"...But only God can make a tree"

Walter Russell Mead describes an environmental effort everyone can celebrate:

.... The American chestnut tree was once king of the Eastern forest. Its sturdy hardwood, its beautiful shape, and its nourishing nuts aided Americans’ construction, crafts, and cooking for hundreds of years. Tragically, a fungus from Asia killed billions of trees, and only a small number remain today.

A group of biologists from Syracuse may rewrite that history. Using genetic modification techniques, they have apparently found a way to protect native American chestnut stock from the blight. The Wall Street Journal reports that the massive restoration project has begun:

The efforts were picked up again in the 1980s by scientists and plant lovers who founded the American Chestnut Foundation. They applied a new method, called backcross breeding, which was first used for corn that imparts preferable traits over several generations.

The foundation started planting their new chestnuts—one-sixteenth Chinese and the rest American—in Virginia in 2006. More than 100,000 of the trees are growing across 19 states, with plans for millions more in what the group calls the country’s largest ecological restoration effort. Thousands of trees were inoculated with the fungus in June 2011, with 20% showing strong resistance and 40% with a more moderate amount, foundation president Bryan Burhans said. Scientists will select for the strongest resistances when breeding future generations, he said.

This is true environmentalism in action: conservation restoring the beauty and the riches of the world we have been given. ....

Next let's reverse the effects of Dutch Elm disease. And save the Ash trees.

 Scientists Reverse America’s Worst Ecological Disaster | Via Meadia

Making prudent and difficult choices

Paul Ryan's candidacy for Vice-President has brought forth a very vigorous discussion of whether his economic proposals are compatible with his Catholic convictions. Some Catholics are actually praying for his "conversion." Several Catholic prelates [see here and here] have indicated that—while they don't necessarily agree with his proposals and don't endorse candidates—there is nothing that he has proposed that is in conflict with his responsibility as a Catholic in public office. From a recent column by Catholic Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver:

A married friend of mine is loaded with debt. His home is double mortgaged. His wallet is full of credit cards, all of which carry substantial balances.

My friend claims not to enjoy racking up debt. He doesn't seem to think he has a choice. He pays the tuition of his college aged children, and he supports his family in a comfortable lifestyle. His children take private art and music lessons, and he pays the rent of his unemployed nephew. But as much as he desires to love his children, he isn't doing them any favors.

Eventually, for my friend, the debts will come due. When they do, his children will be in a difficult place. Never having sacrificed, they haven’t built or saved money, or prepared for financial independence. My friend’s imprudence will cripple no one more severely than his children. ....

Knowing what is coming; few would say that my friend is acting with compassion, or with a Christian sense of responsibility.

Christian responsibility—expressed sometimes as stewardship—is the practice of making prudent and difficult judgments. It is the recognition that we cannot give everything we wish to, we cannot spend what we do not have, and we cannot borrow what we can’t repay. ....

I am not a policy expert. I do not know whether Paul Ryan’s fiscal plans are the right plans for America’s present or her future. I cannot, nor would I, endorse him or any other candidate. But claims that Paul Ryan’s plan run deeply counter to Catholic social teaching are unfounded and unreasonable. Some criticisms are so insidious that one wonders whether the critics have actually read Ryan’s plans.

For Catholics there are certain social issues on which the answers are firm and absolute. Catholics must recognize the dignity of the unborn, and the injustice of legalized killing. Catholics must recognize the dignity of human sexuality and the immutability of marriage between man and woman. Catholics must recognize the preferential option—the Lord’s love—for the poor. These issues must inform the decisions Catholic leaders make in proposing or supporting policy.

Beyond these non-negotiable principles, there is room for considerable debate on particular policy choices or initiatives. But a primary element of the debate for Catholics—for all reasonable adults—must be the long-term consequences of our choices. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica insists that strategic decisions take place in light of our end, or purpose, and the means to get there—rather than the dictates of immediate sentimental inclinations. The just means, he says, include the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity—that is, authentic fraternity with the poor, and real respect for the family and the local community. .... [more]

In defense of Christian responsibility - By Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila

A Baptist catechism?

When I was growing up the kids I knew who went to "Catechism" were Catholics and we Baptists were "non-creedal" which was somehow the opposite. The "Desiring God" site offers, free, a pdf of "A Baptist Catechism" — with Commentary from John Piper," and Piper argues its appropriateness for Baptists as he introduces it:

WHAT IS A CATECHISM?

In 1 Corinthians 14:19 Paul says, “In the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” In Galatians 6:6 he says, “Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches.” Acts 18:25 says that Apollos “has been instructed in the way of the Lord.”

In each of these verses the Greek word for “instruct” or “teach” is katecheo. From this word we get our English word “catechize.” It simply means to teach biblical truth in an orderly way. Generally this is done with questions and answers accompanied by biblical support and explanation.

WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF THIS CATECHISM?

This is a slightly revised version of “The Baptist Catechism” first put forth by Baptists in 1689 in Great Britain. It was adopted by the Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1742. It is patterned on the well-known reformed Westminster Catechism. The few comments in the earlier questions are meant to help parents make things plain to their children.

IS THERE A BIBLICAL PATTERN OF DOCTRINE?

Several texts teach that there is. For example, in Romans 6:17 Paul gives thanks that “you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were committed.” 2 Timothy 1:13 says, “Follow the pattern of sound words which you heard from me.” Acts 2:42 says, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us.” And Acts 20:27 says, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.”

So it appears that there was a body of authoritative instruction and even a way of teaching it in the early church.

A Baptist Catechism [pdf] It strikes me that this might be a good discussion starter for adult classes - to what extent are these things we actually believe? And, if we don't, should we? This catechism reflects a "reformed" theology and would have been used by "Particular" Baptists. Did "General" Baptists have anything comparable? Seventh Day Baptists of either tendency will have some difficulty with how the Fourth Commandment is explained on page 24, although each might approve the explanation of how the Sabbath should be observed.

"The Baptist Catechism" — with Commentary from John Piper - Desiring God

"There is no one righteous"

James Calvin Schaap, in "There is no one righteous," Part I of The Dakota War of 1862 [Part II comes on August 20] tells the story of how the Sioux Indian wars began with the temptation to steal some eggs.

In August of 1862, four young Wahpeton men return, empty-handed, from a hunting party, when they discover a nest of chicken eggs along a fence not far from a white man's house, a man named Robinson Jones. The Wahpetons are hungry, but one of them says they better be careful because if they eat the eggs they're going to risk getting Mr. Jones angry.

Another says that being afraid of the white man is something he's sick and tired of because life hasn't been all that great with all those white people moving into and onto their land, treaty or no treaty.

Big talk, another one says. What are you going to do about it?

You think I'm scared? If you think I'm scared, then let's go over to that house right now and kill them—Robinson Jones and all those white people.

Let's just shoot them down.

So they do. Brown Wing, Breaking Up, Killing Ghost, and Runs Against Something When Crawling—four Dakota men. ...[T]hey eventually shot and killed Robinson Jones, Howard Baker, and Baken Viranus Webster, dropped them dead in cold blood, then turned on Mrs. Jones and Clara Wilson, an adopted daughter: men, women, and children, dead.

It was August 19, 1862, not quite noon, 40 miles south of Acton, Minnesota, on the frontier of America, at a time when the nation was deeply at war with itself. That horrific incident filled the Minnesota River valley with blood, created a month of sheer horror. ....

Robinson Jones didn't ask to be murdered, nor did his adopted daughter. They were victims of what was to them totally unforeseen Dakota lawlessness and brutality.

Or were they? Who of the Dakota had asked white people to take over their land? Who of the Dakota had written up treaties that were sheer lies? Who of the Dakota had asked Europeans to come in and destroy their culture? .... [read on]

The link to Part 2: The Dakota War of 1862

The Dakota War of 1862 | Books and Culture

At the "Bird and Baby"

Via Brandywine Books, "The Inklings Corner at the Eagle and Child Pub (the 'Bird and Baby'), Oxford," where C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and others met for beer and talk. I've been there.

A conscience well-formed

Madison's Catholic Bishop, Robert Morlino, instructs those in his diocese about how they should apply their faith to their political actions:

.... It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties. Any efforts on the part of any bishop or priest to do so should be set aside. And you can be assured that no priest who promotes a partisan agenda is acting in union with me or with the Universal Church.

It is the role of bishops and priests to teach principles of our faith, such that those who seek elected offices, if they are Catholics, are to form their consciences according to these principles about particular policy issues.

However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.

In these most fundamental matters, a well-formed Catholic conscience, or the well-formed conscience of a person of good will, simply follows the conclusions demanded by the ecology of human nature and the reasoning process. A Catholic conscience can never take exception to the prohibition of actions which are intrinsically evil. Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.

However, a conscience well-formed according to reason or the Catholic faith, must also make choices where intrinsic evil is not involved. How best to care for the poor is probably the finest current example of this, though another would be how best to create jobs at a time when so many are suffering from the ravages of unemployment. In matters such as these, where intrinsic evil is not involved, the rational principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play. The principle of solidarity, simply stated, means that every human being on the face of the earth is my brother and my sister, my “neighbor” in the biblical sense. At the same time, the time-tested best way for assisting our neighbors throughout the world should follow the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason. ....

Some of the terms Bishop Morlino uses are foreign to this Baptist and Protestants are perhaps less inclined to be quite so definitive about which public policies are compatible with the faith, but I like what he teaches. Catholic social teaching, as he propounds it, is perfectly in harmony with how I apply my own Christian convictions to political decision-making.

I am, by the way, violating Bishop Morlino's wishes by quoting his column: "This column is the bishop’s communication with the faithful of the Diocese of Madison. Any wider circulation reaches beyond the intention of the bishop."

Subsidiarity, solidarity, and the lay mission

What is gospel?

Via Robert Spencer:

FAQ

Frank J. Fleming explains Christianity to the uncomprehending world:

There’s a brand new thing out there that has been confusing and frightening people lately: Christians. The first prominent Christian anyone ever heard of was probably Tim Tebow, and his appearance on the national scene was quite alarming to many, as his “Christian” behavior was seen as quite odd and new. More recently, people have learned about Dan Cathy and are disturbed to discover that some businesses may possibly be owned by Christians who express Christian-type views. And then there is Olympic champion gymnast Gabby Douglas, whose constant profession of faith in God is so frightening that an extremely bewildered author wrote an article about her in Salon.

Since ignorance is what leads us to fear something (unless we’re talking about platypuses, as the more you know about them, the scarier they are — did you know they’re poisonous?), I thought I’d write an FAQ about Christians to help explain what these strange new people are, so everyone won’t be all freaked out about them. ....

For instance:

.... Why are Christians always judging others?

Because Christians are a subset of people, they share the faults all people have and tend to get judgmental at times.

No. This is something unique to bad Christians. They are all closed-minded, ignorant, hypocritical bigots who are stupid and dumb. And they judge people.

Again, these are faults all people have. Christians often fall short of their goal, but the point is they keep trying.

I’m pretty sure they’re judgmental. Like that Tim Tebow, I’m pretty sure he’s judging me.

I’m not even sure he’s aware you exist.

Yeah, but the way he lives his life all “holy” and “nice” makes me really feel like he’s judging me for not doing the same.

I’m pretty sure Tim Tebow is just trying to do his best in the eyes of God and isn’t try to make you feel bad by it.

Still, I’d really feel better if he was caught doing something really licentious. It would make me feel less bad about myself. ....

Are Christians allowed to own businesses?

Under current understanding of the law, they are in fact allowed to own businesses, and many do.

But they’re not allowed to talk about all their weird Christany stuff while owning a business, right?

Most people would consider that to fall under our First Amendment rights — those protecting both freedom of speech and religion. Thus, people should be allowed to talk about their Christian beliefs without fearing government reprisal, such as politicians trying to block them from opening businesses. ....

But what if it’s a super hateful thing the Christians say, like being against gay marriage?

While homosexuals have often been treated hatefully (and hatefulness is certainly not a Christian value), there’s nothing hateful in opposing gay marriage. Christians simply believe that the Bible clearly states what God intends a marriage to be and want to respect that and not replace it with their own wants or judgments.

No, it’s hateful. So hateful, I’m going to write NoH8 on myself and put tape on my mouth for inexplicable reasons.

If you want to believe it’s hateful, you can, but that will prevent any rational discussion on the issue.

Hate! Hateful! Hater hate hate hate!

Now you’re just… let’s move on. .... [more]

PJ Media » An FAQ on Christianity for the Unbeliever

Somebody tell Vanderbilt

"It is 'common sense, not discrimination' for a religious group to want its leaders to agree with its core beliefs" — uh, yes — someone tell Vanderbilt. From Christianity Today Liveblog:

...[T]he State University of New York at Buffalo has re-recognized InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) as an official student organization, just in time for the start of the 2012-13 school year.

After being de-recognized as a club amid a leadership scandal earlier this year, IVCF regained official status on July 27. SUNY Buffalo’s Student-Wide Judiciary ruled that it is "common sense, not discrimination” for a religious group to want its leaders to agree with its core beliefs.

According to the SUNY Student Association policy, an organization cannot exclude students from becoming members. IVCF requires its student officers to agree with the organization’s doctrinal and purpose statements, but has no restrictive membership clause. ....

Christianity Today Liveblog: InterVarsity Re-Instated As New York University Decides Leadership Policy Is "Common Sense, Not Discrimination"

The life or health of the mother

If this response in the UK House of Lords is at all comparable to the American experience, then much of the "pro-choice" argument disappears. If we eliminated all abortions except those for the life or health of the mother [and even allowed those for rape and incest] it would make up a tiny percentage of those committed each year. The question and response:

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many abortions have been performed under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by Section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) to the latest date available; and how many of those abortions were to save the life of the pregnant woman.[HL1563]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): Between 1968 and 2011 (the latest year for which figures are available) there have been 6.4 million abortions performed on residents of England and Wales. Of these, 143 (0.006%) were performed under Section 1(4), ie where the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

A further 23,778 (0.37%) abortions were performed under Section 1(1)(c), ie that the continuance of pregnancy would involve the risk to the life of the woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

Via Gene Veith and Joe Carter

Lords Hansard text for 19 Jul 201219 July 2012 (pt 0001)

The itch that can't be scratched.

Christopher R. Beha writes about the “New New Atheists” among whom he places Alain de Botton, Sam Harris [who was also a "New Atheist"], and Alex Rosenberg, author of The Atheist Guide to Reality:

Rosenberg...insists that doing away with religion means doing away with most of what comes with it: a sense of order in the universe, the hope that life has some inherent meaning, even the belief in free will. If it’s true, as Rosenberg insists in contradiction of Harris and Botton, that we can’t have the benefits of belief without belief itself, this raises another question. Setting aside matters of truth and falsehood, are we not better off believing? Broadly speaking, atheists seem to fall into two camps on this matter. There are disappointed disbelievers, those who would like to believe in God but find themselves unable. Then there are those who find the very idea of such a being to be an outrage. ....

I happen to count myself among the disappointed disbelievers, which is why I was interested in the attempts of Harris and Botton to salvage some religious splendor for the secularists. So I was only more disappointed to find Rosenberg’s insistence that such efforts were hopeless far more convincing than the efforts themselves. During an email exchange with Rosenberg, I asked him which camp of atheists he fell into. His response acknowledged my impulse: “There is . . . in us all the hankering for a satisfactory narrative to make ‘life, the universe and everything’ (in Douglas Adams’s words) hang together in a meaningful way. When people disbelieve in God and see no alternative, they often find themselves wishing they could believe, since now they have an itch and no way to scratch it.”

"It's a terrible thing to have an itch you can't scratch." Leon in Blade Runner

So what are we to do about this unscratchable itch? Rosenberg’s answer in his book is basically to ignore it. The modern world offers lots of help in this effort. To begin with, there are pharmaceuticals; Rosenberg strongly encourages those depressed by the emptiness of the Godless world to avail themselves of mood-altering drugs. .... [more]

Wikipedia summarizes Pascal's Wager thus: "...there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known." But if you reject that argument there are always "mood-altering drugs" as an alternative.

The Literary Response to Radical Atheism—By Christopher R. Beha (Harper's Magazine)

"It is no small thing to turn the other cheek..."

A response by Tim Kelleher to some recent essays about Just War Theory:

I am...troubled by Christians who can ascertain divine warrant for say, capital punishment (an issue that, aside from his own death by such means, Jesus addressed at best obliquely), yet find ambiguity in such daunting Gospel moments as “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” ....

.... While it is no small feat to turn the other cheek, it is another thing when the cheek being struck is not one’s own but that of a loved one—or an innocent stranger. I like to imagine I could rise to the challenge of Gandhi and King’s model with respect to my own hide. I am decidedly less sure when met with hypotheticals, like whether my killing a dictator would spare millions suffering and death. ....

One Eternal Day: Aquinas and just war

Just War, In Theory and Practice » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Animal Farm

Via Instapundit, the 1954 animated film version of George Orwell's Animal Farm. I've seen this several times and believe I must have used it in class in my early years of teaching. It's quite well done and only departs at the end from Orwell's rather more pessimistic vision.

For the most vulnerable

Via Alex Chediak, Paul Ryan on the right to life:

Now, after America has won the last century’s hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect. I do know that we cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.” The freedom to choose is pointless for someone who does not have the freedom to live. So the right of “choice” of one human being cannot trump the right to “life” of another. How long can we sustain our commitment to freedom if we continue to deny the very foundation of freedom—life—for the most vulnerable human beings?

The Cause of Life Can’t be Severed from the Cause of Freedom

Honor your unbelieving parents

My parents were, and relatives are [to the best of my knowledge] all Christians, so, although I have friends whose circumstances are different, I don't share Darren Carlson's experience: "Sharing the Gospel with the People Who Changed Your Diaper":

.... When I signed up for a discipleship program out of college my Dad thought I was being brainwashed. When someone shared the gospel with my wife at UNC-Greensboro and invited her to a Baptist church, she had never seen such joy and became a believer. Her parents thought she joined a cult. A few weeks after her conversion she was part of YoungLife.

Our parents, our sisters, their husbands, and their children do not share our faith. Marriage has certainly brought out the stark contrasts in our lives, and the arrival of children even more so. We are not experts on how to share the gospel or how to relate to our families now that we have believed in Jesus and been saved. Family scenarios are diverse, and there is no one shoe that fits all situations. Still, knowing that many hold beliefs in stark contrast to their families I offer these suggestions. .... [read on]

Sharing the Gospel with the People Who Changed Your Diaper – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Liddell — after the Olympics

The Absolute Surrender site is devoted to a film project which I very much hope comes to fruition. The project's description:

The Film is based on the life story of Eric Liddell, the subject of the highly acclaimed and successful CHARIOTS OF FIRE. Following his Olympic success, he returned to China on the eve of World War II to join his family and continue his missionary work at tremendous personal sacrifice.

I previously posted about Eric Liddell here. His service as a missionary in China is — from a Christian's viewpoint — a much greater witness to faith than that brief portion of his life we know from Chariots of Fire.

The site also includes information about the film makers. The script was written by a Lutheran pastor, Eric Eichinger:

This summer, Eichinger traveled to Great Britain and Canada to interview Eric Liddell's daughters and nieces as a part of a video series launched on Absolute Surrender’s website this week. Along with conversations with family members, Eichinger provides rare footage of little known locations and facts as he follows in the footsteps of Eric Liddell. His goal is to bring awareness to the project and Liddell's remarkable legacy.

Eichinger is associated in the project with Howie Klausner whose films include Soul Surfer.

Absolute Surrender

Ratio Christi

http://ratiochristi.org

There are several good college student oriented evangelical organizations including InterVarsity and Cru [Campus Crusade]. Ratio Christi appears to be another, with the specific mission of providing students with the apologetic arguments they may need to sustain and share their convictions in a sometimes hostile secular environment. From the Ratio Christi site:

Ratio Christi (Latin for ‘The Reason of Christ’) is a global movement that equips university students and faculty to give historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons for following Jesus Christ. Bringing together faith and reason in order to establish the intellectual voice of Christ in the University, Ratio Christi is placing Christian apologetics clubs at universities around the world. We unashamedly defend the veracity of God, the Bible, and Christ’s resurrection and engage in the battle for the mind.

Thanks to Tom Gilson for the reference.

Ratio Christi

"Murder before the birth"

Although modern biology has dispelled notions of "quickening" and demonstrated the continuity of human development from the point of conception, thus reinforcing the humanity of the unborn person, the Christian case against abortion has been made since the earliest days of the Church — long before such evidence was possible. Charles Pope has been compiling "Ancient Testimonies Against Abortion." Selections from his post:

The Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) ca 110 AD. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion. (2:2)…The Way of Death is filled with people who are…murderers of children and abortionists of God’s creatures. (5:1-2) ....

Athenagoras the Athenian (To Marcus Aurelius), ca 150 AD: “We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion…, [For we] regard the very fœtus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care… (# 35).

Clement of Alexandria: (circa 150 – 215 AD) Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings. Paedagogus, 2 ....

Tertullian (circa 160 – 240 AD): …we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy …the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth. Apology (9:7-8)

Tertullian (circa 160-240 AD): [John the Baptist and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits. De Aninta 26:4 ....

St. Ambrose: (339 to 397 AD) The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated. Hexaemeron”, (5, 18, 58)

St. John Chrysostom (circa 340 – 407 AD): Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? .... Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? Homily 24 on Romans

St. Jerome (circa 342-420 AD): ….Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. Letter 22:13 .... [more]

Via Gene Veith :"The early church on abortion"

Ancient Testimonies Against Abortion | Archdiocese of Washington

Religious liberty in the "Show Me" state

The citizens of Missouri decided this week to reinforce in their state constitution an interpretation of religious liberty which, until recently, would have been taken for granted. "Missouri 'Right to Pray' amendment passes with large majority":

.... About 83 percent of voters, almost 780,000 people, favored the measure while 17 percent were opposed.

Amendment 2 says that government will not impose religion on Missouri residents or force any citizen to participate in religious activity. It also secures the right of individual or corporate prayer in public or private so long as the prayer does not disturb the peace or disrupt public meetings.

It guarantees elected officials the right to pray on government premises and public property.

The amendment allows students to express their religious beliefs in schoolwork, to opt out of school requirements that conflict with those beliefs, and to exercise their beliefs in private, voluntary and non-disruptive ways. ....

The amendment was, of course, opposed by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and a spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League of Missouri and Southern Illinois said that the amendment is "“possibly unconstitutional in its application, so now we’re headed for the courts.” They really do seem committed to restricting religious liberty in the public sphere. Will the federal courts find this amendment to Missouri's constitution consistent with the First Amendment?

The amendment [pdf].

From Christianity Today

.... Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have questioned how disturbance or disruption would later be defined. What if one person's "right to pray" intrudes on another's right to abstain from prayer, or to pray according to the tenets of his or her own faith? ....

I don't think I will ever understand how hearing a prayer forces anyone to pray any more than hearing the President speak can force me to be a liberal.

Missouri 'Right to Pray' amendment passes with large majority :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

"After strange gods"

R.R. Reno observes that "many, many influential writers in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries harbored anti-Semitic sentiments," among them T.S. Eliot:

.... Eliot believed that human beings flourish best when subject to the authority of a specific tradition. It’s an idea he gave the most forceful expression to in AFTER STRANGE GODS, a series of lectures he gave in 1933. In those lectures, “tradition” has blood and soil connotations, and in a passing comment Eliot expresses the concern that “free-thinking Jews” undermine organic communities and their authoritative traditions.

The charge that Eliot’s entire poetic and critical project is implicated in anti-Semitism reflects a much larger modern liberal syllogism. Commitments to authority leads to authoritarianism, which gets expressed politically in Fascism, and leads to the gas chambers. Put in less dire terms: a commitment to authority necessarily involves drawing lines. Some things are “orthodox,” to use Eliot’s term, and some “heretical.” This is inherently “discriminatory,” and reinforces our malign tendency toward ethnocentrism, and etc. In this way of thinking, the charge of anti-Semitism is meant as a synecdoche. It points to the authoritarian consequences of a larger commitment to authority. The same often holds for charges of patriarchy, colonialism, and homophobia. To assert a normative claim–this is good, that is evil–that’s the fundamental crime.

Put in these broad terms the modern liberal outlook seems crazy, because it denies any strong moral claims. It’s a denial we saw in literary studies when the very idea of a canon was criticized and rejected. But modern conservatism, which Eliot represented and tried to theorize, really does present a problem. Where does the “free-thinking Jew” (or for that matter any heterodox person) fit into a world organized around orthodoxy? ....

Russell Kirk, who wrote a book about Eliot, addressed the question of Eliot, After Strange Gods, anti-Semitism, and tradition in a Touchstone essay from 1991:

.... Fifteen hundred copies of the first edition were printed in New York; no later edition has been published in this country. Why have these lively lectures been virtually suppressed? Chiefly because of an aside on page 20. There Eliot is discussing the conditions necessary for a tradition to develop and survive, with particular reference to Christian tradition and to Virginia. For tradition to endure, he remarks,

The population should be homogeneous; where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely either to be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background, and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.

.... [T]his alleged “anti-Semitism” was merely an illustration of the principle that a culture—which arises from a cult—cannot well abide two radically different religions. It would be equally true that a community of orthodox Jews would be distressed and resentful, were they to find themselves beset by a Comus’s rout of free-thinkers nominally Christian. The religion, or anti-religion, of the “free-thinking Jews” that Eliot had in mind was not Judaism, but rather secular humanism....

There being nothing more in the pages of After Strange Gods about Jews, whether free-thinking or orthodox, it is absurd to cry anathema and to keep from others’ eyes this outspoken little book. Does literature have an ethical end? Should books be judged by the moral suppositions they implicitly affirm or deny? Do Good and Evil matter? And may the operations of the Evil Spirit (capital letters Eliot’s) be discerned among us in the twentieth century? May they be descried, indeed, among men of letters whose talents are high and whose private characters are commendable? These questions are raised perceptively in After Strange Gods.

As orthodoxy had been Samuel Johnson’s doxy, so was she Eliot’s, in 1933 and so long as he lived. .... [more]

The full text of After Strange Gods can be found here.

T.S. Eliot and Anti-Semitism » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog, Touchstone Archives: T. S. Eliot On Literary Morals