Thursday, January 16, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Southern Baptist Convention functionary Albert Mohler is highly critical of Evangelical acceptance of birth control. However, he himself has only reproduced twice. The position Mohler has enunciated leads us to two likely conclusions. Either he is as impotent as a proverbial Nevada boxing commissioner. Or, as in the case of many Evangelical leaders that miraculously came out in opposition to Halloween once they enjoyed their own childhoods of Trick-Or-Treat revelry, the use of these pharmaceuticals just happens to become wrong once he and the Mrs squeaked past their own years of fecundity. Apparently, screwing yourself away from the dinner table is a moral obligation only for the lesser breeds of humanity.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
An activist on the radical end of the homeschooling spectrum quipped that one can either choose Communism or COMMUNITY. COMMUNITY is in many instances merely just a diluted form of Communism. Granted, it might not at this juncture result in systematic executions, but both ideologies view the group rather than the individual or a transcendent morality governing the behavior of the individual as the highest source of authority and the criteria through which justification for decisions is arrived at.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Friday, January 10, 2014
So apparently it's an outrage to artificially manipulate traffic patterns for political purposes when that goal is to get back at an electoral rival but perfectly acceptable to arbitrarily manipulate traffic patterns in order to get motorists to abandon their individualized vehicles in favor of public transportation.
Fascinating. Apparently Chris Christie's minions orchestrating a traffic jam to get revenge on a political adversary is proof that the New Jersey Governor is unfit for presidential office. However, if one points out that Obama attended a church for two decades advocating the destruction of the White race, that he began his political career at a fund raiser held in the home of a domestic terrorist, or that he had millions kicked off their health insurance policies to prove the need for the establishment of a nationalized system, you are the one at fault for even bringing these things up.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
To prove the extent of her recovery three years after the mass shooting in which she was severely brain-damaged, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords parachuted from an airplane. The question is, though, following such a severe neurological trauma has she regained control of her bladder and bowels. Wouldn't that be a more accurate assessment of the extent to which she has healed?
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
A Lutheran talk show discussed whether or not a church should cancel services for inclement weather. One caller suggested a make-up day be scheduled. One already has. It is called next Sunday. For regulars, there really isn’t much that goes on that can’t be delayed until the following week. And those that close to death, it’s likely they would not have made the cancelled service to begin with.
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Protecting Clones
In popular culture and elite scientific circles alike, cloning is being heralded as a process through which humanity will be ushered onto the cusp of a golden age in terms of advances in the areas of agriculture and medicine. As with most advances, those with an entrepreneurial inclination are already positioning themselves to take advantage economically of the opportunities looming on the horizon.
For example, on April 3, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Patent US 6,211,429 for a process for animal cloning. One must keep in mind that, apart from agricultural applications, such research is initially tried on animals with the hopes of eventually perfecting the techniques for human usage.
One scholar concerned about the application of this utilitarian mindset to human beings where people could end up being used as something not all that different than barnyard livestock is Paige Cunningham of the Center For Bioethics and Human Dignity. In response, he has formulated a set of principles that could very well stop this tragedy before things get too far out of hand.
The first principle has been stated as the following: “Every human being, however conceived or created, is unique and deserving of protection. From a religious perspective, humans are different than animals and above all animals because humans alone are created in the image of God.” This principle is Biblical as it respects the individuality of the human being as a unique creation no matter how he might have been brought into the world. Even though we might find it unsettling that an individual might be grown in a laboratory and not as the result of a loving (or at least pleasurable) coupling of his parents, that is no reason why, as Cunningham’s declaration argues, such a person should not be granted the same privileges and protections enjoyed by the remainder of our species.
Part of the justification for the first principle, while theologically sound from a religious perspective, that human beings are different than animals because humans alone are created in the image of God, unfortunately may be tougher to sell in a culture contaminated by Darwinian materialism. It is not only from a religious perspective that human beings are different from the remainder of the animal kingdom but in the manner of our fundamental ontology as well. When was the last time someone saw chimpanzees constructing medical facilities or dolphins cogitating on declarations to protect themselves from doing harm to one another? Someone might think they are an animal when it comes to themselves but seldom do they want to be treated like one.
Cunningham’s second principle has been stated thusly: “Every human being has the right to individual autonomy; i.e. that his or her bodily integrity must not be invaded or compromised by others.” The first principle was forceful in its conviction to the point of almost being too explicitly religious in that it overlooked the biological uniqueness of man in favor of the theological,. The second, though well intended, rings with a bit of the vagueness this declaration was promulgated to protect against.
While the Christian can agree with the principle that in most instances that the bodily integrity of the individual must not be invaded or compromised by others, the proposition is not always absolute. Unless enunciated in a strong pro-life context as intended, platitudes about not compromising the bodily integrity of the individual were the very kind of statements that got the ball rolling down the hill of human devaluation in the first place all in the name of “choice” and banshees wailing in the street slogans such as “keep your laws off my body”. One must be clear that the unborn child (either growing in the womb or in the laboratory) possesses the same protections against bodily harm as those enjoyed by the parents.
The third principle, that no person has the right to enslave, own, or control any human being regardless of their stage of biological development is a sound reminder of the basic principles this nation was founded upon, went through numerous struggles to extend to all those living here, and continues to expand into the twenty-first century. This principle does a superb job of upholding the innate dignity of the individual as created in the image of God and the equality of all men before Him irrespective of their power or status.
The fourth principle contends that any organism that is genetically human is a human being. While this statement is necessary in this Postmodern age that loves nothing better than to play word games in an attempt to justify all kinds of moral outrages, in academic circles and the popular press where secular philosophy and the Christian worldview clash almost constantly the position may already be in need of modification.
Though it may sound like science fiction, there is a growing movement called “Transhumanism” that seeks to expand the abilities of mankind beyond the limitations imposed by the biology of the species through genetic or technological enhancements. Some propose to accomplish this by combining human and animal DNA.
Therefore, at some point ethicists, theologians, and concerned scientists are going to have to sit down and hash out what is the bare minimum of human DNA a person can have and still be considered a human being. For example, is an organism with only 90% human DNA worthy of protection as a human being? Such statements may cause one to chuckle, but the matter is so serious, according to Tom Horn of RaidersNewsUpdate.com, that neuroscientists experimenting on mice by injecting human brain cells into the skulls of these rodents are under orders to destroy these vermin if they start to exhibit signs of intelligence.
The fifth principle holds that “A cloned embryo is distinct and separate from the person donating the genetic material, and therefore is a unique being protected in law.” This is a principle that Christians need to be at the forefront of championing.
Often the cloning discussion is framed in terms of setting aside a genetic savings account for a rainy day. For example, if someone needed a spare kidney or liver, one could simply thaw out a non-sentient replicant kept in suspended animation for just such an emergency. However, what really happens when a cloning takes place is more akin to forming a twin of oneself or, if one is unsettled by such age differences between siblings, parenting a child in a non-traditional format. As close as these human relationships are, at no time may we use our family members as spare parts without their consent.
The last principle holds that, “No person or institution has the right to control or profit from any process designed to clone a human being.” While it is a good idea to take the profitability and power out of the cloning process as such an action would cut down on firms entering into this undertaking (including government), if we wait to the point where we attempt to regulate the procedure where it is legislated that the technique must benefit all mankind, things may have already reached the point of no return. Such a response would imply that cloning had already become widespread. Rather, Christians in positions of influence should instead get busy cultivating, as Pope John Paul II use to call it, an ethic of life where blatant disregard for other human beings is such an anathema that no self-respecting scientist would consider participating in such research.
Overall, the policy declaration suggested by Paige Cunningham is to be commended as a good starting point for those within the church to start thinking about these kinds of issues that they may have not taken the time to consider previously but that are about to role over our country and change it in fundamental ways that we do not like unless we rise up now to set things on a better moral path.
By Frederick Meekins
Since he is spewing environmentalist hysteria on Crossfire how we are suffering ecological catastrophe for releasing an eon's worth of carbon in the span of a century, Van Jones should be asked if he travels by foot from the CNN Washington studios to his fellowship at the Aspen Institute Of course, Gingrich isn't going to have the spine to raise the issue. The former Speaker of The House has been wined and dined or on the payroll himself of the very same New Age boards and think tanks.
Monday, January 06, 2014
Retirement & Wellness
Express Your Faith
Friday, January 03, 2014
The cover of the Jan. 2014 issue of Sojourners reads “Twisted Theology: Churches That Still Treat Women As Inferiors Are Distorting The Image Of God”. On the surface, that is correct. However, will this mouthpiece of leftwing theological radicalism be as bold with a similar headline condemning abortion, unrepentant homosexuals in the pulpit, and gay marriage?
The cover of the Jan. 2014 issue of Sojourners reads “Twisted Theology: Churches That Still Treat Women As Inferiors Are Distorting The Image Of God”. On the surface, that is correct. However, will this mouthpiece of leftwing theological radicalism be as bold with a similar headline condemning abortion, unrepentant homosexuals in the pulpit, and gay marriage?
A story in the 12/13/13 issue of The Nation is titled “Solving Gentrification”. Apparently it is proper to prevent rich White folks from moving into certain neigborhoods. But if it is proven you are conspiring in a similar manner against Black people and poorer foreigners, you'd probably be ruined financially as part of a civil rights lawsuit.
Thursday, January 02, 2014
Does Duck Dynasty Coot Advocate Institutionalized Pedophilia?
Should suitors wait until the young lady has reached a more legally respectable age of at least 20, this rube thinks the gal is already on the downward decline.
Some will flippantly dismiss his ramblings as backwoods ignorance. However, these ruminations are not much different than those in a number of more clean cut and technologically sophisticated homeschool circles.
The Swansonite sect that produces Generations Radio has even extended its blessing to the concept of the man being older than the young lady not having reached the socially accepted age of majority. And similar ideas are seeping into the more mainstream Evangelical subculture such as through Albert Mohller and James Dobson.
For raising these kinds of concerns in other contexts, I was snapped at that these thinkers have no control over me and that is correct.
However, I am sure similar things were said about the Warren Jeffes breakway Mormon cult before that group of sickos set up outposts throughout the American far West.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
The Morality Of Stem Cell Research
Thus far we know the following. Medical science has determined that stem cells posses the potential of being altered into other kinds of cells. This could potentially make them useful in curing various kinds of diseases.
The controversy arises over the source from which these cells are harvested. One possible source are mature stem cells obtained from adults. This extraction does not harm the donor. The drawback is, however, that it is believed it may not be possible to manipulate mature stem cells into becoming the different kinds of cells doctors and scientists may need to treat all the conditions begging for medical attention.
On the other hand, it has been suggested that stem cells obtained from embryos may be a more fruitful source. These may prove easier to alter since they have not yet matured. The main drawback, however, is that the embryo must be destroyed in order to obtain the stem cells for research and experimentation.
This debate has become one of the foremost issues in contemporary American politics as both sides make a number of compelling ethical claims. On the one hand, advocates of embryonic stem cell research often suffer from afflictions those of reasonably good health cannot possibly understand at this given point in our lives. It is only natural that they and their loved ones would want research into what could be the most effective cure. Yet on the other hand, there are concerns about the destiny of the embryo from which the stem cells are taken since the fertilized egg is a self-contained genetically distinct living human organism.
The foremost ethical principle bearing on this dispute is the sanctity of human life. Interestingly, in this case the principle is being invoked by both sides of the debate. Thus, one almost needs the wisdom of Solomon in attempting to apply the concept in a judicious manner.
Since the suffering are beings made in the image of God, medical science does have a duty to do what it can to ease the misery of the profoundly ill. That said though, society in general and the medical establishment in particular must go out of its way to defend innocent human life that cannot protect itself.
It is against the law to destroy an eagle egg which is essentially an unborn eagle. Then why should it then be permissible to kill an unborn child since it is a principle Biblical in origin traditionally accepted throughout Western society that a human being is infinitely more valuable than any animal? For if His eye is on the sparrow, then I know He’s watching me.
Furthermore, with all the efforts by activists lobbying for funding for embryonic stem cell research, it is doubtful that most of the public is being told the entire picture regarding these developments in medical science.
According to columnist Charles Krauthammar, who is himself a paraplegic and a trained physician, in a column from October 15, 2004 titled “Anything to get elected” posted at Townhall.com claims of those such as John Kerry and John Edwards that hold out the hope of such miracle cures only if Americans vote for the right candidates, “In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery.” Krauthammar goes on to point out that it could be another generation before scientists are anywhere close to finding a cure for paralysis and that NIH stem cell researcher Ronald McKay has admitted that “stem cells as an Alzheimer’s cure are a fiction but that people need a fairytale.”
Furthermore, even if embryonic stem cells prove more malleable than their adult counterparts, we might not like the results. According to a LifeNews.com story by Steven Ertelt titled “Embryonic Stem Cell Research Causes Tumors”, University of Rochester researchers found that, while stem cells injected into the brains of rats to ease the symptoms of Parkinson’s did help a number of the rodents, a number of the cells began growing in a manner that would have led to tumors.
Apart from the harm that might befall the recipients of the procedure, it would still remain morally dubious even if it returned the patients to robust health and vitality. Writing in another column entitled “Stem Cell Miracle?: An Advance This Side Of Bush’s Moral Line” appearing in the January 12, 2007 Washington Post, Charles Krauthammar admits that, even though he himself supports abortion and does not believe life begins at conception, he is leery of what may result should some kind of restriction not be placed on embryonic research. Krauthammar warns, “You don’t need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good. Once we have taken the position of many stem cell advocates that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail, then the barriers are down. What is to prevent us from producing not just tissues and organs but humanlike organisms for preservation as a source of future body parts on demand?”
This possibility has been explored in a number of imaginative contexts such as “Gene Rodenberry’s: Earth Final Conflict”, where one episode depicted human bodies not quite allowed to develop consciousness kept in a state similar to suspended animation until their organs were needed. In “The Island” starring Ewan MacGregor, clones were kept in a guarded facility until their parts were needed by their genetic progenitors.
The fundamental guiding principle of medicine is to do no harm. That lofty ideal ought to apply to both the patient seeking services as well as the individual from which the cure could very well be extracted.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, December 30, 2013
Newscast Overlooks Charity Recipient's Backstory
Interestingly, the WRC 4 coverage of the outreach deliberately avoided detailing the background of this recipient of eleemosynary.
For example, the most obvious question coming into the mind of the average viewer not having been conditioned by bureaucratic reeducators is where is the father in the midst of this hardship?
Relatedly, in the age of Maury Povich, since this woman has multiple children, are there multiple fathers?
Maybe if she had taken two jobs prior to procreating, this woman wouldn't have had the time nor the energy necessary to spawn in the first place.
Perhaps this woman should have had a better taste in men instead of now expecting the men that actually have jobs and work for a living to pick up the slack left dangling by the deadbeats.
This woman was no doubt informed of the pending of this Christmas charity over her latest iteration of the Iphone.
Most will no doubt be peeved about the discerning raising these kinds of issues.
No doubt Biblical admonitions about doing unto the least of these and such will be readily raised.
Interestingly, seldom is the one mentioned that points out that those unwilling to provide for their own children are worse than an infidel.
By Frederick Meekins
Using Abram & Hagar To Understand Reproductive Technology
One such desire that has been a constant throughout the passing millennia has been the longing to have children. Both classic literature and front page headlines attest to the length some will go to to satisfy the parental impulse.
Here in our enlightened and progressive era are those wearing their sophistication on their sleeves for all to see who would say that there is no reason medically or morally why the desire for children cannot be fulfilled for those seeking to have the role of primary adult caretaker in the life of a specific young person.
One venue through which couples unable to have children of their own have turned to is surrogate motherhood. In this arrangement, the genetic material of the husband is implanted for the purposes of impregnation in a fecund woman who agrees to turn over custody of the child (often for a hefty sum of money) to the biological father and his wife.
To those seeing marriage as little more than a contract instituted by human beings with little purpose beyond establishing a stable social order, its slight alteration among consenting adults is of little consequence. However, from an examination of Genesis 16, we see that utilizing a woman other than the wife one is married to in the eyes of God is fraught with consequences that cannot initially be predicted.
From the text, the reader gathers the following facts.
Though God had promised an heir to Abram and Sarai, it seemed to them that they would remain barren since they were getting along in years.
So Sarai suggested that Abram go to her servant Hagar and father a child through her. Being a typical man, Abram readily agreed and took Hagar as a second wife.
After Hagar conceived, like a typical woman Sarai chewed out Abram when doing exactly as he was told by his wife did not turn out exactly as she expected. This happened in part when Hagar copped an attitude that she was more of a woman than Sarai since Hagar conceived, no doubt rubbing it in her employer’s face.
Caught in the middle, Abram let the catfight continue and told Sarai to do as she pleased with Hagar. So since she was mistreated by Sarai, Hagar ran away.
However, Hagar eventually returned to Abram to have Ishmael after being told by the Lord to do so and after being promised that she would be the mother of a great nation in her own right as well.
This text is fraught with a number of ethical issues.
For starters, there is the near universal desire to have a family, which, often a central motivating impulse in normal circumstances, must have been an overwhelming desire when it was prophesied that one’s offspring would come to influence all the world.
Second, there is the issue of the sanctity of marriage. From Scripture, it is taught that the standard is matrimony between one man and one woman as it says two shall become one flesh, not three.
As such, wherever there are two ladies competing to be queen of the castle there will inevitably be conflict.
There is also the issue of Abram stepping up to the plate and taking care of Ishmael and Hagar even if it would be more convenient to get them out of the way.
Some might question what bearing the Abram-Sarai-Hagar triangle has to do with the modern practices of surrogacy.
For today the process is much more clinical. The surrogate is not brought into the family as a concubine or second wife (except in parts of Utah perhaps) and the man does not get to lay back and enjoy the delights of his harem.
However, there is still the possibility of what was undertaken as an effort to acquire some of the most profound joy human beings can experience (namely having a family) spiraling out of control in terms of heartache and jealousy. For example, in the case of Elizabeth Whitehead who was contracted to be a surrogate, wads of cash were not enough to extinguish maternal feelings and a nasty custody fight ensued.
Frankly, a woman would have to be a borderline sociopath to be able to sever the bond with the child that grew within her for nine months.
Secondly, since the child becomes the child of the wife merely as the result of legal maneuvering, one must wonder just how attached she will be to the child as there is likely to be buried deep some kind of resentment that the husband had to turn to another woman (even if no “recreation satisfaction” was involved) to acquire a child. Even though Sarai instigated this ordeal in part to claim the child as her own, she certainly had few qualms about tossing Hagar out on her ear when things got tense.
This brings us to the only ethically viable alternatives for the Christian couple that want to both honor God and enjoy family life beyond the marital relationship.
If the wife is consistent and sincere that it does not matter if the child she is to raise is biologically hers or not, the couple should be informed that adoption is a way of fulfilling this desire that still honors the two-as-one ideal of marriage while assisting a child that would otherwise face this cruel world unloved.
If the couple is insistent that the child must be of their biological lineage, the Christian couple wanting to please God by keeping His commandments must pray for patience to wait upon the will of the Lord if they are to become parents and have fun while trying to find out.
By Frederick Meekins