Results tagged “government”

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

Someone asked me this week why I am “terrified” of government. “Terrified” is certainly too strong a word, but I’d certainly say I’m cautious and wary of government. This passage in 1 Samuel does a marvelous job of explaining why.

For those who may not know, the nation of Israel escaped from the tyranny of Pharaoh and conquered Canaan (modern day Israel) before 1200 BC. The settled the Promised Land at this time and took as their own, as the land God had promised their forefathers. For the following 200 years, the nation of Israel lived in what we’d probably call anarchy today. You can read about this period in your Bible by reading the Book of Judges.

Essentially, Israel was divided up into sections by tribe. During this time, they existed primarily as city-states, where each major city had elders that handled local government and exerted influence over the nearby land and villages. The tribes of Israel warred against one another from time to time, but were mostly allied with one another. Yet, they had no central authority, at least nothing we’d recognize as such today. During times of crisis, God would raise up a “judge” who took leadership over Israel and resolved the crisis. Samson is probably the most infamous of these judges and Samuel the most famous.

After living under this system for a couple hundred years (longer if you look back to the times of Joshua and Moses), the Israelites had had enough. They demanded that God give them a king. Samuel, who was also a prophet, had been judge over Israel shortly before this time and had appointed his sons Joel and Abijah to be judges. Though Samuel had been just, his sons were not and took bribes. (1 Samuel 7)

At this time, the people began demanding a king. “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.’” (1 Samuel 8:4-5) We see that a king was something different from a judge in that what a judge was differs from what the other nations called a king. You can read above to see what many of those differences amounted to, but the gist is that under the judges, the people were closer to the Kingdom of God. (1 Samuel 10:7) A judge merely adjudicates and provides a relatively weak leadership role. More of a consul than a Caesar. A king is permanent, comes with the trappings of royalty, adds bureaucracy, industry, and taxes, and has absolute authority.

When we read on, we find out that this desire displeased not only Samuel, but God. “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.’” (1 Samuel 8:6-9) What follows this paragraph in scripture is the warning given at the top of this post.

Clearly, a king is not what God wanted for his nation, but as God so often does, he lets people have what they want. Not only that, he gives “them up to dishonorable passions.” (Romans 1:26-27)

What does that have to do with today? Everything. While we lack a king over us, our government is still based upon the same kind of sovereignty that kings have. Previously, such sovereignty was philosophically derived from the Divine Right of Kings or simply who possessed the most power in force.

Our government is philosophically based upon the Inalienable Rights of people who use their liberties to choose leaders and, in a sense, our ownership of weapons to provide the force necessary to keep powerful people in check. The Divine Right has transfered from a patriarchal monarchy to the wisdom or folly of the people. We have the awesome responsibility of choosing the people who stand in authority over us. Once they have authority, they can do all the things threatened in 1 Samuel 8:10ff, even make us slaves. We have the brute force option open to us, but, fortunately, we have been and remain very, very reluctant to apply that force.

George Washington put it well in 1797, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant—and a fearful master.” I would not want to do without some form of government. Yet, I prefer to keep that government in a small box, like the gas fire that warms my house in winter.

The government we have has astonishing authority, authority that the nation’s founders warned us against. Samuel warns Israel against the use of this authority and we should heed that warning. We have sacrificed liberty in the name of safety. We have sacrificed happiness in exchange for license. We have sacrificed life for convenience. Soon, I fear, we shall exchange health in the name of compassion.

Were my hope resting upon men and government, I would certainly be terrified. (Proverbs 1:20-33) However, I could only be terrified if I had no hope for myself and my children. “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1)

Cheers.

I hesitate to put this topic on my blog because it causes such a strong reaction by most folks. In fact, the discussion generally provokes a pretty strong reaction from me. This is why I really want to carefully treat the topic from my point of view without trolling
. As such, I just want to state my position from various perspectives and summarize what I believe.

First, let me define what I'm talking about to be clear. Abortion is the action of destroying or purposely rendering a human embryo or fetus inviable. I consider all forms of abortion as homicide. Just to be clear: homicide is not necessarily criminal. Our legal system, for example, incorporates the ancient concept of "justified homicide." Justified homicide is the termination of a human life under mitigating circumstances. For example, the most obvious case happens when someone threatens you with a gun in your home and you kill them. The law is carried out such that this action is not considered criminal.

The debate about abortion falls into several arenas that frequently get confused. There is the criminal, social, and political aspects of the discussion, which is concerned with whether or not government or some part of society is responsible for taking action in a given circumstance. There is the moral and ethical arena whereby you state that an action is objectively right or wrong (morality) or helpful or harmful to society, yourself, or some other class (ethics). There is the scientific and medical arena concerned with the actual nature of the action itself. I'd like to consider each of these aspects in the reverse order they are given here.

Science of Abortion

The medical science related to genetics and life forms one leg of the foundation of my ethical argument against the practice of abortion. The second leg of that foundation is that human life is sacred and should be protected, which is a moral and ethical argument I will consider in detail later. If life is sacred, then an important question is: when does an individual human life form? If life is not sacred, then it doesn't really matter if you are taking a life way anyway, so the point is moot.

I believe the answer to the question as to when life begins is answered medically without doubt. At which point does a person become an individual? When that person becomes genetically distinct: conception. At the point at which an individual sperm joins with the egg and their DNA combine to form a single whole, an individual exists, the potential becomes actual. I'd be willing to debate this point, but I can't think of another possible juncture where you can say a new individual exists. All other changes to an embryo or fetus or merely changes of degree, not changes of nature.

One might also suggest that the individual is formed when the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. Yet, that doesn't really fly because the uterus merely acts as a feeding mechanism. Just because the embryo fails to survive because it doesn't start gathering food from the mother doesn't mean it was never a person. One might as well say that an infant was never an individual human because it failed to crawl to and suckle from it's mother's breasts on its own.

One might suggest that the individual is formed when it starts feeling or thinking or becomes a recognizable animal form or some other measure. The difficulty is that it isn't possible to define a moment or point of time at which such things happen. Furthermore, you can take away these things without necessarily losing individuality. Does a person cease to be an individual life form if she becomes paralyzed and without sensation? What if he stops thinking? A person can still act and be an individual in a completely catatonic state. Some humans are badly disfigured, but it doesn't remove the fact that they are human.

One might also suggestion that the individual is formed when it could survive out of the womb. However, this becomes difficult to measure. Records are set on a fairly regular basis for younger and younger premature infant survival. I don't see any reason why medical technology couldn't be developed to allow an embryo to develop completely outside of a mother's womb. In fact, it could even happen in my life time. Who knows?

One might state that an individual is only possible at the moment of birth or at some point after birth. However, what's special about the infant leaving the womb? There's nothing magically different between a fetus and an infant at full term except that one is in the mother's womb and the other is not. One might even say that individuality doesn't come until later as the child's complex psychological personality begins to form. Yet, this reasoning suffers from the same difficulty as the earlier arguments about feeling, thinking, or recognizable form.

I simply cannot think of any other moment where an individual is formed other than conception. That doesn't mean there isn't some other point, but as far as I can understand the medical process, conception is the only point where an individual life can be said to start.

If life is sacred and life begins at conception, then the definition of homicide definitely applies to an embryo that is terminated by a pill or through an abortion performed by a doctor. Again, this doesn't necessitate that such an act is criminal, just that such an act is the taking of a human life: homicide.

This basis is the reason for which I cannot accept the argument that this is about a "woman's body." It is, in fact, about a woman's body and the infant's body. As an illustration, if two men are trying to go opposite ways through a doorway and neither is willing to give up to let the other through, it's about each man's body causing hardship for the other. One would not say that one man would be justified in killing the other just so he could get the other out of his way.

Morality and Ethics of Abortion

My morality is based upon the teaching of the Bible as well as I understand it. My ethics are based upon that moral foundation as much as possible because I don't believe a complete ethic can be derived from nothing. (In fact, the definition of "derivation" requires that one assume some basic principles.) On the other hand, I can still appeal to common sense and what's good for society and individuals to help bolster my ethical and moral positions.

As I mentioned before, I believe human life is sacred. Let me define what I mean. Something that is sacred is something regarded with great respect and reverence. Something that is sacred must not be destroyed or damaged without justification. Without such justification, destructive action against a sacred object is wrong.

Personally, I believe human life is sacred because this is a common theme in the Bible. However, if I cast aside the Biblical basis, I believe there is still a strong argument for the sacredness of human life. The basis for that statement is simply this, is it alright to take another person's life for any (or no) reason at all? Is it okay to kill someone because you feel like it? Is it okay just because you wanted to? Is it okay to kill someone because you can?

I don't think I've met anyone of any creed, belief, or unbelief that thinks it is justifiable to kill for no reason or any reason at all. I certainly hope I've never met anyone like that. Therefore, nearly everyone believes human life to be sacred even if individuals have no religious faith behind such a belief. I use the word "sacred", but I don't mean that in a necessarily religious way.

If human life is sacred and life begins at conception, then any individual between conception and birth (those subject to abortion) are sacred and must not be destroyed (aborted) without justification. Again, this doesn't mean that the unjustified destruction of an embryo or fetus is criminal. Abortion is homicide. Homicide might be justifiable. Whether it is justifiable or not it might not be criminal.

Another possible fuzzy area presents itself, however. How much justification is required to abort an unattached embryo? An embryo attached to the uterus? A fetus? An infant? A toddler? A child? An adolescent? An adult? A senior? It is possible that different amounts or different kinds of justifications might be possible. Each stage of life might have it's own criteria and certainly each stage of life presents a different set of circumstances. For example, if you kill an adult threatening you with a weapon in your own home, that's generally considered justified. However, if you kill a toddler that threatens you with a weapon, you will not be considered justified under any circumstances I can imagine.

This is, in my opinion the very crux of the matter. Abortion is homicide, but what suffices as justification for this form of homicide? This answer is much more difficult to discern. Does risk to a mother's health justify abortion to save the mother's life? Does psychological risk justify abortion? Just because the father of the unborn individual raped the mother to form the individual is abortion justified? Is the mental health or intelligence of the mother factor into such a justification?

It is my opinion that these are the questions we need to focus on as a society rather than fighting this as an epic one-way-or-the-other battle. What suffices as justified homicide when it comes to abortion? Can abortion be justified as is the case with the homicide of an adult? Or is abortion always unjustified as is homicide involving a toddler? Is abortion justified when the parents of the individual are especially underprivileged (or even over-privileged)? Is abortion justified when the individual is found in utero to be susceptible to or affected by disease? Is abortion justified if the mother is taking medication that happens to destroy or render the embryo inviable? These questions should be considered rather than making this the monolithic issue of: Abortion-for-or-against.

My answer: I view abortion as permanently unjustifiable. I can find nothing in the Bible that suggests that taking a child's life to save the mother is justified. In the case of rape of the mother, there are instances of such an act but the infant not aborted (yes, abortions were possible in ancient times and the practice of justified infanticide was also a common practice in many non-semitic cultures). I don't find anything justifying abortion in any of the above questions in the Bible either.

Again, this doesn't mean that all abortion must be criminal. It is possible for me (or even general society) to consider a particular abortion wrong, but for the law to allow such an abortion to proceed without any criminal ramifications. In fact, it's even possible for an action to be ethically justified but considered criminal. To illustrate the point, take the face mask penalty of football. Whether the face mask was intentional (unjustified) or clearly accidental (justifiable) doesn't matter. It's so important to protect players from neck injury that any contact of one player's hands to another player's face mask is an automatic penalty. The same is possible in law.

Politics of Abortion

Therefore, the second half of this question is to decide when abortion homicide is committed, is such an act criminal? Currently, the laws are generally written such that no criminal charges can be brought against either the doctor performing nor the patient receiving an abortion for any reason or at any time during pregnancy up to the point of birth. I will qualify that previous statement by saying that some criminal prosecution is possible under certain circumstances. For example, some states forbid abortions to be given to minors without the consent of their parent or guardian. In such a case, it's not the abortion itself that's considered criminal, but that a medical procedure was carried out without the consent of the individuals in charge of the minor.

The libertarian view on the subject is that the government should not intervene and it is up to the individual to make up their mind on such a decision. Therefore, they believe government should not intervene regardless of the moral or ethical issues involved. It's simply none of the government's business.

This is one of the points at which I disagree strongly with libertarians. In my view, since I consider human life sacred and to undoubtedly start at conception, this is equivalent to saying that a parent is legally free of criminal consideration for killing their own child until that child is no longer under the guardianship of the parent. Such a view diminishes the sacredness of human life and reduces human life to the same level as personal property. If an infant, toddler, or adolescent is to be protected under the law, I do not see a difference as to whether the individual is within or without the womb. I see no reason why a pre-born individual should be considered with any less protection.

Conclusion

I feel pretty strongly about this, but I've worked very hard to present an objective view of the topic. I've purposely avoided any emotional imagery or other tactics in presenting my view and any point presented here is open for comment by any person visiting my site. However, if a troll or poster comes in using emotional imagery or misleading argumentation, you can expect to have your comment deleted. Disagreement is welcome; irrational and emotional argumentation about any aspect from any position is not.

Cheers.

I'm currently reading a book by Kevin J. Anderson called Hidden Empire. It is science fiction and I have a great deal of interest in science fiction because it reveals much about the mindset of what various authors hope for or dread in the future. Of course, one can't put too much stock in what's said and I do read it as much for leisure. A theme I often notice is how authors treat religion. In this specific case, there is a religious body for the humans called the "Church of Unison". This "religion" is described as the "United Nations of religion." This comment led me to some interesting thoughts about both how SciFi authors use/abuse religion and about the United Nations.

I don't think Anderson is a religious person of any deep conviction based upon the existence of this Church of Unison in his book (or wasn't at the time of this writing). I could be wrong, but the idea that the great religions of the world would some how come together and promote a universal one religion leader is preposterous. I find the idea offensive in the extreme as should any person who refers to them self as "Christian," "Jew," or "Muslim." Hinduism and Buddhism and many other religions may allow for a variety of paths to divinity, but Christianity, Judaism, and Islam specifically denounce any other path to God (though, some sects naming themselves under one of these might disagree with that statement).

In the book, the goal of this one world religion is to strongly discourage religious fervor. I again find this pretty unbelievable. I religions have their fanatics. Even a one world religion will gain a priesthood of dedicated individuals that would trade their life for their belief, even if such were officially discouraged. One need only look throughout history and note how every religion has had its strong fanatics, often by sub-sects that fail to follow orthodox doctrine, but also frequently with officially condoned fanaticism.

On the other hand, there is nothing to say that various religions can't build a council to help encourage understanding and cooperation despite official doctrinal differences. That is, I can see such an organization as working to provide a context for arbitrating disputes and promoting a few common themes, but not to provide any kind of doctrinal agreement. Only when a religion is so liberal as to be able to have little doctrine or where the followers are willing to ignore its doctrine would anything more be possible. However, such wouldn't satisfy a large percentage of strongly convicted believes who insist that there is Truth and refuse to allow it to be diluted.

I then turned the analogy on its head and realized that this also helps to explain why I consider the United Nations to be a fairly worthless organization. The title itself, "United Nations," is completely false. There is nothing united about these nations. In fact, most of the representatives don't even represent nations. The U.N. consists of democratic republics, socialist democracies, communists, autocracies, oligarchies, monarchies, fascists, theocracies, and all the shades in between. The vast majority of these are some form of autocracy, whether that be communist, fascist, or the plain, bald-faced dictatorships. Therefore, most of the members don't even represent the people of the country sending an ambassador. They represent the government or even just a small segment of the bureaucracy that makes all the decisions by force. Admittedly, it is possible for an autocrat to represent his people, but that's not the norm. In general, autocrats only represent their people just enough to keep them from thinking hard enough about revolution.

One can argue the same of the elected representatives of our government. However, it's much easier for us to have a "revolution" ousting a representative from office via the ballot box making them pay much closer attention.

The idea that the U.N. can somehow build consensus among so many different interests is completely absurd. Giving the U.N. power is like trying to put a lion, an elephant, a monkey, and an ant-eater in a cage and asking them to come to a consensus on what to eat. The lion will want to eat whichever of the others is closest, the ant-eater could care less what the others eat as long as there's an anthill near the cage, and the elephant and monkey will argue over what kind of vegetables or fruits taste best. You won't get anywhere. If you watch the U.N., they don't get anywhere. To expect grand solutions from this body is a good laugh at best and just plain pathetic at worst.