Let's Just Say it - Genetic Engineering is, Ultimately, Hitler Revisited

     The FDA is beginning two days of hearings soon regarding a process in which scientists desire to genetically manipulate mitochondria in order to avoid certain birth defects some children receive as a result of faulty genetic material from their mothers.  While one might initially, and legitimately, ask, why not, the answer isn't as obvious as appears on its first pass.

     Almost no one of any decency is against helping children who suffer from disease, particularly the apparently often devastating effects that result from these mitochondrial defects.  Mitochondria serve to convert material into energy which the body's cells use to perform their various functions.  When the mitochondria fail to perform this function, the problems are obvious - cells don't work like they are supposed to work and the body, therefore, doesn't function properly.  As one might expect, the consequences can be anywhere from mild to devastating, depending on the seriousness of an individual's problem.

     The problem isn't that somebody wants to help other people by trying to solve this problem in advance.  For Christians, we certainly (I think) understand we are to engage in exercising dominion over creation, however imperfectly we do so because of sin's corrupting effects.  Part of exercising this dominion involves attempting to ameliorate suffering when possible, reasonable, and within appropriate moral boundaries.  The difficulty with the kind of genetic engineering being proposed here is we enter into an inevitable slippery slope.  At what point do we concern ourselves with finding appropriate moral boundaries?  And how do we do so at an appropriate point before it's too late?  There are moral dimensions to all decisions we make, whether we accept this or not.

     For the naturalistic materialist, genetic engineering of this type ought not be a source of concern.  If we are all simply by-products of a mindless, non-directive, unthinking, amoral universe, then there really aren't any moral or ethical constraints here.  I find it fascinating and amusing when I see that such folks want to engage in such conversations.  Why not just be intellectually honest and say that there are no morals or ethics except those we impose upon ourselves and be done with them?  In the naturalistic/materialist world, all such barriers are artificial and imaginary anyway.

     For Christians, however, the difficulties with this kind of meddling with a child's genetics in order to try to create a suffering free being are immense and troubling.  First, let's be blunt: Hitler was engaged in a similar venture, just without the subtlety and sophistication.  Hitler wanted a master race and he initiated both deselection and breeding programs designed, in his mind, to reinforce "good" genes and delete "bad" genes.  Wiping out the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirables" was simply blunt force applied to the problem that is now being worked on with pipettes, microscopes, and sophisticated instruments.  Hitler's Germany engaged in selective breeding, particularly with teenage girls deemed to have come from acceptable stock.  Ultimately, the objective is similar - creating human beings who are "free" from defect.  Do the means really matter?

     Yes, I have made the comparison to Hitler in an effort to shock the conscience and many will say I'm being unfair.  Maybe.  Nonetheless, Christians too often find themselves well behind these issues because we spend so much time cloistered in our comfort, hiding behind our church walls, fearful of the disdain that will come our way for speaking out.  We fail to engage.  This is a serious issue not because some scientist wants to find a way to help people who suffer from a potentially devastating disease.  It is serious because good motives don't always equal good results.

     The far-reaching consequences of this kind of manipulation are unknown.  Moreover, in a sin fallen world, alleviating suffering is one thing, pre-empting suffering is different.  Since we cannot know how this kind of genetic manipulation will affect future generations, we must be incredibly careful in assuming that a few good results in a handful of one generation of monkeys (which is what has thus far been achieved) means that humans will fare well.  Plus, the incremental steps from manipulating mitochondria, to the next, less severe issue almost inevitably lead to less obviously "necessary" matters like what we euphemistically call "designer babies."

     I cannot trust this kind of determination to the likes of naturalistic materialists like Peter Singer, a so-called ethicist at Princeton University.  He already accepts wholesale abortion, and even infanticide as ethically acceptable.  Forgive the pun, but it is only a baby step to wholesale genetic manipulation.  We must not be so arrogant as to think we can anticipate the results of such endeavors with any acceptable degree of certainty.

   The most fundamental problem here is that this kind of manipulation ultimately treats human beings as commodities - things to be manipulated as we see fit to suit our own purposes.  Christians cannot accept this view of humanity, as it runs completely counter to the biblical view that we are created in God's image and are here at God's pleasure and for His glory.  We are not here to create utopia on earth.  We are certainly not here to somehow manage and manipulate humanity into some kind of perfected organism.  Even the most secular humanist can certainly understand that our imperfections are obvious and distressing.  As Christians, how much more do we understand the depraved nature that infects all of us?  We cannot and must not trust ourselves to think we can sufficiently manage our sin in such a way that our use of genetic manipulation will never get out of hand.  It will.

    Hitler, I suspect, would love where we're headed.  That speaks volumes.

   
   

Will Bill Nye say Goodbye to a Bundle of Cosmic Protoplasm?

    

            I am writing this without knowing the actor, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, or any of his associates, friends, family or “significant others.”  As a result, I have no vested interest in saying anything either particularly devoted to or particularly denigrating about him.  I understand the connection to Bill Nye seems odd, but, if you will be so kind, give me the benefit of the doubt for just a moment.

            First, we are going to hear about how Hoffman’s death was tragic.  I would agree but not for the same reasons most will use this term.  Most will say things about how he was such a nice guy, or a thoughtful dad, or a good friend, or a great actor.  These things may all very well be true.  As I said, I did not have any association with him and can’t comment on his character.  I can say I enjoyed his acting.  However, what is tragic to me is that it is very likely he is now in hell.  I don’t say this lightly, nor do I say it as a condemnation of him.  However, nowhere in any of the stories about him have I seen any indication that he was a Christian.  Since it does not appear he ever received the gift of life from God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross, it is tragic he will spend eternity in hell.

            Many will sympathetically claim that he is now in a better place, that he is “looking down on us,” that he is with God and so forth.  While these simplistic notions sound nice, when most people say them, they really don’t mean it.  They just don’t know what else to say when someone dies and don’t want it to be true that people go to hell.  Ironically, however, the very same people who often throw out such platitudes are determined not to believe in hell.  Heaven, yes.  Angels, yes.  Demons, yes.  Hell, no.  It is a peculiarity of the modern Western psyche that we have thrown out hell as a viable or meaningful concept, even when we are prepared to accept all kinds of supernatural reality.

            Recently, Bill Nye debated Ken Ham about whether creation was a viable alternative to evolution as an explanation for humanity’s origins.  Nye is a devoted naturalistic materialist – meaning that he refuses to accept even the possibility of the supernatural as an explanation for anything.  Science will, according to Nye, ultimately explain all.  Many will applaud Nye’s determination to argue against creationism (in any form, including intelligent design, which only pre-supposes an intelligence behind the universe, and does not necessarily demand a supernatural God).  Despite this, however, the same people will often throw out the above-noted platitudes regarding Hoffman’s death.   I am not suggesting Bill Nye will do so, as I believe him to be an honest devotee of his beliefs.  However, many casual naturalistic materialists will say these things.  What “better place” is Hoffman in right now, then?  From where is he “looking down?” 

            I did not know Hoffman’s heart, and cannot say whether he did or did not know the saving grace of Jesus Christ.  Given the reporting on him, it seems unlikely.  What then shall we say?  If Bill Nye is correct, then we can’t even say “rest in peace” since the concept of some sort of eternal rest presupposes there is something left of Hoffman after the fleshly envelope containing his essence has stopped functioning.  In Nye’s world, this simply cannot be.  What consolation can there be, then, for those who mourn Hoffman’s death - for his children, their mother, Hoffman’s siblings and parents (if still with us)?  There is no consolation.  He is utterly gone.

            This doesn’t prove anything except that people need to get real.  If you want what Bill Nye is offering, understand what comes with the package and accept it.  You are born, you live, you die.  Your life ultimately cannot have any intrinsic meaning or value.  There is no hereafter of any kind (good or bad) and Aunt May and Phillip Seymour Hoffman aren’t watching over you or working on getting their angel wings.  Condescendingly “accepting” that some people see value in religion (as Nye suggested in his debate with Ham) means nothing since those religious beliefs simply provide a meaningless and false sense of security.  Better that everyone understand now that in Bill Nye’s world life simply is.   

            The question that one must ask then is: why mourn Hoffman’s death?  In Bill Nye’s world Hoffman’s (like ours) was an unintended life, produced at an unintended time, under unintended conditions, for no intended purpose by an utterly uncaring universe.  It reminds me of Macbeth’s lament upon hearing of Lady Macbeth’s death: “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, which struts and frets its hour upon the stage and is heard no more.  It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

            There is however, an alternative: we can accept there is a creator God who purposely, intentionally, at a specific time for specific reasons, under specific conditions, reached from a place beyond time and space and created life.  No longer is the tale of life something which signifies nothing.  Rather, life now has incredible meaning, an incredible purpose, and incredible consequences.  Suddenly, I can say I mourn Hoffman’s death – not because I knew him – but because he was made in the image of God and I fear he will not greet me at heaven’s gate.  Bill Nye can only say goodbye you unintended bundle of cosmic protoplasm.  Let’s not kid ourselves, as Bill Nye is doing, that we have any reason to be excited about discovering that “truth.”

    

Powers and Merritt Miss the Fundamentals in Religious Objection Legislation in Arizona and Kansas

     The recent passage of religious conscience legislation proposed in Arizona and Kansas has sparked comparisons of such laws to old Jim Crow laws from the late 19th and early 20th century.  Interestingly, the comparison came not from so-called civil rights leaders, but from Kirsten Powers who is a Christian.  Jonathan Merritt likewise attacked fellow believers for any involvement in such legislation.  If I understand their argument, they are essentially claiming Christian businesses should exercise a golden rule approach and treat those in favor of gay marriage just like any other customers.  Moreover, they argue there is an hypocrisy in singling out gay marriage when it is highly unlikely anyone checks into the status of non-gay marriage partners.

     Their argument, while understandable and perhaps even correct on a certain level, misses the point.  The gay rights movement recently reached critical mass in the United States and has now achieved overwhelming public support.  Unfortunately, as with many such situations, overwhelming public support tends to mean oppression of those who disagree.  Thus, we find orthodox Christianity in the position of being a minority view and, subject to oppression by those who disagree.  The current efforts by some to pass conscientious objector legislation is far from any sort of Jim Crow effort but is rather an attempt to prevent a coming majority from utterly trampling down religious rights.

     Thus, both Powers and Merritt fail to see the more fundamental problem.  We live in a society in which there is no longer any philosophical middle ground.  Christian beliefs present a difficult problem for most people, even many who say they are Christian, because it presents unambiguous moral demands.  Since most people now question authority in a manner which implies questioning authority is a social good, the Christian morality simply fails to fit, like an old shoe on a teenage boy that has outgrown its usefulness.  Moreover, referring to the Bible as authority fails for two prominent reasons: first, our society is biblically illiterate, so many who attempt to quote Scripture either quote it incorrectly or severely out of context and; second, most simply see the Bible as an outdated and outmoded book which provides little or no guidance of substance to 21st century humans.  Ironically, in my experience, those most against what they claim the Bible says, are often those who have the least understanding of what the Bible says.

     So Powers and Merritt have done a grave disservice to both believers and non-believers.  They have offered up an evocative and emotionally charged invective against those who are seeking to preserve what they see as the complete erosion of religious liberty in this country.  They have hurt believers who look across the moral landscape of the United States and see that we have turned a very dangerous corner where morality becomes nothing more than, to use a phrase from Alan Dershowitz, "mere majoritarian preference."  Ironically, in his book Rights from Wrongs, Dershowitz, an ardent secular humanist, argued this preference was wrong.  Right now, gay rights have become just that, mere majoritarian preference.  Understand, as well, that the secular humanist philosophy, to which so many in the United States subscribe, knowingly or not, cannot rationally provide any grounds for why gay rights should trump religious liberty or vice versa.  Basically, this ultimately boils down to a matter of political power, and the gay rights movement has the political power now.  Oh where is Alan Dershowitz when we need him?  Soon any religious objection to homosexuality, no matter how sincere, and no matter how rational or reasonable, will be completely illegal.  Powers and Merritt are, I think, unwittingly hastening that day with their commentary.

     Worse, they are harming non-believers because their columns, intentionally or not, completely affirm the idea that homosexual behavior is biblically acceptable.  Since space here is insufficient, I'm only going to offer this one argument in support of my view: no single passage in Scripture ever affirms homosexual behavior as acceptable.  None.  While neither Powers nor Merritt argues directly that homosexual behavior can be reconciled with Christian belief, they level all their accusations at Christians without addressing the more obvious and more fundamental question: is homosexual behavior morally okay or not?

     Christians in the United States must quickly come to the understanding that the Gospel message confronts people.  Scroll down to the comments of the article on the Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/conservative-christians-selectively-apply-biblical-teachings-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate.html).  You'll find those who disagree with Christianity have little good to say about Christians or their faith.  I read many, none of which congratulated either Powers or Merritt on their thoughtfulness.  Christians must be prepared to accept the consequences of the faith: we will be disparaged, we will be discounted, we will be dismissed.

     Before leaving the practice of law for seminary in 2011, I told two lawyer friends of mine they would likely see me in jail within 10 years because of this very issue.  Unfortunately, I am concerned it might be less than 10 years.  Powers and Merritt didn't help any. 

   

    

Ann Coulter on Immigration - Will She Ever Stop Being so Predictable?

     In a recent post, Ann Coulter takes on the Republican establishment in Washington for claiming "One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents."  (http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/did-i-move/) The Republicans are claiming this "principle" underlies their recent immigration reform efforts.  Coulter rightly diagnoses this as utter nonsense.  I don't recall the Federalist papers getting into this debate or any other recorded discussion of anything like this among the Founding Fathers.


     Where Coulter runs off the tracks, however, is with her standard reductio ad absurdum argumentation.  She argues, since we don't fail to punish parents who commit crimes because of the pain it will cause children, we therefore shouldn't try to fix the immigration problem through any means which attempts to avoid hurting the children of illegal immigrants.  While I agree with her that if a dad rapes a woman or mom robs a bank we don't avoid putting dad or mom in jail or excuse their conduct because it might hurt the children.  The difficulty here, however, is that many of the children of illegal immigrants were actually BORN in the United States, which makes them American citizens by birth.  So to take Coulter's argument to the extreme, we must either (a) deport American citizens, or (b) make them wards of the state after sending mom and dad packing.  Neither is a palatable option.

     Coulter, of course, argues the Democrats want easy amnesty because Hispanic voters are trending Democrat.  I don't doubt this is accurate.  My question is so what?  Coulter doesn't want easy amnesty because she's so . . . principled?  No, she doesn't want it because Hispanics tend to trend Democrat.  It's purely a raw political calculation for her, so she's mad at the Republicans for trying to come up with any solution that might result in more Hispanics because it could hurt them in elections.  Odd, that sounds like it's the Republican congressional leaders acting on principle, given the possible consequences.

     You see, I do care what happens to these American citizens.  Regardless of whether their parents are illegal or not, these American citizens have rights under the laws Coulter claims to cherish.  Thus, the simple-minded attitude she presents doesn't work.  I don't care for folks breaking the law, either.  Like Coulter, I am a lawyer and have a healthy respect for the rule of law.  However, first, I am a Christian who has compassion on people who find themselves thrust into circumstances over which they have not had any control.  The children of illegal immigrants who were born in America are in that situation.  Making sloppy comparisons (Palestinians using their children to commit acts of terrorism - really Ann?) hardly helps forward the discussion with any rationality.

     Any reasonable person recognizes the illegal immigration problem requires a solution.  However, ignoring the rights of children who are American citizens (whether we like it or not, these are American citizens) isn't the answer.  Since Coulter offered no clear solution other than the implicit "throw them out" I offer none either.  However, to dismiss the Republican effort with half-baked logic, flawed comparisons, and the prototypical Coulter snottiness serves only to keep Ms. Coulter in the limelight.  I guess she's accomplished her task.

   By the way, soccer is a great game, Ann.

“One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/did-i-move/#DLqLqIa6Fl0HuIO0.99

“One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/did-i-move/#DLqLqIa6Fl0HuIO0.99

“One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/did-i-move/#DLqLqIa6Fl0HuIO0.99

“One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/did-i-move/#DLqLqIa6Fl0HuIO0.99

The Other Shoe Has Dropped - But have Gay Marriage Advocates Really Thought it Through?

     Justice Scalia was prescient when he noted that the other shoe would soon be dropping when the Supreme Court invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act by judicial determination last summer in the Windsor case.  Judge John Heyburn, a federal Judge in Kentucky's Western District dropped the shoe loudly by ruling Kentucky must recognize same sex marriages from other states (and, apparently, Canada, although he never really addressed this directly).  While gay marriage advocates will see this as a huge victory, particularly in a bible-belt state like Kentucky, there may be another shoe ultimately dropping here.

     Judge Heyburn's decision essentially says that after Windsor he really doesn't have an option.  Frankly, he went out of his way to explain how courts make decisions and goes through the history of the Supreme Court's constitutional decision making in this area since the Loving case struck down bans on interracial marriage in the late 60's.  In trying to read between the lines, I got the distinct impression Judge Heyburn was not impressed with Justice Kennedy's reasoning, but ultimately determined that equal protection of the law demands the decision he made, regardless of how Justice Kennedy handled himself.

     What is interesting is the "animus" argument upon which Justice Kennedy based his opinion and to which Judge Heyburn gives a quick wave.  Justice Kennedy spent a great deal of time in his opinion arguing that laws which are passed solely based on animus that demeans others cannot stand constitutional muster.  Where this will get interesting is in equal protection claims Christians may be able to make along the same lines when arguing against discrimination laws, especially those enforced by Human Rights Commissions across the country.  Let me explain.

     Most (probably all) states have Human Rights Commissions which are granted both executive (enforcement) and judicial (trial) authority over discrimination claims.  In other words, these commissions act as both prosecutor and judge of claims brought before them.  While I personally think these commissions are utterly unconstitutional, that is for another day.  In recent well publicized cases, these commissions have fined a baker out of existence in Oregon and fined a New Mexico wedding photographer - both for discriminating against gay marriage (not homosexuals generally, just gay marriage in particular).   These anti-discrimination laws, while neutral on their face, actually discriminate against Christians since they force Christians to associate with causes and views (not people) with which they disagree because of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The affect of these laws is to demean the beliefs Christians hold regarding homosexuality - namely that it is a sin - and any requirement that has the effect of forcing Christians to affirmatively support activities which violate those clearly held beliefs violates equal protection of the law.  How wide this net can be cast is another question, but the underlying legal rationale has been laid.  Note that none of the establishments which have been harassed by these "Human Rights" Commissions have ever been accused of discriminating against homosexuals in a general sense - only in very specific instances which would have had the effect of appearing to be a public acceptance of homosexuality.

      In my view, the rationale Justice Kennedy used in Windsor was flimsy and weak - he didn't need to get into discussion about "animus against gays" and "demeaning" people.  These are not legal concepts, but social concepts better left for the court of public opinion.  The reality is gay marriage will soon be the law of the land across the United States - it is a foregone conclusion.  Christians who disagree better be prepared.

    However, what is interesting is that  Justice Kennedy may have created a back door which he never intended.  Regardless, I don't think it will be long be before Christian legal practitioners begin making the equal protection argument suggested above.  What then will the intelligentsia who so ardently support gay marriage say?  Let me make another prediction: oddly enough, they'll make arguments that will sound very similar to those made by gay marriage opponents right now - they'll argue about how society accepts gay marriage and so forth.  What they won't be able to explain, however, not with any intellectual or moral integrity, is why Christians who don't wish to be forced to support such beliefs must be required to do so.  What rational basis will be alleged?  Will Justice Kennedy then swoop in and, again, point out that animus which demeans someone cannot be tolerated?  Is it not demeaning to Christian belief to have to be forced to support actions which utterly denigrate those beliefs?

     I am fully aware that gay marriage advocates will try to argue that somehow this is an apples to oranges comparison.  But is it? Upon what rational basis can gay marriage advocates claim their belief they are entitled to be married is superior to the Christian belief they should not?  If everyone is entitled to equal protection, then everyone is entitled to equal protection.

     Yes, the other shoe is dropping.  I just wonder if gay marriage advocates are ready for where that shoe might just end up dropping.



    

    

No, Mark Joseph Stern, Creationism is not the Caricature You’ve Created

            My life as a blogger is a mere five days old.  Consequently, no one knows much about me.  However, I have written many “posts” but only recently found the time to actually put them out on the internet.  For anyone who ever reads these, you will find most of the time my attitude will likely be bemused and sometimes saddened, but rarely irritated.  However, I am writing today out of irritation.

            Frankly, I read Mr. Stern’s column on Slate (access it here: The Cruelty of Creationism) and found myself fuming.  Right from the beginning he shows a complete misunderstanding of creationism stating, “it’s the terror of doubt that fosters the toxic, life-negating cult of creationism.”  No, Mr. Stern, you are utterly, completely, and totally wrong.  As a Christian who has journeyed from theistic evolution (God worked through evolution), to days in Genesis representing a very long period of time, to ultimately accepting a young earth creation (although I don’t necessarily agree it has to be exactly X amount of years), terror of doubt never entered the picture.  I do not believe in either young earth or creationism (not necessarily the same thing) because of concerns the Bible might turn out to be false; rather, I came to the reasoned and logical conclusion that if God really is there, and He really is truly the ultimate being, then He can act to create this world and all that is in it in whatever fashion He desires. 

            Of course, my view starts with acceptance that God exists.  What follows from that step of faith is neither terror, toxic, nor life-negating.  Rather it is liberating beyond anything Mr. Stern can possibly conceive or understand.  Mr. Stern’s analysis rises and falls on his own, pre-conceived belief in a materialist view of the universe – the Carl Sagan view that the universe is all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be.  However, Mr. Stern doesn’t bother telling us his pre-supposition, which is why I was fuming from the start.  He just arrogantly presumes his view is correct without identifying it, explaining it, or defending it.  However, he proclaims that creationism is a “suffocating and oppressive” worldview.  Hey, Mr. Stern, at least we state up front what we believe and why we believe it and we explain what and why we believe.

            He also mistakenly assumes creationism necessarily means young earth creationism, but this is inaccurate.  As Bill Nye was fond of pointing out in the debate last Tuesday night, many Christians don’t believe in the young earth view; however, one is very hard pressed to claim any form of theism and deny God created everything, regardless of when God did it.  Mr. Stern is guilty of mixing philosophical metaphors, so to speak.

            Moreover, very little of his screed actually provides any sort of logical, rational, or philosophical explanation for why his position is correct and the creationist position is wrong.  Rather, he resorts mostly to ad hominem attacks on creationists by pounding on them again and again for their anti-intellectualism.

           

            For instance, he claims “For all creationists’ insistence that evolution denigrates humanity, creationism is fundamentally anti-human, commanding us to spurn our own logic and cognition in favor of absurd sophism derived from a 3,000-year-old text.”  Whoo, boy, not sure I’m smart enough to understand what “absurd sophism” is.  No, Mr. Stern, I’m not deceitfully abandoning logic and cognition at all.  Think about it: if the materialist explanation for our existence is true – that by some unknown means, at an unknown time, under unknown circumstances life spontaneously began on planet earth, then one must admit life has no intrinsic purpose, meaning, or value.  There is no basis for making any other claim.  Consequently, Mr. Stern is simply wrong.  Our humanness simply is.  Nothing about it is a cause for celebration; nothing about it is a cause for despair.  There is no cause for any particular anything – we are simply here by accident, serve no function and will, presumably at some point in the future outlive ourselves, and go the way of the T-Rex.  If this is what Mr. Stern means when he talks about being human, no thanks.

            The Christian view says that God created the universe.  In doing so, he created humans in His image.  There is a specialness about humanity that derives from God’s nature.  Why is this such a horrible thing?  What is so bad about being like God?  It’s a peculiar argument to claim that you are made more human by being nothing more than sophisticated slime than being a child of the living, sovereign God of the universe.  I having some difficulty seeing the logic in that, Mr. Stern.

            Mr. Stern has accepted the caricature of creationism because that’s what he wants to see so he can paint all creationists with the same brush.  He’s really mad at God, but since he won’t acknowledge God, he’s got to be able to lash out at someone.  I’m sorry you are so angry and so bothered by creationism Mr. Stern.  Maybe it’s time to leave your ignorance and dogmatic evolutionary fundamentalism and actually think before ranting.

Michael Sam and Wheaton College and the Grammys

    Michael Sam is a football player who will be entering the NFL draft this spring.  I know nothing about him except that he is a homosexual.  I know this because it was the lead story on ESPN's website and its reporting  on its main cable channel on February 10, 2014.  Sam's is apparently the first high level college player to ever publicly state that he is homosexual immediately prior to the draft.  There will be inevitable hand-wringing among professional draft watchers and the commentariat at ESPN about how this will impact Michael Sam's status, how his NFL team will handle the publicity, and what it means for football and society at large.  There will also be comparisons to various civil rights leaders of the past. Having been a fairly avid NFL follower for many years, I always understood that what NFL people cared about was what guys "do on the field."  Thus, the Super Bowl loser gets no credit for being the second best team that year, they're just part of the group labeled "losers."  According to this kind of thinking, shouldn't Mr. Sam's sexual proclivities fall into the same category as what kind of soft drink he prefers - perhaps interesting to a very small number of people but otherwise unrelated to how he will perform on the field?  Despite this, ESPN is abuzz with reporting and commenting on what it all means.  Curious.

    Enter Wheaton College - yes that Wheaton College - bastion of conservative evangelicalism in Illinois.  Recently some students there engaged in what might be called a mild protest of speaker Rosaria Butterfield, a former lesbian, now a converted Christian who is a pastor's wife and homeschooling mother.  Apparently some LGBT students at Wheaton were concerned that Butterfield's invite was a cause for concern to them, given her story of conversion from lesbianism.  Presumably, these students were worried this was some kind of signal from Wheaton's administration that . . . I'm not really sure.  That Wheaton is a conservative evangelical school that actually believes homosexual behavior is sinful?  Can anyone who knows anything about Wheaton College claim that this is some sort of surprise?  Including students who attend?  Really?

     So irony surrounds us in these two apparently different, but really similar stories.  First, ESPN (and presumably other outlets) will applaud Sam's "coming out" even though it really has nothing to do with his ability as a football player (right?).  Implicit in the coverage ESPN is devoting (and which others will devote) to this is the idea that homosexuality is innate, cannot be changed, and, in fact should not be changed.
 
     Enter Wheaton College and Rosaria Butterfield.  She has been thrashed rather impolitely by some because she has dared to claim she has changed her sexual orientation.  So a conservative evangelical institution asks her to come speak and there are students who claim they are concerned?  There seems to be an underlying understanding, even in such places, that one cannot be anything other than homosexual if that is one's orientation.


     While the mass marriage at the Grammy's is now yesterday's news, the mindset remains.  Gay is not just okay, it's now a moral good.  Any suggestion to the contrary, no matter how principled, simply cannot be reconciled with Macklemore.  Oh well, guess everyone who holds a principled Christian conviction about homosexuality needs to just give it up - ESPN, Queen Latifah, Macklemore, and students at Wheaton have spoken.  Underlying this mindset is the rather bizarre philosophy that ultimate truth doesn't exist - that no one can really know if homosexuality is a sin.  Without belaboring the obvious, even my 15 year old son understands the utter logical failure of this mindset.  If you can have "your" truth and I can have "my" truth and somebody else can have "their" truth, which truth matters?

     We have decided as a culture that Rosaria Butterfield is to be protested (however mildly) because she dared make a truth claim running counter to the culture.  This is the ultimate irony here - there is nothing new, nothing counter-cultural, nothing shocking, nothing exceptional, and nothing particularly meaningful about Michael Sam publicly stating his sexual orientation.  What is completely counter-cultural is a willingness to stand for something absolute, something true beyond one's own feelings and experience.  Rosaria Butterfied is the real story here - the real counter-cultural pioneer.  And even those who you would expect to be with her are "protesting."

   

The British are Coming - Magistrate Summons Head of Mormon Church for Hearing

     While for some folks the attempt by a British magistrate to summons the head of the Mormon church to a hearing in England seems silly, for others, including this writer, ominous is a better word.  British magistrates, similar to their American counterparts, are at the bottom rung of the judicial ladder.  This doesn't mean they don't perform a meaningful function, but they are not judges in the classic sense.  Mostly, they hear cases involving minor infractions, and make decisions about whether people should or should not receive bail, and, if so, how much.  Cases involving significant crimes are  passed on to the higher courts.

     One wonders, then, what this magistrate could have been thinking.  According to an article in the British paper, The Telegraph, "Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London next month to defend the church’s doctrines including beliefs about Adam and Eve and Native Americans." The theory, propounded by a former LDS member, is that by teaching certain doctrines, the church has defrauded him of the money he gave because these teachings are false.

    Generally speaking, from a legal standpoint, fraud requires both an intent to defraud and that the defrauder know that what he is saying is false.  How does Tom Phillips, the person who swore out the complaint (whatever term the British use in this instance), go about proving that Monson (a) knows the church's doctrines are false and (b) that Monson (or the church, generally) thereby intended to defraud him?  Isn't the point so many naturalistic materialists are consistently making is that church people are deluded specifically because they in fact believe what they are saying is true?  Legally, one cannot commit fraud by saying something is true and believing that something is true, even if it turns out the person is wrong.

     What makes this ominous is that the magistrate would even allow something like this go past the initial stages.   District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, who issued the summons, has some discretion here and was not required to issue the summons, at least as I understand it.  While we might laugh this off as something happening across the pond and, thus, having no meaning in the United States, think again.  While the American colonists may have thrown off British rule, they didn't chunk everything British and anyone who doesn't recognize the intimate and longstanding tie between the two countries hasn't studied history.  Our legal system still recognizes Blackstone, an 18th century British judge, as an important and meaningful commentator on the law. He's taught about in law schools and still cited by our Supreme Court.

     While for right now we can laugh this off, knowing that the British magistrate has no authority to have the head of the Mormon church arrested if he fails to appear in her court, we should consider the larger implications.  Right now in the United States the scenario is being played out in a different way with the legal actions against religious believers who disagree with homosexual behavior.  This application of the weight of legal authority stems from a different notion (civil rights), but the implications are very similar: religious belief is merely that, belief.  As a result, it isn't entitled to the same weight, or legal protection, as other views of reality.  As secular courts continue to enforce what are peculiarly secular notions on those who are religious believers, the circle of reality religious believers will be legally allowed to inhabit will become smaller and smaller.

     As a Christian, who happens to be a lawyer, what concerns me is not so much that we must face this new world, but how will we stand up to it?  Will we, like Daniel, when faced with the edict to pray to King Darius or face the lion's den, continue to trust God and simply continue to exercise our faith, no matter what the cost, or will we close our doors and shutter our windows so that no one can see what we are doing?  Or, will we lash out with our own lawsuits, belligerently demanding our "right" to speak, our "right" to exercise our religion and our "right" to peaceably assemble? My hope is that we find our inspiration in Daniel, who understood his true sovereign was not Darius, but the God of the universe.  Jesus gave us the same example when confronted by Pilate.

    No, the British aren't really coming, at least not in that sense.  But we cannot ignore what is right in front of us as believers.  Christianity has already been hauled in front of the court of public opinion and found lacking by many (I would argue most, but we'll get to that another time).  Now, however, we are finding Christianity being hauled into legal courts and we should be ready for how we will answer.  Will we simply lash out and lash back, or will we seek refuge in our creator and redeemer?