Posted on 04/10/2011 2:06:09 PM PDT by Caleb1411
For some Americans, as for the Founding Fathers, the separation of church and state means that the government and religious bodies ought not to exert power over the other’s areas of legitimate authority. To others it means that religiously informed policy proposals may not become the laws of the secular government. So, on this meaning, a law that prohibits embryo-destructive research would violate the separation of church and state, since (it is assumed) such a law reflects a sanctity-of-life ethic derived exclusively from a theological tradition.
Notice that the latter understanding is concerned not with the actual content of the religious citizen’s policy proposal or with whether or not he has offered a cogent, rationally defensible argument. This metaphysical exclusionary rule bars these proposals without regard for the quality of the cases offered for them. Their secular contraries are not subjected to this philosophical apartheid, even though they offer answers to the same questions and rely on beliefs no less contested than their so-called religious counterparts.
Consider embryo-destruction research. One side claims that the embryonic human being is a full-fledged member of the human community who is identical to his postnatal self and thus possesses the same moral worth and intrinsic dignity throughout its existence. The other side denies this, arguing that embryonic human beings lack some characteristic or property that would make them moral persons and therefore subject to the usual prohibitions against homicide.
Although the religious citizen is motivated by what his theological tradition teaches, that tradition is itself a consequence of an extended argument over time, no different in character than its secular counterpart. For the secularist’s position is shaped by certain inherited beliefs acquired during his academic and cultural formation that are central to his intellectual tradition. These beliefs in metaphysics (nominalism), epistemology (scientism), and religion (subjectivism) are, like the believer’s beliefs, the result of an extended argument over time.
In Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics, the Lutheran scholar Robert Benne provides a clear and compelling brief for the religious citizen and the ecclesial community to which he belongs. Director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College, he offers Christians and their detractors a way of thinking about religion and politics that addresses some of the concerns that both believers and unbelievers have expressed over the past three decades since the ascendancy of the “Religious Right.”
Benne distinguishes two positions on the relationship between religion and politics—separationism and fusionism—and argues Christians ought to reject both. As for the first, there are at least two varieties, one secular and one religious.
One sort—championed by writers as diverse as Richard Dawkins, Andrew Sullivan, and Damon Linker—views the participation of religious citizens in the formation of policy as deleterious to democratic liberalism, if the policies these citizens propose have their genesis in their religious beliefs. Benne shows that to actualize this prescription would limit religious liberty in ways inconsistent with the promise of the American founding. For the Founders understood church–state separation as separating the state from the institutional church and not sequestering religion from politics. Moreover, contemporary separationists are notoriously selective when they lament the mixing of religion and politics, for they rarely if ever decry the political activism of liberal Christians in mainline denominations who almost always agree with the left wing of the Democratic Party.
The other sort of separationist is usually a devout Christian who believes that the Church’s involvement in politics will corrupt its character and thus undermine or make more difficult its duty to save and nourish souls. Baptists in the tradition of the late J. M. Dawson (1879–1973) have been strong proponents of this view. This separationist often cites historical cases in which Christian churches have compromised their witness in order to curry favor from the government.
Benne sees this as a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, he argues, because Christianity teaches that God is sovereign over all creation, including political and social institutions, and because the gospel requires us to love our neighbors and to will their good, we must engage the political realm. Christianity is a knowledge tradition that properly informs us about the good, the true, and the beautiful in every facet of human existence.
While separationists offer a theory of how religion and politics ought to interact, fusionists practice their faith with little theoretical reflection. For that reason, Benne’s account of fusionism is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Fusionists connect their political beliefs and/or cultural affiliations and the teachings of their faith. They fail to distinguish positions that seem to be close to obvious entailments of Christian belief (e.g., male–female marriage, pro-life on abortion) and positions over which Christians of goodwill may disagree (e.g., whether a particular war is just, the existence and scope of the welfare state, school-sponsored prayer in public schools, or whether America or another nation is guided by direct providence).
Some Christians fuse ethnic solidarity and patriotism with their theological traditions, sometimes fomenting the sorts of violence we have seen in places like Bosnia and Northern Ireland. Domestically, some left-leaning Christians, though properly concerned about the plight of the poor, insist that some form of socialism is the only just economic system. Some right-leaning Christians issue “Christian” policy pronouncements that range from opposing abortion to supporting the war in Iraq. It is one thing to claim scriptural support for the unborn’s personhood; it is quite another to suggest that the Bible has a definitive position on global warming or food stamps.
Benne proposes an alternative to separationism and fusionism: critical engagement. He derives from the central claims of Christianity about the nature of God, creation, salvation, and man several politically relevant principles and explains how those principles may be applied given the historical, political, national, and social situations in which an ecclesial community may find itself.
So, for example, a Christian, based on the central claims of his faith, has good reason to believe that the unborn from conception is a moral person and thus his neighbor. Nevertheless, he may have a difficult time placing that belief in our laws if he lives in a society in which most of its citizens cannot “see” the unborn’s personhood. In that case, the Christian, relying on the principle of prudence, may opt for more modest attempts at shaping policy that provide a means to teach his compatriots about the sanctity of human life (as well as to protect as many innocent persons as possible). So, he and his church may support a partial-birth-abortion ban, since it requires that their compatriots confront this gruesome procedure and what it does to a being that seems obviously to be one of us.
Although this is a small book, it is packed with real insight. Benne wisely navigates between two extremes while remaining always mindful that, though the Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms, it is only in one of them that he can find the eternal source of all that could possibly be good and true in the other.
Francis J. Beckwith is professor of philosophy at Baylor University and a resident scholar at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion.
So, for example, a Christian, based on the central claims of his faith, has good reason to believe that the unborn from conception is a moral person and thus his neighbor. Nevertheless, he may have a difficult time placing that belief in our laws if he lives in a society in which most of its citizens cannot “see” the unborn’s personhood. In that case, the Christian, relying on the principle of prudence, may opt for more modest attempts at shaping policy that provide a means to teach his compatriots about the sanctity of human life (as well as to protect as many innocent persons as possible). So, he and his church may support a partial-birth-abortion ban, since it requires that their compatriots confront this gruesome procedure and what it does to a being that seems obviously to be one of us.
Although this is a small book, it is packed with real insight. Benne wisely navigates between two extremes while remaining always mindful that, though the Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms, it is only in one of them that he can find the eternal source of all that could possibly be good and true in the other.
So, for example, a Christian, based on the central claims of his faith, has good reason to believe that the unborn from conception is a moral person and thus his neighbor. Nevertheless, he may have a difficult time placing that belief in our laws if he lives in a society in which most of its citizens cannot “see” the unborn’s personhood. In that case, the Christian, relying on the principle of prudence, may opt for more modest attempts at shaping policy that provide a means to teach his compatriots about the sanctity of human life (as well as to protect as many innocent persons as possible). So, he and his church may support a partial-birth-abortion ban, since it requires that their compatriots confront this gruesome procedure and what it does to a being that seems obviously to be one of us.
“the Christian, relying on the principle of prudence, may opt for more modest attempts at shaping policy that provide a means to teach his compatriots about the sanctity of human life (as well as to protect as many innocent persons as possible). So, he and his church may support a partial-birth-abortion ban, since it requires that their compatriots confront this gruesome procedure and what it does to a being that seems obviously to be one of us.”
What a reprehensible way to intellectualize murder. Thou shalt not murder is a moral absolute. You cannot rationalize it no matter how many three syllable words you use or how many grotesque convolutions of logic you posit.
Pro-lifers do what they can do to stop the carnage:
** work to elect pro-life legislative majorities
** introduce women to the babies in their wombs
** expose Big Abortion's pandemic illegalities
The abortion industry's leaders' lamentations indicate that life is winning over death.
** NARAL President Nancy Keenan addressing a pro-choice audience at the University of Texas (Jan. 17, 2008): "Let’s be honest: Roe today is a shell of its former self. Yes, we won 35 years ago—but women have been losing ground, losing rights, losing options, losing access, losing availability, and just plain losing nearly every day since.
"The numbers don’t lie. Since 1995, American politicians have passed more than 550 laws limiting women’s reproductive freedom. In nearly 90 percent of the counties across America, there is no access to abortion because there is no abortion provider."
*** "...Planned Parenthood leaders decried the new legislation but said they won't sue over new requirements on abortion clinics that [Missouri] Gov. Jay Nixon allowed to become law last week.
"The bill requires that clinics give women a chance to view an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of a fetus. It also requires that a consultation occur in person, as opposed to over the phone.
"Paula Gianino, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, said the provisions basically mirror laws passed in other states and upheld by the courts, so there's no point in spending the time and money on a court fight it can't win."
** "NARAL Report Gives America D Grade For Limiting Abortions"
Because it does not change the ratinalization of murder. That’s why.
HE says, and remember something, this is ALSO a “pillar” of islam,” “You don’t need to do something 100% if you do it adequately.”
So...by his reasoning, while you sit back and watch the murders of 10 million inncocents, it’s just okay to not feel any guilt if you save one or two.
OR, it’s not really a Holocaust if you murder 6 million there are still a couple of Jews left alive...so, let’s not blow up the deathcamps as long as a few escape.
Or, it’s not really genocide if you murder 9/10ths of an entire population IF there are a few of the indigenous natives left.
Right?
BS.
“** “NARAL Report Gives America D Grade For Limiting Abortions’”
Wow. Couldn’t work for the F and ENDING abortions, huh?
The intent was that no religion would be the only legal religion. The ACLU knows it, I know it, and I would hazard a guess that I'm not alone.
So, on this meaning, a law that prohibits embryo-destructive research would violate the separation of church and state, since (it is assumed) such a law reflects a sanctity-of-life ethic derived exclusively from a theological tradition.
One could easily present the idea that an unborn child has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. After all, such a child has its own unique set of chromosomes; it is not a disease as I have heard sickenly enough on this forum.
The other side denies this, arguing that embryonic human beings lack some characteristic or property that would make them moral persons and therefore subject to the usual prohibitions against homicide.
My pets cannot make moral decisions, yet I am in no hurry to kill them.
arguing that embryonic human beings lack some characteristic
The left is quite good at finding "undesirable characteristics" where ever they cast their eyes.
For the secularist’s position is shaped by certain inherited beliefs acquired during his academic and cultural formation that are central to his intellectual tradition. These beliefs in metaphysics (nominalism), epistemology (scientism), and religion (subjectivism) are, like the believer’s beliefs, the result of an extended argument over time.
I noted very quickly the lack of the word 'morality'.
In Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics, the Lutheran scholar Robert Benne provides a clear and compelling brief for the religious citizen and the ecclesial community to which he belongs. Director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College, he offers Christians and their detractors a way of thinking about religion and politics that addresses some of the concerns that both believers and unbelievers have expressed over the past three decades since the ascendancy of the “Religious Right.”
I get my marching orders from Jesus, not some lukewarm seminarian.
The author is clever, but I still see this piece as a crock.
that addresses some of the concerns that both believers and unbelievers have expressed over the past three decades since the ascendancy of the “Religious Right.
I'll take the "religious right" over the "religious left" every time.
Can anybody tell me where the so-called “religious right” has truly injured them? These same people are those that bear scrolls of excuses for Islam.
Crickets.
It would appear so.
Crickets are not a bad thing all of the time.
Pro-life organizations can point to multiplied thousands of babies their efforts have saved. I've financially supported a number of them and volunteered at one pregnancy resource center, and I've seen the testimonies from mothers whose hearts were changed and whose babies were saved.
What's relevant in the real world -- apparently uninhabited by hectoring critics -- is
** the flood tide of pro-life state laws [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/health/policy/03abortion.html -- "Abortion Foes Advance Cause at State Level" ],
** 2,300+ pregnancy resource centers [ http://www.apassiontoserve.org/ ],
** myriads of formerly abortion-accepting women who've become pro-life [ http://www.CNSNews.com/news/article/moms-who-chose-life-over-abortion-become -- "Moms Who Chose Life Over Abortion Become Activists on Capitol Hill" ] ,
** increasing exposure of abortuaries' rampant illegalities [ http://liveaction.org/monalisa/ ], and
** the legions of pro-life doers [in stark contrast to the empty talkers] like Lila Rose, who in four years has put some big hits on Big Abortion [ http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/09/fighting-for-life -- "Lila Rose: Fighting for Life" ] .
Kathleen Eaton, founder and CEO of Birth Choice Health Clinics in Southern California [ http://www.birthchoiceclinic.org/ ], writes:
" . . . we are so grateful to Focus on the Family for their Option Ultrasound Program grants and training [ http://www.heartlink.org/pdf/DonorOUPUpdate.pdf ]. With their help, we've been able to transform our pregnancy resource centers into fully licensed medical clinics, and the results are astounding. Demand for our services has grown from less than 1,000 visitors to more than 21,000 since we converted to four licensed medical clinics in 2006. We're set to open our sixth clinic in Los Angeles County in January 2010.
"Historically, only 30 percent of our abortion-minded women changed their minds. However, by introducing women to their babies through ultrasound, more than 72 percent choose life."
I made an appointment for the next week for a medical abortion, where I would take the medication/pill regimen known as RU-486. The thought of "surgical abortion" made me queasy, and the clinic staff made the pill sound so simple - like taking a Tylenol for a headache. It seemed like the perfect solution had fallen right in my lap. But what I first thought was the answer to my prayers soon came with its own set of worries. I couldn't shake the nagging thoughts in the back of my mind, those unsettled feelings that I was sure would disappear since I had made the appointment to take the RU-486.
My anxiety worsened as the date for the abortion grew closer. I crept slowly through the days, wishing that I could stall the abortion appointment until I felt 100% confident about my choice. It was the biggest decision of my life, and I needed, I craved some conviction that it was the right decision. One day, as I was riding on the bus I saw a sign that read, "Considering Abortion? Pregnancy Care Centers: Caring, Confidential, Trusted." It gave me a sense of comfort I hadn't felt in weeks. I decided to call the number... I figured at that point, what did I have to lose? Maybe I did have one more chance to talk to someone before the abortion.
When I called the Help Line phone number, I was nervous - I didn't want to be judged or pressured. I just wanted to hear something hopeful. The woman on the other end of the line listened, and didn't judge. She gave me information, and set me up with an appointment. I don't know what prompted me to go. But I knew that I couldn't go in and get the abortion without some sense of affirmation that whatever choice I made, it would be a well-informed decision.
The visit to the pregnancy care center changed my life. For the first time, I saw my situation for what it really was - a blessing, a miracle of life. I saw my baby on the ultrasound as a real person. I could see her as a newborn baby... a little girl... and a grown woman who would do amazing things in this world if I would just give her the opportunity. Seeing Ava opened my eyes to everything I couldn't see before. I was able to see past my fears and my worries, and experience the excitement and joy of a new life. I felt a renewed sense of purpose, and an overwhelming responsibility to myself as a woman, and my capabilities of being a mother. The support and love the center showed me gave me the validation I was searching for all along.
". . . [Nikki] Payne said she was 19 and not in a relationship when she became pregnant. She decided that rather than confide in family and friends, she would just get an abortion on her own. “I was worried about the judgment of family and friends because of the goals I had in mind,” Payne told CNSNews.com. “So I tried to make the decision to terminate my pregnancy alone without anyone knowing.”
She described her visit to Planned Parenthood as an “awful experience.”
“It was very impersonal and very robotic, and I didn’t feel right,” Payne said. In contrast, she said that when she visited the pregnancy resource center in the city where she lived in Virginia, a counselor spent several hours talking to her about alternatives to abortion.
“So it’s just a huge turnaround from going somewhere where I was just a number to actually wanting to inform me so I could make an informed decision and know the repercussions or the rewards of the decision I was going to make,” Payne said.
As she held her wiggly son in her arms, she said she could not imagine having made the decision to go through with an abortion.
“It’s not possible to see him not in my life,” Payne said. “They gave me an ultrasound, which made everything so clear – that Zuri is going to be that blessing in my life.”
“And there is no way I could choose whether he lives or dies,” Payne said. “It’s not my place to choose to take a life away.”
What was that again? Perfesser of philisophololigy?
Sounds like someone on a mission from DHS trying to determine which religious folks should be rounded up and which ones should not.
THAT has absolutely nothing to do with the gobbledegook that supposedly passes for intellectual discourse in the ARTICLE that was posted on this thread. Don’t get all holier than thou and try to tell me about saving babies. You don’t know me and you don’t need details about my personal life, nor did I ask for YOURS. The FACT is, you defended this piece of garbage and now you act as if the whole thread is about personally saving babies. THIS ARTICLE is by some leftist, so-called religious fop who advocates allowing SOME babies to die for political reasons...and about letting yourself feel better about it.
Shame on you for trying to change the subject and act as though you did not understand what the man was saying. Unless you DIDN’T understand and now can’t bring yourself to admit you were wrong for defendng the indefensible.
Fabulously stated Mesta....
You know why is it that these woman suddenly decide that it's time for a "well informed decision"... after the fact. Did they go to as much trouble making an "informed decision" when they decided to engage in sexual behavior? Did they truly not understand that engaging can and often does create a child?
I realize there are many excuses and various other resonings given for taking a life of a child but when are woman going to understand that babies are the result of sexual intercourse which they MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION TO ENGAGE IN long before their is a baby???? What they want is really an excuse to escape the natural result of having sex.....most often a case of the cart before the horse...and unfortunately reality then does what it does so well by presenting a baby.
I wonder if these woman would write so well and gain the attention if they presented the route of their 'informed decision' to have sex in the first place. I doubt it....there's no story in it...no drama... and certainly no shame for stepping outside the protective boundaries which moral decisions are their for our protection.
I just get weary of all these stories of how babies lifes were saved...becuase the focus still remains on the woman and gloifies her for doing what would otherwise be natural for a mother to do...have her baby.
We have not only stolen the life of the unborn thru abortion...but we have stolen the beauty, the presciousness that a child is born...when it's not aborted.... Instead we elevate the mothers, yet again, for deciding to have the child. We have made the birth of a child a statistic now rather than the joy it should bring us all...right from the start. It's never now about the baby, it's about the abortion or not and the mother...still.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.