, when they stay too long in one place, God sends persecution to scatter them to those places. (Acts 8:1) Oh He will do whatever it takes to get His will done!
Second, something that we should, if not expect, not be surprised about. "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also." (John 15:19-20) Since we know that Jesus was persecuted, I think we can be pretty sure that Christians will be as well.
Third, something through which to, if not be thrilled about, rejoice. Because first, persecution will not separate us from our Savior. "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" (Romans 8:35) And, second, when we are weak, we are strong. "But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)
So, anyway, maybe American Christians are complacent. The extent of the persecution in America is a bit of ragging by the atheists or those who just think Christianity is nonsense. Maybe what we need is a good dose of persecution to wake the American church up! (I don't know that I want to go through that, though) Just something to think about :).
All this is not to say that we should just sit by and watch as Christians throughout the world are persecuted!
There are things we can do to help. We can contact the Voice of the Martyrs or the White House (email - comments@whitehouse.gov). Or see International Christian Concern. (Hat's off to LaShawn Barber for collecting these helpful links).
In other news:
If you haven't watched the OU women's basketball team lately, you have missed out on some quality basketball. They are quite good (concession - they've only played 16 and 7 seeds in the tournament, but they have dominated both games). Tonight they beat BYU by a score of 86-70.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Religion and Science
I am reading a compilation of C.S. Lewis's essays entited God in the Dock. I found this essay and I thought I would share it because I really liked it.
'Miracles,' said my friend. 'Oh, come. Science has knocked the bottom out of all that. We know that Nature is governed by fixed laws.'
'Didn't people always know that?' said I.
'Good Lord, no,' said he. 'For instance, take a story like the Virgin Birth. We know now that such a thing couldn't happen. We know there must be a male spermatozoon.'
'But look here,' said I, 'St Joseph --'
'Who's he?' asked my friend.
'He was the husband of the Virgin Mary. If you'll read the story in the Bible you'll find that when he saw his fiancee was going to have a baby he decided to cry off the marriage. Why did he do that?'
'Wouldn't most men?'
'Any man would,' said I, 'provided he knew the laws of Nature - in other words, provided he knew that a girl doesn't ordinarily have a baby unless she's been sleeping with a man. But according to your theory people in the old days didn't know that Nature was governed by fixed laws. I'm pointing out that the story shows that St Joseph knew that law just as well as you do.'
'But he came to believe in the Virgin Birth afterwards, didn't he?'
'Quite. But he didn't do so because he was under any illusion as to where babies came from in the ordinary course of Nature. He believed in the Virgin Birth as something supernatural. He knew Nature works in fixed, regular ways: but he also believed that there existed something beyond Nature which could interfere with her workings - from outside, so to speak.'
'But modern science has shown there's no such thing.'
'Really,' said I. 'Which of the sciences?'
'Oh, well, that's a matter of detail,' said my friend. 'I can't give you chapter and verse from memory.'
'But, don't you see,' said I, 'that science never could show anything of the sort?'
'Why on earth not?'
'Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists - anything 'outside'. How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?'
'But don't we find out that Nature must work in an absolutely fixed way? I mean, the laws of Nature tell us not merely how things do happen, but how they must happen. No power could possibly alter them.'
'How do you mean?' said I.
'Look here,' said he. 'Could this 'something outside' that you talk about make two and two five?'
'Well, no,' said I.
'All right,' said he. 'Well, I think the laws of Nature are really like two and two making four. The idea of their being altered is as absurd as the idea of altering the laws of arithmetic.'
'Half a moment,' said I. 'Suppose you put sixpence into a drawer today, and sixpence into the same drawer tomorrow. Do the laws of arithmetic make it certain you'll find a shilling's worth there the day after?'
'Of course,' said he, 'provided no one's been tampering with your drawer.'
'Ah, but that's the whole point,' said I. 'The laws of arithmetic can tell you what you'll find, with absolute certainty, provided that there's no interference. If a thief has been at the drawer of course you'll get a differet result. But the thief won't have broken the laws of arithmetic - only the laws of England. Now, aren't the laws of Nature much in the same boat? Don't they all tell you what will happen provided there's no interference?'
'How do you mean?'
'Well, the laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface if you hit it in a particular way - but only provided no one interferes. If, after it's already in motion, someone snatches up a cue and gives it a biff on one side - why, then, you won't get what the scientist predicted.'
'No, of course not. He can't allow for monkey-tricks like that.'
'Quite, and in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and if it interfered - then the events which the scientist expected wouldn't follow. That would be what we call a miracle. In one sense it wouldn't break the laws of Nature. The laws tell you what will happen if nothing interferes. They can't tell you whether something is going to interfere I mean, it's not the expert at arithmetic who can tell you how likely someone is to interfere with the pennies in my drawer; a detective would be more use. It isn't the physicist who can tell you how likely I am to catch up a cue and spoil his experiment with the billiard ball; you'd better ask a psychologist. And it isn't the scientist who can tell you how likely Nautre is to be interfered with from outside. You must go to the metaphysician.'
'These are rather niggling points,' said my friend. 'You see, the real abjection goes far deeper. The whole picture of the universe which science has given us makes it such rot to believe that the Power at the back of it all could be interested in us tiny little creatures crawling about on an unimportant planet! It was all so obvoiusly invented by people who believed in a flat earth with the stars only a mile or two away.'
'When did people believe that?'
'Why, all those old Christian chaps you're always telling about did. I mean Boethius and Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and Dante.'
'Sorry,' said I, 'but this is one of the few subjects I do know something about.'
I reached out my hand to a bookshelf. 'You see this book,' I said, 'Ptolemy's Almagest. You know what it is?'
'Yes,' said he. 'It's the standard astronomical handbook used all through the Middle Ages.'
'Well, just read that,' I said, pointing to Book I, chapter 5.
'The earth,' read out my friend, hesitating a bit as he translated the Latin, 'the earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point!'
There was a moment's silence.
'Did they really know that then?' said my friend. 'But - but none of the histories of science - none of the modern encyclopedias - ever mention the fact.'
'Exactly,' said I. 'I'll leave you to think out the reason. It almost looks as if someone was anxious to hush it up, doesn't it? I wonder why.'
There was another short silence.
'At any rate,' said I, 'we can now state the problem accurately. People usually think the problem is how to reconcile what we now know about the size of the universe with our traditional ideas of religion. That turns out not to be the problem at all. The real problem is this. The enormous size of the universe and the insignificance of the earth were known for centuries, and no one ever dreamed that they had any bearing on the religious question. Then, less than a hundred years ago, they are suddenly trotted out as an argument against Christianity. And the people who trot them out carefully hush up the fact that they were known long ago. Don't you think that all you atheists are strangely unsuspicious people?'
'Miracles,' said my friend. 'Oh, come. Science has knocked the bottom out of all that. We know that Nature is governed by fixed laws.'
'Didn't people always know that?' said I.
'Good Lord, no,' said he. 'For instance, take a story like the Virgin Birth. We know now that such a thing couldn't happen. We know there must be a male spermatozoon.'
'But look here,' said I, 'St Joseph --'
'Who's he?' asked my friend.
'He was the husband of the Virgin Mary. If you'll read the story in the Bible you'll find that when he saw his fiancee was going to have a baby he decided to cry off the marriage. Why did he do that?'
'Wouldn't most men?'
'Any man would,' said I, 'provided he knew the laws of Nature - in other words, provided he knew that a girl doesn't ordinarily have a baby unless she's been sleeping with a man. But according to your theory people in the old days didn't know that Nature was governed by fixed laws. I'm pointing out that the story shows that St Joseph knew that law just as well as you do.'
'But he came to believe in the Virgin Birth afterwards, didn't he?'
'Quite. But he didn't do so because he was under any illusion as to where babies came from in the ordinary course of Nature. He believed in the Virgin Birth as something supernatural. He knew Nature works in fixed, regular ways: but he also believed that there existed something beyond Nature which could interfere with her workings - from outside, so to speak.'
'But modern science has shown there's no such thing.'
'Really,' said I. 'Which of the sciences?'
'Oh, well, that's a matter of detail,' said my friend. 'I can't give you chapter and verse from memory.'
'But, don't you see,' said I, 'that science never could show anything of the sort?'
'Why on earth not?'
'Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists - anything 'outside'. How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?'
'But don't we find out that Nature must work in an absolutely fixed way? I mean, the laws of Nature tell us not merely how things do happen, but how they must happen. No power could possibly alter them.'
'How do you mean?' said I.
'Look here,' said he. 'Could this 'something outside' that you talk about make two and two five?'
'Well, no,' said I.
'All right,' said he. 'Well, I think the laws of Nature are really like two and two making four. The idea of their being altered is as absurd as the idea of altering the laws of arithmetic.'
'Half a moment,' said I. 'Suppose you put sixpence into a drawer today, and sixpence into the same drawer tomorrow. Do the laws of arithmetic make it certain you'll find a shilling's worth there the day after?'
'Of course,' said he, 'provided no one's been tampering with your drawer.'
'Ah, but that's the whole point,' said I. 'The laws of arithmetic can tell you what you'll find, with absolute certainty, provided that there's no interference. If a thief has been at the drawer of course you'll get a differet result. But the thief won't have broken the laws of arithmetic - only the laws of England. Now, aren't the laws of Nature much in the same boat? Don't they all tell you what will happen provided there's no interference?'
'How do you mean?'
'Well, the laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface if you hit it in a particular way - but only provided no one interferes. If, after it's already in motion, someone snatches up a cue and gives it a biff on one side - why, then, you won't get what the scientist predicted.'
'No, of course not. He can't allow for monkey-tricks like that.'
'Quite, and in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and if it interfered - then the events which the scientist expected wouldn't follow. That would be what we call a miracle. In one sense it wouldn't break the laws of Nature. The laws tell you what will happen if nothing interferes. They can't tell you whether something is going to interfere I mean, it's not the expert at arithmetic who can tell you how likely someone is to interfere with the pennies in my drawer; a detective would be more use. It isn't the physicist who can tell you how likely I am to catch up a cue and spoil his experiment with the billiard ball; you'd better ask a psychologist. And it isn't the scientist who can tell you how likely Nautre is to be interfered with from outside. You must go to the metaphysician.'
'These are rather niggling points,' said my friend. 'You see, the real abjection goes far deeper. The whole picture of the universe which science has given us makes it such rot to believe that the Power at the back of it all could be interested in us tiny little creatures crawling about on an unimportant planet! It was all so obvoiusly invented by people who believed in a flat earth with the stars only a mile or two away.'
'When did people believe that?'
'Why, all those old Christian chaps you're always telling about did. I mean Boethius and Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and Dante.'
'Sorry,' said I, 'but this is one of the few subjects I do know something about.'
I reached out my hand to a bookshelf. 'You see this book,' I said, 'Ptolemy's Almagest. You know what it is?'
'Yes,' said he. 'It's the standard astronomical handbook used all through the Middle Ages.'
'Well, just read that,' I said, pointing to Book I, chapter 5.
'The earth,' read out my friend, hesitating a bit as he translated the Latin, 'the earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point!'
There was a moment's silence.
'Did they really know that then?' said my friend. 'But - but none of the histories of science - none of the modern encyclopedias - ever mention the fact.'
'Exactly,' said I. 'I'll leave you to think out the reason. It almost looks as if someone was anxious to hush it up, doesn't it? I wonder why.'
There was another short silence.
'At any rate,' said I, 'we can now state the problem accurately. People usually think the problem is how to reconcile what we now know about the size of the universe with our traditional ideas of religion. That turns out not to be the problem at all. The real problem is this. The enormous size of the universe and the insignificance of the earth were known for centuries, and no one ever dreamed that they had any bearing on the religious question. Then, less than a hundred years ago, they are suddenly trotted out as an argument against Christianity. And the people who trot them out carefully hush up the fact that they were known long ago. Don't you think that all you atheists are strangely unsuspicious people?'
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Coldplay!
Went to the Coldplay concert last night. It was great. Definitely one of the best concerts I've been to.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Lamenting Larry Summers
As I mentioned earlier, the much maligned Harvard President has resigned from his post. I found this very good article by Suzanne Fields about his resignation and I think she puts my feelings about the resignation best, so I recommend the article as a worthwhile read.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Answer to High Court abortion question
So, I received a question about my personal opinion as to what the Supreme Court is going to do with abortion in the next couple of years. Rather than add this as a comment to an earlier post, I thought I'd make it into a full-fledged post instead.
Okay. First, the case that the SC has taken already (the one mentioned in the previous post over the federal partial birth abortion ban). Here's my current SC math (that is if nothing on the high Court changes and no one on the high Court finds a heart - we're off to see the wizard...). As far as the partial birth abortion ban is concerned, I can see them upholding it unless they get hung up on the state's rights issues (since this is a federal law). Since Justice Kennedy, who is emerging as the swing vote on this topic after Justice O'Connor's retirement voted against allowing partial birth abortion, I can see him voting with the conservatives on this issue. However, this case will not, in my opinion, give the court a chance to really revisit the central holding in Roe v. Wade.
In other news, South Dakota has just passed a bill that basically restricts all abortions. The bill has a narrowly drawn exception for the health of the mother (narrowly drawn because it does not include mental or psychological health, as does the German exception to the ban on abortion). If this law gets to the Supreme Court (which many experts are predicting because the law seems to have been passed to force the High Court to revisit Roe and its progeny (Casey and some other cases, including, but not to an extreme extent Ayotte), I think that a 5-4 Court will strike down the law.
On the side of allowing abortion nearly burden free are: Justices Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.
On the side of disallowing abortion (and probably overturning Roe) are: Justices Scalia and Thomas (for sure), Alito we can assume (because he wrote the dissent in Casey in the third circuit), and Roberts we can probably assume.
However, Justice Kennedy is a toss up in this situation. However, my intuition and belief is that Kennedy would vote against the law because he helped write the opinion in Casey, reaffirming the central holding of Roe.
Okay, so, those are my thoughts on the Supreme Court's abortion probabilities (I don't know that I'd make any bets based on my thoughts, though).
Okay. First, the case that the SC has taken already (the one mentioned in the previous post over the federal partial birth abortion ban). Here's my current SC math (that is if nothing on the high Court changes and no one on the high Court finds a heart - we're off to see the wizard...). As far as the partial birth abortion ban is concerned, I can see them upholding it unless they get hung up on the state's rights issues (since this is a federal law). Since Justice Kennedy, who is emerging as the swing vote on this topic after Justice O'Connor's retirement voted against allowing partial birth abortion, I can see him voting with the conservatives on this issue. However, this case will not, in my opinion, give the court a chance to really revisit the central holding in Roe v. Wade.
In other news, South Dakota has just passed a bill that basically restricts all abortions. The bill has a narrowly drawn exception for the health of the mother (narrowly drawn because it does not include mental or psychological health, as does the German exception to the ban on abortion). If this law gets to the Supreme Court (which many experts are predicting because the law seems to have been passed to force the High Court to revisit Roe and its progeny (Casey and some other cases, including, but not to an extreme extent Ayotte), I think that a 5-4 Court will strike down the law.
On the side of allowing abortion nearly burden free are: Justices Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.
On the side of disallowing abortion (and probably overturning Roe) are: Justices Scalia and Thomas (for sure), Alito we can assume (because he wrote the dissent in Casey in the third circuit), and Roberts we can probably assume.
However, Justice Kennedy is a toss up in this situation. However, my intuition and belief is that Kennedy would vote against the law because he helped write the opinion in Casey, reaffirming the central holding of Roe.
Okay, so, those are my thoughts on the Supreme Court's abortion probabilities (I don't know that I'd make any bets based on my thoughts, though).
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Supreme Court Watch
First order of business, before we get to the court watch:
Larry Summers is resigning as President of Harvard. If you'll remember, Larry Summers is the man who made the controversial remarks that it may be something in the difference between men and women that explains why few women rise to the top of the science and mathematics professions. He is basically being forced to resign because of this comment because he is having 'problems with the faculty'. You know what I say about this? So much for freedom of speech, freedom of education, and educational integrity. If someone can be constructively fired for such a comment, what can't one be forced to resign for? Okay, that's enough of my rant on that topic.
Okay, as far as the Court is concerned now, two very different topics.
1. The Supreme Court has just agreed to grant certiorari to a case over the federal ban of partial birth abortion. This law has been ruled unconstitutional by the 8th Circuit and a court in Nebraska. We'll see how it ends up very soon and we will see whether the change of staff of the SCOTUS will affect the state of aborion law in this country.
2. The Supreme Court just decided a new freedom of religion case today. The Court ruled, unanimously, oddly enough, that a little church in New Mexico can use an illegal drug in its tea for its worship services. Interesting case.
One further comment about current news: Bush is vowing to keep this Port deal. This is the first time I think I've ever agreed with Chuck Shumer, which scares me. I think we should think about this a little longer before we jump right into having a deal where a Dubai-based company controls our ports. I don't know what irons Bush already has in the fire, but I think perhaps he has some political reason (maybe he's got some deal with some other country) to come out so strongly against (he's threatened a veto, and we all know how seldom he vetoes anything) any efforts to delay the Port deal. Just my two cents :).
Larry Summers is resigning as President of Harvard. If you'll remember, Larry Summers is the man who made the controversial remarks that it may be something in the difference between men and women that explains why few women rise to the top of the science and mathematics professions. He is basically being forced to resign because of this comment because he is having 'problems with the faculty'. You know what I say about this? So much for freedom of speech, freedom of education, and educational integrity. If someone can be constructively fired for such a comment, what can't one be forced to resign for? Okay, that's enough of my rant on that topic.
Okay, as far as the Court is concerned now, two very different topics.
1. The Supreme Court has just agreed to grant certiorari to a case over the federal ban of partial birth abortion. This law has been ruled unconstitutional by the 8th Circuit and a court in Nebraska. We'll see how it ends up very soon and we will see whether the change of staff of the SCOTUS will affect the state of aborion law in this country.
2. The Supreme Court just decided a new freedom of religion case today. The Court ruled, unanimously, oddly enough, that a little church in New Mexico can use an illegal drug in its tea for its worship services. Interesting case.
One further comment about current news: Bush is vowing to keep this Port deal. This is the first time I think I've ever agreed with Chuck Shumer, which scares me. I think we should think about this a little longer before we jump right into having a deal where a Dubai-based company controls our ports. I don't know what irons Bush already has in the fire, but I think perhaps he has some political reason (maybe he's got some deal with some other country) to come out so strongly against (he's threatened a veto, and we all know how seldom he vetoes anything) any efforts to delay the Port deal. Just my two cents :).
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Congratulations to us :)
So, exciting news! ALthough I've already talked to everyoe who will read this on the phone (or such persons were there). WE'RE ENGAGED! So, that's pretty much all I have to say about it. So, see the pictures:
Okay - I changed pictures because I realized that the first and third pictures were the same picture, but the third was just darker and more difficult to see, so I changed the picture. It was way too late when I posted it last night, so that explains the problems.
Okay - I changed pictures because I realized that the first and third pictures were the same picture, but the third was just darker and more difficult to see, so I changed the picture. It was way too late when I posted it last night, so that explains the problems.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Abortion Post # 2 - Addressing the Courts
I would like to begin this post with a caveat: considering the volatile state of the SCOTUS, what I discuss as the 'state of the law today' is merely that, the state of the law today. But, as I will detail later, it is unlikely that it will change very soon or much if at all if things stay as they are presently as far as the political and judicial scenes go. With that caveat in mind, allow us to delve into the 'fundamental right to an abortion'.
Starting with the history, let me tell you how we got to having a fundamental right to abortion. It all started with a little case called Griswold. *cue music from Waynes World*
In 1965, the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut had a law forbidding people from buying contraceptives. A married couple brought a lawsuit against the state. The Court, not content with merely stating that this couple (and others so situated) had the right to buy contraceptives and the state should stay out of the realm of prohibiting contraceptives, granted upon the people of the United States a very general 'right to privacy.' Justice Douglas 'found' this right in what we call a penumbra - in other words, he took the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and concluded that, since the Founders (and those who created the 14th Amendment) had carved out areas of life that could not be subject to governmental intrusion, the Founders had also intended to carve out a more general right to privacy. The Court has since backed away from the idea of a penumbra (mostly because many on the Court have ridiculed the idea as outlandish), but have clung to the idea that there is a very general right to privacy, usually addressing it under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, recognizing Substantive Due Process (which is really a topic for another day because it's rather convoluted).
Now, especially if you know nothing about substantive due process or the process of constitutional law, you may be asking yourself, so what?
Griswold was wrongly decided for these reasons:
1. There is no generalized right to privacy in the Constituion.
A. As much as we/some people might want it, it's not there - you can read the
entire document and you will never find it.
B. The Founders gave no indication that they ever intended a generalized right to
privacy.
1. In fact, one of the best arguments about this is the fact that they carved
out narrower exceptions to the general right of the government to intrude
into your life. Granted, there are a lot of these exceptions and soe of
them are quite broad, but none of them is as broad as the right of privacy
has become.
2. Substantive Due Process (the idea that there are some unenumerated rights that the government cannot infringe upon at all) is:
A. A ridiculous contradiction
1. Due process has the connotations of process
2. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment itself never requires the
states not to infringe upon the rights of the people, it states that the
states must give due process if the states decide to infringe upon those
rights.
B. Judicially created, and completely arbitrary since it does not include rights
it should include if it is to be intellectually honest.
From Griswold come Griswold's progeny - Eisenstadt v. Baird, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Poe v. Ullman, etc. (Many of these were correctly decided as to the result - none of them were correctly decided as a matter of process.) From this line of cases comes Roe v. Wade, probably the Court's most infamous case (at least until Planned Parenthood v. Casey). There's the history of Roe. It is a case that comes from a line of cases with an original faulty reasoning.
However, even if we concede that /Griswold is not only good law, but was also correctly decided, we do not have to give up the argument on Roe.
Roe set up a three-trimester system to deal with abortion rights:
in the first trimester, the government cannot abridge the right to an abortion; in the second trimester, the state can abridge the right to abortion only to protect the health of the mother; in the third trimester, the state finally has an interest in the fetus and can ban the right to an abortion, so long as it includes the requisite exceptions.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1994 did away with the trimester system, because it was unworkable. In Casey, the Supreme Court, through a three justice panel and an opinion written by Justice O'Connor, acknowledged that Roe was not very well reasoned. Instead of overturning the decision, the SC declared that too many women had relied upon Roe for family planning and declined to overturn the case. The state of the law since Casey is thus: a state (or the federal) government cannot enact a law that puts an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to an abortion. Far from applying the usual standard of review when dealing with a fundamental right, the Court applied a stricter standard. Now, if the law is considered to put an undue burden on the right, it is unconstitutional (the spousal notification law at issue in Casey was an unde burden, but parental notifications are apparently not, just as a not terribly helpful example).
In Casey, the SC set forth several factors for overturning incorrectly decided precedent and decided that Roe should not be overturned.
The factors, and how the decision in Casey fails each, are as follows:
1. Workability - The SC itself realized in Casey that the system set up by Roe was unworkable. Not only did the SC realize and acknowledge this, the Court set up a different system, one based upon a due burden standard (a standard never before seen in fundamental rights cases).
2. Reliance - The SC basically decided the case based on this element by declaring that too many people had relied upon the decision (as noted above). However, the SC failed to consider other options to this reliance element, namely, that the legislature could do things that would make reliance a non-factor, such as make the effective date one year in the future. This would give everyone a chance to get used to the idea that abortion on demand would no longer be around.
3. Whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine - okay, I'll give the Court this one, but only partially. The Roe decision had, before Casey been restricted and qualified by further laws and decisions, but perhaps not to the extent that it would have completely undermined the central holding.
and 4. Whether facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification. I give no quarter to the Court on this factor. Facts had changed, or at least our knowledge of facts had changed. The trimester system didn't work because the fetus was found to be viable much in advance of when the Court said that it was. There had been advances in technology that allowed us to see and hear the heart beat much sooner than we had previously believed it existed. All these facts proved that there was life before the first trimester and that abortion stopped a life.
One of the basic problems with Roe, and by extension, Casey, on a purely abortion related issue is that the Court set up a completely unworkable system with very little medical expertise. The Court is equipped to decide cases dealing with rights, but is not equipped to decide either when life begins or whether further scientific advances will create the necessary technology to tell whether the fetus is 'viable.'
Now, those are some of the issues with the abortion rulings. We're not finished, though, because, that is only the state of the law as it stands today. We have two new members of the court, prompting a bit of judicial vote-counting.
Currently on the court are 4 members who are adamantly opposed to overturning Roe, its progeny, or restricting in any way a woman's right to an abortion (Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter). There are 2 current members who have, at one time or another, stated that Roe should be overturned (Justices Scalia and Thomas). There are two new members (Justices Alito (who wrote the appellate dissent in Casey) and Roberts (whom is assumed to be a conservative in favor of overturning Roe). So far, this seems to pit the Court 4-4 on the abortion issue. But wait, you say, there are no ties on the Court! That's right - and don't think I've forgotten the recalcitrant 9th member of the Court. Then, there is Justice Kennedy. Now, Justice Kennedy has voted on both sides of the abortion issue. He helped write the opinion in Casey, but he voted against allowing partial-birth abortions in Stenberg v. Carhart, writing his own dissenting opinion stating that he did not question the essential holding in Roe.
Okay, well, this has gone long enough. Next time, I will be addressing how the debate has been commandeered and skewed. This topic will also address what happens if Roe is overturned.
Starting with the history, let me tell you how we got to having a fundamental right to abortion. It all started with a little case called Griswold. *cue music from Waynes World*
In 1965, the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut had a law forbidding people from buying contraceptives. A married couple brought a lawsuit against the state. The Court, not content with merely stating that this couple (and others so situated) had the right to buy contraceptives and the state should stay out of the realm of prohibiting contraceptives, granted upon the people of the United States a very general 'right to privacy.' Justice Douglas 'found' this right in what we call a penumbra - in other words, he took the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and concluded that, since the Founders (and those who created the 14th Amendment) had carved out areas of life that could not be subject to governmental intrusion, the Founders had also intended to carve out a more general right to privacy. The Court has since backed away from the idea of a penumbra (mostly because many on the Court have ridiculed the idea as outlandish), but have clung to the idea that there is a very general right to privacy, usually addressing it under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, recognizing Substantive Due Process (which is really a topic for another day because it's rather convoluted).
Now, especially if you know nothing about substantive due process or the process of constitutional law, you may be asking yourself, so what?
Griswold was wrongly decided for these reasons:
1. There is no generalized right to privacy in the Constituion.
A. As much as we/some people might want it, it's not there - you can read the
entire document and you will never find it.
B. The Founders gave no indication that they ever intended a generalized right to
privacy.
1. In fact, one of the best arguments about this is the fact that they carved
out narrower exceptions to the general right of the government to intrude
into your life. Granted, there are a lot of these exceptions and soe of
them are quite broad, but none of them is as broad as the right of privacy
has become.
2. Substantive Due Process (the idea that there are some unenumerated rights that the government cannot infringe upon at all) is:
A. A ridiculous contradiction
1. Due process has the connotations of process
2. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment itself never requires the
states not to infringe upon the rights of the people, it states that the
states must give due process if the states decide to infringe upon those
rights.
B. Judicially created, and completely arbitrary since it does not include rights
it should include if it is to be intellectually honest.
From Griswold come Griswold's progeny - Eisenstadt v. Baird, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Poe v. Ullman, etc. (Many of these were correctly decided as to the result - none of them were correctly decided as a matter of process.) From this line of cases comes Roe v. Wade, probably the Court's most infamous case (at least until Planned Parenthood v. Casey). There's the history of Roe. It is a case that comes from a line of cases with an original faulty reasoning.
However, even if we concede that /Griswold is not only good law, but was also correctly decided, we do not have to give up the argument on Roe.
Roe set up a three-trimester system to deal with abortion rights:
in the first trimester, the government cannot abridge the right to an abortion; in the second trimester, the state can abridge the right to abortion only to protect the health of the mother; in the third trimester, the state finally has an interest in the fetus and can ban the right to an abortion, so long as it includes the requisite exceptions.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1994 did away with the trimester system, because it was unworkable. In Casey, the Supreme Court, through a three justice panel and an opinion written by Justice O'Connor, acknowledged that Roe was not very well reasoned. Instead of overturning the decision, the SC declared that too many women had relied upon Roe for family planning and declined to overturn the case. The state of the law since Casey is thus: a state (or the federal) government cannot enact a law that puts an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to an abortion. Far from applying the usual standard of review when dealing with a fundamental right, the Court applied a stricter standard. Now, if the law is considered to put an undue burden on the right, it is unconstitutional (the spousal notification law at issue in Casey was an unde burden, but parental notifications are apparently not, just as a not terribly helpful example).
In Casey, the SC set forth several factors for overturning incorrectly decided precedent and decided that Roe should not be overturned.
The factors, and how the decision in Casey fails each, are as follows:
1. Workability - The SC itself realized in Casey that the system set up by Roe was unworkable. Not only did the SC realize and acknowledge this, the Court set up a different system, one based upon a due burden standard (a standard never before seen in fundamental rights cases).
2. Reliance - The SC basically decided the case based on this element by declaring that too many people had relied upon the decision (as noted above). However, the SC failed to consider other options to this reliance element, namely, that the legislature could do things that would make reliance a non-factor, such as make the effective date one year in the future. This would give everyone a chance to get used to the idea that abortion on demand would no longer be around.
3. Whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine - okay, I'll give the Court this one, but only partially. The Roe decision had, before Casey been restricted and qualified by further laws and decisions, but perhaps not to the extent that it would have completely undermined the central holding.
and 4. Whether facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification. I give no quarter to the Court on this factor. Facts had changed, or at least our knowledge of facts had changed. The trimester system didn't work because the fetus was found to be viable much in advance of when the Court said that it was. There had been advances in technology that allowed us to see and hear the heart beat much sooner than we had previously believed it existed. All these facts proved that there was life before the first trimester and that abortion stopped a life.
One of the basic problems with Roe, and by extension, Casey, on a purely abortion related issue is that the Court set up a completely unworkable system with very little medical expertise. The Court is equipped to decide cases dealing with rights, but is not equipped to decide either when life begins or whether further scientific advances will create the necessary technology to tell whether the fetus is 'viable.'
Now, those are some of the issues with the abortion rulings. We're not finished, though, because, that is only the state of the law as it stands today. We have two new members of the court, prompting a bit of judicial vote-counting.
Currently on the court are 4 members who are adamantly opposed to overturning Roe, its progeny, or restricting in any way a woman's right to an abortion (Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter). There are 2 current members who have, at one time or another, stated that Roe should be overturned (Justices Scalia and Thomas). There are two new members (Justices Alito (who wrote the appellate dissent in Casey) and Roberts (whom is assumed to be a conservative in favor of overturning Roe). So far, this seems to pit the Court 4-4 on the abortion issue. But wait, you say, there are no ties on the Court! That's right - and don't think I've forgotten the recalcitrant 9th member of the Court. Then, there is Justice Kennedy. Now, Justice Kennedy has voted on both sides of the abortion issue. He helped write the opinion in Casey, but he voted against allowing partial-birth abortions in Stenberg v. Carhart, writing his own dissenting opinion stating that he did not question the essential holding in Roe.
Okay, well, this has gone long enough. Next time, I will be addressing how the debate has been commandeered and skewed. This topic will also address what happens if Roe is overturned.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Abortion, post #1
In this post, I am going to address why abortion is wrong.
The debate about abortion comes down to two issues:
1. Is the fetus a human child?
2. Is a pregnancy such a violation of a woman's right not to be uncomfortable that it warrants terminating it?
These are two separate questions, and I will address them so.
Number 1.
The reason that the debate really comes down to this big question is, if the fetus is a hunan life, to terminate the pregnancy is to end a human life, thus, it is murder in the strict sense of the word (it obviously cannot be suicide or natural death, the only other options). If the fetus is not a human life, then, it is merely a clump of cells and to terminate it is the equivalent of cutting a wart off your toe. (sorry for this gross analogy :), but this is rather a gross subject, wouldn't you agree?)
This explains the importance of answering this question. Most people on the pro-choice side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge this question because they know that if they do, they will have to face the possibility that it is a human life (this is similar to those who deny the existence of God - if they acknowledge there is something higher, they might have to face the fact that they can't just be selfish and live for themselves).
To answer this question, we can look at some simple facts:
I. The distinct life of an individual being begins at its conception
A. The individual's unique genetic fingerprint originates at
conception.
B. The unborn rapidly develops physically into a composite of different kinds of
cells which never happens with any other kind of human cell.
C. The unborn's body is not the woman's body.
1. The unborn can be a different gender
2. The unborn can have a different blood type
3. The unborn has different DNA and unique genetic
fingerprints and a different brain and central nervous system
D. The unborn is growing biologically. There is never a period
of non-life from conception to birth.
II. How the unborn differ from the newborn (4 waya) and reasons that these differences do not disqualify them from being human
A. Size or physical appearance - the unborn doesn't look like a person
1. Size does not equal value (in general, men are larger than women - more
intrinsic value?)
2. The term that describes the destruction of large groups of human beings
simply because of their physical appearance is called ethnic cleansing
B. Level of development - the unborn does not have the ability to do things
those who are born can
1. No one forfeits their right to life just by losing abilities, why should
we forfeit that right by not having developed them yet?
C. Environment - the unborn isn't located in the right place as 'real' persons
1. Why do we lose value just by moving from one area to another?
2. Do, or should, the six inches between the newborn and the unborn justify
ending the unborn's life?
D. Degree of dependency - the unborn is physically dependent upon others - not
viable and can't survive outside the womb
1. Babies of all sizes and shapes are dependent upon others - try leaving a
baby at home for two days
Okay, there's the evidence with which we can answer question one - is the fetus a human being. I think we can see that the evidence leans toward a yes answer. And, if we answer yes, then, the claim that "I don't agree with abortion but women should have a choice" must fail because we must look at abortion the same way we look at homicide - if the person is a human being, we cannot allow someone to end his/her life.
At this point, I would like stop to give credit where it is due (a lot of this, although not all, is from this source):
Making Abortion Unthinkable copyright 2001 Gregory Koukl, Scott Klusendorf, Stand to Reason.
And I would like to ask for comments - did I leave anything out? Not think of anything? If you decide to comment, please note which question you are commenting on, because I'm moving on to the next question.
Question number 2 - even if we answer the first question yes (although remember that these two questions are separate), is the burden on the woman justification of for terminating that pregnancy?
This is actually going to be addressed in the next two posts, as I discuss the Supreme Court's determination that a woman's right to privacy, no, wait, right not to be unduly burdened (whatever that means) in her quest for an abortion (I'm not sure, considering what the Court has said about abortion), outweighs the state's interest in protecting the life inside her.
The debate about abortion comes down to two issues:
1. Is the fetus a human child?
2. Is a pregnancy such a violation of a woman's right not to be uncomfortable that it warrants terminating it?
These are two separate questions, and I will address them so.
Number 1.
The reason that the debate really comes down to this big question is, if the fetus is a hunan life, to terminate the pregnancy is to end a human life, thus, it is murder in the strict sense of the word (it obviously cannot be suicide or natural death, the only other options). If the fetus is not a human life, then, it is merely a clump of cells and to terminate it is the equivalent of cutting a wart off your toe. (sorry for this gross analogy :), but this is rather a gross subject, wouldn't you agree?)
This explains the importance of answering this question. Most people on the pro-choice side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge this question because they know that if they do, they will have to face the possibility that it is a human life (this is similar to those who deny the existence of God - if they acknowledge there is something higher, they might have to face the fact that they can't just be selfish and live for themselves).
To answer this question, we can look at some simple facts:
I. The distinct life of an individual being begins at its conception
A. The individual's unique genetic fingerprint originates at
conception.
B. The unborn rapidly develops physically into a composite of different kinds of
cells which never happens with any other kind of human cell.
C. The unborn's body is not the woman's body.
1. The unborn can be a different gender
2. The unborn can have a different blood type
3. The unborn has different DNA and unique genetic
fingerprints and a different brain and central nervous system
D. The unborn is growing biologically. There is never a period
of non-life from conception to birth.
II. How the unborn differ from the newborn (4 waya) and reasons that these differences do not disqualify them from being human
A. Size or physical appearance - the unborn doesn't look like a person
1. Size does not equal value (in general, men are larger than women - more
intrinsic value?)
2. The term that describes the destruction of large groups of human beings
simply because of their physical appearance is called ethnic cleansing
B. Level of development - the unborn does not have the ability to do things
those who are born can
1. No one forfeits their right to life just by losing abilities, why should
we forfeit that right by not having developed them yet?
C. Environment - the unborn isn't located in the right place as 'real' persons
1. Why do we lose value just by moving from one area to another?
2. Do, or should, the six inches between the newborn and the unborn justify
ending the unborn's life?
D. Degree of dependency - the unborn is physically dependent upon others - not
viable and can't survive outside the womb
1. Babies of all sizes and shapes are dependent upon others - try leaving a
baby at home for two days
Okay, there's the evidence with which we can answer question one - is the fetus a human being. I think we can see that the evidence leans toward a yes answer. And, if we answer yes, then, the claim that "I don't agree with abortion but women should have a choice" must fail because we must look at abortion the same way we look at homicide - if the person is a human being, we cannot allow someone to end his/her life.
At this point, I would like stop to give credit where it is due (a lot of this, although not all, is from this source):
Making Abortion Unthinkable copyright 2001 Gregory Koukl, Scott Klusendorf, Stand to Reason.
And I would like to ask for comments - did I leave anything out? Not think of anything? If you decide to comment, please note which question you are commenting on, because I'm moving on to the next question.
Question number 2 - even if we answer the first question yes (although remember that these two questions are separate), is the burden on the woman justification of for terminating that pregnancy?
This is actually going to be addressed in the next two posts, as I discuss the Supreme Court's determination that a woman's right to privacy, no, wait, right not to be unduly burdened (whatever that means) in her quest for an abortion (I'm not sure, considering what the Court has said about abortion), outweighs the state's interest in protecting the life inside her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)