Couldn't Help Noticing

RU486 debate

I couldn't help noticing one of the interesting arguments being used by some of the (particularly female) members of the Australian Parliament in relation to the RU486 legal debate (Here's one report about the current debate).

To paraphrase, I heard it said a number of times that “Male politicians should trust women to make thoughtful ethical decisions about their own bodies, and should not try to impose their male/chauvenistic/catholic/religious ethical views.”

This is, on the one hand, a very clever tactical argument. What man is going to counter that argument by saying, “No, actually we can't trust women to do that!”? You'd have to be a very brave or a very stupid male (indeed, being both would be a distinct advantage).

But, on the other hand, it is a fundamentally silly argument that clearly attempts to avoid the main question.

For example, do we trust men to “make thoughtful ethical decisions about their own bodies”? Or do we outlaw rape and carnal knowledge?

“But hang on, that's different! In that case you're talking about men hurting another person! We're not talking about a situation like that ...”

Ah, now we're getting closer to the real question.

Homework

So the kids are back in School, and we begin the attempt to re-establish some rigour to our daily family routine.

As we parents gain data about what the requirements are for this year for our children, critical are the letters home from the new teacher, the band teacher, and the drum/clarinet teacher, and...

This year the class teacher says we (and I mean ‘we’) should be doing 40-50 minutes of homework each night. And this despite the fact that there is little to no evidence that homework for primary students has any impact on academic outcomes; or that it is impossible for teachers to set homework with such chronological precision; or that homework is just about always academic in nature, and rarely anything to do with personal character or art or social interaction or any of life's other important areas; or that it is frequently tedious and needlessly boring; or that it is frequently given because of a failure by the teachers to manage the completion of work in class; or that it is ‘so important’ that the finished homework is rarely even looked at by the teacher.

And apparently the band teacher wants my child to promise that he will practice his band music every night. And the drum teacher expects at least some practice between weekly lessons (thank goodness drummers are such laid back people!).

As we hassle and harangue our kids to complete their schoolwork each night, and their music practice, and then, at best, we race through a quick Bible reading and dash off a quick prayer as we tuck them into bed, I wonder what we have fundamentally communicated to our children about their relationship with God?

Which way will they jump?

The affair of the Danish cartoons has not only again exposed the fragility of relations between the West and Islam; it has also laid bare the West's own double mind on how to relate to Islam. (See the cartoons in question.)

The controversy is really a clash between two sacred modern values: freedom of expression, and religious tolerance. And it is has been interesting to play ‘which way will they jump’ as different media commentators line up to have their say. Leading Australian cartoonist Bruce Petty was on the radio this morning, and as he was being introduced I thought to myself, “Which way will he jump? Probably on the publish-and-be-damned side.” But no. Petty thought there were limits, and that it was wrong needlessly to offend people. He was pleased that Australian newspapers had decided not to publish the cartoons.

As Christians, we also have conflicting thoughts on the issue. On one hand, we can understand the Muslims' pain. We know what it is like to be sneered at and mocked, and to have our Saviour caricatured and ridiculed. It hurts. Some of us may have been among the protesters outside Life of Brian or The Last Temptation of Christ. As Ian pointed out in his post yesterday, while we value free and open debate on all subjects, we would prefer the discussion to be loving and respectful. Misrepresentation and insult hardly advance understanding.

On the other hand, Ian's quote from Islam in our Backyard also shows why Christians might also support the cartoonists. If we support free and open public argument about religious belief, it is very difficult to proscribe the form in which the argument takes place. A cartoon is an argument, stated in the extreme. Like all arguments, it may be false, but it is a legitimate and often effective form of communication. Sometimes the best way to oppose an idea is simply to point out how absurd it is (as Isaiah does in his bitingly satirical portrait of the stupidity of idol worship in Isaiah 45). And this is what cartoons do best.

Newspapers must be quite free to publish cartoons challenging the absurdites of Islam, just as they must be (and are!) free to publish cartoons satirising the absurdities of Jews, Christians, atheists, right-wing politicians, left-wing politicians, and everyone else besides. The decision as to whether to publish them must be an editorial one, according to what the paper wants to say.

There is a further question. Granted that the Danish paper was exercising a perfectly legitimate right to publish the original cartoons, should other papers now also publish them, thus maximising the offence to Muslims everywhere? If we acknowledge that the papers ought to be free, in principle, to do so, should they use their freedom in this instance to publish? Or should they, for the sake of Muslim sensibilities and public order, decline from publishing?

It sounds to me rather like the situation that confronted the Apostle Paul with respect to circumcising his Gentile proteges. He was quite free to have them circumcised or to not have them circumcised. And indeed he did have Timothy ‘done’ (in Acts 16) for the sake of not offending the Jews among whom he was hoping to minister. However, in Galatians 2, Paul takes the uncircumcised Titus with him to Jerusalem, and “does not yield in submission even for a moment” to those false legalistic brothers who were apparently insisting on Titus being circumcised. Circumcision is neither here nor there?that is, until someone attempts to compel circumcision.

Considering the cartoons purely on their merits, I doubt whether many Western mainstream newspapers would have published them. Their editiorial decision would probably have been No. But as soon as pressure is placed upon them not to publish, regardless of artistic or editorial merit, then they can hardly be blamed for asserting their freedom, as the Apostle Paul did. “We wouldn't have bothered publishing these cartoons—until you told us that we MUST NOT publish them. Now, we must.”

So which way will I jump?

As I argued in Islam in our Backyard, our society needs a great deal more vigorous, open, public debate about religious truth claims—including those made by Islam. I think we need to go a lot further than the publishing of a few rather lame cartoons. Islam is essentially a Judaeo-Christian heresy cult that has grown very big and very old, and that now enslaves more than a billion people in spiritual darkness. Out of love for Muslims, and everyone, we should refute it with all our energy. We need to do much more than caricature Mohammed. We need to show why he was a false prophet, whose revelations did not come from the true and living God.

Purpose Driven Communism

I like Rick Warren. From the books I've read to the sermons I've heard him preach, I find him to be very convicting and gospel-driven. I know many friends whose lives have been reoriented toward the gospel because of his Purpose Driven Life. However, my cynicism can never let me be fully comfortable with anyone who is so accepted by popular culture.

In a recent interview on a major broadcasting network, Warren was his usual likable self, saying his usual convicting things. He is working closely with the Rwandan government to foster peace and unity within the country. He is calling churches to join together to do similar good works around the world. These are good ways to use his influence.

However, there were a few comments that raised my cynicism. First, he discussed how he is a ‘reverse tither’. Contrary to what you think about Americans, it wasn't that he was receiving 10% from churches. He receives much more from churches via the royalties of his books and courses. Actually, he is giving 90% of his income and living off of 10%. Further, he paid back to the church all 25 years of salary he received. If this was a passing comment, I would have been okay with the discussion. However, I know he has broadcasted this fact in seminars all across the country. The fact that the interviewer asked him about reverse tithing made it clear that it was somewhat of a public fact that he practiced this method of giving. Of course, it is wonderful to be so generous. I greatly admire his modest lifestyle given his circumstances. However, my mind immediately recalls Matthew 6:1-4 and the dangers of announcing how much you give. Even if his intention is not to be seen by others it is still a fine line to walk between good intentions and uplifting yourself as a model giver. It seems that is why Jesus calls for complete secrecy in our giving.

The other comment that I found odd was how it was pointed out that so many world leaders were asking Warren to sign books and give talks in their countries. One such leader who asked for a signed book was Fidel Castro, the communist leader of Cuba. Maybe I am tipping my political hand at this point, but it is hard for me to find praises for a Christian book that can be accepted and praised by an overtly oppressive dictator. Is it not clear that a life driven by a godly purpose is diametrically opposed to a life driven to be a ruthless dictator?

To be fair, this may not be Warren's fault. People read what they want to from the Bible just as they do with all books. Castro has been in power since 1959. Maybe Fidel found this book to be just the shot in the arm he needed to gear up for another decade of tyranny.

Troublesome cartoons

When is our Western society going to learn some sense in its dealing with the Muslims who live within it (let alone those living outside it)?

The publication of cartoons across European newspapers, of quite an offensive nature to Muslims, represents a new low in understanding of the issues. (See this news report.)

As Tony Payne says in Islam in our Backyard:

...if we want Muslims to be full and long-term participants in our society...we must be allowed to refute Islam, just as Muslims must be allowed to refute atheism and agnosticism and Christianity...we must allow people to think and reason and debate, about all manner of things, including religious beliefs, and to change their position. In other words, we must love and respect other persons enough to argue with them about the truth... When people are not allowed to discuss the truth or otherwise of religious claims, we end up with the suppression of debate and dissent. Certain opinions and views become the ‘authorised’ ones that are allowed to be expressed, and this is all determined by whoever happens to be in charge. Truth and freedom are gone. All you are left with is the raw exercise of power.