Well, finals have been over for a few days at the university. I finally almost recovered from them, and more importantly from that term (it was a rather harrowing experience). I didn't get the grades that I wanted (3.4 is by far the lowest that I've had since coming here), but they're not so low as to get me into any kind of trouble with scholarships or academic societies (thank God for smal favors).
Since then, I have done all sorts of stuff to "relax." I went to see "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" with Ariadne and the folks from the Veritas Forum. I also bumped into a few friends from high school after Mass and played "Urban Golf" for a good part of Sunday. I watched several episodes of the "Band of Brothers" series with some friends, and I've gone dancing twice (Saturday, Monday) with plans to go again on Friday. There's a chance that I may be heading north to finally take a course to complete the necessary training to get my concealed carry permit, and I may also get some Christmas shopping done if my brother ever gets back to me with some ideas as to what my parents really want. All-in-all, it's been a good break.
Except for one thing. The problem is, this is my senior year, and I intend to go to graduate school next year. Therefore, a significant amount of my time has been spent doing grad school applications. These aren't "hard," not in the general sense of the word. However, they are both time consuming and very boring, and as a result pretty frustrating.
Fortunately, I'm through with most of the boring part, but I still have to write the "statements of intent." Unfortunately, each program seems to want a slightly different variety of the same thing. By different variety, I mean different length. This wouldn't be a problem if the different lengths were roughly close to each other (all ~1 page, or all ~2 pages, or all ~1000-1200 words, etc). Unfortunately, this isn't so. Most programs don't have any particular constraints, but three of them have radically different ideas of the "correct length." The University of Washington wants a page; the University of Wisconsin wants 2.5 pages; and the University of Chicago wants "no more than 2500 words." At to these the Curricula Vitae (some want it as a part of the statement, others want it sperate), and we have a genuine pain in the neck.
The one up side is that the University of Chicago's Economics program also wants a second sample of my writing. It can be about anything, published or unpublished. Probably it should tie back into economics somehow, but that doesn't bother me too much. I think I may review a few of my old writings on this blog, see if I have anything in particular that I can either use outright, or something that can be modified a little. Well, here's to grad school applications!
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Some Thoughts on Abortion: Some Rights Are Greater than Others
I originally wrote this as an op-ed for the Daily Barometer in reply to a column by Molly Gray and the subsequent letters to the editor in support of the said column. The op-ed in question addresses one of the many errors made by Miss Gray in her article; to address all of them would probably provide enough material for me to talk about that article exclusively for a week. Maybe I'll come back to it during one of those "slow" weeks (assuming that I'm not too busy with classes, grad school applications, etc). I therefore decided to address the most common error, which happens to be the one that is also brought up time and again (roughly daily) in the letters to the editor over the course of the next week or two.
Unfortunately, my work never got published. This may be due to space constraints, but considering that they published several op-eds and guest columnists during that time, I would say that there's some other reason to it. I see two possibilites: the first is that the Barometer is deliberately attempting to shift back towards the left, though they have retained Nathanael and hired Angie since last year. Possibility two is that they are doing everything in their power to sully their own good reputation (the Barometer has been an award-winning paper in recent years). And now, here is the op-ed.
Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court has once again ignited the great debate over abortion. On campus, this debate was further fueled in a November 1st article by the Barometer’s Molly Gray. In her column, Miss Gray asserted among other things that abortion is and should remain a woman’s right. Many letters to the editor since then have reaffirmed this idea in its various forms.
The most recently stated version of this is to be found in Hannah Roseneau’s letter to the editor, published on November 15. This latest version of the debate suggested that the debate is not about abortion at all, but rather about women’s rights. This argument is flawed on a number of levels.
In the first place, it attempts to move the debate away from what is actually being debated: abortion. This has been a typical tactic used by the pro-abortion side, and who can blame them? The very idea is unpleasant; what’s being defended is the “right” to destroy a life. The pro-life side is not out to destroy women’s rights, but rather to defend their children’s lives.
It’s very easy for those who would defend such heinous acts to do so by changing the questions being debated. However, the ultimate idea of the debate must be preserved, and so this change of question necessitates a new set of complimentary questions. Thus, in order to preserve the debate’s true meaning, a new question must be asked. This question is, in essence, “Do the rights of one person supercede the rights of another?”
The answer to this question must ultimately be “Yes,” as one set of rights may be in conflict with another set. Thus, some form of compromise must be made, or barring that possibly, one set of rights must be sacrificed for another. But which right or rights must take precedent?
Ultimately, there can be only one real answer to this question: the most fundamental rights must take precedent. This is innately true, as the “lesser” rights are ultimately derived from, and therefore require the existence of, the more fundamental rights. Simply put, what this means is that certain rights must be granted in order for other rights to exist. For example, the right to privacy on one’s own property is contingent upon the right to the ownership of property. Therefore, if the right to own property is removed, then the right to privacy on the said property is also removed.
The most fundamental right that can exist is the right to life. Without this right, all others are forfeit. The right to own property, the right to enjoy the company of one’s friends, the very right to freedom, these are all rendered moot if the right to live has been taken away. It therefore follows that in a society in which people are to have any rights at all, the right to live must not be removed.
In other words, this right to live must supercede all other rights. That includes the so-called “women’s rights.” Without the right to live, even these rights are ultimately forfeit. Therefore, the “right” to abort an unborn child cannot ultimately supercede that child’s right to live in a free society.
Many of the defenders of abortion contend that since the child is unborn, it can have no rights. This is utter folly. It does, in effect, create an artificial definition of personhood, thus confirming many rights on one set of people while denying these to another. This becomes even more apparent when partial-birth abortions are allowed. In any case, there is negligible difference between the newborn infant person and the “nonperson” child who is only moments from birth. Yet one has been granted rights while the other has not.
Now, the argument often fronted to counter this is that the unborn child requires the mother’s womb to survive. This is merely another smokescreen, even if those infants that can in fact survive outside of the womb are removed from the picture. Does the infirm old woman lose her right to live merely because she requires a respirator to breathe? What of the man who requires a pacemaker? For that matter, what of, say, a scuba diver who needs his oxygen tanks to survive under water for extended periods of time? After all, the womb is to the child as a life-support system is to an infirm person, or more appropriately, it is the child’s natural environment.
The most fundamental right, and thus the one that cannot be superceded for the sake of any other, is the right to live. In spite of this, the pro-abortion side of the debate insists that this right ought to be superceded, and all for the sake of “women’s rights.” Thus, in creating a few rights for one group of people, they have destroyed all of the rights of another set. Sadly, in exchange for a few freedoms for one set of people, they will sacrifice all the freedoms of another.
Submitted by [Equus Nom Veritas] on behalf of the Oregon State University Students for Life[Pro-Life Organization].
-----
If you found this post helpful, some related posts may be found here:
Abortion and So-Called "Lebensunwertes Lebes" (Catholic America Today)
Speaking Up, If Painfully
Abortion Rationalizations and Motives
My Thoughts on the CLFL Roe v Wade Day Booth
Tactics for Avoiding a Terrible Fact: "Human" vs "Person"
On Being Pro-Life
Righteous Fear of the Lord and the Pro-Life Movement
_____
Unfortunately, my work never got published. This may be due to space constraints, but considering that they published several op-eds and guest columnists during that time, I would say that there's some other reason to it. I see two possibilites: the first is that the Barometer is deliberately attempting to shift back towards the left, though they have retained Nathanael and hired Angie since last year. Possibility two is that they are doing everything in their power to sully their own good reputation (the Barometer has been an award-winning paper in recent years). And now, here is the op-ed.
Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court has once again ignited the great debate over abortion. On campus, this debate was further fueled in a November 1st article by the Barometer’s Molly Gray. In her column, Miss Gray asserted among other things that abortion is and should remain a woman’s right. Many letters to the editor since then have reaffirmed this idea in its various forms.
The most recently stated version of this is to be found in Hannah Roseneau’s letter to the editor, published on November 15. This latest version of the debate suggested that the debate is not about abortion at all, but rather about women’s rights. This argument is flawed on a number of levels.
In the first place, it attempts to move the debate away from what is actually being debated: abortion. This has been a typical tactic used by the pro-abortion side, and who can blame them? The very idea is unpleasant; what’s being defended is the “right” to destroy a life. The pro-life side is not out to destroy women’s rights, but rather to defend their children’s lives.
It’s very easy for those who would defend such heinous acts to do so by changing the questions being debated. However, the ultimate idea of the debate must be preserved, and so this change of question necessitates a new set of complimentary questions. Thus, in order to preserve the debate’s true meaning, a new question must be asked. This question is, in essence, “Do the rights of one person supercede the rights of another?”
The answer to this question must ultimately be “Yes,” as one set of rights may be in conflict with another set. Thus, some form of compromise must be made, or barring that possibly, one set of rights must be sacrificed for another. But which right or rights must take precedent?
Ultimately, there can be only one real answer to this question: the most fundamental rights must take precedent. This is innately true, as the “lesser” rights are ultimately derived from, and therefore require the existence of, the more fundamental rights. Simply put, what this means is that certain rights must be granted in order for other rights to exist. For example, the right to privacy on one’s own property is contingent upon the right to the ownership of property. Therefore, if the right to own property is removed, then the right to privacy on the said property is also removed.
The most fundamental right that can exist is the right to life. Without this right, all others are forfeit. The right to own property, the right to enjoy the company of one’s friends, the very right to freedom, these are all rendered moot if the right to live has been taken away. It therefore follows that in a society in which people are to have any rights at all, the right to live must not be removed.
In other words, this right to live must supercede all other rights. That includes the so-called “women’s rights.” Without the right to live, even these rights are ultimately forfeit. Therefore, the “right” to abort an unborn child cannot ultimately supercede that child’s right to live in a free society.
Many of the defenders of abortion contend that since the child is unborn, it can have no rights. This is utter folly. It does, in effect, create an artificial definition of personhood, thus confirming many rights on one set of people while denying these to another. This becomes even more apparent when partial-birth abortions are allowed. In any case, there is negligible difference between the newborn infant person and the “nonperson” child who is only moments from birth. Yet one has been granted rights while the other has not.
Now, the argument often fronted to counter this is that the unborn child requires the mother’s womb to survive. This is merely another smokescreen, even if those infants that can in fact survive outside of the womb are removed from the picture. Does the infirm old woman lose her right to live merely because she requires a respirator to breathe? What of the man who requires a pacemaker? For that matter, what of, say, a scuba diver who needs his oxygen tanks to survive under water for extended periods of time? After all, the womb is to the child as a life-support system is to an infirm person, or more appropriately, it is the child’s natural environment.
The most fundamental right, and thus the one that cannot be superceded for the sake of any other, is the right to live. In spite of this, the pro-abortion side of the debate insists that this right ought to be superceded, and all for the sake of “women’s rights.” Thus, in creating a few rights for one group of people, they have destroyed all of the rights of another set. Sadly, in exchange for a few freedoms for one set of people, they will sacrifice all the freedoms of another.
Submitted by [Equus Nom Veritas] on behalf of the Oregon State University Students for Life[Pro-Life Organization].
-----
If you found this post helpful, some related posts may be found here:
Abortion and So-Called "Lebensunwertes Lebes" (Catholic America Today)
Speaking Up, If Painfully
Abortion Rationalizations and Motives
My Thoughts on the CLFL Roe v Wade Day Booth
Tactics for Avoiding a Terrible Fact: "Human" vs "Person"
On Being Pro-Life
Righteous Fear of the Lord and the Pro-Life Movement
_____
Saturday, December 03, 2005
More on Miracles: Quick Comments on Communion
I'm not sure why I decided to write this up today. This next weeks is finals week at the University, so I may or may not begin to feel the urge to study rather than debate. However, anytime when I have a clear mind and I begin to think of something related to philosophy or theology, I think that if I can remember my thoughts I should write them down. There I was, going through a part of the morning routine, when I began to think of a conversations that I had last night with some of my friends.
The general conversation was about theology. The topics varied, from a hypothetical question about Christ (maybe more on that in another post...), to a one friends question as to why I'm a Catholic (hopefully more on that one too...), to a few questions about Catholic traditions and doctrines. The car got quiet for a moment, and one of my friends looked at me and asked a very specific question:
My answer was, of course, that He still works today. The related question, of course, is the one of miracles. Of course, I defended the existence of miracles in todays world in an earlier blog post. I also pointed out that any pracicing Catholic who had thought out his faith would ultimately have to believe in both. One example that I used was the one of our sacrament, Holy Communion.
As we reached our destination, our conversation ended, and I didn't think of it again that night. However, my mind wandered this morning to the topics of that last conversation: Communion, God's presence among us, and the occurence of miracles. The three are not only related but intertwined. For example, the presence of God and the occurence of miracles are inseparable; without God, there can be no miracles, and where God is present, miracles are bound to occur.
this brings me specifically to the topic of the Sacrement of Communion. During this sacrament, ordinary bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. The very substance is transformed. This is one of the greatest miracles of all.
This miracle goes beyond the simple words of Christ during the Last Supper. There is something deeper than Christ telling us to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. Nay, just as our physical bodies need food to be sustained, so too do we need the grace of God for spiritual growth and Salvation. Just as bread and wine are food, so too was Christ's sacrifice necessary for our salvation.
After the Resurrection, as He was being assumed back into heaven, Christ said the He would be with us always. The Eucharistic Sacrament is one way in which this is fulfilled. Christ is constantly there, living, returning to replenish the grace of those faithfull to Him. This is one of the greatest miracles, the most precious gift, of all: that of His own presence and grace for the sake of our salvation.
The general conversation was about theology. The topics varied, from a hypothetical question about Christ (maybe more on that in another post...), to a one friends question as to why I'm a Catholic (hopefully more on that one too...), to a few questions about Catholic traditions and doctrines. The car got quiet for a moment, and one of my friends looked at me and asked a very specific question:
"In the Gospels, Christ after rising from the dead tells His apostles that He will be sending them a 'Helper' to help spread the good news of the Gospels. That 'Helper' was, of course, the Holy Spirit. My question for you is, did the Holy Spirit stick around for that short time, and then leave? Or do you believe that He is still active today?"
My answer was, of course, that He still works today. The related question, of course, is the one of miracles. Of course, I defended the existence of miracles in todays world in an earlier blog post. I also pointed out that any pracicing Catholic who had thought out his faith would ultimately have to believe in both. One example that I used was the one of our sacrament, Holy Communion.
As we reached our destination, our conversation ended, and I didn't think of it again that night. However, my mind wandered this morning to the topics of that last conversation: Communion, God's presence among us, and the occurence of miracles. The three are not only related but intertwined. For example, the presence of God and the occurence of miracles are inseparable; without God, there can be no miracles, and where God is present, miracles are bound to occur.
this brings me specifically to the topic of the Sacrement of Communion. During this sacrament, ordinary bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. The very substance is transformed. This is one of the greatest miracles of all.
This miracle goes beyond the simple words of Christ during the Last Supper. There is something deeper than Christ telling us to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. Nay, just as our physical bodies need food to be sustained, so too do we need the grace of God for spiritual growth and Salvation. Just as bread and wine are food, so too was Christ's sacrifice necessary for our salvation.
After the Resurrection, as He was being assumed back into heaven, Christ said the He would be with us always. The Eucharistic Sacrament is one way in which this is fulfilled. Christ is constantly there, living, returning to replenish the grace of those faithfull to Him. This is one of the greatest miracles, the most precious gift, of all: that of His own presence and grace for the sake of our salvation.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Quote of the Day: December 2
I haven't done one of these for a while, but I was reading Jonah Goldberg's piece at Townhall.com, and I just loved this line, so I had to post it. Whenever a non-Christian (he's Jewish) defends Christianity where the Christians (such as Dennis Hastert) fail to do so, you know there's a problem.
"Personally, I take no offense at the government unveiling a Christmas tree on the grounds of the 'People's House' [the House of Representatives]. Besides, a place that in love with pork is hardly kosher to begin with."
-Jonah Goldberg
Here's the original article at National Review's site.
"Personally, I take no offense at the government unveiling a Christmas tree on the grounds of the 'People's House' [the House of Representatives]. Besides, a place that in love with pork is hardly kosher to begin with."
-Jonah Goldberg
Here's the original article at National Review's site.
Immanentist of Hell
It's really hard not to hate people like this. Sadly enough, I actually agree with the core of what he says, namely that in a matter of decades most people will not regard human life as being valuable. The greatest difference between us is that while I am working against theis end, he is deliberately working to make this particular hell a reality.
This guy reminds me of the head in CS Lewis' "That Hideous Strength." He has his admirors: the New York Times is his Filistrato, calling him the greatest living philosopher. But like the head in that book, the word he speaks are in the voice of another. He is another of the mouthpieces used to communicate the desires of Lucifer to the anxious ears of the foolish living. Thus, like the head, he is not necessarily to be hated, but rather to be pitied.
He is also a great carricture of liberal philosophy. While working to make human life valueless, he ironically is an animal rights activist, of sorts. While promoting infanticide and euthanasia (not to mention abortion), this guy claims that we should treat animals with dignity (when we're not having sex with them, that is). It's sad but true: more dignity is to be afforded for animals than humans under this man's philosophy.
Ironically enough (as "Lifesite.net" notes), it is the the religious, fundamentalist types that are most likely to ultimately survive such a scenario. This won't do much good for any of us that may end up living to see the next Dark Age, but it does give some hope for the future. It was Catholicism that brought civilization safely through the last Dark Ages, and it will be Catholicism and the other Christian groups and denominations with strong ties to their traditional morality that will see the world through the next one, if indeed it arrives.
This guy reminds me of the head in CS Lewis' "That Hideous Strength." He has his admirors: the New York Times is his Filistrato, calling him the greatest living philosopher. But like the head in that book, the word he speaks are in the voice of another. He is another of the mouthpieces used to communicate the desires of Lucifer to the anxious ears of the foolish living. Thus, like the head, he is not necessarily to be hated, but rather to be pitied.
He is also a great carricture of liberal philosophy. While working to make human life valueless, he ironically is an animal rights activist, of sorts. While promoting infanticide and euthanasia (not to mention abortion), this guy claims that we should treat animals with dignity (when we're not having sex with them, that is). It's sad but true: more dignity is to be afforded for animals than humans under this man's philosophy.
Ironically enough (as "Lifesite.net" notes), it is the the religious, fundamentalist types that are most likely to ultimately survive such a scenario. This won't do much good for any of us that may end up living to see the next Dark Age, but it does give some hope for the future. It was Catholicism that brought civilization safely through the last Dark Ages, and it will be Catholicism and the other Christian groups and denominations with strong ties to their traditional morality that will see the world through the next one, if indeed it arrives.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Christ, Christmas, and the Right to Be Christian
The more mainstream parts of the war against Christ in Christmas has tended to be largely centered on culture and consumerism. Not so anymore. A Novi subdivision has demanded that a local family remove a nativity scene from their own yard.
In the case our culture removing references of "Christmas" from stores, public Christmas trees, etc, the problem lies with an overly "tolerant" culture attempting to appear more inclusive by passively ignoring the Christian aspects of the holiday. This is unfortunate and should be fought, but it is nothing when compared to the active assault being carried out here. In the first case, the Christian aspect is being undermined, denied. In the second, it is being oppressed.
How could anyone justify this? How is this not a blatant attempt to violate the First Ammendment right of freedom of religion? Granted, it's done by a homeowners association, but it's equivalent to barring a customer from a store for wearing a shirt that says "Christ is the reaon for the Season." It is, in fact, worse than this, becasue the "customers" are being barred not from a store or public building, but from the privacy of their own homes.
I hope that this family fights these people. I hope they don't cave in and remove the nativity scene. I suspect that they will fight for their right to acknowledge Christ's role in Christmas. And I'm behind them all of the way.
That being said, I'm left surious about something. Nobody is offended by the presence of the "Santa Claus" ornament (do they realize that "Santa" is actually based upon St. Nicholaus, a bishop in the Catholic Church?). For anyone who is not a Christian, Christ can't possibly represent anything more than Santa. In other words, for the non-Christian, Christ was just another Guy. Thus, His use to decorate a lawn really isn't different that using a statue of a former president, or the likeness of a celebrity, or even a sculpture of some obscure former relative.
This begs the question: why all of the fuss? If a person is a Christian, then he has no personal complaint against the presence of Christian symbols; what kind of person is offended by the presence of elements of his own religion. If the person isn't Christian, then the sysmbols should hold absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Christ becomes a fictional Character, like the Hero of some fairy tale, or at most He becomes an obscure Middle-Eastern Philosopher. Thus, the presence of a nativity scene or a cross is no more relevant than a sculpture of Napolea'n or a portrait of a Roman Emperor or a poster of a character from a movie.
Why is it that people can find something so simple as a nativity scene to be offensive? Christianity doesn't really blaspheme any other religion, other than that it makes the claim that all other religions are false; but this very claim is fronted by most other religions. If anything, Christianity is more tolerant of other religions in that many Christian philosophers have argued that every religion reveals at least a small part of the truth.
Further, it's not the Muslims and Jews who are leading this charge against Christianity. Rather, it's the atheists and agnostics. What do they have against Christianity, that they go beyond simply viewing its symbols as (possibly misleading) artwork and its heros and God as being mere characters in a great fantasy? The answer can only be that these people move beyond merely being unChristian, into the realm of actually being anti-Christian.
Thus, these people demanding the removal of religious symbols have moved into the position of religious oppressors. They are not tolerating the religion of Christianity, but rather are forcing their religious view on Christians. Considering the justification that they use for doing this, they are also guilty of hypocrisy.
In the case our culture removing references of "Christmas" from stores, public Christmas trees, etc, the problem lies with an overly "tolerant" culture attempting to appear more inclusive by passively ignoring the Christian aspects of the holiday. This is unfortunate and should be fought, but it is nothing when compared to the active assault being carried out here. In the first case, the Christian aspect is being undermined, denied. In the second, it is being oppressed.
How could anyone justify this? How is this not a blatant attempt to violate the First Ammendment right of freedom of religion? Granted, it's done by a homeowners association, but it's equivalent to barring a customer from a store for wearing a shirt that says "Christ is the reaon for the Season." It is, in fact, worse than this, becasue the "customers" are being barred not from a store or public building, but from the privacy of their own homes.
I hope that this family fights these people. I hope they don't cave in and remove the nativity scene. I suspect that they will fight for their right to acknowledge Christ's role in Christmas. And I'm behind them all of the way.
That being said, I'm left surious about something. Nobody is offended by the presence of the "Santa Claus" ornament (do they realize that "Santa" is actually based upon St. Nicholaus, a bishop in the Catholic Church?). For anyone who is not a Christian, Christ can't possibly represent anything more than Santa. In other words, for the non-Christian, Christ was just another Guy. Thus, His use to decorate a lawn really isn't different that using a statue of a former president, or the likeness of a celebrity, or even a sculpture of some obscure former relative.
This begs the question: why all of the fuss? If a person is a Christian, then he has no personal complaint against the presence of Christian symbols; what kind of person is offended by the presence of elements of his own religion. If the person isn't Christian, then the sysmbols should hold absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Christ becomes a fictional Character, like the Hero of some fairy tale, or at most He becomes an obscure Middle-Eastern Philosopher. Thus, the presence of a nativity scene or a cross is no more relevant than a sculpture of Napolea'n or a portrait of a Roman Emperor or a poster of a character from a movie.
Why is it that people can find something so simple as a nativity scene to be offensive? Christianity doesn't really blaspheme any other religion, other than that it makes the claim that all other religions are false; but this very claim is fronted by most other religions. If anything, Christianity is more tolerant of other religions in that many Christian philosophers have argued that every religion reveals at least a small part of the truth.
Further, it's not the Muslims and Jews who are leading this charge against Christianity. Rather, it's the atheists and agnostics. What do they have against Christianity, that they go beyond simply viewing its symbols as (possibly misleading) artwork and its heros and God as being mere characters in a great fantasy? The answer can only be that these people move beyond merely being unChristian, into the realm of actually being anti-Christian.
Thus, these people demanding the removal of religious symbols have moved into the position of religious oppressors. They are not tolerating the religion of Christianity, but rather are forcing their religious view on Christians. Considering the justification that they use for doing this, they are also guilty of hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
