WASHINGTON, May 19: The US secretary of state acknowledged on Tuesday that Washington had not been consistent in its dealings with Islamabad. Talking to reporters at the Foreign Press Centre and the White House, Hillary Clinton said “it is fair to say that our policy towards Pakistan over the last 30 years has been incoherent. I don’t know any other word”.
About the military operation, Hillary Clinton said the United States was working with Pakistan to determine and disrupt the route for supplying weapons to the Taliban.
“Yes, we know that the extremists are being supplied,” she said when asked why the US was unable to determine and disrupt the Taliban supply route. The secretary recalled that in the 1980s, the US partnered with Pakistan to help train the Mujahideen.
“Their security service and the military were encouraged to go after the Soviets in Afghanistan” and when they withdrew in 1989, “we said thank you very much”.
Mrs Clinton said while it was fair to apportion responsibility to Pakistan, but the US also shared the responsibility for what happened during and after the Afghan war.
“What President Obama is doing is qualitatively different from anything done before. We support the elected government … it is a relationship very clear, honest to each other.”
The US, the secretary added, was assisting the new government in Islamabad to be “as successful as possible in delivering, we believe the future of Pakistan is extremely important for the US … the advance of extremism is a threat to our security”.
She underscored America’s “very strong” support for the effort by the Pakistan army for defeating the terrorists.
Mrs Clinton said the Al Qaeda and their allies were intent upon harming not only US friends and allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan but also in the US homeland and to American citizens.
“They have not given up on their desire to inflict damage, harm and murder on the USA … this is how we see helping our friends and allies … we have walked away in the past … now we are going to forge a partnership with the government and the people of Pakistan.
“We are working very closely with the intelligence service of Pakistan and others to determine where are the weapons coming from. We are working with Pakistan to disrupt the supply line.”
Taliban supply line
Mrs Clinton noted that the route used to supply the militants passed through a very difficult terrain and the Taliban were being aided by local residents who knew the trail very well.
“So it is a challenge but we are addressing that.” I
n reply to a question, the secretary said the US was neither engaged in any military operation in Pakistan nor did it have any role in the delivery of relief goods. She said that while it was difficult to speculate why former president Pervez Musharraf did what he did while he was in power, “he ended his time in office when extremists had found sanctuary in Pakistan and were the strongest”.
Hillary Clinton said she believed the present government in Pakistan had recognised the serious threat posed by the Taliban.
“I am very encouraged by the comments of the PM (Mr Gilani) and the former PM (Nawaz Sharif)” made on this issue, she observed. “They have a recognition that it is no longer about a part of a country that seems quite different from Lahore or Islamabad.”
Mrs Clinton said the beating of a woman in Swat had an electric effect on Pakistanis inside and out of the country as all were shocked to see this public flogging.
From here.
Thinking about ethics and current events (Began 1 April 2008)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Biased Reporting on Evolution
Lately there has been a spate of newspaper stories in the US and in the UK about evolution. The most recent touts the 47 million year old fossil (Darwinius masillae) found in Germany as the transition between flying lemurs and the human species. There are few fossils from this period as complete as this discovery and what has been found is so limited that such a conclusion can't be drawn. Brian Richmond, a biological anthropologist, explains, "From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there. So you can't say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology."
It is incredible that anyone could believe this fiction about Ida, "the missing link". They do so in ignorance. They are unaware that human fossils and mining tools dating between 80,000 and 100,000 years ago have been found in the Lebombo Mountains of southern Africa, suggesting that the macroevolutionary timeline simply doesn't fit the data.
The earliest human fossils show a range of anatomical features yet all these features are found among humans today. There are the nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago, which in the words of paleontologist Tim White, are "like modern-day humans in almost every feature."
Then there was this brainless report on RNA which attempted to prove that life on earth evolved from a primordial soup (the convergence theory). The reporter failed miserably to explain the mechanism for this and instead raised a lot of eyebrows about the reporter's competency to report on chemistry and genetics.
The newspapers have done a poor job of presenting the facts. None have attempted to present the case for convergence evolution objectively. These reporters seem unaware that macroevolutionists are debating among themselves the lack of documentation.
To read something of what geneticists and anthropologists are saying, go here.
It is incredible that anyone could believe this fiction about Ida, "the missing link". They do so in ignorance. They are unaware that human fossils and mining tools dating between 80,000 and 100,000 years ago have been found in the Lebombo Mountains of southern Africa, suggesting that the macroevolutionary timeline simply doesn't fit the data.
The earliest human fossils show a range of anatomical features yet all these features are found among humans today. There are the nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago, which in the words of paleontologist Tim White, are "like modern-day humans in almost every feature."
Then there was this brainless report on RNA which attempted to prove that life on earth evolved from a primordial soup (the convergence theory). The reporter failed miserably to explain the mechanism for this and instead raised a lot of eyebrows about the reporter's competency to report on chemistry and genetics.
The newspapers have done a poor job of presenting the facts. None have attempted to present the case for convergence evolution objectively. These reporters seem unaware that macroevolutionists are debating among themselves the lack of documentation.
To read something of what geneticists and anthropologists are saying, go here.
Gerson Critiques Obama's Inaugural Speech
I know that this is well after the fact, but this interview is so rich, I just had to post it for readers.
Michael Gerson: Obama's Speech Rhetorically Flat, but Ideologically Interesting
A former presidential speechwriter examines President Obama's inaugural address.
Interview by Sarah Pulliam in Washington, D.C. posted 1/23/2009 04:19PM
Former speechwriter Michael Gerson was quick to parse President Obama's speech to the nation on Tuesday, calling it "rhetorically flat" but "quite interesting from an ideological perspective." Gerson's pen was behind President George W. Bush's inaugural addresses in 2001 and 2005, and in preparation, he studied every single presidential inaugural address in American history.
Now a columnist for the Washington Post, Gerson spoke with Christianity Today yesterday about Obama's inaugural address, religious references, and whether he thinks an evangelical should serve in the new administration.
What did you think of the inauguration?
I thought it was surprising. I came to Obama's speech in many ways expecting something that would be rhetorically masterful and maybe ideologically shallow, because of his ideological background, and we got something very different from that.
I thought it was rhetorically flat, uninteresting from a literary perspective, but quite interesting from an ideological perspective. He set out some interesting themes about political pragmatism. It was one of the strongest defenses of pragmatism against ideology in any inaugural address that I can recall. I think that his assurances on national security issues were pretty reassuring. He recognized that we're in a war and talked about defeating our enemies and talked about soft power a little bit with the fight against global poverty — I thought all those things were good. And then his closing theme of renewing America by returning to its oldest values and virtues — he used the word "virtues" — is a traditional inaugural theme, but I think a very good one.
He talked about loyalty, and duty, and responsibility, among other things, and I think that's both an effective message and an important one. In fact it's been the message of most of America's great progressive leaders, whether it's Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, they always talk about recreating our country by returning to its oldest and deepest values. So that was a good theme. But I just wish the speech itself had been better.
What was missing rhetorically?I found some of the phrasing odd when they tried to reach they did not reach effectively for memorable phrases. The use of the word 'swill' is very odd in the speech. I found a lot of use of cliché language, "gathering storms" and "children's children," and things you would expect to find in a House floor speech. There were some nice moments, but it was very uneven in its quality.
I don't think it made that much difference to the two million people on the Mall — they were into the moment, and I don't think the speech was terrible, but it was a missed opportunity. This was an unbelievably historic moment, and you look for example at the end of that speech, at the mentioning of Valley Forge and those values, and that's fine, but it could have literally been given by any president in American history. There was nothing specific to the moment, nothing that made it the summary of this great, extraordinary cultural progress culminating in an African American president. Maybe he did that on purpose, maybe he didn't want that to be the rhetorical culmination of much of American history. Maybe he just wanted to lower his sights and be less ambitious. But it's hard for me to be a fan of that as a fan of rhetoric.
How does this compare to his campaign speeches?I think he rose in the Democratic Party because of some very fine speeches that he gave, his speech on the night of his Iowa victory I thought was a brilliant speech. His race speech in Philadelphia I thought was a serious speech, a serious and interesting speech. But now he's given two speeches in the most high profile settings: his convention speech, which was actually very poor — it was unbelievably typical — and now his inaugural speech, which was not that bad, but it wasn't equal to the moment. Somebody's going to eventually notice that this man who has risen because of his speaking ability has not risen to the moment in some very important historical contexts.
How did you prepare for President Bush's inaugural addresses?
I read every single inaugural in American history when I was preparing for the first one in 2001. There were some weak ones, but there was some marvelous rhetoric as well. The story of America is, in many ways, the story of this extraordinary founding flaw, that we were a nation dedicated to liberty that was also a prison for millions of people. It explains the arguments at the constitutional convention, the run-up to a bloody Civil War, reconstruction, civil rights, and in 45 years we've gone from a circumstance in which when Martin Luther King spoke in 1963 civil rights workers were murdered, where African Americans with doctorate degrees where denied the right to vote because of so-called literacy questions that asked how many bubbles are in a bar of soap and how many jellybeans are there in a jar. That is the central story of American history and one of the dramatic stories in world history, the progress we've made. Obama did nothing to summarize that moment. He made one reference to his father, if he had been here 50 or 60 years ago he might have been denied service. Which I thought was fine, but it needed ambitious rhetorical summary and he purposely did not do it.
What about Rick Warren and Lowery's prayers?
I think Rick Warren did a great job, but I also think Reverend Lowery did a great job. I was very impressed with him, because for me, who was looking for this kind of summary moment, it was very nice to have one of the large figures from the civil rights era putting his blessing on this moment in American history and to hear the cadences of civil rights rhetoric in his prayer. I know some people found it a bit much; I found it very much a great rhetorical tradition in America, which I wish I had seen a little more of in Obama's speech.
Did you parse Rick Warren's prayer?
Not really. He made a point of using Jesus' name, which I think is a genuine pluralism. Pluralism shouldn't mean that we have these common denominator situations; it means that everybody should have a voice. I thought that was a strong reassertion of that. Warren was appropriately enthusiastic about the moment. My basic view there for all the controversy is it's a biblical mandate to pray for those in authority, and that's what Rick Warren did.
Obama's speech had several religious references. What did you think of them?
He was completely within the tradition of American inaugural speeches. I mean they often have references to scriptural passages. His were 'setting aside childish things,' which I thought was a very effective line, it called attention to one of his great political strengths, which is he seems like an adult. He has a very mature manner. And he also used the phrase still waters, which I thought was interesting. But you know, there's a little bit of a double standard here.
When George W. Bush used scriptural passages they thought it was somehow a threat to the Constitution and when Barack Obama uses them they're normal rhetorical devices. But I thought it was interesting, the one thing that maybe was unprecedented in the speech was the mention of nonbelievers in the litany. That's something other presidents, including George Bush, have done in other speeches, but not an inaugural address. I think it's a recognition of an electoral reality that you've had over the last few decades, a significant growth in an area of voters identified as nonreligious. That was recognition of reality. It didn't bother me at all but it was interesting. So I thought he made fairly good use of religious references.
Does it matter if Obama has any evangelicals in his administration?
I've never really viewed it that somehow you need some quota of evangelicals. I think the policy matters more.I do know that the Obama transition team has worked pretty closely with Jim Wallis and some other religious leaders in some early stages of policy development. I'm told that their director of the domestic policy council is very open to faith-based ideas and other things.
The encouraging thing is that Obama comes from a community organizer background and at least understands the role of faith and faith-based institutions in our society and you hope that translates broadly in his administration. But we also know there are elements of the Democratic party that are deeply secular and have been highly critical of any recognition or cooperation with the role of faith-based institutions in our public life, and so I think that's probably a struggle within administration. I hope Obama's viewpoint, at least the one he outlined in the campaign, prevails.
From here.
Michael Gerson: Obama's Speech Rhetorically Flat, but Ideologically Interesting
A former presidential speechwriter examines President Obama's inaugural address.
Interview by Sarah Pulliam in Washington, D.C. posted 1/23/2009 04:19PM
Former speechwriter Michael Gerson was quick to parse President Obama's speech to the nation on Tuesday, calling it "rhetorically flat" but "quite interesting from an ideological perspective." Gerson's pen was behind President George W. Bush's inaugural addresses in 2001 and 2005, and in preparation, he studied every single presidential inaugural address in American history.
Now a columnist for the Washington Post, Gerson spoke with Christianity Today yesterday about Obama's inaugural address, religious references, and whether he thinks an evangelical should serve in the new administration.
What did you think of the inauguration?
I thought it was surprising. I came to Obama's speech in many ways expecting something that would be rhetorically masterful and maybe ideologically shallow, because of his ideological background, and we got something very different from that.
I thought it was rhetorically flat, uninteresting from a literary perspective, but quite interesting from an ideological perspective. He set out some interesting themes about political pragmatism. It was one of the strongest defenses of pragmatism against ideology in any inaugural address that I can recall. I think that his assurances on national security issues were pretty reassuring. He recognized that we're in a war and talked about defeating our enemies and talked about soft power a little bit with the fight against global poverty — I thought all those things were good. And then his closing theme of renewing America by returning to its oldest values and virtues — he used the word "virtues" — is a traditional inaugural theme, but I think a very good one.
He talked about loyalty, and duty, and responsibility, among other things, and I think that's both an effective message and an important one. In fact it's been the message of most of America's great progressive leaders, whether it's Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, they always talk about recreating our country by returning to its oldest and deepest values. So that was a good theme. But I just wish the speech itself had been better.
What was missing rhetorically?I found some of the phrasing odd when they tried to reach they did not reach effectively for memorable phrases. The use of the word 'swill' is very odd in the speech. I found a lot of use of cliché language, "gathering storms" and "children's children," and things you would expect to find in a House floor speech. There were some nice moments, but it was very uneven in its quality.
I don't think it made that much difference to the two million people on the Mall — they were into the moment, and I don't think the speech was terrible, but it was a missed opportunity. This was an unbelievably historic moment, and you look for example at the end of that speech, at the mentioning of Valley Forge and those values, and that's fine, but it could have literally been given by any president in American history. There was nothing specific to the moment, nothing that made it the summary of this great, extraordinary cultural progress culminating in an African American president. Maybe he did that on purpose, maybe he didn't want that to be the rhetorical culmination of much of American history. Maybe he just wanted to lower his sights and be less ambitious. But it's hard for me to be a fan of that as a fan of rhetoric.
How does this compare to his campaign speeches?I think he rose in the Democratic Party because of some very fine speeches that he gave, his speech on the night of his Iowa victory I thought was a brilliant speech. His race speech in Philadelphia I thought was a serious speech, a serious and interesting speech. But now he's given two speeches in the most high profile settings: his convention speech, which was actually very poor — it was unbelievably typical — and now his inaugural speech, which was not that bad, but it wasn't equal to the moment. Somebody's going to eventually notice that this man who has risen because of his speaking ability has not risen to the moment in some very important historical contexts.
How did you prepare for President Bush's inaugural addresses?
I read every single inaugural in American history when I was preparing for the first one in 2001. There were some weak ones, but there was some marvelous rhetoric as well. The story of America is, in many ways, the story of this extraordinary founding flaw, that we were a nation dedicated to liberty that was also a prison for millions of people. It explains the arguments at the constitutional convention, the run-up to a bloody Civil War, reconstruction, civil rights, and in 45 years we've gone from a circumstance in which when Martin Luther King spoke in 1963 civil rights workers were murdered, where African Americans with doctorate degrees where denied the right to vote because of so-called literacy questions that asked how many bubbles are in a bar of soap and how many jellybeans are there in a jar. That is the central story of American history and one of the dramatic stories in world history, the progress we've made. Obama did nothing to summarize that moment. He made one reference to his father, if he had been here 50 or 60 years ago he might have been denied service. Which I thought was fine, but it needed ambitious rhetorical summary and he purposely did not do it.
What about Rick Warren and Lowery's prayers?
I think Rick Warren did a great job, but I also think Reverend Lowery did a great job. I was very impressed with him, because for me, who was looking for this kind of summary moment, it was very nice to have one of the large figures from the civil rights era putting his blessing on this moment in American history and to hear the cadences of civil rights rhetoric in his prayer. I know some people found it a bit much; I found it very much a great rhetorical tradition in America, which I wish I had seen a little more of in Obama's speech.
Did you parse Rick Warren's prayer?
Not really. He made a point of using Jesus' name, which I think is a genuine pluralism. Pluralism shouldn't mean that we have these common denominator situations; it means that everybody should have a voice. I thought that was a strong reassertion of that. Warren was appropriately enthusiastic about the moment. My basic view there for all the controversy is it's a biblical mandate to pray for those in authority, and that's what Rick Warren did.
Obama's speech had several religious references. What did you think of them?
He was completely within the tradition of American inaugural speeches. I mean they often have references to scriptural passages. His were 'setting aside childish things,' which I thought was a very effective line, it called attention to one of his great political strengths, which is he seems like an adult. He has a very mature manner. And he also used the phrase still waters, which I thought was interesting. But you know, there's a little bit of a double standard here.
When George W. Bush used scriptural passages they thought it was somehow a threat to the Constitution and when Barack Obama uses them they're normal rhetorical devices. But I thought it was interesting, the one thing that maybe was unprecedented in the speech was the mention of nonbelievers in the litany. That's something other presidents, including George Bush, have done in other speeches, but not an inaugural address. I think it's a recognition of an electoral reality that you've had over the last few decades, a significant growth in an area of voters identified as nonreligious. That was recognition of reality. It didn't bother me at all but it was interesting. So I thought he made fairly good use of religious references.
Does it matter if Obama has any evangelicals in his administration?
I've never really viewed it that somehow you need some quota of evangelicals. I think the policy matters more.I do know that the Obama transition team has worked pretty closely with Jim Wallis and some other religious leaders in some early stages of policy development. I'm told that their director of the domestic policy council is very open to faith-based ideas and other things.
The encouraging thing is that Obama comes from a community organizer background and at least understands the role of faith and faith-based institutions in our society and you hope that translates broadly in his administration. But we also know there are elements of the Democratic party that are deeply secular and have been highly critical of any recognition or cooperation with the role of faith-based institutions in our public life, and so I think that's probably a struggle within administration. I hope Obama's viewpoint, at least the one he outlined in the campaign, prevails.
From here.
Nancy "Stepped in it"
On the matter of Nancy Pelosi and truth commissions, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine says the party wants to move forward. RNC Chairman Michael Steele says Pelosi has "stepped in it" big time and has taken eight different positions on what she knew about interrogation methods and when.
For more, go here.
Americans must be getting very tired of leaders who lie.
For more, go here.
Americans must be getting very tired of leaders who lie.
Nancy Pelosi's Self-Justification
Next, Nancy Pelosi should find a way to work in the Bilderberg Group, the annual gathering of global elites that is a perennial obsession of conspiracy theorists. It's the only thing missing from her wild tale of CIA misconduct that's so implausible, she had trouble keeping it straight at her instantly notorious "I was misled" press conference.
For Pelosi's account to be accurate, the CIA must have engaged in one of the most baroque and ineffectual conspiracies in the history of Washington. Remember: Pelosi claims that the CIA lied to her in a September 2002 classified briefing and told her that it hadn't waterboarded high-level al-Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydah. To support her version, Pelosi needs to stack implausibility on top of implausibility in a precarious Jenga tower of self-justification.
The CIA must have convinced Porter Goss, the Republican congressman (and subsequent CIA director) who was present at the 2002 briefing, to lie and pronounce himself "slack-jawed" at Pelosi's account. It must have forged the "contemporaneous records" CIA director Leon Panetta, an Obama nominee, has cited that show Pelosi was told of the waterboarding. It must have either pulled the wool over Panetta's eyes or enlisted his active engagement in a monstrous machinery of deception.
Read it all here.
For Pelosi's account to be accurate, the CIA must have engaged in one of the most baroque and ineffectual conspiracies in the history of Washington. Remember: Pelosi claims that the CIA lied to her in a September 2002 classified briefing and told her that it hadn't waterboarded high-level al-Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydah. To support her version, Pelosi needs to stack implausibility on top of implausibility in a precarious Jenga tower of self-justification.
The CIA must have convinced Porter Goss, the Republican congressman (and subsequent CIA director) who was present at the 2002 briefing, to lie and pronounce himself "slack-jawed" at Pelosi's account. It must have forged the "contemporaneous records" CIA director Leon Panetta, an Obama nominee, has cited that show Pelosi was told of the waterboarding. It must have either pulled the wool over Panetta's eyes or enlisted his active engagement in a monstrous machinery of deception.
Read it all here.
Quote of the Week - Wise Words!
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." --Presbyterian minister William J.H. Boetcker (1873-1962)
Eastern Orthodoxy is Counter Cultural
What follows is an excerpt from Get Serious: The Church's Stand on Contemporary Culture, by Peter and Helen Evans. They are the authors of a new book Get Serious: Who Ever Said Christianity Was Nice?
Helen: Does the Church consider birth control to be abortion?
Fr. Tom: No.
Helen: Does it allow birth control?
Fr. Tom: I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Church 'allows' birth control. I think it's one of those lesser evils. In any case, I do not believe you can 'control' conception by killing the fetus. Any abortifacient or any birth control that kills the fetus is absolutely unacceptable. However, for whatever reason the people want to express their love sexually without actually creating a conception in the first place, it may be blessed as a lesser evil, under certain circumstances. For example, you have a man and a woman in prison and they are both going to be killed or they are both going to suffer; and they are married and they want to express their love for each other, they might do something that prevents conception. You can't say that's a heinous sin. I knew a young couple who came to the theological seminary where I was a professor. They came with three little kids, the youngest about four years old. They sold their house in order to come. They spent all their money in order to come. They were dis-owned by their parents for deciding to come. Do you think we would tell them, morally, that they can't make love with each other in the seminary except that they want to make another child? That doesn't seem to be sensible at all from even the deepest Christian perspective. However, should the wife find out she's pregnant, then she cannot abort the childHelen: Can that sort of argument be used for unmarried couples?
Fr. Tom: No, unmarried couples cannot engage in sexual activity, period.Helen: Is it the Orthodox Christian teaching that sex is only for procreation?Fr. Tom: No, the teaching is that the sexual expression of love is between a man and a woman who have committed themselves to each other totally, forever, no matter what. They offer their relationship to be blessed by God and they want their relationship to be a witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Helen: When you say forever, isn't there a "til death do you part" in there?
Fr. Tom: No. The expression "til death do you part" doesn't even exist in the Orthodox service. In fact, the opposite is true. The prayer is that you will receive your crowns into the Kingdom. Then they will enter into the Kingdom faithful to each other through death itself. Saint John Chrysostom wrote a letter to a young widow and he said to her, "If you were faithful to your husband when he was alive on earth and did not share your bed with any other man, why would you share your bed with another man now that your husband is at the right hand of the Father in the Risen Lord?" So we believe we're supposed to be faithful to our spouses right through death and we will be reunited with them in the age to come.
Peter: So there is no diminishment in the bonds of fidelity. Perhaps it's even augmented.
Fr. Tom: Yes, according to the Christian view, that's accurate. The Christian marriage is supposed to mirror the fidelity of God to His creation, Yahweh to Israel and Christ to His Church. That commitment is complete and total and unbending and exists right through death.
Helen: Are there any ideas about abortion that you've encountered in your many travels that you'd like to address?
Fr. Tom: Having been a professor at Seminary - I didn't teach ethics, I taught dogmatics and spiritual life and prayer - and having been a priest for 44 years and being a church teacher and traveling around, I would say that my position would simply be that of the Church and the Scriptures and of the saints. Abortion is a sin. It's condemned in the Mosaic law and by the early Christian saints.
Peter: In the Sixth Mosaic law that says, "Thou shall not murder"?
Fr. Tom: Killing in the womb is also forbidden in Leviticus. And we have canons that say that any attempt, by any means, to kill the child in its mother's womb is equal to the crime of murder.
Our culture is infected by false, diluted values from Socialism to New Age Spiritualism and seems to have turned its moral code upside-down. Peter and Helen Evans are culture warriors inspiring their audiences that they can make a difference. They believe that our politics are a reflection of our cultural values, and those cultural values grow from our belief or disbelief in God. In our democratic system, we get the leaders and government we allow. As culture warriors they inspire audiences political, secular and Christian. They are the authors of the book, "Get Serious: The Church's Stand on Contemporary Culture."
Helen: Does the Church consider birth control to be abortion?
Fr. Tom: No.
Helen: Does it allow birth control?
Fr. Tom: I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Church 'allows' birth control. I think it's one of those lesser evils. In any case, I do not believe you can 'control' conception by killing the fetus. Any abortifacient or any birth control that kills the fetus is absolutely unacceptable. However, for whatever reason the people want to express their love sexually without actually creating a conception in the first place, it may be blessed as a lesser evil, under certain circumstances. For example, you have a man and a woman in prison and they are both going to be killed or they are both going to suffer; and they are married and they want to express their love for each other, they might do something that prevents conception. You can't say that's a heinous sin. I knew a young couple who came to the theological seminary where I was a professor. They came with three little kids, the youngest about four years old. They sold their house in order to come. They spent all their money in order to come. They were dis-owned by their parents for deciding to come. Do you think we would tell them, morally, that they can't make love with each other in the seminary except that they want to make another child? That doesn't seem to be sensible at all from even the deepest Christian perspective. However, should the wife find out she's pregnant, then she cannot abort the childHelen: Can that sort of argument be used for unmarried couples?
Fr. Tom: No, unmarried couples cannot engage in sexual activity, period.Helen: Is it the Orthodox Christian teaching that sex is only for procreation?Fr. Tom: No, the teaching is that the sexual expression of love is between a man and a woman who have committed themselves to each other totally, forever, no matter what. They offer their relationship to be blessed by God and they want their relationship to be a witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Helen: When you say forever, isn't there a "til death do you part" in there?
Fr. Tom: No. The expression "til death do you part" doesn't even exist in the Orthodox service. In fact, the opposite is true. The prayer is that you will receive your crowns into the Kingdom. Then they will enter into the Kingdom faithful to each other through death itself. Saint John Chrysostom wrote a letter to a young widow and he said to her, "If you were faithful to your husband when he was alive on earth and did not share your bed with any other man, why would you share your bed with another man now that your husband is at the right hand of the Father in the Risen Lord?" So we believe we're supposed to be faithful to our spouses right through death and we will be reunited with them in the age to come.
Peter: So there is no diminishment in the bonds of fidelity. Perhaps it's even augmented.
Fr. Tom: Yes, according to the Christian view, that's accurate. The Christian marriage is supposed to mirror the fidelity of God to His creation, Yahweh to Israel and Christ to His Church. That commitment is complete and total and unbending and exists right through death.
Helen: Are there any ideas about abortion that you've encountered in your many travels that you'd like to address?
Fr. Tom: Having been a professor at Seminary - I didn't teach ethics, I taught dogmatics and spiritual life and prayer - and having been a priest for 44 years and being a church teacher and traveling around, I would say that my position would simply be that of the Church and the Scriptures and of the saints. Abortion is a sin. It's condemned in the Mosaic law and by the early Christian saints.
Peter: In the Sixth Mosaic law that says, "Thou shall not murder"?
Fr. Tom: Killing in the womb is also forbidden in Leviticus. And we have canons that say that any attempt, by any means, to kill the child in its mother's womb is equal to the crime of murder.
______________________________
Our culture is infected by false, diluted values from Socialism to New Age Spiritualism and seems to have turned its moral code upside-down. Peter and Helen Evans are culture warriors inspiring their audiences that they can make a difference. They believe that our politics are a reflection of our cultural values, and those cultural values grow from our belief or disbelief in God. In our democratic system, we get the leaders and government we allow. As culture warriors they inspire audiences political, secular and Christian. They are the authors of the book, "Get Serious: The Church's Stand on Contemporary Culture."
The Evans are available to talk on many subjects: How the New Age Spirituality has invaded our politics and culture and of course their book.
Contact for topics. www.peterandhelenevans.com or we2rone@cox.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)