Townhall.com George Will
WASHINGTON — It hurt her feelings, says Jane Fonda, sharing her feelings, that one of her husbands liked them to have sexual threesomes. `”It reinforced my feeling I wasn’t good enough.'”
In the Scottsdale, Ariz., Unified School District office, the receptionist used to be called a receptionist. Now she is “director of first impressions.” The happy director says, “Everyone wants to be important.”
Manufacturers of pens and markers report a surge in teachers’ demands for purple ink pens. When marked in red, corrections of students’ tests seem so awfully judgmental.
Fonda’s confession, Scottsdale’s tweaking of terminology and the recoil from red markings are manifestations of today’s therapeutic culture. The nature and menace of “therapism” is the subject of a new book, “One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture Is Eroding Self-Reliance” by Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, M.D., resident scholars at the American Enterprise Institute.
The classic work in this area is “Triumph of the Therapeutic”, by Phillip Rieff. Chapter 1 alone describes the march to a “Brave New World” society, led by psychologists and sociologists (the “new priesthood” of the modern era).
I teach a lecture on this movement in my Intro to Theology course. Feel free to download my course notes, Christian Theology and Post-Modern Culture, and turn to page 89: Theology in a culture of “well being”.
Yesterday I went and talked to a distraught neighbor. Her daughter, 10 years old, had been attacked by a boy on her way home from school. The boy, also 10, put a knife to her throat and asked her if she wanted to die. The police were called, and they road the little terrorist around for awhile in the squad car. They then took him home, instead of to jail.
We aren’t sure if the state’s attorney for the district will pick up the case or not. The boy has a history of violence at school. He comes from a broken home and is being raised by a single mother who seems oblivious to the severity of her son’s problems.
At the same time, we have a problem with a pit bull running rampant in our neighborhood. He frequently escapes from his backyard and has already attacked three dogs. He attempted to attack my wife and children while they were walking my dogs. After he came nose-to-nose with two 100 lbs German Shepherds, however, he decided that he was going to lose and chose to run away. The dog is owned by an adult son of a single mom. The boy stays home all day playing video games and training his pit bull to kill small animals like squirrels. We have talked to the mom a dozen times. She tells us that there is nothing she can do, and that she is afraid of her son. Evidently, he suffers from ‘mental problems’ of some sort, though she doesn’t know what they are exactly.
We’ve called the police everytime there has been an incident. The police take a report, and say there is nothing they can do until the dog actually attacks a person. Animal control won’t respond to our phone calls about the dog. Too busy I guess. The Homeowners Association is looking at suing to remove the dog. That will exhaust all of our reserve cash and result in higher dues.
Why do I bring these two things up? Simply this – the current state of affairs in the country simply isn’t working. The secular, therapuetic state has failed. My neighborhood is solidly middle class, yet my neighbors and I are afraid to let our kids play outside. We are facing problems that would have been unimaginable in my childhood, and I’m only 35.
Growing up in the deep South, I lived in a home surrounded by guns and hunting knives. It never occurred to me to take them to school, or to kill a friend. My friends and I went camping with weapons. If two boys got into a scuffle, they put their shotguns down, kicked each other’s little butts, and then made up. Such a situation today would end up with a dead kid.
I want to ditch all the pseudo-science, newspeak pyscho-garbage. Young men need discipline and they need a father. My friends all had one, and we all knew what to do and what not to do. Today’s kids often don’t have a father, either a temporal one or a spiritual one in Heaven. They don’t need Ritalin or counseling, they need a father both on Earth and in Heaven. A father who will reprove them in love, who will shield them from the horrors of life, and who will teach them to grow up to be good men. A therapist can NOT take the place of a father, neither can a government program or even a church. A child usually can’t be taught to trust and love God the father, unless he has first experienced a father in his own life.
There is a reason why the Bible refers to God (even in the Old Testament) as a father, rather than only as a judge. It isn’t just because of Jesus being the Son, it is also because the image of a father evokes certain parallels that are necessary for proper human development.
Time to recover the role of father, at home, in Church, and in society, with all that father’s generally teach – discipline, self-reliance, honor, the ability to accept criticism, and a respect for others.
Recommended: Road to Malpsychia
This book is written by a journalist and isn’t exactly scholarly, but, the author does document many of the outrages of the humanistic psychology movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Humanistic psychology, as lead by Maslow, consciously tried to supplant religion. If nothing else the book preserves an important historical record and promotes accountibility of the profession of psychology.
What I still find scandalous is the utter failure of the supposedly scholarly academic community to critique the movement and expose it as the sham it was. There still doesn’t seem to be any real accounting or recognition of the damage the movement did to so many people and institutions. I think the primary reason is that the acceptance of the idea of the humanistic psychology movement promoted more power in society for the psychologists.
There is actually little support in the record for “talk therapy” as a cure for any serious mental illness. Talk therapy has its few successes when the therapist actually serves as a mediator, such as in marriage counseling. This involves two people who are mentally healthy enough to agree to extended discussion and negotiation. Skinnerian methods help many people overcome phobias such as agoraphobia, again, the individual being treated is essentially mentally healthy, can communicate well and recognizes that he needs assistance in correcting a problem. Talk therapy is virtually no help for major psychotic conditions. Most of the progress in treatment of major psychotic conditions has come from pharmacologists. Manic-depressive disease is now fairly well understood as a neurological disorder which can be fairly effectively controlled with lithium. Unfortunately, many people with manic-depressive disorders suffered through expensive, demeaning and futile talk therapies in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
The abject record of failure of the talk therapists hasn’t seemed to humble them in the slightest. I have had contact with many therapists in the course of litigation of various types. I caution everyone to be very, very careful before they entrust the well-being of a loved one to a therapist, do a great deal of research about the therapist and interview them about their philosophy of therapy at length. Ask about the therapists attitude towards religion and ask whether they will respect the moral and ethical standards of the patient.
Glen,
Great points! Hear, hear! I agree!
A lot of the above seems very familiar. Of course, the central thing of humanism is unconditional positive affirmation, or however they phrase it.
Glen makes an excellent point about young men needing a father. I know someone who effectively lost his dad a few years back when he (the young man, not the father) was only about 15 or so. He’s doing ok, but is very much aware of the need for a father here on earth. Or, at least, a father figure.
I found a website recently that got me thinking about all this: http://www.patriarch.com/
What do you all make of that site?
Glen writes: “Why do I bring these two things up? Simply this – the current state of affairs in the country simply isn?t working.”
Here’s another perspective. About ten years ago I was visiting an aunt who was born in 1908. During the visit she talked about all the “wonderful developments” that had occurred in her lifetime. One of the wonderful developments was counseling and child psychology. She said that when she was growing up it was not uncommon for young teenage boys to leave home because families didn’t know how to deal with them or how to talk to them. With the advent of child psychology many families now stayed together rather than splitting up.
Concerning the idea of the “secular state,” it seems to me that the secular state is used as a scapegoat. In other words, when things go bad, that’s the secular state. When they go right, well, that must be our Christian Heritage.
The “secular state’ is supposed to be responsible for the “culture of death.” The ultimate example of both the culture of death and the secular state is the Netherlands. So it must be a pretty nasty place to live, right? Well, their murder rate is about one-quarter of ours. Their life expectancy is greater than ours, as is that of Sweeden, Canada, France, and Norway, the places with the terrible socialized medicine. Texas, which seems to have eclipsed the Vatican as the religious center of Christianity, has a life expectancy slightly less than that of Cuba.
The recent presidential election brought to the surface some interesting distinctions between the blue and red states. Surely by any measure the blue states should fare worse than the red. After all, blue = liberal, secular, culture of death, humanist, and so on. Here in Oregon we even have physician-assisted suicide, which according to Fr. Hans means that we just about have to bulldoze stacks of bodies out of the streets every morning.
But then we find out some very interesting facts:
from http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/11/red_stateblue_s_1.php
Murder rates:
“In fact, FBI statistics show that southern states have the highest murder rates, despite the fact that our largest cities are in blue states (New York, LA, Chicago). The top 5 highest murder rates per 100,000 in America? Louisiana (17.5), Mississippi (11.1), Alabama (10.4), Tennessee (9.5) and South Carolina (9.0). So much for that notion that small town, rural American is the Real America, not those big city hedonists who flaunt decency.”
Divorce:
“Well, let’s check the state-by-state divorce statistics. And once again, the opposite of what we expect. The lowest rate of divorce in the nation? That would be none other than that haven of liberal political correctness, and beacon of gay marriage to the world, Massachusetts. Must just be an anomoly, right? Well, not exactly. In fact, 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are in blue states, especially in the Northeast, allegedly the hotbed of pagan immorality. And the 10 highest divorce rates in the nation, with averages nearly 3 times higher than the 10 lowest? 8 of them are red states. And let’s not forget that these are led primarily by what is referred to as the Bible Belt. As a recent National Center for Policy Analysis noted, “Nearly half of all marriages break up, but the divorce rates in these southern states are roughly 50 percent above the national average.” [The rate of cohabiting couples is only slightly higher in blue states than in red.]
Who Sucks the Government Teat:
“According to a study by the Tax Foundation, of all the states that receive more federal money than they pay in Federal taxes, 76% of them (25 of 32) are those self-reliant, small government red states. And of the 10 states that pay the most in Federal taxes and get the least in return, 7 are blue states.”
Teen Pregnancy:
“6 of the 10 states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy are blue states; 7 of the 10 states with the highest rates were red states. Texas, by the way, is one of only 5 states with a rate above 100 per 100,000 in population (3 of which are red states), and their school board just approved a set of sex education textbooks that do not even mention contraception.”
The list goes on and on — life expectancy, literary rates, income, you name it. Blue states rule.
Jim,
Another way of looking at those numbers would be to correlate the incidence of low divorce rates with populations of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Protestants of the fundamentalist persuasion do indeed get divorced at about the same rate, or higher, than their secular brethren. Marriage is a desacralized covenent in Red-state churches like the Southern Baptists, and as such, divorce isn’t really treated with the same sanctions one would find in the Roman world.
You will get no argument from me about the plight of Red-state America. I would chalk it up, however, to the instability of Protestant Fundamentalism as a generator of culture. The Blue States may have a more secular mindset, but they also have large concentrations of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. These two churches have proven capable of building sustainable cultures. Protestant fundamentalism, I believe, is proving the exact opposite.
One other thing about the numbers. The South is an area of high illegal immigration. Since 30% of the prison population of Florida are illegals – you can see that we are getting a higher-than-necessary share of crime which is imported via a pourous border with Mexico. Further, Florida and the South are rapidly expanding. All 10 of the fastest growing counties in the nation are in Florida. That kind of rapid expansion brings a lot of people to town we could live without. Again, the criminals come here for the opportunity as much as anyone.
That being said, you will get no argument from me that Red State policies are out-of-line with Red State rhetoric. I blame more than just the dominant Protestant fundamentalist ethic for this, of course. I also blame the Southern Fried demagogues who are still running the show in many areas. Even so, I’ll take my Florida over Boston any day of the week, for a lot of reasons. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to improve a whole lot of things around me, however, only that I wish to stay put where I am and make a difference.
Jim presents us with an interesting litany of information. I was struck by the very first statistics he cites: “The top 5 highest murder rates per 100,000 in America? Louisiana (17.5), Mississippi (11.1), Alabama (10.4), Tennessee (9.5) and South Carolina (9.0)”
The murder rate in the State of Louisiana makes little difference to me, if I’m actually living in Louisiana. I’m more interested in what is the murder rate, say, in New Orleans versus Winnfield.
The following information was culled from the FBI’s information on Crime by Cities:
CITY – MURDERS – POP. – MURDER RATE/100,000
New Orleans – 258 – 473681 – 54.5
Washington – 264 – 570898 – 46.2
Detroit – 402 – 925051 – 43.5
Baltimore – 253 – 638614 – 39.6
St. Louis – 111 – 338353 – 32.8
Chicago – 648 – 2886251 – 22.5
Philadelphia – 288 – 1492231 – 19.3
Los Angeles – 654 – 3798981 – 17.2
Houston – 256 – 2009834 – 12.7
Boston – 60 – 589281 – 10.2
One would have a hard time arguing that these cities are conservative enclaves. In fact, if one were to do a voter breakdown for these cities I’m willing to bet that you would find these locations are heavily Democrat. In fact, if one starts looking through the states Jim (and his “smartass” source – I’m only repeating how Ed Brayton describes himself) the numbers in these states are heavily influenced by large urban areas, as one can clearly see with regards to the effect New Orleans has on Louisiana. (I’m willing to bet that Mr. Brayton lives in one of those cities listed above, and I have no doubt that his city council is dominated by Democrats.)
Does that mean that where Democrats reside, crime is likely to occur or that Democrats harbor murderous intentions? No. That would be a stupid argument. Just as Mr. Brayton’s argument “that it’s easy to talk about … being moral, upstanding people; it’s quite another to actually live it. And as a group, the people yelling the loudest and pointing their fingers at others, are the ones who live it the least” is the biggest amount of ignorant pablum that I’ve had the misfortune of reading in a long time (but then I don’t usually fill my day reading hate-filled tripe). What Mr. Brayton and Jim are saying is that liberals are the quiet, loving peaceful people. It’s those conservatives that are running around having abortions, getting divorces and killing people.
I have little doubt, however, the Jim and Mr. Brayton will jump on this FBI breakdown of violent crime by region: Northeast, Midwest, South, West. Especially when they see that the South, “the most populous section of the country accounting for 35.8 percent of the total U.S. population in 2002, had 41.4 percent of the total violent crimes… The estimated violent crime rate of 571.0 per 100,000 persons was 2.0 percent lower than the 2001 rate. However, the South’s murder rate increased slightly to 6.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, up 0.7 percent from the previous year’s rate.”
Jim has approvingly linked to the weblog of “a 37 year old amateur smartass” that all but states that conservatives are a bunch of dumb hypocrites who are far more murdering, divorcing, and hedonistic then they claim liberals are and we should fear them because these conservatives are “trying to push through a moral agenda with police power behind it…” Give me a break.
Daniel writes: “One would have a hard time arguing that these cities are conservative enclaves.”
Sure, large cities tend to have more crime. But were you to look at the murder rates in Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco, all hotbeds of liberalism, you would see that they are very low.
I don’t really want to argue statistics, and I don’t have time to do all the research. My point was only that it is far from a slam dunk that life and morality are superior in the more religious or conservative states. And that’s not a criticism of the red state folk. In my view moral behavior and a good life is enabled not only by religious orientation but also by other factors. If you have an area that’s economically devastated you’re going to have divorces, abuse, alcoholism, etc. According to Aristotle a happy life depends not only on moral behavior but good fortune as well. So I’m not criticizing red state people. We all have problems, and there can be large-scale complex causes for those problems. I’m criticizing the idea that conservative religion is the cure for all those problems. It’s not. Glen’s view is that the Catholic and Orthodox approach to religion is better to that end than protestant religion — an idea that I hope he will expand on. At a “gut” level I agree with him. But I can’t articulate the reason. Glen — some more on this?
Daniel: “Jim has approvingly linked to the weblog of ‘a 37 year old amateur smartass’ that all but states that conservatives are a bunch of dumb hypocrites who are far more murdering, divorcing, and hedonistic then they claim liberals are and we should fear them because these conservatives are ‘trying to push through a moral agenda with police power behind it'”
Glad I don’t have to diagram that sentence. . . . . I linked to the site because it had a handy summary of a number of statistics, rather than linking to 5 or 6 sites. I didn’t necessarily agree completely with all the sentiments. But many religious conservatives are trying to push a moral agenda. Right?
Note 9: Having been raised Catholic in addition to having a great deal of exposure to Protestantism (American Baptists), perhaps I can shed some light on this, although I’m oversimplifying. Protestants, being a “salvation through faith alone” crowd, seem to have a very binary attitude towards God. You either believe in Jesus and say the “approved Sinner’s Prayer” or you don’t. There’s no middle ground.
I know many Baptists and while they’re mostly decent people, they seem to have a great deal of certainty regarding who is “saved” and who is not. How do they know? Well, if you pray specifically to Jesus, you’re “saved”. Just saying “God” as the Jews do doesn’t count. This confidence sometimes leads them to have a very odd attitude about many things. Since they are already part of the “in” crowd, there’s nothing really left to do as far as “works”, since it would be “boasting” anyhow. It’s not about behavior, it’s about what you believe.
With Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox, you have a slightly different attitude: we “work out our salvation in fear and trembling”. There’s no absolute certainty, per se. It’s a long, hard walk in which repentance, prayer and continual effort lead to “sanctification”. It can tend towards legalism (such as the prayer beads, the penances, etc.), but it also seems to require a more frequent evaluation of conscience.
I’m thinking this is why there may be a slightly lower rate of divorce among Catholics and Orthodox: they lack the “overconfidence” of the Protestants. Again, a major oversimplification but it has some truth to it.
*****
As far as marriage, it’s interesting to note that atheists and agnostics have a slightly lower rate of divorce than Protestants, with Asians having the LOWEST rates of all.
Re. Note 9:
First of all, I just love it when Leftists pull out all kinds of statistics to buttress their world view, and when those stats are shown to be either spurious or they fail to completely back up their arguments they run away from statistics saying things like, “I don’t really want to argue statistics, and I don’t have time to do all the research.” Well, isn’t that convenient.
Secondly, I would not argue with the statement, “many religious conservatives are [promoting] a moral agenda.” In fact, I will acknowledge and state proudly that I am promoting a moral agenda. Are you, Jim, willing to do the same? Do you want to tell me that Leftists and secular humanists who want to force religion out of the public square, who want to makes same-sex “marriage” the law of the land through unelected judges, who want to require elementary school age children attend sex-education classes, who oppose every legislation that limits abortion on demand, who are promoting passive and active euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning AREN’T TRYING TO PUSH A MORAL AGENDA?
An honest debate will never be about whether or not one is promoting a moral agenda. It will be about what moral agenda you are going to promote. Will it be one that respects life or one that respects only the individual will to take power and use it to do whatever one wishes?
JamesK writes: “I’m thinking this is why there may be a slightly lower rate of divorce among Catholics and Orthodox: they lack the ‘overconfidence’ of the Protestants. Again, a major oversimplification but it has some truth to it.”
I have a hard time looking rationally a fundamentalism. Ex-fundamentalists, like ex-smokers, have a hard time having sympathy for those still not “ex.”
That said, my view — based on my own life — is that in fundamentalism personal experience is extremely important. In fundamentalism you have a “personal relationship” with Jesus, and this relationship basically trumps everything. This may sound extreme, but there is a sense in which many fundamentalists are not moral people. What that I mean is that their actions are not motivated by moral principles or by Scripture but by certain feelings that they interpret as the “leading of God.” This can lead to a very idiosyncratic and personal approach to religion in which one’s actions are self-motivated and self-justified yet believed to be inspired by God. The movie _The_Apostle_ perfectly captures this twofold aspect of fundamentalistm. Perhaps this is what you mean by “overconfidence.”
Daniel writes: “First of all, I just love it when Leftists pull out all kinds of statistics to buttress their world view, and when those stats are shown to be either spurious or they fail to completely back up their arguments they run away from statistics…”
I work with numbers for a living and am comfortable in the world of statistics. Thus, I know the effort it would take to craft a proper response and determine that I simply do not have the time for that. Interpret that as you will.
Statistics or not, if you think that all is well in Red Land in virtue of some of them having said the Sinner’s Prayer, well, more power to you.
Daniel: “An honest debate will never be about whether or not one is promoting a moral agenda. It will be about what moral agenda you are going to promote.”
Most of the people I know favor the moral agenda that leaves them alone. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. If you don’t want physician-assisted suicide then don’t do it yourself. If you want to be kept alive brain-dead or in a persistent vegetative state then write an advanced directive to that effect. If you don’t want to drink or smoke, then don’t drink or smoke. If you don’t like contraceptives, then don’t use them. If you have to see the Ten Commandments everywhere, then paint them on the inside of your glasses, not on every public building. If you want to pray at the high-school graduation, then do it silently. And so on.
Jim writes: “Most of the people I know favor the moral agenda that leaves them alone. If you don?t want an abortion, don’t get one. If you don’t want physician-assisted suicide then don’t do it yourself. If you want to be kept alive brain-dead or in a persistent vegetative state then write an advanced directive to that effect. If you don’t want to drink or smoke, then don’t drink or smoke. If you don’t like contraceptives, then don’t use them. If you have to see the Ten Commandments everywhere, then paint them on the inside of your glasses, not on every public building. If you want to pray at the high-school graduation, then do it silently. And so on.”
He writes this just after a post in which he accurately describes the excessively personal nature of much of Protestantism but somehow does not draw the connection. IMO, the Protestant theology has done a great deal of damage to the moral dimensions of society. Once one posits a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ that is outside scrutiny, it is an easy step to the fully secularized version of full personal autonomy and moral relativism.
The Orthodox Church by contrast has always taught and practiced spiritual warfare and communion with Jesus Christ in the corporate and corporeal structure of the Church. One cannot be a Christian in isolation. Our salvation is not just a personal matter. Indeed, my dear bishop once shocked a group of visiting Protestants (unknowingly) by proclaiming in his homily that there was no such thing as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. His meaning quite clear to any serious Orthodox is that once one enters into Communion with our Lord, God and Savior, one enters into Communion with all His people to some degree or another. One also therefore has specific, real and meaningful responsibilities to those others which are moral in nature. The synergistic effect of Communion and response forms the fabric of the Christian life and the social morality we need to practice.
Such social morality requires the protection of innocent life and the inculcation into our wider culture the vision of the highest that man is called to rather than the lowest. There can be no “moral agenda that leaves them alone.” Authentic morality, just as authentic Christianity is communal in nature, not individual. In the end, morality is an aspect of obedience and submission to God’s love out of concern for others. Morality is one way to act on our Lord’s statement: “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends”
Micheal, get “The Cube and the Cathedral” where George Weigel discusses the same idea you present here, although from more of a philosophical rather than ecclesiological perspective (in real life of course philopsophy is predicated on theological assumptions). Weigel posits autonomism (self-law in Greek) against the idea that society ought to be organized by the moral committments people have towards each other (a legacy of Judaism and Christianity), with special focus on how the autonomist view has come to dominate the thinking of cultural elites. This cultural dynamic, he argues, is what underlies the recent debate in the EU about the writing of the their current constitution, particularly the noticeable lack of recognition of the Christian roots of Europe.
I noticed the paragraph you quoted as well. Take abortion for example. Abortion is never a solitary choice. There are two individuals affected by the decision outright, not to mention the larger family which loses a sibling, grandchild, etc.
Well, Jim, now we’re getting somewhere. You are finally admitting that you are pushing a moral agenda, and that you are willing to use men with guns, i.e., the government, to enforce this agenda. And as I said, above, yours is a moral system based on the individual will to power, which might be described as the “I’ll do whatever I damn well, please, and if you don’t like it, get stuffed” agenda. (BTW, what if I want to masturbate in a public park? Is that OK? It doesn’t hurt anyone else and if you don’t like it, then don’t do it and don’t watch. On what possible ground could you oppose fornication, between two or more consenting adults, or self-pleasuring in the public square?)
Now you must forgive me if I admit some confusion. You promote this narcissistic, “leave me alone” agenda while at the same time demanding that government take responsibility for large portions of our lives. On the one hand government is supposed ignore some things, such as who we’re going to kill (abortions, euthanasia). On the other hand governmnet is supposed to manage and regulate our medical care, retirement, schooling, business practices, etc.
I too would like government to exercise less control over our lives. I guess we just differ on what government should and should not ignore. I want government to protect life and keep out of my wallet. You want government to protect death and keep its hands in my wallet.
Michael, I think this is why RC and Orthodoxy leave many cold: it is difficult to feel very motivated to become subsumed into an impersonal organization full of dogma, doctrine and decrees as a “cog in the wheel”, especially considering the difficulty in remaining faithful in the complex life of the 21st century. This is where Protestantism has an advantage: they seem to be more willing to involve themselves in the lives of others within their churches, families and neighborhood (their immediate contacts) as opposed to working at the larger, more abstract levels. At least that is my experience.
Of course, the danger is become a network of Gladys Kravitzes. There’s a point where no one’s really “concerned”, they’re just meddlesome.
Jim, since you want a government “that leaves [people] alone” I must imagine that you are just outraged by the bureaucrats at the USDA who spent $2.5 million dollars of taxpayers money on this bit of foolishness – http://pyramid.gov/ – where one can learn “that women ages 19-30 should drink three cups of milk and consume 5 ounces (a bit more than a quarter-pound) of meat and beans in a typical day.”
As Raymond Sokolov wrote, in the Wall Street Journal, “McPyramid is just the kind of bureaucratic intrusion into our lives that a conservative [or any] administration should be lopping out of agency budgets with a meat axe. If we are too weak or dumb to eat the way we know we should, having to pay for a redundant and fudged federal reminder is an unfair tax on bloat recidivists and thin folk alike.”
Of course, this wasteful intrusion, telling people what they should eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner, comes just a day before “the Journal of the American Medical Association published a joint study from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that thin people died at a higher rate than the overweight.”
Two and a half million is a paltry sum compared to some other initiatives:
“For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain ‘healthy marriages.'”
The government is now going to replace Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil as America’s Favorite Dispensers of Advice!
$1.5 Billion!!
Perhaps the “McPyramid” creators were simply trying to promote biblical values and had in mind St. Paul’s harsh words for those with an insatiable appetite for Moon Pies and Circus Peanuts: “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame”. Yikes!
Michael writes: “He writes this just after a post in which he accurately describes the excessively personal nature of much of Protestantism but somehow does not draw the connection. IMO, the Protestant theology has done a great deal of damage to the moral dimensions of society. Once one posits a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus Christ that is outside scrutiny, it is an easy step to the fully secularized version of full personal autonomy and moral relativism.”
Daniel also objects: “Now you must forgive me if I admit some confusion. You promote this narcissistic, ‘leave me alone’ agenda while at the same time demanding that government take responsibility for large portions of our lives. On the one hand government is supposed ignore some things, such as who we’re going to kill (abortions, euthanasia). On the other hand governmnet is supposed to manage and regulate our medical care, retirement, schooling, business practices, etc.”
Good questions. I distinguish between two different levels of analysis: the means by which a person develops a moral framework, and the role of the government in enforcing morality.
It it my belief that moral worldviews are best developed in the context of some kind of tradition, be it rational/philosophical or religious, or a combination of the two. Operating within a tradition, you find that many of the issues you are likely to confront have already been confronted, and that you have available the thinking of many centuries to draw upon.
Fundamentalism presents an odd situation in which moral frameworks are developed through a mix of tradition, idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible, the teachings of the current pastor, and “the Lord told me that . . . [fill in the blank]”. Thus the current “interpretation du jour” or “the Lord told me…” are likely to have far more influence than teachings that have been accepted in the church for hundreds of years. The problem in fundamentalism is not that the believer acknowledges and considers ancient church teaching and then disagrees with it. The problem is that the believer probably will not even know anything about the teaching, or will even have rejected it out of hand as the “teachings of men.” Thus the feelings of the moment are granted divine status, while the accepted ancient teachings are ignored. The fundamentalist believer ends up with an approach to morality that can be highly personal and relativistic, even as he believes that it proceeds from the mouth of The Lord Himself.
So on a personal level I’m definetly in favor of a tradition-based moral reasoning.
The problem on the social/political level is that we have foundational documents and principles that specifically limit governmental intervention in personal lives, that specifically etxoll individual “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and that specificall protect government from religion and religion from government. Lacking a state church, and in the presence of foundational documents that specifically prohibit such a creature, there simply is no one tradition the moral precepts of which can be enforced on the population as a whole.
Thus I acknowledge that tradition-based moral reasoning is best, even as I hold that in the public sphere individualism has to reign supreme, given our form of government and understanding of its role.
That said, even in an individualistic environment, we still base our laws on a kind of general moral concensus. The problem for many religious people is that the general concensus does not match the religious worldview in many significant ways. Call abortion murder if you like. Call it part of the culture of death. Call it a second Holocaust. The reality is that most people do not see it that way. They don’t particularly like abortion, but they think it should be legal and should be a matter between a woman and her physician. In order to outlaw something such as abortion, you would really need a complete overhaul in the way that most people see the issue. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
With respect to governmental programs related to medical care, retirement, and so on, the public concensus is that government is rightly involved in these things. That concensus may change. But we’re not there at this point.
Jim, while I do not hold with the Evangelical Protestant belief that the Founding Fathers were all born again Christians (anachronism at its worst), it is easily demonstrated that there was a strong Judeo/Christian influence on even the most Enlightenment orient of the founders such as Jefferson and Franklin. Despite the clear desire not to have a state church, there was an equally strong understanding that the primary religion of the United States would be some from of Christianity. Many of the assumptions built into the actual working out of the Constitution are based on the continuance of the Judeo/Christian moral and legal tradition.
The freedom of relgion proclaimed in the 1st Amendment was there to protect the various established churches in the 13 colonies from a nationally established church. An historical quirk not often thought about.
Unfortunately, as the Judeo/Christian foundation of our society and politics has been weakened, so have the working assumptions on which the Constitution was based. As Missourian and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, the Constitution would simply be un-workable under Sharia. It is equally unworkable in an atheist/secular state that has an individualistic, materialistic vision of man.
The Constitution remains the single most successful peaceful concentration of state power in history. Remember that the preamble begins with the words, “In order to form a more perfect union…” The Constitution is simply not a document aimed at individualism, but a document intended to establish a powerful central government with just enough protection of personal freedom to make it palatable. If we wanted a libertarian individualism, we would have stayed with the Articles of Confederation. The ongoing concentration of power within the Federal government at the expense of the states and the individual is quite in keeping with the original spirit of the Constitution rather than a violation of its principals.
Nonetheless, it is quite clear that as regards the establishment clause, the interpretation has swung so far to the positon of protecting the state from religion as to be nonsensical and outright discriminatory to Christians. Balance needs to be restored.
Michael, regarding the beliefs of the American founding fathers, here’s the best piece I’ve read on the subject. First Things, Avery Dulles, The Deist Minimum. This is one of those perfect topical pieces that fills in a gap in a person’s education. Accessible style and not too long.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0501/articles/dulles.htm
Michael writes: “Nonetheless, it is quite clear that as regards the establishment clause, the interpretation has swung so far to the positon of protecting the state from religion as to be nonsensical and outright discriminatory to Christians. Balance needs to be restored.”
I know that’s a very common view. But it seems to me that most of the things that people would consider to be nonsensical also turn out to be quite trivial.
Take prayer in school, for example. I was a fundamentalist kid in public school during the time that “God was banished” from school. A bunch of us met every morning before school in the cafeteria for a little prayer meeting. At lunch we would sometimes pass out Bible tracts to the other students. Several of us carried Bibles around all the time. I never felt that there was any restriction at all, other than the fact that other students thought I was wierd. As I recall Mormon students were excused from school one period a day to get an hour of religious instruction. I think that still goes on today.
Or take religious displays on public property. Is the U.S. so small that the only possible place to put nativity scenes is on the city hall lawn? I live in a town of less than 100,000 population, and there are a remarkable number of churches. (A student from Guatemala upon arriving remarked that there were “mas iglesias que gente” — more churches than people.) Within walking distance of my house there are four large churches, one of which is a “small megachurch” whose facilities probably occupy the equivalent of a couple of city blocks, and whose parking lot is several times larger than the parking lot of the city library. And this is in the state of Oregon, one of the most unchurched states in the nation. So I would have to ask why in the world someone would even think of parking a nativity scene or the Ten Commandments on city property given the existence of vast tracts of church property — property exempt from property taxes.
Do Christians have freedom of speech? Indeed they do. The radio dial is filled with Christian stations, both AM and FM. The programming on our local cable access station is about half religious. On cable itself there are at least three protestant channels and one Catholic. This is in addition to other ad hoc religious programming on other channels including wall-to-wall coverage of the Pope’s death and funeral. Christians have freedom of speech even to the point of being irritating. For example, the state court has held that Christians can shout sermons at people waiting for the commuter train downtown. Words cannot describe how pleasant it is, after a hard day of work, to wait for the train while a self-appointed preacher across the street shouts that we’re all going to burn in hell forever unless we repent and accept Jesus as our personal savior.
Nonetheless, the Christians feel that they are on the ropes, barely standing up against the torrent of secularism that at any moment will extinguish their rights for good. Meanwhile our Christian president proclaims that his favorite “political philosopher” is Jesus Christ, one of our political parties is practically the body servant of the religious right, public money is given to “faith-based” organizations, and the leader of the senate shows up at a religious gathering to encourage the senate to change the rules so as to pack the courts with right-wing and religious judges.
If that’s being on the ropes, what would it mean for Christians to prosper?
When Bill Pryor was nominated to the Court of Appeals we heard the following from the leaders of the Democratic Party:
From New York Democrat Charles Schumer: “In General Pryor’s case his beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it is very hard to believe, very hard to believe, that they are not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, ‘I will follow the law…'”
From Schumer: “Based on the comments Attorney General Pryor has made on this
subject [abortion], I have got some real concerns that he cannot [judge fairly on abortionrelated issues], because he feels these views so deeply and so passionately.”
From Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy: “I think the very legitimate issue in
question with your nomination is whether you have an agenda, that many of the positions which you have taken reflect not just an advocacy but a very deeply held view and a philosophy…”
Now what is the “deeply held” “belief” and “philosophy” that concerns Senators Schumer and Kennedy? It is nothing other than William Pryor’s Catholicism. We have reached the point
I don’t expect Jim to understand why this concerns orthodox Christians in America today. Jim can’t see liberal bias in the media and he can’t see liberal domination in academia, or at least he doesn’t think these are problems that should concern anyone.
I don’t expect Jim to understand the threat orthodox Christians hear when Sen. Dick Durbin said, on Fox News Sunday,
“You cannot have a religious test for a person to be appointed to public office. … But many people have positions they’ve taken on political issues based on faith.” [The sentence following ‘but’ contradicts the previous sentence. He is arguing that, since people have taken positions “based on faith” then it is acceptable to ask about their faith and, if neccessary, disqualify them from service based on their answers. That is a religious test for service in government. BTW, wasn’t the Civil Rights movement a political movement based, in large part, on faith – Reverend Martin Luther King, Southern Christian Leadership Conference?]
“Now, where do you draw that line?” [Where do you draw the line on what? Between taking a position based on faith and a position based on the latest polls, the latest court decisions, the New York Times editorial page?]
“We need to ask about those issues because they’re going to confront every judicial nominee, and there may be disagreement about their positions….” [The Senator believes it is his job to delve into a person’s religious faith to determine if that person is fit to serve on the court. This isn’t a religious test?]
“I think what’s happening today with the Family Research Council is wrong. I think what this group has done has become unfortunately entirely too political.” [What was happening was a rally. No different than rallies held by the National Abortion Rights Action League or Moveon.org.]
Focus on what Sen. Durbin said at the end. A United States Senator is saying that it is wrong for some Christians, who happen to be social conservatives, to get involved and to voice their opinion on political issues. He is not criticizing their arguments. He is saying their very involvement in politics is wrong. That should send a chill down the spine of everyone, not just conservative and orthodox Christians.
Daniel writes: “From New York Democrat Charles Schumer: ‘In General Pryor’s case his beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it is very hard to believe, very hard to believe, that they are not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, ‘I will follow the law””
Pryor is on record saying that abortion is murder, that Roe v. Wade is an abominable decision, and that abortion should not be permitted even in cases of rape or incest. Given that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, like it or not, do you think that his deeply held belief would be an impediment to ruling in accordance with the law of the land? I think it is reasonable to believe so.
Since other Catholics personally oppose abortion but think it should be legal, in accordance with the law of the land, how then are the Democrats working against him based on his Catholic faith? They’re not. They oppose him because of a correct belief that as a federal appeals judge he would be unable to uphold the law of the land.
For example, imagine a Catholic nominee who was such a virulent opponent of the death penalty that there was serioius concern as to whether he would automatically rule against every death penalty case because of his beliefs. Should *that* nominee be confirmed? I think not.
Daniel writes: “I don’t expect Jim to understand why this concerns orthodox Christians in America today.”
Sure I do. Many, but not all, Orthodox would like to see abortion outlawed. Some Catholics would like to see birth control banned. Christian Reconstructionists would like to institute “biblical slavery” and the stoning of disobedient children. (Under a Reconstructionist government I’m not sure if the practice of Orthodoxy would even be allowed. Oh well, win some lose some.)
Yes, there are all sorts of religious people who would like to do all sorts of things, all completely convinced that they are doing what God wants. I’m very aware of that.
Daniel: “That should send a chill down the spine of everyone, not just conservative and orthodox Christians.”
Before President Kennedy was elected there was concern about whether a Catholic president would be under the control of the Pope. Kennedy assured people that that would not be the case. In an ironic twist, is seems that today you *want* politicians and judges who are under the control of the Pope. Talk about a chill down the spine…..
Serve as a Judge, Work as a Pharmacist
Leonard Pitts, Jr. a syndicated columnist has written an essay asserting that pharmacists who are not willing to fill prescriptions for the morning after pills or for related pharmaceuticals SHOULD LEAVE PHARMACY. Think about that. His article ran in my local newspaper ( a fully-owned subsdidiary of the Democratic party) with a cartoon of man standing beyond a pulpit and waving a cross at a woman. The man is full of rage and the cross is waved in a hostile manner. The woman is shown as mild-mannered and taken aback.
I would suppose the Mr. Pitts would like doctors and nurses who will not perform abortions to leave medicine and nursing.
Is it getting chilly in here, or is it just me?
Abortions impact is very great
Fr. Jacobse notes:
I noticed the paragraph you quoted as well. Take abortion for example. Abortion is never a solitary choice. There are two individuals affected by the decision outright, not to mention the larger family which loses a sibling, grandchild, etc.
Missourian adds the following:
When a child is aborted, the abortionists snuffs out the murdered child’s probable descendants as well the child. If my grandmother hadn’t lived, neither would my mother have lived and if my mother hadn’t lived, neither would I or my three sisters, and so on and so on, along the branches of the tree of life.
If one believes that values and beliefs influence and define the culture, we must necessarily believe that a decline in “religiosity” correlates to more bad behavior and that an increase in religious faith translates to ethical behavior. This is why many blame the ills of society on secularism, thinking that there has been some huge increase in iniquitous behavior to correspond with the drop in church attendance.
This seems an erroneous conclusion.
“The claim that moral purity accompanied religious piety at the founding of this nation is a myth. Nor were so-called traditional family values in dominance. For example, the authors of “The Church In America, 1776-1990″ (Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (1992)) cite data that one in three births from 1761-1800 occurred within less than nine months of marriage, despite harsh laws against fornication. They also say that the taverns in Boston were more jammed on Saturday night than the churches were on Sunday morning.”
We do not want to contend that Christian values have been absent from American history … However, we still wish to call into question the assumption that just because many Christians have done many Christian deeds in America, the country enjoys simply a “Christian heritage.” One set of questions has to do with how much Christian action is required to make a whole society Christian. Another way of stating the same issue is to pose it negatively — how much evil can a society display before we disqualify it as a Christian society?
When we look at the Puritans of the 1600s, do we emphasize only their sincere desire to establish Christian colonies, and their manifest desire to live by the rule of Scripture? Or do we focus rather on the stealing of Indian lands, and their habit of displacing and murdering these Indians wherever it was convenient? Again, do we place more emphasis on the Massachusetts Puritans’ desire to worship God freely in the new world, or their persecution (and, in four cases, execution) of Quakers who also wished to be free to worship God in Massachusetts? … Do we praise American patriots for wanting to be free of Parliaments restraints upon their freedom, or condemn them for taking away freedom of speech and press from their opponents? Likewise, do we praise American patriots for their defense of “natural law” and “unalienable right,” or condemn them for failing to heed Paul’s injunction in Romans 13 to honor their legitimate rulers? … American patriots began to speak about the republican political principles of the Revolution as if these had an almost saving power. Many Christian patriots regarded Americans who were loyal to Great Britain or who wanted to stay out of the conflict as much more that just politically mistaken. They were rather “accursed of God.” Then in the early years of the United States, most Christian bodies took the basically secular principles of the American Revolution as the guiding light for organizing churches, interpreting the Bible, and expressing the Christian faith. (The Search for Christian America, pp. 19-20.)
(More here.)
My question is: why is today’s society considered to be so lacking in Christian character when these earlier periods were truly much more deficient in the characteristics of a civil society?
Missourian writes: “When a child is aborted, the abortionists snuffs out the murdered child’s probable descendants as well the child.”
From the National Institutes of Health:
“It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of spontaneous abortion is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.”
Natural processes “snuff out” far more pregnancies than all abortionists combined. To express it in business terms that conservatives would understand, in the natural course of human reproduction fertilized eggs are supplies, not assets.
Note 28. Putting the veracity of the historical arguments aside for the moment, where do Finke and Stark think the moral basis that informs their critique comes from?
First of all, Jim, when I write ‘orthodox’ I use the lower case ‘o’ for a very specific reason. Do not confuse this with Orthodox Christians, which refers to a particular segment of the Christian population, i.e., the Eastern Orthodox Christians. Lower case orthodox Christians refer to that portion of the Christian population, whether they be Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, that accept the same general tenets of Christianity, especially the orthodox Christian respect for Life.
Secondly, you write, “Given that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, like it or not, do you think that his deeply held belief would be an impediment to ruling in accordance with the law of the land?” No, I don’t. And you shouldn’t either unless you have any example of him acting against established law. If you do have an example, let us have it. Give us one, just one, instance when William Pryor shows that he is unwilling to follow established law. He supported your side in the Terri Schiavo case, and he opposed Judge Moore in the 10 Commandments case. Those aren’t the acts of a guy who wants to establish a Catholic theocracy in America.
The Catholic Church has made it perfectly clear that “Catholics” who espouse the “I’m personally opposed, but…” defense when voting for abortion on demand are in violation of Church doctrine and are leading others to sin. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops makes this pretty clear:
“Personally Opposed But??
“It is all too common for Catholic politicians to say they are “personally” opposed to abortion, but will nevertheless vote to permit it and even fund it out of respect for the consciences of those who hold different views. This “respect” for another’s conscience should never require abandoning one’s own.”
“The bishops urged “those Catholic officials who choose to depart form Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well-being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin.” ”
— end snip —
Your absurd comment that I want “politicians and judges who are under the control of the Pope” just helps me make my point. It is nothing more than an expression of anti-Catholic bigotry. It echos the days of James G. Blaine and the attacks Democrats suffered when they were called the party of “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion”.
Note 29 Difference between natural death and intentional termination of life
It is hard to believe that you could post something so heartless, Jim.
Yes, Jim, we are aware that life sometimes terminates through natural processes. Humans are not eternal and we will all die sometime. Some people are lucky enough to live long lives and others are unfortunate enough to die young. We still distinguish between natural deaths and those which are caused by the knowing and willful choice of a more powerful person to kill a small, helpless and innocent person because the small person is inconvenient to the large person. We still punish murderers even though the victim of the murderer would have died naturally at some point absent the act of the murderer. We have just decided that unborn innocents are not protected by law.
As medical science progresses we able to learn more and more about the existence of the baby in the womb. We are confirming what seems obvious—that babies in the womb can feel pain and react to stimulus such as sound. We are able to save the lives of premature babies at an earlier and earlier stage in the pregnancy.
There was a particularly ghoulish notice in the U.K. newspapers of a young woman who went in to the NHS for an abortion. The abortion was unsuccessful and one of her twins remained in the womb. The young woman gave birth to the surviving twin. The young mother is now suing NHS for malpractice in that NHS didn’t effectively kill the second twin. This is what we have come to, Jim. Babies in the U.K. have been scheduled for abortion because of cleft palates.
Regardless of what would happen naturally, we are responsible for what we do.
Note 29. Jim Holman writes:
(Putting aside for the moment the veracity of NIH reporting which is questionable in some cases…)
“From the National Institutes of Health:
‘It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of spontaneous abortion is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.'”
Fr. Hans Jacobse writes:
It is estimated that 100% of all people die. Among all known deaths, most occur between 50 and 100 years of age, although some occur at an earlier age.
Jim Holman continues:
“Natural processes “snuff out” far more pregnancies than all abortionists combined. To express it in business terms that conservatives would understand, in the natural course of human reproduction fertilized eggs are supplies, not assets.”
Fr. Hans Jacobse writes:
Natural processes “snuff out” far more deaths than all murderers combined. To express it in terms a liberal should understand: murder is still murder even though all people die.
Ok, let’s look at it another way.
According to the CDC the rate of abortion (in 2000) was 246 per 1000 live births. So for every 1000 live births we can generate the following approximate statistics:
2770 total pregnancies
-1385 spontaneouly aborted fertiled eggs, (NIH)
– 139 spontaneous abortions, 7th to 12th weeks (NIH)
– 246 medical abortions (CDC)
——————————-
1000 live births
Percent spontaneous abortions: 55 percent
Percent medical abortions: 9 percent
Percent live births: 36 percent
Under these (admittedly quick and dirty) figures, spontaneous abortions account for 6 times as many casualties as medical abortions.
In other words, if fertilized eggs are people — babies, as many call them — in the U.S. the most common cause of death is not cancer, not heart disease, but spontaneous abortion. Question: that being the case, why is the religous right focused on medical abortion, when spontaneous abortion is obviously the greater problem, accounting for 600 percent more deaths? If fertilized eggs are people, then the most pressing thing in the country should be to decrease the rate of spontaneous abortion. All funding for research into heart disease and cancer should be immediately redirected in finding a cure for spontaneous abortion.
Obviously we’re not going to do that. Why not? Because in our heart of hearts we know that a fertilized egg is not a person. Oh, it makes for a rousing argument against abortion. But the religious right shows exactly zero interest in finding a cure for spontaneous abortion — no interest whatsoever in saving all those “babies.”
Missourian writes: “It is hard to believe that you could post something so heartless, Jim.”
It’s not heartless. It’s life. Life is hard. In my reproductive life I’ve been involved in five pregnancies that I know of — three tubal pregnancies and one set of spontaneously aborted twins. Still childless, though not for lack of trying. I know all about fertilized eggs and fetuses. When I say that they are supplies and not assets I mean that’s exactly how nature treats them.
Missourian: “Yes, Jim, we are aware that life sometimes terminates through natural processes.”
It does most of the time, and most of the time we don’t even know it.
Note 30: Of course, they’re appealing to some objective moral standard, if at least a very minimal one (meaning common to Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, etc.). I think what they are taking issue with is the assumption among many that our society has moved morally backward since the colonial period. I don’t believe it has. If anything it has advanced, although this age has its own unique vices.
The more interesting question is whether these advances are the direct result of revolutionary thought within religious tradition or because of pressure put on these traditions from outside of it (i.e., a secular one). I honestly think it’s both.
Note 34 There is Medical Research Devoted to “Spontaneous Abortions”
Jim Holman writse:
Why is the religous right focused on medical abortion, when spontaneous abortion is obviously the greater problem, accounting for 600 percent more deaths? If fertilized eggs are people, then the most pressing thing in the country should be to decrease the rate of spontaneous abortion.
Missourian replies:
There is a substantial amount of medical research devoted to preventing miscarriages and promoting fertility. This research has the aim of reducing the number of spontaneous abortions. There are many couples who are infertile to one degree on another and there are plenty of researchers studying ways to prevent spontaneous abortions and miscarriages and help couples conceive and carry a child to term. Under normal circumstances a woman produces only one or two eggs per month. If that woman is trying to conceive those eggs are precious to her. It may be a statistic to you, Jim, but the eggs represent a hope for new life for the couple. The fact that spontaneous abortions can occur so early in the gestation process that it is possible for a woman to be unaware of the event, does not make it any less important to the couple trying to conceive. It is still a bitter dissapointment for those who have been waiting a long time for a child.
Jim,
On the question of marriage, I think the Protestant fundamentalists are failing to lower the divorce rate among their members for a variety of reasons. Some are practical, others are Theological.
First, the Protestant churches such as the Southern Baptists or the Assemblies of God (my denomination growing up) do not have a concept of marriage as a sacrament. Marriage is important, and its part of God’s plan. The Theologians exalt the married state, but these ‘churches’ do not actually insist on being the arbiter of marriage. All protestant fundamentalist sects will accept a civil marriage as valid. At the same time, all protestant sects will accept the right of the state to annul or otherwise end a marriage through divorce. These ‘churches’ do not involve themselves in the lives of their members in what is, arguably, one of the most important decisions any human will ever make.
To give you an example. My cousin belongs to a mega-church of over 1,000. He got married in a civil ceremony at the courthouse (to save money). His church was never notified that he even got married. He was divorced within a year. Again, his church never even knew he was married, much less that he was now divorced. A year later, he repeated the process. Once again, no one at his church (other than a few friends) even knew that he had been married and divorced TWICE within 3 years. All the while, he remained a member in good standing of one of the most popular churches in town.
Now, contrast this with an Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox Church will not recognize a civil ceremony. To remain in communion, any marriage I enter into must be performed by a priest. The Church demands to know whom I am marrying, and demands that the sacrament be dispensed in accordance with Orthodox norms. Should my marriage fall apart, and I wish to remain in communion, I have no choice but to involve my priest and my bishop in the whole process.
The Church’s involvement re-inforces the feeling that I am part of a community, and that the community has a stake in the ordiliness of my family. Were I to decide that I wanted to get rid of my wife and my children and resume a bachelor life, I would either have to leave the church or stand before a group of priests and be willing to justify my decision. It is much easier to walk away from a marriage if you can simply ask Jesus to forgive you and make it all better. It’s a lot harder when you will have to face a group of priests and explain it all.
This same pattern repeats itself in all aspects of a person’s life. In Orthodoxy, the priest comes to the hospital to bless the new baby on his first or second day of life. After 8 days, the priest comes and blesses the baby in his home. Within the first year, the baby is baptized and enters into communion. Birth, marriage, and death are all centered around the church. We understand that the community has a stake in all of these matters. We are not alone. We are not free to simply do as we will.
Again, in a Protestant fundamentalist setting, the ‘community’ may be completely unaware that a baby has been born until the mother and baby show up at a service. Huge aspects of the lives of Protestant fundamentalists take place completely outside the confines of their faith community. They are truly on their own.
Orthodoxy conceives of being as communion, we are all part of one another as members of the body of Christ. Protestant fundamentalism’s radical individualism emphasizes man’s individual relationship to God – his fellow man gets little attention in the process.
Other practical aspects also mitigate against Protestant fundamentlism being able to form the base of a stable community. What is Protestant art? What is Protestant music? What is Protestant architecture? These things don’t exist. The Protestant Churches simply borrow from the culture around them, they contribute nothing back that is uniquely their own. This is why rock music and slick marketing so easily infiltrated the Protestant sects, they have nothing genuinely their own to treasure.
What about Protestant customs and traditions? They don’t really exist. Leading up to Easter, for example, Protestant fundamentalists do – nothing special. Orthodoxy has a body of customs and traditions that bind people together. Now we fast, now we feast. On this day we go to church, on this day we take baskets to be blessed, etc. The Protestants have no such common body of traditions to create an actual community.
This is also why Protestant fundamentalists have become the most dogged, American nationalists. Protestants don’t have symbols, other than the cross. So, lacking religous icons, they have appropriated the icons of the American Nation and made them holy. They have no saints, so they have appropriated the founding fathers and made them holy. (With the addition of Lincoln.) They have no traditions of their own, so they have made July 4th and Thanksgiving into holy days and filled in their celebration of them with secular, market-oriented customs like fireworks and parades. They have no sacrament of confession, so they have given us the therapuetic society in which everyone goes to a shrink rather than to their Spiritual Father. Lacking a concept of the true nature of sin, they often turn to the state to suppress behaviors they find offensive.
I think that traditionalist Catholics and Orthodox often feel that we can work with the Religious Right because they share many of our moral strictures. There is some truth in this, of course. But we can only cooperate so far with them. Protestant fundamentalism is inherently defective and unstable, and Red State America is a living embodiment of its many failings. It is practically impossible to reconcile ‘do-your-own-thing’ with a communitarian ethic.
This is not to say that the alternative to Protestant fundamentalist domination is a secular state.
What I am saying is that, for the time being, the best alternative is to continue to build up the authentic witness of the true Christian faith, best exemplified by the Orthodox Church, but also represented to some degree by the the Roman Church of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Just because we agree with Baptists over gay marriage, doesn’t mean we are obliged to overlook the disaster has resulted from Baptist domination of so much of the South.
First of all, the 50% rate needs to be examined. This figure can only be reached through mathematical extrapolation, nothing else.
Secondly, your real argument is not mathematics, but the definition of personhood. Why else conclude with the pro-abortion moral exhortation? Your purpose here is to defend abortion by using the numbers to undermine the value pro-lifers give to the unborn. But numbers are numbers. The moral conclusions are interpretive and draw from sources other than the numbers.
Yet, if unborn life is not to be valued because some abortions are spontaneous, why value any life at all since all people die anyway?
Thirdly, “nature” treats many living things indiscriminantly. Look at Hurricane Charley that blew through my area last fall. Nature cannot be the sole source of our moral judgements. People die from heart attacks too. Does this make killing a person with heart disease a morally benign act? No, it doesn’t.
Of course this does not always hold true. Look at Terri Schiavo, where the reasoning is confused. “Personal autonomy” is touted as the moral imperative, but the reasons for killing her rested on a decline of her natural functions. Nature governs here; “personal autonomy” is merely a way of attributing a moral value to the decline. Where nature is the only ground for moral determinations however, the inevitable end result is a Nietschean world of will to power. If it were any other way, we would not see the eagerness to kill the weakest and most defenseless among us.
Note 34 We Know a Fertilized Egg is not a Person?
Jim Holman writes:
Obviously we?re not going to do that. Why not? Because in our heart of hearts we know that a fertilized egg is not a person. Oh, it makes for a rousing argument against abortion. But the religious right shows exactly zero interest in finding a cure for spontaneous abortion ? no interest whatsoever in saving all those ?babies.?
Missourian replies. I again would ask Jim to visit a fertility clinic and talk to couples who have had difficulty conceiving. Those couples would tell you that they would greet the news that conception had occurred —- that a fertilized egg existed, with great joy. They would have to temper their joy with the fact that a pregnancy is a long road to travel and much can happen before a successful birth occurs, but, that fertilized egg would be an answer to a prayer.
I know that women who suffer early-term miscarriages suffer real grief. They feel this grief even if the miscarriage occurred so early in the process that it didn’t cause them any discomfort. We don’t have a ceremony to mark an event like a miscarriage, early or late term. We don’t hold funerals. But I know that quite a few women (and their husbands) might actually benefit from some kind of ceremony that closes off their hopes for a child. I know of at least one woman who always considered herself to be the mother of six children even though she carried only five children to term. She counted a miscarried baby as her sixth child her entire life.
The following comment may seem like a Old Wives Tale par excellence BUT many women state that they can “just tell” they are pregnant weeks before any scientific confirmation is available. I know full well I can’t prove that scientifically but I have heard it reported by several intelligent and eminently sensible women.
So not everyone “knows in their heart of hearts that a fertilized egg is not a person.”
Glen:
Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians.
Another point, as I understand it, the 50% divorce rate is arrived at by subtracting the number of divorces from the number of marriages in any given year. But I don’t see half of the people getting married also getting a divorce. The number is much lower. I’m not sure how they arrive at the number.
Note 39. Women who suffer miscarriages suffer real grief because they suffer a real loss. That is why we have prayers in our Orthodox tradition for women who have undergone a miscarriage.
Missourian writes: “I again would ask Jim to visit a fertility clinic and talk to couples who have had difficulty conceiving. Those couples would tell you that they would greet the news that conception had occurred – that a fertilized egg existed, with great joy. They would have to temper their joy with the fact that a pregnancy is a long road to travel and much can happen before a successful birth occurs, but, that fertilized egg would be an answer to a prayer.”
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. A $12,000 t-shirt.
Missourian: “I know that women who suffer early-term miscarriages suffer real grief.”
Been there too, on the husband side. In my observation the grief is permanent.
Missourian: “So not everyone ‘knows in their heart of hearts that a fertilized egg is not a person.'”
Ok, not everyone. But I think the fertilized egg is best described as the *possibility* of a person — a potential person.
Fr. Hans writes: “Another point, as I understand it, the 50% divorce rate is arrived at by subtracting the number of divorces from the number of marriages in any given year. But I don’t see half of the people getting married also getting a divorce. The number is much lower. I’m not sure how they arrive at the number.”
The number is lower because you have only one year’s worth of marriages in the numerator, but many years worth of marriages generating divorces in the denominator. In other words, in 2005 the marriages are the people who got married in 2005. The 2005 divorces are from people who got married from 1900 to 2004, or whatever the starting year would be. The divorce rate is thus more of a ratio than a percent.
Fr. Hans: “Women who suffer miscarriages suffer real grief because they suffer a real loss. That is why we have prayers in our Orthodox tradition for women who have undergone a miscarriage.”
There is real grief, but it’s not necessarily grief over the death of a person. For example, two women could grieve over miscarriages the same, even if one believed that the fetus was a person and the other didn’t. The result of a miscarriage is the same regardless of how the fetus is understood: no child.
“Person” Thelogical Term, Scientific Term, Legal Term or What?
Jim, don’t you have to identify what system of logic you invoking? If you are speaking theologically, don’t you have to identify your theological framework, such as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhist or whatever. I don’t think the term “person” really comes from science. I think that a scientist WOULD describe a fertilized egg as being alive because it possesses 46 chromosomes and the ability to grow. Legally, as the law stands now an unborn baby is not a person. The law uses the term “person” in a very specific way. In addition to natural persons, there are legal persons such as corporations, and governmental agencies. A person is an entity that can possess legal rights. Corporations have a right to due process as well as natural persons, for instance.
Within what framework are you working? Identify please.
Fr. Hans writes: “Yet, if unborn life is not to be valued because some abortions are spontaneous, why value any life at all since all people die anyway?”
It isn’t that it’s not to be valued, but that as a matter of fact we *don’t* value fertilized eggs or fetuses as much as those who are actually born. Now maybe we should. Maybe every time a woman pees a pink stripe on a pregnancy tester and then nothing develops we should hold a presumptive funeral. But we don’t. Maybe we should treat frozen embryos at a fertility clinic as dependents on tax returns. But we don’t.
Nor does the Bible treat an egg or a fetus as important as a regular person. As I’m sure you recall, the levitical law treated a fetus as the property of the father. If two men fought and injured a woman, causing her to miscarry, the men had to pay a fine to the father to compensate him for his damaged property. There is no hint in the levitical law that the miscarried fetus is a person who just got killed.
And as I mentioned before — and I think everyone agreed — if a fertility clinic caught on fire and a fireman had a choice between rescuing 100 frozen embryos or an adult technician unconscious on the floor, the fireman would no doubt rescue the adult. Now change the 100 frozen embryos to 1 infant, and who gets rescued? The infant. Everything changes after birth.
Again, that doesn’t mean that the fetus has no value or that abortion has no moral significance. It means that we (most of us anyway) know the difference between a fertilized egg, a fetus, and a person. And we know they’re not the same thing.
Fr. Hans: “Nature cannot be the sole source of our moral judgements.”
That is correct. As the philosophers say “is” does not entail “ought.” And as you suggest, just because people are killed in natural disasters and diseases doesn’t mean that we can kill people too. But I think you miss an important point: we take tremendous precautions against people getting killed in disasters or by diseases. If a massive hurricane blows through and in spite of warnings and advanced building codes a few people die, we feel that that’s a few too many. But if 55 percent of fertilized eggs die we say “that’s life,” or “it wasn’t meant to be.” We try to take some precautions, but we don’t spend tens of billions of dollars every year trying to save every last fertilized egg.
We just don’t consider fertilized eggs and fetuses to be as valuable those that develop to birth. I didn’t make it that way; I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Missourian” asks: “Within what framework are you working? Identify please.”
By “person” I mean the common, ordinary meaning of the word, as used in regular conversation by regular people.
Note 45
Jim writes:By ?person? I mean the common, ordinary meaning of the word, as used in regular conversation by regular people.
Missourian replies:
The original comments was something like “Most people in their heart of hearts do not consider a fertilized egg a person.” Jim hasn’t classified this observation. He hasn’t provided any frame of reference within theology, law or science. What does “heart of hearts mean?”
Well, that makes it both a meaningless and an untrue statement. Some people have clearly defined theological framework they take from an established body of thought; some people have considered the matter and have decided they are atheists, some people have never seriously considered theological matters. Some people have been involved in pregnancy, birth and/or miscarriages, other have not. Some people are very emotional, some people are very stoic about life’s trials.
I don’t think it would be too hard to find a large number of people who “in their heart of hearts” think that a fertilized egg IS a person, meaning is an entity that is worthy of high regard and an it is an entity that has value.
Don’t be such a meanie, Jim.
Missourian writes: “I don’t think it would be too hard to find a large number of people who ‘in their heart of hearts’ think that a fertilized egg IS a person, meaning is an entity that is worthy of high regard and an entity that has value.”
Fair enough. Simple question: You’re the firefighter in the flaming infertility clinic example. You can either save 100 embryos in the freezer or you can save the adult technician unconscious on the floor, but not both. If you save the embryos and let the technician burn, then I’ll agree that you believe that embryos are persons in the full sense of the word. If you save the technician and let the embryos burn, then I’m going to conclude that in your heart of hearts there is a sense in which to you embryos are not persons in the full sense of the word, and maybe not persons at all.
Please keep in mind that just because an embryo isn’t considered a person doesn’t mean that it is without moral significance. That’s not my assertion at all.
Missourian: Don’t be such a meanie, Jim.
I play hardball on this issue because I feel like I’ve paid my dues. I’ve been to the infertility clinic. I’ve seen the joy of pregnancy on my wife’s face. I’ve seen her devastated when the two little heartbeats that used to be on the ultrasound have disappeared. I’ve see her physical and mental health shot to hell through years of “treatments,” sacrificing herself for just the chance that it might work “this time,” driven onward by this mysterious instinct to reproduce, this willingness to suffer terribly just to bring a new person we know nothing about into the world. After all this I can tell you that the person in this picture is my wife, not the embryo. An embryo is a potentiality, a possibility, a hope, a thought. But a person? No.
Often life’s trials and hardships bring out a lot of bitterness in all of us. This prevents us from recognising divinity and perfection clearly in Creation and Life, the way our soul used to and still longs for.
Don’t allow this to happen to you though brother. A trial should not lead you to become cynical and accept evil (man! This word is used too often) in response. Bear through it, and seek support from other Christians too, if only a few knots from their komposcini (~rosary). (you have mine)
Just to state the obvious that you’ve been evading for some reason:
Trying to prolong life and make it as comfortable as possible is good, but preventing murder, especially premeditated murder, is imperative.
Elliminating pain and prolonging life is a good goal for Christians to support. The Lord wants us to have as wholesome and happy lives as possible in this earth. He is preparing an eternal feast for His own for later. He obviously does not like us suffering. (It is a choice we made, and exists only in our fallen world). All we can to comfort the sick and suffering is good, and we must do it. However we must also acknowledge His will, when he calls someone to fall asleep in Him.
However, Christians as well as any human being is absolutely responsible to prevent the abuse and of course the murder of anyone, especially the weak.
A baby in the womb is a very small but very real baby. It is alive and their life may be counted in days, weeks or years. That is true for anyone of us. A heartbeat in the womb, is a heartbeat of a person who is alive, and now can be detected in the scan. Years ago, we couldn’t listen to the heartbeat, we just saw tummies bloating and menstrual periods not coming and we knew…
Maybe in 10 years, we can see the cells multiplying and growing and forming in the first 10 days. Maybe we can see a babies reactions to the mother’s foods, emotions and activity in real time..
Babies that are just separated by a few layers of skin and blood from our hands, are babies getting their nutrients and preparing to see us for the first time! They better find parents that didn’t think of them as commodities or “cells” (not HUMAN cless?) in their first weeks!
So it is evident that it is one thing to try and legislate against sinful behavior that does not hurt anyone directly but the perpetrator, and another to let anyone kill babies, just because they are unwanted, or not part of “the plan”. Whose plan anyway? What happens to the “plan” when the baby does NOT come, does not get conceived, though the plan is expecting it?…
You know the answers to that from experience. Babies are NOT commodities. They are not produced at will and being elliminated at will is monstrous.
The only time such a grave decision as abortion can be taken is when the mother’s life is seriously at stake. Then there can be the argument, that over the two, the mother must live, because others depend on her. Still there are some women of Faith so strong, they allow God to show who He wants to live.
It is the very same grave decision your firefighter has to make. In any case someone (a very real person) dies. It is a fact. Either the adult or the small baby dies.
If you see a person bleading on the street won’t you help? What if you can’t see them? What if you just heard a cry for help through an appartment wall, or a car’s window, but can’t see the person at the moment? Would you walk away pretending you heard nothing? Would you allow their killer to finish them off?
Why would you let an adult end a baby’s life in premediated murder? Just because you can’t really hear it? In a few years technology might change that too…
I admit I have little knowledge of the Old Testament, but do not forget that John the Baptist’s first prophetic action was recognising and greeting the just conceived Christ. Both were in the wombs.
Having being hurt in life does not mean there is no joy in living. The fact that we will die, does not mean we should just let ourselves rot. Receive the gift of life with thanksgiving, protect it, make it as happy as possible catering to soul and body, but do allow the Master of Life to direct it, begin it and end it at His will.
Do not reduce such holly and extremely serious matters to political debate.
I would wholeheartedly like to wish all a good rest of Holy Week and true renewal in the Resurection.
Glen writes: “Orthodoxy conceives of being as communion, we are all part of one another as members of the body of Christ. Protestant fundamentalism’s radical individualism emphasizes man’s individual relationship to God – his fellow man gets little attention in the process.”
Glen, thanks very much for expanding on your comments. Interesting insights.
I would add only one thing. As you note, fundamentalism proceeds from a basis of individualism. From my fundamentalist days I remember that religion was all about my joy, my faith, my walk with the Lord, my answered prayers, my life. An individualistic religion is thus always in danger of devolving into a self-centered religion. And a self-centered religion eventually becomes a trivial religion, in which the primary mission of the Creator of the Universe is to get me a good job, find me parking places, and in general act as a kind of divine vending machine of blessings for me. At that point the believer runs the risk of becoming an immature, childish person who has no gravitas, no fortitude, and little ability to bounce back when back when bad things happen. There is a great difference between having a “child-like” faith and a “childish” faith.
In fundamentalism the invitation is “come to Jesus and be happy.” But in the Bible the invitation is to pick up the cross and follow Jesus. Well, as soon as you pick up the cross bad things happen and the suffering begins. This is why Paul talks about partaking of the sufferings of Christ, and of the “fellowship of his sufferings.” But for many fundamentalists this is contrary to the very core of their religion. Of course, fundamentalists don’t have the market cornered on immature religion. But there are aspects of fundamentalism that tend to promote such religion. And it’s not hard to figure out the effect that self-centered, immature religion is going to have on a marriage.
Jim, thank you for sharing your and your wife’s story about your attempts to bring a child into the world. I am truly sorry some attempts have failed. Has there been any success? I pray that God has blessed you with a child.
I think I can understand your frustration during this process. My wife and I are trying to have a child and so far have been unsuccessful. I see her look at other couple’s children with longing. She literally glows at the sight of another woman’s pregnant belly. It is a painful to work so hard for something only to be met with frustration and failure.
You write, “I’ve seen the joy of pregnancy on my wife’s face. I’ve seen her devastated when the two little heartbeats that used to be on the ultrasound have disappeared. I’ve see her physical and mental health shot to hell through years of “treatments,” sacrificing herself for just the chance that it might work “this time,” driven onward by this mysterious instinct to reproduce, this willingness to suffer terribly just to bring a new person we know nothing about into the world. After all this I can tell you that the person in this picture is my wife, not the embryo. An embryo is a potentiality, a possibility, a hope, a thought. But a person? No.”
In these comments I see a woman, your wife, who suffered so much precisely because what was lost was a person, not just a “potentiality, a possibility, a hope, a thought.” On that I think that’s all I should say.
There was a time when I was agnostic on abortion. I didn’t have a set position, and, if asked, would usually come out in favor of keeping it legal. Then my sister became pregnant; a pregnancy that was not planned. She called me just after finding out about it. It was only the 2nd or 3rd week of pregnancy. I literally could not utter the word abortion. It just would not come out of my mouth. My agnosticism quickly changed since the issue was no longer a distant public policy debate. God’s law, written on my heart, told me that this was a child, and that this child should be allowed to live. My sister was not carrying inside her a mere potentiality. She was carrying my nephew, her son, Nicholas. We didn’t know that name, but God did.
Again, I am truly sorry for your and your wife’s loses.