felix hominum

Trisomophobia: What Palin Triggered

It seems that 6 month old Trig Palin, the son of some American politician, is making his weight felt in not just one, but two countries.  In particular, Trig has sparked something in Dr Andre Lalonde.  Dr Lalonde, according to the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) has "developed an expertise and is an advocate for safe Motherhood and family planning as well as promoting women’s empowerment for reproductive health."

In a recent Globe and Mail article entitled "A message of hope - or pressure to keep the baby?", Dr Lalonde is quoted as concerned that Trig might  "have an implication for abortion issues in Canada".  According to the article, Dr Lalonde seems to think that "Ms. Palin's widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same".

Two things.  First, in case I forgot to mention it, Trig lives with Down Syndrome.  Second, it seems that Dr Lalonde is advocating for the wrong kind of testing;  if his concern is that the parent will lack "emotional and financial support", then perhaps he should advocate testing potential parents before they get pregnant.  But somehow I don't think he'll go for that.  Or he could simply join forces with the Canadian Down Syndrome Society to improve resources for parents whose children live with Down Syndrome.  If one raises "support" as the issue, then one should be just as vocal about improving that support.  Perhaps Dr Lalonde's comments were "taken out of context" as they say.  Or at least as they say when a comment is found to be lacking in wisdom or compassion.

(ed update: - I recall Dr Lalonde's last comments in a national Canadian newspaper.  The SOCG began recommending genetic testing for all pregnant women and "automatic" genetic testing for pregnant women over 40.  "Choice"?  What exactly does it mean to be automatically given a test?  Here is what he had to say in comment to the National Post:   “Yes, it’s going to lead to more termination, but it’s going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, ‘How come I have to raise an infant with Down’s syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn’t have to?'"  Think that one through.  Carefully.

Dr Lalonde, who says that "above all else, women must be free to choose", seems in fact to be worried by one choice in particular:  Sarah Palin's choice to have a child with Down Syndrome.  He is worried about Sarah Palin's choice to have a child with Down Syndrome.  I don't take a huge interest in American politics, but I do take an interest in the one person who might be forgotten in all of this.  In the midst of this, it might be easy to forget who we are talking about: Trig.  It is easy in the article to forget Trig.  For those frightfully worried about Trig's presence in the world, it might even get worse:  Trig might learn to walk in a little while, perhaps use signs and then start talking.  Maybe even take up an interest in music, start going to school and hanging out with friends.  Get invited to a birthday party, and then host a birthday party of his own.  Take swimming lessons, help dad build a playhouse, read out loud before bed.  Before you know it, that "emotional and financial" burden is returning the investment in spades (but more often in hugs and laughter).

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if the Down Syndrome community coined and used a new word: trisomophobic.  And kept on using it.  But you know what?  They won't, even though such "tactics" seem to have worked well for other groups in public debate.  And why won't they?  In the years I've been involved with people who live with Down Syndrome, it seems that they are not interested in debate, or scoring rhetorical points, or the great machinery of politics.  Instead they trade in only one commodity:

Love.

Trig just might influence someone to rethink a possible abortion due to genetic anomalies.  Let him.  It happens, Dr Lalonde.  I know because someone told me the same thing - they saw our family, imperfect as it is, and they took a new view.  We are not heroic parents, my wife is not governor of a state, we are by no means wealthy.  We are not out to change the laws, just the hearts.

Go Trig.  If you need a pen pal along the way, you can write to SJ:

some updates:

The LA Times blog, which first circulated this story in the States, is now saying this. 

There are numerous persons in the Down Syndrome community who have reacted to this story.  I'll try to assemble some links and post them later.

Dr Lalonde is also quoted in this article as wanting to reduce the number of abortions in Canada.  Caveat emptor.

Much, much more on Dr Lalonde's organization here:  Thoughts on Dr Andre Lalonde & Trig Palin

"Democratic bloggers claim Palin faked pregnancy", or, why I don't blog on things like American elections

Democratic bloggers claim Palin faked pregnancy

Democrats can't understand how a middle-aged woman can have both a career and a family, especially one that includes a baby with Down Syndrome.

...
Hornrimsylvia, who blogs on the Progressive Democratic site "Daily Kos", believes the video shows that Palin's pregnancy was faked. "I have never seen a woman with an eight-month pregnancy be able to cross her legs and vigorously sit forward like that. Their backs are usually curved so far back that they need a pillow for lumbar support." [note to self: I'm not touching that one with a barge-pole, especially since I happen to be married to a person who has, in fact, been 8 months pregnant.  Not just 8 months pregnant once, but four times]

The whole article is at Spero News, see what you think.

Ah, those crazy interwebs, combined with those crazy American politics...

quote of the day - Dr Henry Morgentaler

I'm not going to debate whether he should have gotten the award.  What caught my eye was a quote in the Globe and Mail:

"The fact that some people are opposed on religious grounds mainly, well, that doesn't bother me as long as they're not allowed to influence other people by force or by whatever other means," he said.

Globe and Mail
(emphasis added)

I'll gladly give him the "force" thing. 

But "by whatever other means"?  Really?  Seriously?  This has got to be a case of a truncated quote, or missing context, or bad reporting, because otherwise....ummmm... you are against something like this:

Technological advances in fetal screening are presenting parents, and doctors, with enormous ethical, psychological and social dilemmas. Vulnerable, and with limited, biased, information, more than 90% of prospective parents in Canada choose termination if their fetus is determined in prenatal screening to have Down
Syndrome. They may never know there is a world of resources, possibilities and support out there. In spite of tireless efforts from support groups their information rarely reach prospective parents at the time they need it most.

In Canada the recent recommended expansion of screening protocols called for by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Canada has not been accompanied by a call for the expansion of the provision of non prejudicial information which outlines not just the potential medical conditions sometimes associated with Down syndrome but also about the richly rewarding lives possible for citizens with developmental disabilities in Canada. The United States recently called for the re-introduction a Prenatal Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act.

The CDSS acknowledges that in Canada women have the legal right to make decisions about the progression of their pregnancies; the CDSS insists that each individual family be given, without prejudice, information that accurately reflects the realities of a life with Down syndrome and other developmental disabilities.

Canadian Down Syndrome Society

So to live by Dr Morgentaler's quoted code of ethics, if someone comes up and says to me:  "Hey, I am thinking of abortion, because we just found out that there might be some sort of genetic thing happening with the fetus, and we hear that kids with Down Syndrome are awful and suffer a lot and all that stuff  - well, it's just better to have the abortion now",  I should simply keep silent?  I, being a "religeous" person should not be "allowed to influence other people" by "whatever other means", such as giving them information as presented by the CDSS?

Well, I'll have to think more about this.

 

Persians, Canadians and Barbarians

The Persians were barbarians, the Greeks thought, not because they were weak (they were mighty) or stupid (they were clever) or rustic (they built lavish cities).  They were barbarians because they were not free.  Or, to put it more precisely, they had become accustomed to living under despotism; they lacked the will to rise up against their overlords and govern themselves, city by city, by the use of their own minds and strong arms.  The barbarian may arouse pity, if he can no longer conceive of what it would be to stand tall and speak candidly; by this definition, the lowlier of the Calormenes in Lewis' Chronicles are pitiable barbarians.  Or he may arouse a kind of half-comic aversion, as do the Cyclopses in the Odyssey, who gather in no assemblies, pass no laws, unite for no large-scale industry or agriculture, and do not give homage to the politically organized gods of Olympus, but mind their own petty business, each of them ignoring his neighbors -- as the bleeding oaf Polyphemus finds to his discomfiture.  Or the barbarian may be one of the privileged few who cause others to truckle to his will, like the semisavage tyrants of Sicity (Agathocles, Hiero, Dionysus).

     Whatever the case, the barbarian is missing something central to being human: living as a free man with duties and responsibilities in a community, taking part in spirited debate, and not having to duck and scrape when some big shot from a distant Persepolis descends with the imperial decree.  The free man is both a dutiful son of his country and a father for it; the city commands his allegiance, but it is also in part his creation, his patrimony, which he will pass along to his descendants in turn.  The Greeks claim that when this political liberty -- it is not the radical individualism of a Cyclops in his cave -- is lacking, that itself is barbaric, regardless of whether the people possess sweet and gentle manners.  My family and I are preparing to go north for the summer, where the people of Canada have had the liberties of their small communities snatched from them by a bad constitution and a tyrannical court.  They are, as one defender of liberty has put it, a Nation of Bastards, wards of the state.  This novel kind of barbarism does overgo the barbarism of Persia, though, because the ancient Persians were willing enough to grant their outlands a measure of home rule; witness Cyrus's humane returning of the Jews to their homeland.  Chief Justice McLachlin of Canada will not allow such local variations for a Calgary or a Thunder Bay.  When it comes to detaching Canadians from the very culture that gave rise to Canada in the first place, only a mockery of debate is allowed.  And only the shreds and patches of political opposition, too.  Approach the presence, Clayton, Terence, Angus.  Bow with awful reverence prone, flat as the Canadian shield.  I'm not gloating over you, my friends of the permafrost.  We in America will soon be leaving our nose-prints in the dirt, too.

Anthony Esolen, in Mere Comments

Speaking of things which deal with Classics, I've been re-reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire over the last 2 weeks.  It is fascinating stuff.

 

understatement headline...

Zimbabwe opposition fears vote-rigging

Zimbabwe's election commission today began releasing a trickle of results from Saturday's presidential and parliamentary elections as the opposition voiced fears that the count was being manipulated in favour of the president, Robert Mugabe.

The Guardian

Rex Murphy on the Osgoode 4 & the case against Maclean's

Human Rights Gone Awry

What I do not associate with this deep and noble concept is getting ticked off by something you read in a magazine - or for that matter hear on television - and then scampering off to a handful - well, three - of Canada's proliferate human rights commissions - seeking to score off the magazine: this is what four Osgoode Hall law students and graduates --- a very definition of the 'marginalized' --- under the banner of the Canadian Islamic Congress have done after reading an excerpt from Mark Steyn's America Alone in Maclean’s. The complainants read the article as “flagrantly islamophobic”.

Maclean’s magazine? Well, we all know what a hotbed of radical bigotry and vile prejudice Maclean’s magazine has been. Go away … for what seems like a century Maclean’s was no more "offensive" (that is the can’t term of choice these days) than a down comforter on a cold day and if Mark Steyn's article offended them: so what? Not every article in every magazine of newspaper is meant to be a valentine card addressed to every reader's self-esteem. Maclean’s published a bushel of letters following the article's appearance: some praised it: others scorned it. That's freedom of speech: that's democracy: that's the messy business we call the exchange of ideas and opinions.

full text here

And Daniel Simard, one of the complainants, has this to say, although the comments are closed...

Moving on, as I’m sure you are all are aware, I am party to a human rights complaint waged against Maclean’s magazine for the publication of an article written by Mark Steyn. Because of this, I have been one of the hot topics in the blogging world, and as a result of this and some of my posts, I have subjected our site and staff to increased scrutiny, censure and attack.

I want you all to know that I had no intention of dragging lawiscool into my personal disputes. Admittedly, I underestimated the unscrupulousness of my frantic foes and lacked the foresight necessary to obviate lawiscool’s subjection. I am grateful that you all are bearing with me and supporting me in my right and privilege to convey my messages through our blog. I also want you all to know that I grappled with the thought of excluding posts related to my dispute, but, rather than accede defeat to my crazed critics I decided it would be unjust to restrict the publication of fair and reasonable commentary.

Muslims Against Sharia has a post on the topic as well:

By now, most people living in Canada and a great many living in the US will know that a group of students at Osgoode Hall Law School have decided to take the Canadian weekly newsmagazine, Macleans, before several provincial incarnations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Their charge? The Canadian Islamic Congress is offended by passages from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, which were published in an issue of MacLeans, the most offensive of which, is a quote from a Danish Muslim cleric (see second page), which the students seem not to have grasped (and what does that say about the standards at that once great, grand old institution, Osgoode Hall?).

And some reflections from the Canadian Islamic Congress site, highlighting thoughts from a 2006 strategy meeting:

II - Short-Term Action Plan

1  Rejecting media-imposed calls for Muslim "extremist/moderate" discourse.
2  Having more Muslim community media.
3  Sending more letters to editors and/or using Press Councils, etc etc as means to address frequent anti-Islam bias in the media.
4  Inviting more guests of other faiths to attend Friday prayers to make them more aware of Islam and Muslims.
5  Making a greater effort to defend and advocate for Muslim rights and responsibilities.
6  Encouraging greater participation in elections at all levels (federal, provincial, and municipal) and on government and professional boards.
7  Establishing a legal defense fund.
8  Training more Muslim representatives/spokespersons in how to use Canadian media effectively.
9  Enhancing Da’wa (education) efforts among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Benazir Bhutto assassinated

Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.
Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when she was shot in the neck by a gunman who then set off a bomb.

At least 16 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.

from the BBC

update on "law is cool", steyn & all that jazz

Update: The Canadian Islamic Congress has a pdf on their site entitled: 

MACLEANS MAGAZINE: A CASE STUDY OF
MEDIA-PROPAGATED ISLAMOPHOBIA
Prepared by:
Khurrum Awan, Muneeza Skeikh, Naseem Mithoowani
LLB (Osgoode Hall Law School – 2007)
Ali Ahmed
LLB Candidate (Osgoode Hall Law School - 2008)
Daniel Simard
LLB Candidate (Osgoode Hall Law School - 2009)

The Canadian Islamic Congress and 4 law students from Osgoode have requested proceedings in our Human Rights Commissions against Maclean's magazine for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's recent book.

Further research into the legal issues was conducted over the Christmas season.  This consisted mostly of several glasses of port in front of a roaring fire at the home of the local paterfamilias. He recently retired from the bench, and has more than a passing interest in the variety of issues involved in this case.  Apart from all the interesting conversation around justice, multiculturalism, freedom of expression, I also discovered (i think after the 3rd glass) that he has, tucked away in the library, a document signed by Sir John A himself.  Great-great Granddad was sworn into judicial office by Canada's first Prime Minister.  I wonder what he would make of the case...

Posts at LawisCool are here and here.

Mark Steyn has comments here., and links to the text of the complaints can be found on this page.

In addition, there is this story about a Catholic journal being brought under the same body, for publishing stuff which, well, appears to be the teaching of the Catholic Church:

Today, Catholic Insight magazine has also become a victim of the new anti-religion. We, too, have been denounced to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa for speaking out against the activists who agitated for adding so-called sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes Act in 2003 and the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in 2005. The politically correct activists brook no opposition. See the article ”Catholic Insight under human rights attack”, page 10; and David Warren,“Suing for silence”, page 17.

from here

"Suing for silence" - has a nice ring, no?

related post:  an interesting article or two on the Mark Steyn affair

Goodbye Oscar.

Food for thought.  Commenting at CBC on the death of Aqsa Parvez,  the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress (the same person bringing the complaints) had this to say:

"I don't want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue or an immigrant issue," said Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress. "It is a teenager issue."

an interesting article or two on the Mark Steyn affair

Update:  the interwebs are interesting...

One of the folks involved in the complaint appears connected to the group blog "Law is Cool".  It is by a group of law students.  Go figure.  There has been some, err, discussion around that blog.  I'll get all the links up later.

a comment left at Magicstats:

Canadian dude

This almost seems comical; none of you actually address the substantive content of the blog in question.

And looking at the other posts on this blog and the others in his fan base, the contents are as bad and at times worse than Steyn’s.

You guys are a bunch of scary people down there in the U.S. Keep your notions of freedom on that side of the border, we don’t want it.

a comment left at Jay Currie's blog:

Canadian dude

This almost seems comical; none of you actually address the substantive content of the blog in question.

And looking at the other posts on this blog and the others in his fan base, the contents are as bad and at times worse than Steyn’s.

You guys are a bunch of scary people down there in the U.S. Keep your notions of freedom on that side of the border, we don’t want it.

Magicstats' observations? 

In like manner, because of Canadian dude’s lack of knowledge about the internet and blogging, his claim to have read "other posts on this blog" is proven false and his true origin exposed. By consulting my StatCounter service, I discovered that Canadian dude is a Law Is Cool blogger and visited only one post at my blog, namely, the one he commented on.

The administrator's comment page at my blog identifies Canadian dude's IP address as 99.243.245.229.  Tracking down that IP address at StatCounter's "Recent Pageload Activity" log brought up the Visitor Analysis, the Navigation Path from which is posted below.  (Sorry about the small size of the graphic.  Clicking on the image will bring up a full-size view.)

From the London Free Press:

In a flagrant attack on freedom of the press, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has filed three human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine and its editor-in-chief, Kenneth Whyte, accusing them of spreading "hatred and contempt" for Muslims, by publishing an article by Mark Steyn on Oct. 23, 2006, entitled The Future Belongs to Islam.

The article in dispute is an excerpt from Steyn's bestselling book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. Consider the implications: By the logic of the CIC's attack on Maclean's magazine, the owners and operators of Canadian libraries and bookstores could also be charged with violating the human rights of Muslims by making not just Steyn's article but also his entire book widely available to Canadians throughout the country.

from the same article, this is worth pondering:

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, underlined the danger last year after the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed a human rights complaint against the Western Standard for republishing a set of Danish cartoons that many Muslims found offensive. In an article in the Calgary Herald, Borovoy wrote: "During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create (human rights) commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech."

And from Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan , Muneeza Sheikh and Daniel Simard, an article in the National Post:

What we did ask for, however, was an opportunity for the Muslim community to participate in the "free marketplace" of ideas. It is our belief that in its truest form, freedom of expression results in a lively debate among all interested parties -- not just among those who play by their own exclusionary rules. If Maclean's wants to publish articles alleging that many Muslims are "hot for jihad," it has to provide an opportunity to respond.

This issue isn't about attacking journalists or stifling free expression. It's about ensuring that our media outlets provide a forum for open debate and argument.

ps. if you don't know much about this issue, I think you should.

Christians disappearing from West Bank

The Palestinian Christian population has dipped to 1.5 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, down from at least 15% a half century ago, according to some estimates.

No one city in the Holy Land is more indicative of the great exodus of Christians than Bethlehem, which fell under full Palestinian control last decade as part of the Oslo Accords.

The town of 30,000 is now less than 20% Christian, after decades when Christians were the majority. Elsewhere in the Palestinian territories, only about 3,000 Christians, mostly Greek Orthodox, live in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, out of a strongly conservative Muslim population of 1.4 million.

"In a society where Arab Christians have no voice and no protection it is no surprise that they are leaving," he said.

In his address, Weiner pointedly downplayed the effects that Israeli security measures, such as the security barrier being built between Israel and the West Bank, have had on the Christian Arabs living in the West Bank.

The barrier, which is especially conspicuous at the entrance to Bethlehem where it is a concrete wall, is an issue which many Palestinian Christian clerics have pointed to, along with the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as a central cause of Christian emigration.

Weiner argued there was a "180 degree difference" between the public statements coming out of the mainstream Christian leadership in the Holy Land - who "sing the PA's tune" and blame Israel for all the Christian Arabs' ills - and people's experience on the ground.

"The truth is beginning to come out," he said. "The question is what is being done with the truth."

His comments come just months after a prominent Christian activist, Rami Khader Ayyad, 32, was killed in Gaza.

from the Jerusalem post

quote: John Howard Yoder & post-critical reading

I have been called both "fundamentalist" and "pietist" by unsympathetic readers, since they put me in an already-closed slot in their minds, to which they had relegated the use of the Bible.  They did not read me carefully enough to be aware that my reading of the scriptural texts was post- and not pre- critical.

John Howard Yoder
"The Politics of Jesus Revisited"
unpublished lecture delivered in 1997, Can Mennonite Center, full text here (pdf) from Notre Dame archive

Well, that's just it, isn't it?

Budziszewski on Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Manifesto

I was in high school when Francis Schaeffer published A Christian Manifesto in 1981.  By the time I was an undergrad a few years later, I had been introduced to Schaeffer by association with IVCF.  Well, actually, it was by association with a particular student who was involved in IVCF.  I was rather partial at the time to a rather more liturgical form of Christian piety.  In those days they served sherry after High Mass on Thursdays.  But I digress.

In "Evangelicals in the Public Square", Budziszewski claims "it was Schaeffer who first made evangelicals aware of the culture war, an odd sort of war in which, he complained, so far only the other side had shown up to fight [73].  In response to what he saw as a growing systemic program of secular humanism, Schaeffer claimed that Christians have been negligent because they "have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals". (Manifesto, rev. ed.; Wheaton: Crossway, 1982, p 17).

Budziszewski examines several of Schaeffer's points.  First is the gradual replacement of a "vaguely Christian" worldview (Manifesto, 17) with the worldview of secular humanism.  In great part Schaeffer blames lawyers and liberal theologians [Budziszewski, 74-75].  What has happened, Schaeffer argued, is that Christian pietism has allowed for a compartmentalization of faith - Christians "have acted as though nothing more were at stake than a few particular truths, like Christ's virgin birth..." [75]  Budziszewski see in this a bit of a swipe at the Fundamentalist movement.  While the "secularists" have seen things in terms of transforming a whole society, Christians have been involved in only "bits and pieces".

Authority and the State: aside

Schaeffer was concerned with the removal of moral absolutes.  The overall result of the secularizing tendency, particularly in the state, is to eliminate any basis for authority beyond the state.  The flip side of course is that there is then no limiting of the state:  it is the state which can grant rights, and therefore the state can remove them.  There is no grounding of authority in anything higher than the collective.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

It is interesting to stop at this point and consider the preamble to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Why does our Charter recognize "the supremacy of God" and the "rule of law" - in that order?  It is argued by some that such concepts and language have no place in the state.  But what are the implications of removing any notion of an authority higher than the state? And what are the implications for a state which recognizes no authority, no "supremacy", greater than its own collective?

To be continued:  laundry calls...

related posts:

• J. Budziszewski: Evangelicals in the Public Square 
• Budziszewski on Carl FH Henry, Evangelical Politics and The Uneasy Conscience
• Coffee and the Charter of Rights

Budziszewski on Carl FH Henry, Evangelical Politics and The Uneasy Conscience

Coffee and a book...

The influence of Carl FH Henry on contemporary evangelicalism is undisputed.  He was a founder and first editor of Christianity Today, and one of the first faculty members of Fuller Theological Seminary,   He authored more than 30 books, and is, in the words of Budziszewski,“if not the father of the new evangelical movement – for it had no single originator – at least one of its uncles.”  [40] 

In 1947 Henry published “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism”, a book which is his “most influential contribution to evangelical political reflection”.  [40]  Budziszewski devotes the first part of Evangelicals in the Public Square to critiquing both the book and its legacy.  What Henry saw in his own day was a movement away from the Fundamentalists to the “new evangelicals”, and with it Henry framed his lament over a misguided and hopeless modernity, and a challenge that Fundamentalists had ignored the social imperatives of the redemptive Gospel.

Henry argued broadly that redemption (like sin) is not only individual, but is also social [Henry, Conscience, 32, 37, 51-52].  He sought to correct the pendulum swing of the Fundamentalists, who in their reaction to a social gospel movement which seemed to downplay the divinity of Christ, had “seemed to revolt against the social imperative of the gospel itself” [41].  The underlying doctrine to drive this was the Incarnation, which has implications for wider social involvement and responsibility. Budziszewski summarizes Henry’s implications of the Incarnation for a redemptive social evangelicalism: “[Christians] should withdraw only from movements whose means or goals are explicitly anti-evangelical” [42].  What this means is that Henry was calling evangelicals and Fundamentalists to a wider engagement with the range of institutions – social, political, educational, economic. 

As Budziszewski points out, Henry’s strategy for engaging these institutions is not a developed Christian theory of education, politics, sociology or economics.  Rather, it is by populating these institutions with Christian individuals that the institutions will be transformed and redeemed. Here, I think, is the first question to be leveled in relation to contemporary “evangelical politics”:  Is it only through populating the institution with individual Christians that the institutions can be “redemptive”?  On one level, we see this played out in the elect-ability of candidates whose personal faith is agreeable to a set standard.  Fill the parliament, or congress, with individual Christians, and the rest will look after itself.  But is this the case?  Arguing from natural law, Bud holds that such an approach is short – it fails to call us to the task of thinking through a Christian economic and social philosophy, a Christian jurisprudence, a Christian philosophy of state and governance.  Christians need to have a notion of how the institutions can function redemptively.  For example, can we understand and enact just laws even if we do not have “Christians” in government? And conversely, will electing "Christians" lead to more just public institutions?

Another point to be considered in the (non) development of evangelical political philosophy is eschatology.   Budziszewski looks at three streams of eschatology in evangelical circles – streams which are still with us today.  Think of the “Left Behind” series which has populated Christian bookstore shelves and fattened publishers’ bank accounts.  Henry lamented the state of division and the amount of energy devoted to eschatology in his day, and Budziszewski looks at the legacy of these streams [44ff].  There is a large section of evangelical political thought which does not seek to transform the surrounding culture, but merely is content to be protected from it.  It is an escapist ideology which becomes merely defensive.  With shades of Kuyper, such evangelicals are happy as long as their own spheres are protected:  “we don’t think we will change the direction of public education, but don’t try to force that stuff on MY children.”  Budziszewski astutely observes that the “rise in fundamentalist political activity therefore reflects not a shift from a protective goal to a redemptive goal, but an increase in the perceived level of threat.” [46ff]

What Henry called evangelicals to do was engage the wider culture with the redemptive Gospel.  But what he failed to do was articulate a way in which evangelical Christians can think about those institutions apart from simply populating them with Christian individuals.  As Budziszewski points out, “Surely it would be naïve to think that better laws eliminate the need for God’s grace.  But it is equally unrealistic to suppose that conversion cancels out the need for better laws.” [47]

This whole area is a fascinating one.  One of the biggest charges brought against Henry and other evangelicals is that they failed to provide a “cultural apologetic”.  That is, they failed to explore if there is any basis on which to engage and cooperate with non-Christians in the pursuit of the public good.  This is a question which will have different answers from different quarters.  Is there any commerce between the City of God and the city of man?  Can there be a common notion of public “justice” among Christians and non-Christians?  Budziszewski argues that a great failing of evangelicalism is the absence of natural law as a bridge to a non-Christian culture.  This is the flip side of the Incarnation – all humans are made in the image of God, and as such, there are points of contact between all.  In their zeal for special revelation, they have neglected the tools of general revelation.

An interesting read so far.  Think I’ll have to pull out the Meno again…

related post:  J. Budziszewski: Evangelicals in the Public Square

J. Budziszewski: Evangelicals in the Public Square

The weekend's reading will be Evangelicals in the Public Square.  It is a series of essays looking at the work and influence of four voices who, though not all what we would call "evangelical", have had influence on American evangelical political thought.  Budziszewski & company look at Carl F.H. Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer and John Howard Yoder, examining their most important works, and asking how each has contributed to contemporary political theory and practice in evangelical circles.

The problem for evangelical political thinkers is not that the Bible contains no political teachings (for it does) but that the Bible does not provide enough by itself for an adequate political theory... The Bible assumes that [] large truths are known before we come to the Bible.  Unless Abraham had already known something of justice, he could not have debated God about it. [33]

Right away you can get a sense of where Budziszewski will take his critique of evangelical political thought:  the separation of scriptural revelation and natural law needs to be addressed if evangelicals are to develop a better political theory.

related post:  Budziszewski on Carl FH Henry, Evangelical Politics and The Uneasy Conscience

some bloggers on and in burma

a short list of links here

a number of the bloggers have posted videos of the current events

Timeonline with stories from bloggers inside Burma

Expression - Art & Religion

EDMONTON - Mayor Stephen Mandel wants four sculptures outside the Shaw Conference Centre taken away immediately after local Hindu leaders complained they're disrespectful of one of their faith's beloved gods.

The works by Edmonton artist Ryan McCourt use castoff industrial material to depict the elephant-headed Ganesha in various poses, including one piece in which he stands with his head lying on the ground beside a pillar that holds a breast and female genitals.

The temporary display has been outside the conference centre on Jasper Avenue since last November.

from the Edmonton Journal

There has been a bit of backlash against the work of Ryan McCourt, a local sculptor.  His work involves the depiction of Hindu deity.  There are some interesting questions and social interactions here.  Leaders from the local Hindu community find the pieces "disrespectful".  Ryan McCourt argues that the principle of  freedom of expression is at stake.  Tax payers from the burbs will wonder how they ended up partially funding this project, no doubt.

I find it refreshing that at least, for once, it is not the Christian community up in arms about another ho-hum artistic depiction of Jesus or Mary doing something which is supposed to "shock" the hegemony out of us.

More importantly, it raises some interesting questions about the nature of art, the relationship between an artist and the wider (multi-faith/multi-cultural) community and society.  I'll be interested to see what else comes of this.

Montebello Summit stuff

Has anyone else been following a bit of the whole Montebello scenario?  I've found Benediction's series of  posts to be a good summary, with lots of interesting links.

should Jews build the Third Temple?

Traditionally the Temple Mount Faithful attempt to set up a foundation stone for the Third Temple on Tisha Be'av, and the police routinely prevent them from doing so. The occasion for this street theater is the anniversary of the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and that of the Second Temple in 70 CE, both said to have occurred on the same calendar date.

It is certainly right that the date be commemorated; but would rebuilding the Temple be an appropriate act for the State of Israel today?

Assuming there were no Dome of the Rock and no Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, no Wakf and no Aksa Mosque, the pressure to rebuild the Temple would be enormous - but would it, in historical terms, be sound?

An interesting story from the Jerusalem Post. 

Alan Johnson released in Gaza

story at the BBC

A day with the Lutherans...

Could ye not watch with me one hour?

And so our Lord found the disciples asleep on the ground...

But back to our "joint day" with the ELCIC.  The day is basically an all-day eucharist, with time for questions, presentations, discussion and lunch.  I must confess I left just after the exchange of the peace. which took place just after dessert and coffee.  It's still going on.  There was a presentation by Sallie McFague of the Vancouver School of Theology.

Quote of the Day:

"We are not our own:  we belong to the earth." 

I must give McFague credit for bringing our attention to the rather gluttonous manner in which many of us live, and the less than adequate stewardship of creation which results from this.  The theme of the whole day is "water";  in the context of justice, the global economy and global warming. 

I decided to immerse myself in the subject, hence I am skipping out of the rest of the afternoon and going to the pool at the hotel.

See you at the sessions this evening, where will be voting on:

Resolution Number: A226

Subject: Principles for Revision of Common Worship Texts

Moved by: The Rev. Dr. Richard Leggett from the Diocese of New Westminster

Seconded By: The Rt. Rev. Michael Bedford-Jones from the Diocese of Toronto

Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod direct the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee to prepare principles and an agenda for common worship texts revision.

Resolution Number: A183

Subject: Report of the Windsor Report Response Group

Moved by: The Rt. Rev. Colin Johnson, Diocese of Toronto

Seconded By: The Ven. Peter Fenty, Diocese of Toronto

Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod endorse the report of the Windsor Report Response Group, as adopted by the Council of General Synod (March 2007), and that the following be forwarded, along with the report, to the Anglican Communion Office and the Provinces of the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Church of Canada:

reaffirms its commitment to full membership and participation in the life, witness and structures of the Anglican Communion;
reaffirms its commitment to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, as received by our church in 1893;
expresses its desire and readiness to continue our participation in the ongoing life of the Communion through partnerships and visits, theological and biblical study, in order to foster Communion relationships, including the listening process and the development and possible adoption of an Anglican covenant;
reaffirms its mutual responsibility and interdependence with our Anglican sisters and brothers in furthering the mission of the church;
notes that, in response to the Windsor Report, the Diocese of New Westminster expressed regret, and the House of Bishops effected a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions;
calls upon those archbishops and other bishops who believe that it is their conscientious duty to intervene in Provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own to implement paragraph 155 of the Windsor Report and to seek an accommodation  with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care; and
commits itself to participation in the Listening Process and to share with member churches of the Communion the study of human sexuality which continues to take place, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason.

Israel names Arab Muslim as cabinet member

Israel's Labour party leader has appointed Raleb Majadele as science and technology minister - making him the first Arab Muslim in Israel's cabinet.

from the BBC

the arts & the tory candidates in Alberta

The folks over at studiosavant have given us a run-down of where the three front runners seem to stand on some issues affecting the arts in our province.

Canada's history: peacekeeping or combat?

I grew up hearing a lot about our Canadian reputation for peacekeeping.  FWIW, I found this to be an interesting read: 

A nation of peacekeepers or of warriors?

excerpt:

In the last 40 years or so Canada has been one of the least involved nations in actual UN peacekeeping missions.  Peacekeeping is increasingly becoming an activity of smaller nations and often of third-world nations, particularly in the past 10 years.  For example, in 2002 only 314 Canadians were on peacekeeping duties compared to, Nepal with 1,100 and Bangladesh with 6,000.

In fact, most of our military involvement in the past 15 years has had much more to do with shooting than blue helmets.  The 1991 Gulf War, operations in the Balkans in 1993; the invasion of Kosovo in 1999; and most recently Afghanistan these were all combat operations.  In the first three most of the real activities of Canadian troops were never reported accurately in Canada, and it was only when the stories were told after the missions that the truth was known.  For example, the action in the Medak Pocket in Bosnia rivalled any engagement in past or present warfare (and we in uniform didn't even know the full extent of what went on there).  There are stories that may never be told - like the deadly effectiveness of Canadian snipers (the US wanted to give Bronze Stars - a valour award - to a group of Canadian snipers).

Our military history as a nation is characterized by one constant thread, and it has nothing to do with our skill as mediators or negotiators.  Canadian troops have always been known for their effectiveness and fierceness in battle.

 

Harper, AIDS, and the Americanization of Canadian Politics

You may have noticed the amount of press, both paper and digital, that the absence of PM Harper from the AIDS conference has received.   The blogosphere is awash with criticism of Harper for not attending the conference.  Good for those folks who want to exercise their options of public critique.

From what I understand, the Governor General and three federal cabinet ministers, including the minister of health, attended the conference.

Have we forgotten, or are we merely abandoning, the notion that Canada is a parliamentary democracy, and we do not have a President?   It seems to me that people are so used to American style politics that we now assume that our PM is an exact parallel to the US President, in terms of office, political power, and influence.   

Have we begun to treat the PMO as if it were the White House?  Those are two different structures of power and government.

I'm not talking about similarity of policies, I'm talking about the way in which we perceive the operation of power and decision making in a parliamentary system as opposed to the American system.

We need to go back to the "I am Canadian" beer commercial and remember:  "We have a Prime Minister, not a President." 

There is a difference.

I'm just sayin'...

Update:  you can read the Governor General's excellent speech here.

stray thoughts on christian unity

15,000 attend Holy Saturday service in Jerusalem...


According to Dep.-Cmdr. Asher Ben- Atrzi, head of the Israel Police Interpol and Foreign Liaison Section, almost every year a dispute erupts between the Armenians and the Greeks over who enters the cave where Jesus is believed to be buried first. The different denominations also argue over prayer times. 'The police really need to be hands on at the churches,' he explained, 'to prevent them from arguing and fighting.'

from the Jerusalem Post.

God Bless Canada - Rev Harper

So what is the deal with Stephen Harper using the phrase: “God bless Canada” at the end of his speeches?

A few folks are worried this is a signal that theocratic tendencies, the specter of an American style “Religious Right”,  has been exported north of the 49th parallel.  There are really two streams to this concern.

First, the language mimics that of GWB and the Republican party.  Somehow the phrase “God bless country X”  has become the domain of the American right.  It is (in some circles) not possible to ask God’s blessing on a country without A] making reference to American politics; and B] implying that one is thereby asking God to bless country X at the expense of all other countries.

Secondly, there is the concern that although Harper did not campaign on what are considered the hot issues of the American right (most notably abortion), it is perhaps thought that Harper is pulling the old bait and switch:  play them soft this time around, hoping for a majority in the future, and then WHAM – hit Canada with a right wing social policy.

Okay, although I don’t think Harper is “Bush-Lite”, and I don’t think he is using the God Bless phrase as a secret signal to his allies, I can see that folks will make a common association.

Perhaps Harper could rework his tag line:

Short form: – for local speeches, in house meetings, and the beer tent at the Calgary Stampede:

“God bless us, every one” (with apologies to Charles Dickens).

Long Form:  for use with Rex Murphy on Cross-Country Check Up, and other occasions of national significance, Speeches from the Throne, etc:

“May the object or entity referred to in the preamble to the Charter as being the God under whose supremacy  common recognition of humanity is made possible and so guarantees the remainder of the rights in 2.a ff of the Constitution Act, due to the self limiting nature of an acknowledgement of any form of authority higher than that of the modern nation-state, bless Canada.”

Bill C-407 & dying with dignity

We currently have a bill before parliament dealing with euthanasia.  Bill C-407 contains the following central phrase:

(iv) ...has, while appearing to be lucid, designated in writing, before two witnesses with no personal interest in the death of the person, another person to act in his or her name with respect to the person who aids him or her to die, and with respect to any medical practitioner, while the person does not appear to be lucid...

Now what on earth does that mean?  I judge that you do not "appear to be lucid", or perhaps I judge that you do appear to be lucid.  It seems a rather ill conceived criterion for ending someone's life.

The text of the private member's bill is here.

An interesting perspective, from an award winning palliative care practicioner, is over here.

ps.  Nov 1-7 is national Down Syndrome Awareness Week in Canada.

Coffee and the Charter of Rights

Jesus once said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.  Jesus was perhaps the first figure to make a declaration about the separation of church and state.  A Christian in this life is the member of two kingdoms, or as St. Augustine put it, resident in two cities – the city of man and the City of God.

How am I as a Christian to live at once in these two cities, these two kingdoms?  And what is the relationship between them?  I did a very Canadian thing this morning.  I got a double double  and sat down to read, in full, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .  Maybe it is an after effect of spending time with the Christian Law Students Association.

The Constitutional Act of 1982 begins with the following words:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”

These are foundational things:  “the supremacy of God” and “the rule of law”.   Now I find myself asking:  are these two completely separate things?; or are they supposed to be one and the same?; or are they intended to overlap and coincide on certain points?  Is it a relationship of equal principles, or does one inform and have authority over the other?

The first interpretation – they are completely separate – would lead to a way of life in which the Christian would have no care for what happens in the state.  Religion is private, government is public, and never the two shall meet.  The Christian person would then have no concern for what happens in the public sphere.  God and any human authority would be opposed, and the Christian would see the state, the laws and “secular society” as a lost cause.  The extreme end result would be perhaps a holing up in the hills in retreat from society (“praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”), or a coldness which does not care what happens in society at large, as long as I can do my religious thing in private (“they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I said nothing”).

The second interpretation – God and the state are one – we have seen before.  In the time of Christ, Caesar was held to be divine, and worship was due him as a god, there was no such “separation of church and state”  The will of Caesar was the will of the State, and was the will of a god.  The early Christians refused to offer incense to this deity, and so were persecuted.

Rome was the Walmart of the religions of the ancient world.  Everywhere they conquered, they brought back a cheap new god for Rome.   What the Christians could not abide was the claim that the state, personified in the person of the Emperor, was divine – was in and of itself the highest authority for humanity.  Caesar makes reference to no higher authority than himself.  He is the state, and he is divine.  All things are Caesar’s, for he is God.  Rome was the first true theocracy.

What of the third interpretation – that the supremacy of God and the rule of law may coincide, may overlap on certain points?  And as a Christian, the first must inform  and guide the second.  But how?   I will leave this for the law students to help me figure out…but I do have a few thoughts to share later.