Friday Fun-ness

Be very, very quiet…he’s sleeping.

Atheism 2.0

Interesting if somewhat futile TED talk by Alain de Botton on how atheism can adopt some of the beneficial trappings of religion while ignoring the icky God part.

While I certainly agree with him that the dialogue between atheists and believers could be more civil, I am afraid he will be seen by New Atheists (Atheists 1.0?) as an accomodationist, and by believing Christians as evidence that humans have an innate need for spiritual fulfillment. Which of course they do.

 

Observations

I have to believe part of the enthusiasm shown at the President’s State of the Union Address was the fact that most there believed it to be his last one.

Imagine the Possibilities

It has been 39 years and 40 million lives. It is impossible to imagine what has been lost, but not difficult to imagine what will be gained by ending the atrocity of abortion:

 

Another Important Supreme Court Ruling

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled as it often has in the past on a death penalty case. In this case it was a death row inmate whose lawyers had essentially abandoned him during the appeals process. NPR gives a good overview of the case:

The U.S. Supreme Court has given an Alabama death row inmate another chance to fight his execution. By a 7-to-2 vote, the court ruled Wednesday that convicted murderer Cory Maples, “through no fault of his own,” was denied the right to appeal because he was abandoned by his lawyers.

Though I strongly support the death penalty, I think it is critical that those who face it get every opportunity to have competent representation and the full range of appeals available by law. I don’t in fact know how someone who supports the death penalty could think otherwise unless they are just completely indifferent to the lives of other human beings. My concern though is not merely a procedural one, but a personal one. As someone who worked on death penalty appeal that went to the Supreme Court (STATE of Louisiana vs. John L. SULLIVAN), I know that the system occasionally fails to deliver justice to defendants.

In what may be a unique occurrence, I particularly agree with Justice Ginsburg’s argument in this case:

The sole question this Court has taken up for review is whether, on the extraordinary facts of Maples’ case, there is “cause” to excuse the default. Maples maintains that there is, for the lawyers he believed to be vigilantly representing him had abandoned the case without leave of court, without informing Maples they could no longer represent him, and without securing any recorded substitution of counsel. We agree. Abandoned by counsel, Maples was left unrepresented at a critical time for his state post conviction petition, and he lacked a clue of any need to protect himself pro se. In these circumstances, no just system would lay the default at Maples’ death-cell door.

The death penalty has an important purpose in a just society, even with the human pitfalls and limitations our judicial system presents. But when the court focuses merely on technicalities and procedure, it can miss justice.

And that would be a tragedy by any measure.

A Unanimous Court Slaps Down the Obama Administration

Last week the Supreme Court issued a ruling involving the application of the 1^st amendment with regard to a church hiring and firing those it considered ‘ministers’ within the church. The specific case concerned Cheryl Perich who worked as a teacher for a school run by the church. Fearing the school would fire her because of her narcolepsy, she began an effort to bring a claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The church had a policy that those who were working as ministers in the church were required to resolve disputes within the church.  Because she was a trained minister in addition to being a teacher and because she brought the claim to the EEOC, Perich was subsequently fired.

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission arose as a result of the EEOC and the administration pursuing a lawsuit against the church on Ms. Perich’s behalf. As the New York Times put it, the reaction by religious groups to the Obama Administration’s support of the EEOC was as vociferous as one would expect:

Many religious groups were outraged when the Obama administration argued in support of Ms. Perich, saying this was evidence that the administration was hostile to historically protected religious liberties.

Indeed, those lining up on either side of the case read like a who’s who of cultural warriors – it was American Bible Society, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Rutherford Institute and Wallbuilders verses the People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Humanist Association and American Atheists. In many ways this was a strong test case for claim by secularists that the acceptance of their views about church and state are gaining ground. What most expected was the usual split decision with a slim majority falling on either side of the issue and no strong precedent being set. The resulting decision was virtually the opposite of this. In a rare 9-0 decision the Supreme Court dealt a stinging rebuke bot to the Obama administration and to secularists who would like to diminish the power of religious organizations to order their own affairs. It granted, via the clear wording of the 1^st amendment a “ministerial exception,” – that the 1^st amendment protects the right of religious organizations to hire, retain, and fire its own leaders in accordance with its own doctrines, not in accordance with the employment laws of the US government.

As Justice Alito put it in the decision, “The Constitution leaves it to the collective conscience of each religious group to determine for itself who is qualified to serve as a teacher or messenger of its faith.”

Given the 1^st amendment’s clear prohibition against ‘prohibiting the free exercise’ of religion this result would seem obvious but this administration’s propensity for using its regulatory powers to impose it’s agenda on religious organizations and individuals is becoming its hallmark.

It’s good we still have courts to limit that overreach.

Observations

One more thought from Dr. King regarding the role of science and religion before the day is forgotten:

Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.

Remembering Dr. King

In remembering Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. it is often forgotten that he was first and foremost a Christian pastor and his beliefs in human rights and equality were grounded firmly in traditional Christian thought. There is perhaps no greater articulation of this than in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Here he lays out his views on the basis for law, and civil disobedience:

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

This sort of reasoning has a long and well-founded history. We see it in the Old Testament prophet Daniel and his refusal to bow to pagan idols. We see it in the actions of the apostles who refused to cease preaching the gospel saying, “We must obey God rather than human beings!” These men were willing to endure the persecution of authorities because they had a moral courage derived from a belief in the supremacy of the unchanging moral law of God.

As we remember Dr. King today, it is also good to remember the source of his courage and philosophy on civil rights.

Friday Fun-ness

This experiment may do more than anything to explain the difference between the political left and political right.

Tebow Time

I have been reluctant to say anything about the whole Tebow phenomena in part because I am reluctant to drag the Greatest American Sport into the cultural war that plagues so many of our institutions. It would be nice if there were one public event that didn’t become a battleground for religious freedoms. It does need to be said the conflict is not wholly between Christians and unbelievers – there are many who call themselves Christians who openly disparage Tim Tebow’s public expressions of faith, though to be frank most of these people are Cheeseheads so calling them ‘Christians’ may be a stretch.

That being said, I have seen more than a few theological and philosophical errors advanced by Tebow haters, and as anyone knows I am all about correcting errors.

One of the first problems I see is with the use of the verse in Matthew 6:6 to condemn Tebow’s public acknowledgement of what he sees as God’s provision on the field. For those unfamiliar with the passage, it reads as follows:

Matthew 6:6

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

I have to admit I find it hilarious that a few folks ‘Tebowing’ caused even atheists to spout Scripture with all the thunder and reverence of an old-time Baptist preacher. One wishes they had such regard for the whole book. Nonetheless the error here is the notion that this verse means no one should ever pray or acknowledge God publicly. This would be quite contradictory given the fact Jesus Himself prayed publicly, as did His disciples. And obviously He commanded His followers to speak openly about their faith in Him. So it would seem odd to use this verse to criticize Tebow for using his public image to do just that. To fully understand the purpose of this statement, one merely needs to read how Jesus began the whole discussion:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. “So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you…

Jesus was warning his followers not to seek public displays of piety in order to gain the prestige and favor of men over that of God. It seems quite obvious to me given the fact that he has received so much approbation for expressing his faith that Tebow isn’t doing what he is doing to advance his own ambitions. Certainly the media isn’t ‘honoring’ him for his actions. And given Jesus’ and the apostle’s actual practices there seems to be no reason to assume Jesus meant, “Never display your faith publicly”. So I think this passage has been much misused by those who hate on Tim Tebow.

The second claim I often hear and read from his detractors is some variation of ‘God doesn’t care about football’. The reason God is indifferent to football varies widely – perhaps it is because football players are millionaires and aren’t in need of divine intervention or maybe it is because God is focused on real problems in the world like earthquakes and gay marriage. It could just be that He is simply Very Big and all this muddle about moving a leather prolate spheroid about a field is simply beneath Him. So who is Tim Tebow to invoke the Big Guy on such small matters? Even atheists want to protect God from being bothered by trivialities.

The problem I have with this from a philosophical perspective is that there is no reason to believe anything can ‘distract’ God to begin with. He is after all an omnipotent Being who exists outside of the restrictions of time and matter, so He has full knowledge of every stat and every play even while still considering the plight of the poor. Not only is God aware of the play-offs, He couldn’t not be aware of them and still be God.

Also it is a problem theologically. Jesus assured us that even the “very hairs of your head are all numbered” by God. If even one’s coiffure catches God’s intimate attention, then certainly one’s career success or failure would be of some concern. This is even more likely given the event in question is broadcast on commercial television.

Does the fact that God is interested in Tim Tebow’s career mean He is going to put the Broncos in the Super Bowl? I for one don’t think just because God is interested in Tebow’s activities that it means we can be certain of His uncommunicated will on a particular matter. Though I confess I would love nothing better than to see Tim Tebow defy all expectations and confound those who oppose all that I hold sacred.

Yes, it would be great to stick it to the Packers.