A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

This deserves its own window or Wish I could read all of this

I have no problem comparing morals. Here’s a comparison: I, as a Christian, have no problem with people holding competing beliefs. I would never, for example, write about “someone who pretends God doesn’t exist.” Yet this particular atheist writes about people who “pretend” to talk to God. Personally, I think prayer is a great thing – and if God doesn’t exist then it’s just people talking to themselves. I’m much more skeptical of people who say that God talks to them – mostly because if it happened to me, I wouldn’t be able to tell if it was God talking or my own subconscious desires.

As far as “work[ing] with the rest of us” goes…well, this is fantastic way of blaming the other side for not getting along with them. Yeah, there are some conservative Christians who are just such assholes that no one can stand to be around them. Guess what? That’s their right. And if you really want to make the world a better place, then it is incumbent upon you to learn to live with them. It isn’t “them” that has to change. It’s you.

Then the biggest lie of all:

Remember God may or may not be watching you, but if he or she is, that deity knows who you really are — and so do we.

I sincerely doubt this person actually knows the people of which they speak. And who a person “really” is? Man, that is so open for interpretation. Just this week, I’ve been disgusted at the fawning coverage of serial pedophile Michael Jackson. But whoever MJ “really” was, it was a mixture of the talent everyone seems content to ram down my throat and the sickness that they want to lump together as “scandal.”

The overall complaint here is the idea that a person must be perfect before they try to stand up for morality or “family values.” Of course, that’s an impossible standard. We all fall short of our own standards from time to time. It’s sort of sardonic that a letter written to condemn hypocrisy is so wrought with it.

I\’m done with this now

This deserves its own window or Wish I could read all of this

Now, I can have my pastor come and bless my home at any time. But when he does so, he isn’t going to sign a legal document that says he is standing in for a judge or mayor. When my pastor baptised my children, he blessed them – but there was no legal document forwarded to the county clerk to be recorded.

But I can find Marty’s position to be palatable, if a bit misinformed. Chuck Colson, on the other hand, is just plain wrong. He writes:

It’s nice that the New Hampshire legislature in its magnanimity has seen fit to “exempt” clergy and religious groups and their employees from “having to participate in such ceremonies,” because it will save a lot of right-believing Christians and Jewish clergy from hefty legal fees. But the same protections are not extended to all religious believers–like owners of private businesses (florists or photographers for example), who will refuse to violate the teaching of their faith and their own consciences.

Somehow, I don’t think there will be anyone trying to force a florist to give them flowers. The open competition of the market makes that unnecessary. Same thing for photographers or caterers or anything else.

His theology is as bad as his legal reasoning:

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational institution of our and every civilization. For Christians and Jews, marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred act because it was instituted by God from the very beginning of humanity (Genesis 2:24).

The verse he quotes doesn’t even mention marriage:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

In fact, that verse could just as easily be used to invalidate any claim to marriage being a religious act. Because, let’s be clear – there was no one there to perform a marriage for Adam and Eve (or Steve, either).

In fact, the first mention of marriage comes in Genesis 29:

Laban replied, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one.

Those who are familiar with the story will recognize it. Jacob has agreed to work for Laban for seven years to get the hand of his true love – Rachel. But Laban substitutes Rachel’s sister, Leah, because – wait for it – custom dictated that the older daughter be married first. And let’s not pretend this wasn’t a “real” marriage. Leah gave birth to Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah – all fathered by Jacob and all in a vain attempt to get him to love her. Instead, his marriage was little more than a regular booty call.

But wait, the story gets even better. Rachel, you see, was barren – so she gave her servant Bilhah to her husband for an extra booty call so that she (Rachel) could take Bilhah’s child as her own when she conceived. Bilhah bore two sons – Dan and Naphtali. Leah, then, gives her servant (Zilpah) to her husband and Zilpah had Gad and Asher – two more sons. Then Leah “buys” a turn in her husband’s bed by giving Rachel some of Reuben’s mandrakes and conceives Issachar. Then she conceived Zebulun. After Jacob and Leah had a daughter (Dinah), finally Rachel conceived and had Joseph.

So Colson invents a reference to marriage when there is none, and he conveniently ignores the actual first reference to marriage in the Bible. I wonder why he’d do that? Oh yeah, it doesn’t fit his politics.

I\’m done with this now

This deserves its own window or Wish I could read all of this

Debra’s position is both simply and eloquently stated: “The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly.” It’s a good argument, based on deeply held conviction and moral values. But, while it is closer to the point than the previous point, I think it also misses part of the point.

The vast majority of pregnancies are not planned. In fact, if one defines a pregnancy as fertilization (which the anti-choice crowd does); then we don’t even know about the vast majority of pregnancies. A lifetime of careful sex can be overbalanced by one moment of protection failing. I don’t think it’s realistic to aim for a time when all pregnancies are “not created carelessly.” Honestly, I think we would have reached that point by now, pregnancy and child-rearing being such a heavy consequence.

I, obviously, agree that we should make it possible for women to have control of their bodies. I’m simply arguing that we shouldn’t overstate the case.

There are, also, some abortions that should not be targeted for reduction. Brad Hirschfield explains the concept of “rodef” as it pertains to Rabbinical determinations, and I’ll single out the horrible condition of Tay-Sachs. But there are any number of other medical reasons why even a very badly wanted pregnancy would need to be terminated. In fact, it can be argued that allowing a pregnancy to continue, in some case, is, in effect, a cruel form of child abuse and threatens the health and life of women. There is no form of punishment more cruel and unusual than being trapped in a body and sentenced to a lifetime of torment simply for having drawn a first breath.

It doesn’t matter if those abortions for medical reasons are a small minority of abortions or not. What matters is that one side says they are simply part of the problem and shouldn’t happen and the other side believes that is unconscionable. There really is no middle ground to be had. And I don’t see it coming around any time soon.

I\’m done with this now

This deserves its own window or Wish I could read all of this

That’s really all there is to it. Both men acted on political and religious convictions. Muhammid, an American who had converted to Islam while incarcerated in Yemen, killed William Long because he had chosen to become a professional soldier. He said there was nothing personal about the attack, he just wanted to strike back at the American military and public conscience. Roeder, who had converted to radical Christianity when he couldn’t pay his bills, shot George Tiller because he had chosen to operate a women’s health clinic that performed abortions.

I can’t find any example of someone supporting what Muhammid did. In fact, the judge in his case recently issued a gag order to stop public speculation about the mental health of the man. Apparently, we don’t want to hear about any sort of Manchurian Candidate getting out of a Yemeni prison and turning against the good old US Army.

But there are plenty of examples of people who praise Roeder. Even some of them who denounce his actions explain that they aren’t particularly troubled by his death. Some even say that Roeder was, in effect, an agent of God. As if God, who (if one believes in an omnipotent and interventionary God) could simply have had Tiller die in his sleep, needed to pick on a poor deranged lunatic to do His work.

The differences between the two follow-up stories are stark. Susan Jacoby notes:

What is far more disturbing is that there were almost no prominent Kansas politicians at the funeral (including Kathleen Sibelius, the pro-choice former Kansas governor who is now Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration). The absence of politicians, including many who are pro-choice, speaks volumes about the degree to which abortion, and doctors who provide abortion services, have been demonized in this country. In this climate, do you think that there is any real possibility of pro-choice and anti-choice forces finding the “common ground” to which President Obama referred in his commencement speech at Notre Dame?

Meanwhile, in Arkansas:

Gov. Mike Beebe attended the service. Before the proceedings began, Beebe expressed shock that someone would target the American military so far from the battlefield.

I want to make clear that I think Beebe did the right thing. He honored someone who had staked out a lifetime of service to others and was slain for it. But Tiller had also staked out a lifetime of service. And, while his death did not go unnoticed, it is telling that no politician chose to attend and simply make the emphatic statement by their presence that, “This is wrong!”

Roeder will be charged with murder, and possibly related gun charges. He will be defended as being legally insane. Muhammid, too, will likely be defended as legally insane, but there is a possibility that he will face federal charges related to terrorism. But while the FBI is working the Muhammid case, there’s no indication that the same is happening with Roeder. So, while it remains to be seen if Muhammid will face federal charges – terrorism charges – it is unlikely that Roeder will do so.

It is natural to ask what kind of person would do this – but the answer is that there are litterally millions of people around the world who can be convinced of the rightness of doing these sorts of things. The truth is that, until political leaders denounce such things by their actions as they do by their words, this will continue. Maybe not today. Maybe not soon. But the silent distancing of victims from those who can still speak for them only encourages those troubled souls who would contemplate such actions.

I\’m done with this now

This deserves its own window or Wish I could read all of this

Oddly, right beside the box stating their principles is a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That would be the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The man who said:

“A religion true to its nature must also be concerned about man’s social conditions….Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion.”

The very next quote if from Thomas Jefferson – the man who wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Though they don’t quote her, Sojourner Truth would have been surprised at their insistence that religious beliefs cannot affirm civil rights. After all, she said:

Does not God love colored children as well as white children? And did not the same Savior die to save the one as well as the other? If so, white children must know that if they go to Heaven, they must go there without their prejudice against color, for in Heaven black and white are one in the love of Jesus. Now children, remember what Sojourner Truth has told you, and thus get rid of your prejudice, and learn to love colored children that you may be all the children of your Father who is in Heaven.”

I understand why many in the GLBT community would bear hard feelings towards religion. Religion has, too often, been used as a blunt instrument of repression, bent on forcing people back into line rather than liberating them on earth as it will in heaven. It is natural to want to wall one’s self off from small-minded institutions that launch wave after wae of attack. I understand.

But there are a number of problems with that approach. First of all, it’s a huge tactical blunder. In this country, starting any endeavor by saying religion has no place in it is simply going to raise the hackles of people who might otherwise listen (like me).

Second, it’s impossible. It comes from the misunderstanding that people of faith should leave their faith at home when they participate in the public sphere. That’s great – as long as those who aren’t religious also leave out everything they believe in as well. It’s impossible.

Third, it’s a pretty safe bet that more people who fight for civil rights also believe in one God or another. Hobbling them from engaging the opposition on home territory is simply asking for your army to leave its weapons at home.

It isn’t just academic. The eighth principle states, “Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.” Soooo – if I can’t commit to leaving my faith out of fighting for civil rights, then you don’t want my help?

I’ve been assured by some of those involved with these principles that this is not their intention. It is, however, what they are saying. At the best, it is simply a badly written document that asks for people of faith to exhibit a high level of tolerance for a fundamental misunderstanding of who they are. At worst, it displays a tendency to call for tolerance for one group while denying it for another. On the whole, it simply isn’t needed. The Principles would be perfectly functional without singling out religious beliefs to target. After all, secular beliefs can be just as restrictive as those based in religion.

Protests and explanations to the contrary may be valid. The problem is that a statement of principles should not have to be explained. Like I said, it picks a fight that is simply unnecessary – or at least seeks to engage it on the wrong level. As such, it will serve merely as a bone of contention, not a call to move forward.

I\’m done with this now

This deserves its own window or Wish I could read all of this

“Abortion is murder” is a moral position that is absolute. It is no more open to debate than my stance against the use of torture or rape. Talk to any pro-choice person and say “abortion is murder” and the first thing they’ll have to do is challenge that frame of reference. It is simply impossible to discuss when murder – which I’ll define as “the intentional taking of a human life without justification” – is an appropriate action. It is, by definition, never justifiable.

We have other words to describe the taking of a human life with justification. Homocide. Manslaughter. “Abortion is murder” is not the same as saying “Abortion kills.” It is saying “Abortion is inexcusable.”

Consider that murder is possibly the single unifying crime throughout all history and civilizations. There is not a single instance where killing without justification has been acceptable (though I’ll willingly say that some civilizations accepted some bizarre justifications of homocide).

This inflexibility on the right has led to the left either being just as inflexible or in ignoring the argument. Obama’s position is basically that he ignores the foundation of the disagreement – that abortion is murder. So he sees the possibility of common ground. There is no shortage of people who will willingly meet every shout of “Abortion is murder” with their own shout “No, it isn’t!” Shouting sometimes makes us feel better, but it isn’t dialogue and it will never reach any resolution, much less common ground.

I do agree that we should try and be civil when we can. But we should also agree that there is a limit to everyone’s civility and when they are pushed beyond it, we should not see that as their argument being weak or as some sort of personal failing. It is nothing more than emotion overwhelming the more rational side of our being – and that is perfectly human and not weak or a failing of any kind. It can be, in some instances, a form of strength, but that is a discussion for another time.

Those of us who are not on the far right position of “Abortion is murder”, however, do need to find common ground, because outside of that extreme position, there is a long continuum of possible stances. One person might believe that abortion is justified only when the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Another might believe that it is acceptable if medical professionals can give a reasonable assurance that the mother’s life will be in the danger if the pregnancy is continued. Yet another might believe it is okay if the mother’s health will be permanently damaged if the pregnancy continues, even without a threat to her life. Still another can take the position that the mother’s mental health should also be considered. And, of course, there are some who would say that the women merely needs to want an abortion for its need to be proven.

There are, of course, an infinite number of shadings between each position. There is, perhaps, some room for common ground between some of them. Perhaps even a majority of them. This is why the latest Gallup poll on the issue finds some 75% of those polled support abortion in at least some circumstances, but 51% identified themselves as “pro-life.” Obviously, most Americans are not identifying themselves by the extreme in either position.

I believe that women have a right to have an abortion. But I also believe that every single right guaranteed to use by the Constitution and the government it creates has a limit. The debate is over where a woman’s right to an abortion ends. That’s an uncomfortable debate for anyone to have, but that is the basic crux of the argument. It is the issue upon which Roe was decided – when does a woman’s right to an abortion get overtaken by the government’s responsibility to defend human life?

In answering that question, I have to call on my own experience. I have a picture of my twin sons taken about twenty-four hours after the sperm penetrated the egg. There is no way to argue that those blastomeres were fully formed humans at the time. But no one can tell me that the awe I felt was over anything less than the life represented in that photo. I’m telling you, I became a Dad (again – I have older kids) when I looked at that picture. I even kissed that picture.

All four of those blastomeres implanted in my wife’s uterus. Only two made it through the entire pregnancy, though, and it was a close thing at that. They were born ten weeks early (normal gestation is forty weeks – so the little buns only made it through 3/4 of the baking). And we were incredibly lucky that no major medical complications were experienced by either mother or babies.

All four made it long enough to have a detectable heartbeat. Until one day when one of them didn’t. The emotions were intense. My wife and I cried. We prayed. We held each other. We got angry together. But, honestly, it simply wasn’t anything close to what I’d feel if I lost one of the twins tonight.

That left three. And it became very clear that my wife was not going to be able to carry all three to completion. The increased pressure caused one of them to leak fluid, and it would simply become worse as the pregnancy continued. It might be possible to have all three live through it – but the chances were greater that the one that was leaking would not make it and might cause a loss of all three. We could choose to loose one and save the other two or risk losing all three.

We chose to save the two we have. And we thank God every day that we have them. But our decision ended the life of one of what might have been triplets. We cried. We prayed. We held each other. We got angry that we would be in such a position as to make that call. But, in the end, we did what was best for our kids. Not all parents would have made the call we did, but that’s the point of choice. It was our call because it was our family at stake.

I think we made the right call. It wasn’t an easy thing, though. If I am wrong, and God holds it against us, then I can only hope that He will be as forgiving as is advertised. But I’ll say this – no one on earth should have had the right to impose their beliefs on that decision process.

I’ve also had the experience of talking to my daughter after she was drugged and raped. Should she take the morning after pill or not? Well, that’s entirely between her and me. But, again, no one on earth should have the right to come between the two of us when we were having that conversation. All I’ll say is that she now has one of the most beautiful babies on earth, and it was conceived in love (if not with intention). All babies should be as lucky as to have such a wonderful mother.

It doesn’t matter to me what percentage of abortions are represented by such circumstances. What matters to me is that my wife and my daughter both had proper medical access to give them a choice. They were not held hostage by their blind hormonal fertility. They weren’t shackled by the beliefs of someone who had never met them.

But understand this – any abortion conducted in such circumstances represents an abortion that should not be reduced. So, please, don’t tell me blindly that the number of abortions needs to be reduced. Don’t tell me that adoption and sex education will reduce the number of abortions. First of all, it is accessability of health care that determines the number of abortions, not potential adoptive parents (of which there are plenty) and not knowing where babies come from. Second of all, adoption and sex education – and social support for needy mothers – are socially desirable independent on some nebulous effect on the abortion rate.

There are more things undreamt of in our philosophies than we can capture in simplistic ideologies or in sound bites. While I don’t believe that abortion is murder, I do believe that it takes a life. But I believe there are times when it is acceptable to take a life. It’s a horrible thing, free will. That’s why Christianity offers salvation, and that is why I’m a Christian – because I need that salvation.

So, yes, let’s seek common ground. But let’s do it with a foundation built on the understanding that some compromises are not going to be made. Common ground has to be more than mere words in passing.

I\’m done with this now