Pro-Life Logic

Recently I listened to a speech by Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft called Pro-Life Logic. Dr. Kreeft has a way of distilling complicated, abstract concepts into simple terms almost anyone can understand. In this speech he argued that the pro-life position against abortion is based on three fundamental premises. I will paraphrase them here:

• The life of each individual human begins when a unique genetic code is formed at the moment of conception.
• All humans have a right to life simply because they are human.
• The law must protect the most basic rights of all humans, including the right to life.

If all three of these things are true, then the logical conclusion is you must be pro-life. Conversely, in order to be pro-abortion you must deny at least one of the three premises. Otherwise you are being logically inconsistent.

These points can be very useful if you are discussing abortion with someone who is not pro-life. If you can zero in on their most basic belief, you may be able to plant some doubts that they cannot escape.

Note also that these are not religious arguments. One need not believe in God in order to understand and accept them. The first point, for instance, is simply scientific fact. Prior to Roe vs. Wade, few scientists would say that an embryo was anything other than a unique human being. A very small, very young human, obviously, but human nonetheless. Any other definition of humanity is necessarily subjective and not scientifically provable.

These days most pro-abortion advocates rely on the second and third premises. They may admit that life begins at conception, but they argue that certain categories of human have no right to life. These categories are, of course, subjectively defined and subject to the whims of whoever is in charge. This is how the Nazis justified the murder of Jews, gays, and various other groups.

The last premise is also familiar: it is the Clinton/Giuliani line that goes "I'm against support abortion but I would never force my views on others." Dr. Kreeft handily swats that argument down, along with many others. You can download this speech, and many others, from his web site here.

Mercy for the Unspeakable

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

Rod Dreher shared a terrible story on his blog yesterday. In Massachusetts, a 6-year-old boy was raped by a convicted sex offender in the public library. The boy's mother was nearby; the rapist lured the boy behind some shelves and he was too paralyzed by fear to cry for help. Here is more from the NY Times and AP.

When we see stories like this, the visceral reaction is usually to wish pain, suffering, and death on anyone who would do such things to a child. In the rush to condemn we sometimes forget that the offender is human, too. His name is Corey Saunders, and here is a bit of his background.

Court records show that Mr. Saunders’s mother left him when he was 9. At 14 he was found wandering the streets clutching a teddy bear and was hospitalized in a psychiatric ward for a month...

Saunders, 26, was convicted in 2001 of indecent assault and battery and attempted rape on a child for attacking a 7-year-old boy in a foster home where he was placed. He was released about a year ago by a judge even though prosecutors and three psychologists said he was likely to strike again.

Bristol Superior Court Judge Richard Moses denied a motion by the district attorney's office to keep Saunders in custody under what is called a civil commitment... Moses cited Saunders' low IQ, his history of being sexually abused as a child and his lack of sexual offenses in prison as reasons to let him out. Also, a psychologist for the defense said Saunders was not likely to attack again.

Obviously the judge made a terrible mistake, but the rest of us have to share the blame. Such things are the inevitable result of the decision we as a society made back in the 1960s to "de-institutionalize" the mentally ill (which anyone who rapes a 6 year old clearly is, by definition). In most states it is practically impossible to force people like Saunders to accept any kind of treatment against their will unless they are "imminently" dangerous - which usually means gun in hand, finger on trigger. You have a constitutional right to be crazy in America.

A lot of these people would be fine if they just took medicine regularly. Instead of making them do so, we abandon them to their own private hell. They end up living on the streets, in prison, or dead. It is no accident that this crime happened where it did; in many cities public libraries have become de facto day care centers for homeless people, especially when it is cold outside. Since many homeless people are mentally ill, it should surprise no one if they commit crimes in libraries. It will continue to happen until we fix the mental health system.

Both Corey Saunders and society will finally get what they need now: separation. Hopefully he will get some effective treatment as well, but he sounds like a tough case. I would bet that his mother who abandoned him was herself mentally ill. There are strong genetic connections to these things.

I began this article with a verse from the Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy. Does Corey Saunders deserve mercy? No, he doesn't. None of us do. Yet the Lord expects us to show mercy if we want to receive mercy ourselves. And mercy is something we will all need when we face Him in judgment.

This is a hard teaching to follow. We want vengeance against people who do these things. Yet vengeance has no place in the life of a Christian; God reserves that right to Himself. From us he expects mercy, and particularly toward the weak and helpless.

It is ironic that some Christian "pro-life" advocates turn so bloodthirsty in these situations. People with serious mental illness are not morally culpable for their actions, any more than the unborn babies we fight so hard to protect. The very concept of "punishing" such people ought to be repugnant to anyone who really cares about defending innocent life.

Yes, we need to protect society from such persons. Lock them up for life if necessary. But we owe them mercy at the same time. This is an area where we have failed miserably as a society. Men like Corey Saunders, and a little boy he met in the library, are both paying the price.

The True Cost of Freedom

This week I saw two news stories that seem totally unrelated. I'm sad to say they are not. Read on, then think about it.

In Iowa City, a man named Sonny Iovino died on November 7th at the age of 55. Two days earlier the police had found this Vietnam-era veteran lying on the ground, trying to dig himself into a mulched garden near a heating exhaust vent. He was lightly dressed, confused, incoherent and barefoot. Police officers convinced him to put on his shoes and leave the property on which he was trespassing.

After two more calls the same day that found Iovino in various states of undress, police finally took him to see a psychiatrist at the VA Medical Center.

Iovino asked the psychiatrist for medication, but the doctor said he first needed an evaluation. When the doctor asked to take his vital signs, Iovino made what reports called an inappropriate comment. "I take that as a no," UI Police Officer Alton Poole reported the doctor as saying. The doctor released Iovino back to police.

A blood-alcohol test showed Iovino hadn't been drinking, but a medical center social worker said Iowa City's Shelter House wouldn't take him in his condition, reports showed.

The officers arrested Iovino and took him to jail, but deputies there wouldn't take him either. Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek told The Gazette the jail won't admit anyone with an immediate medical need. He said the doctor's note indicated Iovino needed hospitalization for mental illness.

Police cited Iovino for criminal trespass and released him with notice to show up for court on Nov. 20. He signed the charge and left the jail, walking south along Court Street — toward the Benton Street bridge, the reports said. [source]

Two days later Iovino was found under that same bridge, dead of hypothermia.

In the area where I work - which is not at all poor - it's common to see people standing on street corners, holding little signs saying they need money. For a long time I ignored them, other than to make sure my car doors were locked if one of them got too close. Lazy bums, I would think to myself. Why don't they get a job?

A year or two ago I heard a news story where the disguised reporter stood at an off-ramp just to see how much money he could collect. It wasn't much - a few dollars a day. Why would anyone in his right mind do it, then? The answer is these people aren't in their right mind. Most are mentally ill. You can't tell from behind the glass of your comfortably cooled or heated vehicle, but even if someone hired them it's doubtful they could stay employed for long. Years ago they would have been safely institutionalized. Now we abandon them to life on the streets.

So I changed my policy. If I can do it without creating a traffic hazard, I roll down the window and give them whatever spare change I have. Won't they just use it to buy drugs or booze? Probably. But maybe not. If there is any chance I can make a difference for someone in need, shouldn't I try?

Often I give them some money and then feel sad and inadequate. I wonder if I'm just assuaging my own guilt. The fact is I could do a lot more, and I don't. But if I do nothing I feel even worse. If I drive past one of those corners and the "regulars" I've come to recognize aren't standing there, I worry what might have happened to them. If the goal is to make yourself feel good, this isn't the way to do it.

It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to ask why the VA physician wouldn't treat Sonny Iovino, why he couldn't get into a shelter, and why the laws prevented people from helping him unless he wanted it. All are good questions, but answering them now won't help Sonny. We as a society decided that the most important thing was that he have his freedom; never mind that he was incapable of knowing what to do with it.

The rest of us have freedom, too. How do we use it? That brings up the other news story I saw this week. In Mesquite, Texas, a mall opened at 1:00 AM on the the Friday after Thanksgiving to begin the annual consumer spending season. Who would get up at such an hour just to go shopping? Plenty of people, apparently. Watch this video (via Rod) for images of what rampant materialism does to otherwise sane Americans.

How many folks are willing to go out at 1:00 on a cold winter night and bring a little cheer to the people shivering under bridges? Not so many. How many would take 10% of what they spent at the mall that night and give it to people who don't get to go shopping? Again, not many. It's hard to blame them. Guys like Sonny Iovino aren't fun to be around. He was dirty, belligerent, and probably didn't smell very good. You know what else he was? He was a man, created in the image and likeness of God. He was, in that way if no other, like us.

There are people like Sonny Iovino in my city, and in yours. We all have a choice. We can pretend they don't exist. We can assume someone else will help them. We can return to our comfortable homes. Or we can remember what the God who created Sonny, and the rest of us, promised: ...whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has an editorial about Sonny Iovino's death. Read it here.


Related Posts:
Too Many Barns
Pampering The Pooches
Millionaires Everywhere
Real Charity
Making A Difference
Dressed For Success

External Links:
Mobile Loaves & Fishes
Salvation Army
Treatment Advocacy Center

No More Ho Ho Ho

At first I thought this had to be a joke, but it seems real.

Santas in Australia's largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas's traditional "ho ho ho" greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported Thursday.

Sydney's Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say "ha ha ha" instead, the Daily Telegraph reported.

One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use "ho ho ho" because it could frighten children and was too close to "ho", a US slang term for prostitute. [source]

Where do I begin? Any woman who would be offended to hear Santa Claus say "ho ho ho" is out of her mind and needs to get psychological help. What's next? Consider the alternatives:

• Ha ha ha promotes the stereotype that fat people are jolly.
• Hi hi hi implies that Santa is a user of illegal drugs.
• Hu hu hu may be offensive to owl lovers.
• Hee hee hee will be heard by radical feminists as a male chauvinist taunt.

Unless someone invents a new vowel, it appears that Santas throughout the English-speaking world will have no choice but to stand there in silence and stare at the kiddies. Children who expected a jolly old man will be sorely disappointed. Before you know it, Santa will be regarded as the creepy man in red who appears every year to frighten youngsters. Merry Christmas!

Fred Thompson is Pro-Choice

I've said all along that Fred Thompson's pro-life credentials were shaky. Now he's admitted it in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press this weekend. The exchange meanders quite a bit - here is the full transcript if you want to read it for yourself. The abortion part begins at the bottom of page 3.

The upshot is that Thompson sees abortion as a "states rights" issue. He says he wants Roe vs. Wade overturned, but he doesn't want the states to outlaw abortion. He opposes the GOP platform, which has called for Human Life Amendment to the Constitution since the Reagan years. Thompson nevertheless maintains that he is "pro-life" because he will do what he can as president to keep the federal government out of it.

It got really weird when Russert pinned down Thompson about when life begins.

MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.

MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

MR. THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially—you can’t have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we’re going to put them in jail to do that. I just don’t think that that’s the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I’ve got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I’m not totally comfortable with, but that’s the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.

Follow this, if you can. Thompson says he is pro-life, but he has to be forced into admitting the obvious fact that an unborn child is actually a living person, but he still would oppose the federal government doing anything to help anyone kill this living person, but he wants the Supreme Court to make it easier for states to outlaw this act, but he personally hopes the states will keep it legal so young girls in "extreme situations" won't get put in jail. Sound confusing? Here's the summary: he is pro-choice.

In fact, this whole "state's rights" argument was settled quite convincingly by the Civil War. Thompson is making the same argument that Southern slaveholders did prior to 1865. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Allowing doctors to kill children for whatever reason the mom thinks is sufficient does not even remotely qualify as "due process of law." If Fred Thompson thinks life begins at conception - as he told Russert - his constitutional duty as president will be to defend it from the time of conception. He just said on national TV that he intend to ignore his oath of office.

Moreover, if Thompson loves federalism so much he'll have to take some radically unpopular positions as president. Since the national government, in his view, has no business stopping abortion, it must also has no business building highways, regulating drugs, helping with disaster relief, imposing safety standards for toys, and a zillion other things. To be consistent with the stand he takes on abortion he'll have to dismantle about half the federal government. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, but Thompson won't do it. Why? Because he doesn't really believe in federalism. He is using the concept as a convenient dodge to have it both ways on abortion. He cites federalism when it helps him, and ignores it when it doesn't. He's a typical politician, in other words.

As a purely political matter, this is probably a smart position for Thompson to take. He's seen Giuliani get ahead in the polls by saying he is personally against abortion but won't do anything to stop it. Both of them know that most voters won't look very deeply into their positions, so the goal is to stay vague and be all things to all people. It may work well enough to put one of them in the White House. We'll know in a year.

Now it is quite true that there is little the president can directly do about abortion, other than appointing judges who will, we hope, return the issue to the states to decide. I think it matters that the president is pro-life because it tells us other things about the way he will govern. As noted above, Thompson admits that a fetus is a living person - but he still wants to let such persons be killed without due process of law. What other categories of people will he refuse to protect? Which other parts of the Constitution is he prepared to ignore?

Since making prudent judgments about these things is a big part of being president, we need someone who holds the right principles. Fred Thompson clearly does not.

More from Lydia at What's Wrong with the World.

A Useless Appendage?

What does the human appendix have to do with Iraq, interrogations, and the U.S. Constitution? Quite a lot, it turns out.

Submitted for your fascination: Doctors just now think they have come up with the function of the appendix.

In a similarly fascinating story, the American executive branch just now claims it knows the function of the Geneva Conventions.

Which explanation do you want first?

Read the rest.

State Secrets

The Supreme Court has terminated a lawsuit that alleges the CIA kidnapped and tortured a German man in a case of mistaken identity. The facts of the case are actually not as interesting as the grounds for its dismissal. The Bush Administration argues that allowed the suit to proceed would risk the exposure of important national secrets. There is legal precedent for this argument:

The state secrets privilege arose from a 1953 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the executive branch to keep secret, even from the court, details about a military plane's fatal crash.

Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment.

This appears to be a legal principle that is, quite literally, built on lies. There was nothing to protect in the 1953 case. The government simply made up a story that was not true.

Whether the case at hand has any merit, I don't know. That's why we have courts - courts that are quite capable of protecting sensitive information from public view when necessary. It would be nice if we could simply trust the Bush Administration not to use this privilege to hide its crimes and mistakes. Any takers?

Saudis Release Terror Suspects

Here is a disturbing story. The U.S. recently transferred 55 suspected terrorists, all of them Saudi Arabian citizens, from the Guantanamo Bay facility and gave them back to Saudi authorities to be kept in prison there. Presumably the U.S. government received assurances that the prisoners would be kept securely locked up.

It seems that the Saudis have “temporarily” released all 55 to spend a Muslim holiday with their families. Furthermore, each prisoner was given $2,600 with which to celebrate. They are supposed to return to custody and eventually stand trial. We’ll see. I think there is reason to be dubious.

Now there are two possibilities here. Either:

• Our so-called allies, the Saudis, think it is well and good to let dangerous terrorists out to roam the streets, creating who knows what kind of problems, and the Bush Administration let itself be duped once again; or
• These 55 prisoners are actually not dangerous terrorists - as we are often told the residents of Guantanamo must be - and were being held by the U.S. under false or incorrect charges.

Neither scenario is particularly comforting.

Hat tip: Born at the Crest of the Empire

American Torture

Mark Shea unloads on the Rubber House Right, its supporters and defenders, in a long and colorfully illustrated post today.

It is a painful thing to face and I don't enjoy it any more than you do. But the facts are really quite plain. The reality is Abu Ghraib was not an isolated event. We have been torturing people in other facilities. What happened at Abu Ghraib was that some morons who loved their work thought it would be fun to take pictures and those pictures shocked the world. Naturally, the Bush Administration could not say, "Yeah! We support that!" Of *course* they repudiated it and made sure the lackeys got punished in order to distance the Administration from the awful press.

But the reality is that after Abu Ghraib, the Administration labored--intensely--to make sure that the abusive techniques used at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere would remain part of what the President calls his "tools" for fighting the War on Terror. You can read all about it here.

The White House response has been, I must be blunt, to lie through its teeth in the knowledge that it has broad support from a people that don't want to look too closely at what we are doing. Indeed, past polls have shown that Catholics have a higher rate of support for torture than the general population.

The lie is simple and plain: President Bush continue to look us in the eye and say “This government does not torture people.”

But the reality is, it does. Bush made certain of this by loading the Justice Department with toadies who gave him what he wanted:

In two separate legal opinions written in 2005, the Justice Department authorized the C.I.A. to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Note that word "including". This is not an exhaustive list. Much of the degrading stuff you saw at Abu Ghraib isn't even life-threatening, so it falls well below the threshhold of "torture" for this Administration's Justice Department, as far as we can tell. And when we speak of "simulated drowning" or what our Vice President lightly laughs off as "dunking" we are looking at prima facie evidence of the Administration's careful mendacity. [Source]

You must read the whole thing. The doubletalk we get from Bush defenders about this is astonishing. It boils down to "Torture is fine. We don't torture." Which is it? If there's nothing wrong with torture, why all the gymnastics denying that the U.S. does it? This bunch can't even keep its lies straight.

In the combox at Mark's post, someone asked a chilling question: is there any example any time in history of a government that tortured its enemies but not, eventually, its own citizens as well?

Bill Clinton Makes Sense

Now there is a headline I never expected to type. Still, I must give credit where credit is due. On the matter of torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques," or whatever you wish to call it, Bill sounded remarkably intelligent and thoughtful when he appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday.

The subject came up because a few days earlier Tim Russert had trapped Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate by quoting what Bill had said about torture in the past [Video here]. He had said that the U.S. should normally not use torture but there should be provision for the president or other officials to grant exceptions in extreme situations - the "ticking bomb" scenario.

Bill has since changed his mind. Now he doesn't think there should be any exceptions in the law. Here's his latest:

... I think America’s policy should be to oppose torture, to honor the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. One is, it’s almost always counterproductive. If you beat somebody up, they’ll tell you what they want to hear. Two is, it, it really hurts us in the rest of the world and helps to recruit other terrorists. And thirdly, it makes our own people vulnerable to torture.

You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.

And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t. But I, I loved how she handled this whole thing. I guess you want to show the rest now.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but not [have a] formal exception.

MR. CLINTON: Yeah, I don’t think you should now. The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.” I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences. And yet, ironically, if you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better. [Full transcript]

It is entirely possible Bill will change his mind again, and there is no guarantee his wife will think this way if she becomes president. Nevertheless, for now he has a far more reasonable and realistic torture policy than any candidate of either party has taken, other than Ron Paul.

What Clinton says about exceptions is absolutely true: give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That universal principle is the reason we have a Constitution that is not easily changed. President Bush, on the other hand, sought to grant blanket immunity for those who torture prisoners, all the while denying that they do any such thing - a claim we cannot verify since he steadfastly refuses to define what he means by "torture."

With such power in hand, it should be no surprise that some agents of the government will abuse it. Mr. Bush says we should just trust him, similar to the way we trusted him about Iraq having nuclear and chemical weapons. Sorry, sir. I won't be fooled twice. On this one, your predecessor is a lot closer to the right. You might want to listen to him.

Related posts:
Tortured Logic
Colin Powell on Guantanamo
Petraeus on Battlefield Ethics
Adventures in Fog
Defining Torture

Kid Detention

As usual, the satire of Andy Borowitz hits disturbingly close to the mark.

Fresh on the heels of their reality show “Kid Nation,” in which children are sent to perform hard labor on a ranch with no adult supervision, CBS announced today that it was readying a new reality show in which children are sent to the federal detention camp at Guantanamo.

The new program, called “Kid Detention,” is expected to be ready for broadcast in time for November sweeps, with the following promotional slogan: “One detention camp. Forty kids. No lawyers.”

CBS said that filming would begin as soon as forty children are “randomly rounded up.”

Within hours of its announcement, CBS found itself under fire from the organization Amnesty International, who warned of possible human rights violations if the children are sent to Guantanamo.

In an attempt to rebuff such criticism, CBS spokesperson Carol Foyler told reporters, “Nothing worse is going to happen to those kids than if they were on ‘Two and a Half Men.’”

Ms. Foyler also attempted to dismiss Amnesty International’s complaint that the kids at Guantanamo would not be permitted to have lawyers.

“We want to recreate the experience of being detainees, and of course that means no lawyers,” Ms. Foyler said. “Besides, just like the other detainees, these kids haven’t been charged with any crime.”

If “Kid Detention” takes off in the ratings as expected, Ms. Foyler said, the network was considering launching another series, “Kid Rendition,” in which the children are flown to Egypt for further questioning.

One Picture Says It All

This photo has been circulating around the net for a couple of days now. It's a little dark so in case you can't tell, the TSA agent searching the elderly nun for weapons is wearing a Muslim headscarf. Bigger image (along with some interesting comments) here.

It is possible, I suppose, that terrorists could disguise themselves as elderly nuns, sneak aboard planes and cause violence and mayhem. Therefore the authorities must be vigilant. However, given that all significant terrorist attacks in the West in recent years were perpetrated by young Muslim males of Middle Eastern origin, the continued insistence on politically correct, color-blind screening protocols is insane.

As for the nun, I am struck by her apparently docile acceptance of this outrage to her dignity. No doubt she regards it as an opportunity to turn the other cheek. Probably she would be just as calm if she were facing death as a martyr. I hope I could do likewise. I fear that many of us will find out in the next few decades.

Civil Discourse in America

The video below (via Wingnuts & Moonbats) is rather chaotic but worth watching. Several women from an anti-war group called Code Pink were staging a protest about Iraq, only to draw the ire of what appear to be hundreds of counter-protesters. Some became belligerent, ripping up the Code Pink women's signs and screaming curses and insults in their faces.

Whatever else the impact of events like this, I think it safe to say no one's mind was changed. The counter-protest actually served to gather even more attention for Code Pink than their small numbers otherwise would have brought. The better strategy would have been to ignore them.

The pro-war protesters also forget what they are supposedly protecting. If, in fact, the purpose of the Iraq War is to defend our constitutional freedoms (which I doubt, but that's what many conservatives say), attempts to shut down opposing viewpoints are inconsistent with their goals. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech apply to everyone, not just those with whom we agree.

Also, I have to say that I am turned off when I see people wearing bits and pieces of military camouflage in an attempt to look patriotic. It's just lame. I'm a veteran and I still have my old uniforms. I will treasure them always because they symbolize an important part of my life. Even so, I remember what I was taught: wear it right, or don't wear it at all. The uniform is a mark of military professionalism and unity. Using it to score political points is just wrong. If you want to wear camouflage again, find a recruiter and re-enlist.

If you don't see the video embedded below, click here.

Wrong Twin Aborted

When prenatal tests revealed that one of her unborn twins had Down's Syndrome, a woman in Italy decided to abort the "defective" child and keep the healthy one. Doctors proceeded to abort the wrong child, apparently because the unwitting masses of fetal tissue changed position between the time of the ultrasound and the abortion procedure.

Now, some people would have interpreted this horrible event as a sign from above and amended their life. This mother did not; upon being informed of the mistake, she returned to the hospital and had the remaining child aborted, too. She now says her life has been ruined, and I'm sure it is. So were two other lives. We can trust they are now in a better place - no thanks to their earthly parents.

While all abortion is unacceptable, abortions undertaken for the specific purpose of killing children who are somehow disabled is particularly disgusting. People with Down's Syndrome are still people. If we permit people to be killed before birth because they are inconvenient and imperfect, by what logic do we forbid them from being killed after birth?

You may recall a similar case last March, also in Italy, where an infant thought to be deformed was aborted, only to be born alive and without the defect that inspired the abortion in the first place. The child died after six days.

Such efforts at population purity are nothing less than eugenics. This same mentality allowed the Nazis to define entire categories of people as non-human and systematically exterminate them. It's all a big word game. "We value all human life," they will say, without being too specific about how they define "human." For example, will these organisms be human? How will we know?

Think it can't happen here? Wrong; it already does. Watch this video. It is the only time I've ever seen Bill O'Reilly rendered speechless.

Hat tip: Leticia

Funeral Rights?

A man named Cecil Howard Sinclair died recently. It is unclear what, if any, religious affiliation he had. His brother, however, is a janitor at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Somehow, plans were made for a funeral to be held at High Point.

The problem is that the deceased Mr. Sinclair was gay. The family says that church officials knew this at the time the funeral was scheduled. High Point's pastor denies it, saying they became aware that Mr. Sinclair was gay only when preparing a video tribute for the service which showed photos of men kissing and embracing each other. In any case, permission to hold the funeral at High Point was suddenly withdrawn because the church did not want to appear as if it endorsed the homosexual lifestyle.

I am not familiar with this church or its theology. Certainly they have the right to decide the conditions under which funerals can be held on their property. They are also correct that homosexual acts are sinful and churches should not condone them.

One thing that seems strange is why, if High Point is so firmly anti-gay, Mr. Sinclair's partner and family would want to hold his funeral there. Presumably Mr. Sinclair would have wished otherwise. We don't really know if the family accepted Mr. Sinclair's lifestyle. Maybe some did and some didn't, and the funeral arrangements involved compromises to keep everyone happy. It may also be that High Point Church does not have clear policies for such things. The whole thing sounds like a giant miscommunication to me.

To its credit, High Point offered to pay for another facility to hold the service, produced the tribute video, and provided food for the family and friends. That was very kind of them, but Mr. Sinclair's survivors still sound displeased.

The real issue in this case is not the propriety of Mr. Sinclair's lifestyle. It is whether the funeral service would have placed the church in a position where it appeared to endorse something it believes to be wrong. Without knowing all the details, it is hard to make that judgment from afar. Sadly, it is kind of unusual nowadays for church leaders to expose themselves to public criticism just to defend a moral principle, so I am a little bit skeptical. I hope they were in fact trying to defend the Faith as they understand it. Yet I wonder if other factors were involved in the decision.

Another reason to question this story is that nondenominational megachurches, which is what High Point seems to be, are not exactly well-known for consistent teaching of Biblical morality. Suppose, for example, Mr. Sinclair was not gay. Suppose further that the service was to feature photos of him kissing a female with whom he had been living outside of marriage. That lifestyle is just as sinful as living with a gay partner. It would have made High Point appear to endorse immorality. Yet somehow I doubt High Point would have canceled a funeral under those circumstances.

The fact is we all live sinful lifestyles of one kind or another. Without the grace of God, none of us have any hope of redemption. We don't know Mr. Sinclair's fate. We should hope that, in the last moments of his Earthly life, he grew convicted of his sins and asked God for forgiveness and mercy. We should also hope that the confusion surrounding Mr. Sinclair's death will lead everyone involved to re-consider how they are living their own lives.

P.S. I found this story at the Texas Fred blog. You may recall that I have had disputes with Texas Fred in the past. I was pleased to see in his post on this subject - and another one today - that Fred seems to be taking an interest in the Bible. He even quoted some Scriptures.

Fred, if you are reading this I hope you will continue to explore the Bible and reflect on what it teaches us. Here is a passage you might find thought-provoking. Here's another one. And another.

Ncube Disappoints

Having said complimentary things about Zimbabwe Archbishop Ncube's resistance to President Mugabe, I was very disappointed to learn today that he has apparently been carrying on an affair with a married woman. Mugabe agents reportedly planted hidden cameras in the Archbishop's bedroom and have vivid evidence.

If true, this is very bad on a number of levels. First, the Archbishop is not being faithful to his priestly vow of celibacy. Second, he may have contributed to the breakup of another man's marriage. Third and perhaps most important, he has squandered the moral authority that he could have used to help relieve the hunger and suffering of his people. While there is no doubt that the Mugabe regime is perpatrating great evil, Archbishop Ncube's own sin now makes it much more difficult for him to speak out effectively.

It will be interesting to see how the Vatican responds to this news. Here is an interesting article about the ways in which the Catholic Church deals with wayward bishops.

Hat tip: Crunchy Con

Blood Money

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- An Iranian child offender, who was forgiven for killing a man by the victim's family, is to be hanged tonight because his parents couldn't gather the blood money they were required to pay, his lawyer said.

The victim's family decided to spare Sina Paymard's life last September after he was allowed to play the flute as his last wish, Sina's lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, said.

His playing moved people gathered for the public execution to tears. Under pressure from the crowd, the family asked Sina's father to pay the equivalent of $162,000 in compensation, a practice that is allowed in Iran, the lawyer said.

``The father has only managed to gather a third of the sum, and he was told this morning that his child will be executed tonight,'' Sotoudeh said by telephone. ``Sina was 16 at the time of the crime. His life shouldn't depend on the amount of money his family can gather.'' He is now 18.

Iran this month drew international condemnation after a man convicted of adultery was stoned to death west of the capital Tehran. The Islamic Republic has one of the highest rates of executions in the world, with 124 people executed so far this year, according to Amnesty International. Two child offenders were executed in April and May, the rights group said.

Sina Paymard's hanging ``would be in complete violation of international law,'' Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Program, said in a statement. ``The Iranian government must take immediate steps to halt this execution.'' [source]

My first instinct upon reading this story was "those barbarians." Then it occurred to me that the story does not really explain the circumstances of the murder, so it's possible the sentence is appropriate. Some will argue that crimes committed at 16 should not draw a death sentence, and I would generally agree, but this case might be the exception. We don't have enough information to say.

What enrages people about this story is probably the money angle. Here we have someone who is going to die for no reason other than lack of money. It really is that simple. His family can't come up with the required amount, so Sina has to die. The victim's family appears to feel they have granted enough mercy.

On the other hand, is this really so different from the way we administer justice here in the United States? The people who end up on Death Row are almost always lower-class, sometimes impoverished, and often members of minority groups. Most were represented at trial and on appeal by overworked, underpaid, court-appointed attorneys.

In contrast, on those rare occasions when a wealthy person is accused of a capital crime, a legal "dream team" is assembled and the full menu of legal and scientific arguments are brought forth to show reasonable doubt. I'm convinced that in such cases many prosecutors choose not to seek the death penalty in order to avoid an expensive, embarrassing spectacle.

So in our case, the money goes to the lawyers instead of the victim's family, but the fact remains: those who commit capital crimes but also have sufficient cash can usually escape death. Those who lack these resources usually end up dead. Such is the state of justice in America.

I'm not saying we are no better than Iran in this department. Were I falsely accused of a crime, I would much rather be tried here than there. Nonetheless, we can't always say that our way is better. May God have mercy on Sina Paymard's soul, and that of his victim.

UPDATE 7/18/07: News reports say that Iranian authorities have delayed Sina's execution for 10 days to give the family time to raise more money. Click here for latest Google News updates.

Zimbabwe Storm Clouds

Back around Easter I wrote about the ongoing oppression in Zimbabwe, and the valiant efforts of the nation's Catholic bishops to resist. The situation is not getting any better.

Zimbabwean Roman Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube says he accepts that his opposition to Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe may cost him his life.

"The church has a prophetic role to speak the truth when no-one else dares to," the Archbishop of Bulawayo told the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper.

Meanwhile, a crackdown on aid groups suspected of opposing the president has begun, state media reports.

All non-governmental organisations must now reapply for their licences.

Last month, the UN said that 1.4m Zimbabweans would need food aid this year, as harvests were only due to meet one-third of the country's requirements.

Mr Mugabe blames the worsening economic crisis on a Western plot to remove him from power. MORE

Many people are starving in Zimbabwe. Outside groups are willing to help, but the Mugabe regime is tying them up with bureaucratic delays. I'm pretty sure there is no "Western plot" to overthrow Mugabe. You know why? Because the West doesn't care about Zimbabwe. Unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe doesn't have anything we can't live without. We don't see the people dying on TV. Somewhere in the back of our minds, we know there are African people suffering. Then we change channels and forget about them.

That being the case, the people of Zimbabwe are on their own. Archbishop Ncube is doing what he can to protect his flock without much help from anyone else on Earth. Fortunately, he has other Resources to draw on. May God bless and save him.

Rights Are Natural

People have rights. You don’t need any religious faith to believe this. Some people think their rights come from God, others believe they are rooted in “natural law.” In either case, the most fundamental right is life itself. Our lives are our own.

Rights must sometimes be defended. That is why we have developed this institution known as “government.” We delegate it some of our individual authority so that it can secure our rights from those who might wish to take them away. The government’s power is limited to those that citizens freely choose to give it.

When the government decides to take for itself powers that are contrary to the natural rights that people possess, such as life, it is the right - and some would say the duty - of the people to alter or abolish that government, replacing it with one that respects individual rights.

Does any of this sound controversial? Many folks will take issue with that last part about altering or abolishing the government. They shouldn't. You see, all I've done above is paraphrase something I first read a long time ago:

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Some will argue that, as a slave owner, Thomas Jefferson was obviously a hypocrite to talk about "liberty." Maybe so - but he was a hypocrite only because he was correct.

So now, 230 years later, where do we stand? Is our government defending our rights or destroying them? If the latter, we have work to do.

Millionaires Everywhere

A new study reveals that millionaires are far more common than you might think. There are 9.3 million of them in the U.S. That's one out of every 10 households. Los Angeles County alone has 268,136 millionaire households. And this is excluding the value of the family's primary residence.

For all you millionaires, congratulations. I'm sure you have worked very hard to get where you are and you try to use your wealth responsibly. However I do have a few questions amid all this money.

• Why is it that mentally ill people are standing on street corners begging for money?
• Why are young women aborting their babies because they think they can't afford to raise them?
• Why do our great cities have luxurious symphonies and opera houses while homeless people sleep in dingy shelters on cold nights?
• Why do thousands of African children die every day from malaria, a disease we know how to prevent and cure?

I think these are good questions and unfortunately I don't have the answers. Leave a comment if you want to add to the list.