Couldn't Help Noticing

Muslims chastising Muslims

I keep trying, I keep failing. But surely they shoulda published this letter—written in response to an opinion piece by a Muslim chastising Muslims for their failure to express greater horror at Islamic terrorism:

Dear editor

Dr Akbarzadeh's comments on why Muslims have remained so silent about Islamic involvement in terrorism are very welcome. His expressions of horror at such acts are to be applauded. But he does rather dance around the issue of why such Islamic involvement is so embarrassingly obvious. Christians are ashamed of their terrorists—not that there are many—because these so-called Christian terrorists are violating the clear teaching of the Bible. But so many Muslims seem to be proud of their terrorists, and can show both Koranic scripture and the consistent example of Mohammed to justify their stance. Wouldn't such Muslims justifiably argue that it is the moderates who are completely out of line? I find it hard to see how a moderate Muslim could refute this.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon Cheng

Cells in the body

As a non-mobile phone owner, I was particularly interested to read this Reuters report about what seems to me a particularly useful new application of modern technology to the Christian gathering.

A church in Mexico has pioneered the use of state-of-the-art technology, developed by Israeli electronic warfare experts, to prevent mobile phones from ringing during church services.

Australian preachers will no doubt be particularly interested in this technology, and Matthias Media is currently considering adding the blocking equipment to its range of “resources for growing Christians”.

The Word

From time to time people will criticise Christians who love their Bibles too much, by suggesting that it is more important to worship Jesus than words on a page. But the distinction fails completely when we read the gospels, especially the gospel of John.

In the gospel of John, Jesus is described as the “Word” who was in the beginning with God. He teaches that he himself is the fulfilment of the words of God, the Scripture (John 5:39). His “words” and his “word” are interchangeable. When he speaks a word, the content of the word is himself, as he insists that people believe in him—and in what he says. When the Father speaks, it is to bring glory to Jesus.

When Jesus glorifies his Father he does it by speaking. In the end, we can't tell where Jesus the Word ends and Jesus' words begin, nor should we make the attempt—because our only knowledge of Jesus is through the words that are written down for us in the Bible.

Human Dignity

President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly a couple of days ago. You can read his speech here. It is a speech full of fine sounding principles, applying the theme of ‘advancing human dignity’ to a wide array of topics.

But the tough decisions are often in the implementation of the principles, aren't they? As it is with individuals, so it is with governments: it is one thing to know what is right in principle, it is another thing to make the costly decisions to do the right thing in tough situations.

Take for example, President Bush's comments about human cloning:

Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection of life from exploitation under any pretext. In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution and urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: No human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another.

So there is a statement of a “basic ethical principle”.

But how well does that principle sit with the extravagant production of excess human embryos through reproductive technology? How well does it sit with the decision to allow the destruction of those embryos for the purpose of scientific research?

How well does that principle sit with the destruction of human life involved in the decision to send troops into Iraq?

How well does it sit with the Father sending his Son into the world in human flesh to suffer and die for our salvation? Thank God that he didn't feel bound by this basic ethical principle.

Roe v. The Facts

Most of us have heard of Roe vs Wade, the famous abortion case that wound up in the US Supreme Cout in the early 1970's. It struck down Texan laws criminalizing abortion, and effectively instituted a pro-abortion policy in America which has yet to be effectively reversed, even by legislation.

What you may not know is that Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” from the 1970's case, has been fighting a legal battle to try to have the courts overturn that decision (which was in her favour). Unfortunately, it looks like her attempts are going to be unsuccessful on technical, legal grounds, as it is said that she no longer has a valid legal interest in the matter.

However, the comments of Judge Edith Jones, as she dismissed McCorvey's appeal, make for fascinating reading. The full judgment can be downloaded here (PDF file).

In her comments, the Judge acknowledges the weight of new evidence that McCorvey now wishes to present—evidence which “goes to the heart of the balance Roe struck between the choice of a mother and the life of her unborn child”. This includes strong evidence of the harm to women who have abortions, and new evidence of the early development of the child. She comments that, on hearing this evidence, a court today “might conclude that the woman's ‘choice’ is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew”.

The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter. This is a peculiar outcome for a Court so committed to ‘life’ that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year.

Hard and social science will of course progress even though the Supreme Court averts its eyes. It takes no expert prognosticator to know that research on women's mental and physical health following abortion will yield an eventual medical consensus, and neonatal science will push the frontiers of fetal ‘viability’ ever closer to the date of conception. One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly. That the Court's constitutional decisionmaking leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.

[Emphasis added]