Do men and women receive different spiritual gifts? December 14, 2008

If you take the Team Ministry Spiritual Gifts Analysis, available from the Church Growth Institute, you will find an interesting caveat in the advice on how you should interpret your test results.

You receive two charts (one for laity and one for pastors) comparing your results with the rest of the Body of Christ and the question is posed: Could the results from these comparison charts be skewed? The answer: probably. Why?

On the laity side, a much larger percentage of those taking the spiritual gifts inventory on-line are women (63.7%). Women tend to score high in the Gift of Shepherding because the characteristics of the gift of shepherding are very similar to the God-given instincts of mothering which comes natural to most women. Although many women have the gift of shepherding and it manifests itself in many areas of service, we believe women should consider this factor when evaluating whether or not they actually have the dominant gift of shepherding. They may want to look closely at their second dominant gift.

There seems to be an assumption here about women and gifts; I wish it were more clearly stated. The statement of faith on this ministry’s website is too generic to mention anything about gender issues.

Women should apparently be suspicious of the results of their test if they end up with the dominant gift of shepherding. Are “God-given instincts” the same as spiritual gifts? If not, women must be susceptible to confusing mothering instincts with shepherding gifts.

Given the statististics Team Ministry has now collected, it is interesting to see their response. When they saw that more  women than men have the dominant gift of shepherding, they decided to post a warning that the results for these women may be skewed due to confusion.

I can think of other possible interpretations:

• Their test is inaccurate.
• Their test is accurate; more women than men actually do have the gift of shepherding.

I wonder why they are uncomfortable with women scoring high in the gift of shepherding. Perhaps they should create separate tests for men and women?

Manufactured Egalitarianism July 8, 2008

In his 1935 book, Seven League Boots, adventurer Richard Halliburton gives us a sobering account of state-enforced equality between the sexes. The following is his description of women in Bolshevik society gleaned from personal observation as well as an interview with Mrs. Lenin (Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya).

From a condition of almost Oriental enslavement and ignorance before World War I, the masses of Russian women under Communism have leaped overnight to the other extreme. Now they have absolute equality with men every respect—economically, legally, politically. In no way are women set apart, protected, or favored. There is no longer a “Mrs.” Or a “Miss”—only “Comrade” and “Citizen.” They are given the same work and the same wage as men. They must struggle for life on exactly the same footing as men, fighting with their own fists.

 

Half the work in the vast new industrial plants is done by women, in the machine shops, the automobile and tractor factories, the mines. Women build the military tanks, the airplanes, the artillery, the locomotives.

 

In one electric-motor factory I visited, the manager apologized for having so few women workers—only thirty-five percent. In this plant, as elsewhere, they were wearing men’s clothes, boots, caps. They were as grimy, as greasy, as the men—and as hard.

           

Moscow is building a new skyscraper hotel and a new subway. And the “sand hogs,” the rock miners, the steel fitters, are as likely to be women as men. Squat and red, they shovel gravel eight h ours on a stretch into the concrete mixers, run the steam derricks, excavate foundations with picks and dynamite.

 

A new street is being paved. There is hardly a man is sight. The rock-crushing and the asphalt-spreading are done by gangs of women. And the final steam roller is run by a girl wearing overalls.

 

Women have seized not only the heavy industries as their province. The professions have fallen too. Seventy-five percent of all students in medical schools in Russia today are women. That means that soon three-fourths of Russia’s doctors will be women; likewise three-fourths of the dentists. In the state bank ninety percent of the clerks, tellers, vice-presidents, directors, are women. So are half the lawyers in the country.

…

In Soviet Russia every man could be exterminated, and the women, in so far as their economic independence goes, would never know it.

…

But what about home, I asked Mme. Lenin.

 

 

There aren’t any, such as we know them. The babies are in government day nurseries, the children in government schools. The mother works all day in the new subway shoveling government gravel, the father all night making government shoes. Most likely they’ll all be fed in government kitchens. They live in one room allotted by the government.

 

Among Soviet women the marriage ceremony has become so casual a gesture that it’s often dispensed with altogether. There is no distinction between married mothers and unmarried mothers. For there is no such thing as illegitimacy.

…

Perhaps Russian women are happier, now that they have all the privileges of men, and none of the privileges of women.

 

Critiques of Feminism, part 1 July 5, 2008

Today I examine one critique of feminism, as I launch a series on critiques of feminism, but I could just as well do a series on “defining what’s wrong with our society and the solution”.

Today’s anti-feminist viewpoint comes from Dennis Prager in his article “Why Are So Many Women Depressed?” on www.townhall.com.

Prager’s main point is that depression in women today is a result of feminism, specifically because feminism led parents and teachers to teach girls that their “emotions and feelings were inherently valuable”, rather than training them to control themselves. “It is impossible to attain any happiness without conquering one’s nature.”

Prager’s supporting points include:

• Feminism goes along with a belief in the superiority of the female nature.
• Feminism had led to “impossibly high expectations for happiness” for women.
• Feminism, with its superior view of women, has led to a suppression of male instincts.
• It is woman’s nature to be ruled by emotions. They need to learn control their natures or they will become destructive and unhappy.
• Feminism had led to the “elevation of compassion over standards”.
• “Subdued emotional expression” is a virtue for men.
• Depression results from women’s lack of self-control in the areas of their emotions and moods.
• The rejection of feminity may also have contributed to depression. Women have rejected femininity in the areas of dress, coarse speech, and casual sex.
• Feminity actually gave women “a distinct power and identity that was unavailable to men. Women are not generally happy being largely indistinguishable from men.”
• Egalitarianism has also undermined masculinity in men. Therefore, men are unhappy and women lose out on having good men in their lives.

In summary, he says:

And many women, untrained in subduing darker aspects of their natures, deprived of the female joy of femininity and increasingly deprived of men (as opposed to boys), are feeling the brunt of these losses. They call it depression.

Questions:

It’s been my impression that depression is a complex issue-it surely has many causes and triggers. www.familydoctor.org says:

Depression seems to be related to a chemical imbalance in the brain that makes it hard for the cells to communicate with one another. It can be triggered by stressful life events, such as the death of a loved one, a divorce or moving (such as leaving home to go to college). Taking certain medicines, abusing drugs or alcohol or having other illnesses can also cause depression. Depression can also be hereditary, which means it runs in families.

I do wholeheartedly agree that learning self-control is a great thing for both men and women. Bring on the self-control!

The question is, given Prager’s discovery of this simple cause and effect relationship, what is the best advice to give a depressed woman? Until we can change our society around, the best advice seems to be:

Get control of yourself!

Defining Patriarchy, part 1 July 3, 2008

Patriarchy vs. feminism (or complementarianism vs. egalitarianism), heated topic that it is, has people firmly entrenched in their opposing camps. However, as I’ve seen so many viewpoints along the continuum between the sides, I’d like to examine and try to understand the many different arguments out there.

First, we’ll take a look at a Vision Forum article by Brian Abshire, written in 2005. Abshire begins by giving us a picture of the trouble American society is in right now (and how we got here):

The Christian family, especially the role of the father, has been under relentless attack by the forces of secular humanism. Egalitarianism, though arising originally in a legitimate desire to allow all men, regardless of race, to enjoy the benefits of Christian civilization, eventually came to enthrone the will of the individual and to decry ANY differences-including biological ones. In the past fifty years women were “liberated” from the home and promised that they could “have it all” including family, career and autonomy if they adopted humanist values. However, humanism has largely destroyed the American family; birth rates plummeted to sub-zero replacement levels, divorce rates skyrocketed, and millions of children, the victims of broken homes, are now at risk of mutigenerational poverty, crime, and drug addiction; in effect becoming cultural parasites.

What’s the solution? Patriarchy is the “biblical alternative”.

While one cannot really yet call it a “movement”, the term “patriarchy” has made a return describing an attempt to develop a counter-cultural model of the Christian family and by extension, a just Christian social order. Those who self-consciously identify themselves as supporting “patriarchy” are not yet united in just what this term entails but there are enough people affirming this view that many in the wider Christian community now believe them to a “serious threat” that needs to be addressed. Books, web sites, journal and magazine articles are appearing in various places critiquing the “patriarchs.” Since the contemporary cultural model of the Christian family is clearly dysfunctional (i.e., 75% of children growing up in the “average” evangelical home will leave the faith by the age of twenty-five and divorce rates for Christians are approaching secular norms), many Christians are looking for an alternative model. While examining the reasons why the Christian family has crumbled so quickly is beyond the scope of one brief essay, it is worth our time to examine “patriarchy” as a viable, biblical alternative.

He more clearly defines what he means by “patriarchy”:

The word “patriarchy” simply means “rule by fathers” and stands in opposition to such alternative ideas as “oligarchy” (rule by elites), “monarchy” (rule by one-usually a king), “aristocracy” (rule by a privileged class), or “democracy” (rule by the “people”) etc. In all the above “systems,” rule by SOMEONE is inevitable; somebody must have the final authority for making decisions. Modern humanist culture has indoctrinated most people, including Christians, to assume that “democracy” is somehow the “best” form of government with the idea that everyone is “equal” and should have an “equal” say in everything. This idea of “democracy” has even infiltrated the Christian home with a widespread elimination of distinct roles between men and women and a subsequent devaluation of the authority of the parents. However, it might be interesting for the average Christians to learn that the men who gave us our “democratic” institutions, ushering in the most productive, freest and socially responsible cultures in the world’s history ALL rejected “democracy.”

This bit about democracy goes beyond the scope of defining patriarchy, but I am interested because it’s an argument I haven’t seen before. I’ve never heard anyone claim that ”federalism” is the “biblical” model. He argues:

The Reformers saw “Democracy” as an ancient Greek heresy contrary to biblical social and political theory. Instead, the greatest theologians of the Reformation affirmed the doctrine of “federalism” or “representation” based upon the model found in Genesis. In this view, one man stands for the group. Theologically it referred to Adam representing the entire human race (yet unborn) and therefore when he sinned, we all sinned in him. The corollary to this was Jesus being the Second Adam, standing in for His Elect; if we all died in Adam; we are all saved in Christ. Through federal representation, His death could atone for all His people’s sins (Rms 5:12-19).

Interesting. The point is, as far as patriarchy is concerned, that the father is the “federal representative of his own family to the broader community”. If you continue in this vein, it is easy to come to the following conclusion: it is not necessary for women to have the right to vote. Prior to women’s suffrage in our country, the father was assumed to represent the family (as in “federalism”), and there can be only one representative of a family. Abshire continues:

By the 20th century, American Christians saw the “height” of Christian activism as banning alcohol while at the same time affirming a woman’s right to vote. Both ideas were unmitigated disasters; God has not allowed the civil magistrate to outlaw wine and God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families.

In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.

Let’s look at a few of the points Abshire makes, which he also supports with scripture. I have written out the Scriptures for your reference.

• God does not allow women to vote. (He references 1 Timothy 2:11, which says: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness”.)
• The father has the God-given right to govern the family and the wife and children are to submit to that governance. (1 Cor. 11:8–For man was not made from woman, but woman from man; 1 Tim. 2:11; Eph. 5:22-23–Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
• Nothing, not even the church, can usurp the father’s authority in the home. (1 Cor. 14:34–the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.)
• The husband should not devalue the wife, because they are “one flesh.” (1 Cor 6:16-17–Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.)
• The wife is to “respect her husband and submit to him”. (1 Peter 3:1–Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.)
• The husband is to treat the wife kindly. (1 Peter 3:7–Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.)
• Biblical patriarchy is different from pagan patriarchy in that God values women’s abilities beyond those of childbearing and domestic duties. (Proverbs 31)
• The husband is to work for the sanctification of his wife. (Eph. 5:23).
• The husband’s authority is a benefit to the wife and children. The husband’s responsibility is to discipline the children and to work toward the wife’s sanctification. (Eph. 6:1ff–Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. . . ) [my note: Eph. chapter 6 does not mention wives. I assume he's referring to Eph. 5 as well.]
• The father’s responsiblity is to teach his wife and children. The material for this teaching is derived from his private meditation on Scripture. (Joshua 1:8–The Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.)
• The father is to lead family worship. (Deuteronoy 6:4ff) [my note: this chapter is addressed to Israel, the nation. It instructs Israel to teach its children. Wives (or families) are not mentioned.]
• When children get married, they move on to a new “covenant relationship”, in other words, a transition of authority occurs and the son becomes the authority of his new household. However, the father/grandfather may continue to have some authority in the case, say, of a family business. (Genesis 2:24–Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.)

He makes some additional points:

• It does not make sense to invest thousands of dollars in college educations for their daughters. Women who go to college and have a career are less to likely to have children. He says, “We do not need MORE female Christian lawyers, doctors or artists, but MORE godly women raising MORE godly children who will fill the earth and subdue it to the glory of God. And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?”
• When we see men tyrannizing their women, what we see is men sinning, not evidence that there is a problem with patriarchy.

Questions

I would like to better understand what is meant by the husband working toward the sanctification of the wife. Abshire cites Ephesians 5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” It would be good to know, of course, precisely what Abshire means by “sanctification” and whether he means there some correlation between being the head and being the “savior” in verse 23.

According to my New International Dictionary of the Bible, sanctification is “the process of result of being made holy”. How does the husband do this for the wife? Is the husband necessary for the wife to be sanctified?

Lastly, I have to ask, what about men and women who do not get married? Do they never move on to their own “households”. And, specficially, what is expected of women who do not marry and who have not gone to college?

Got rBGH? July 1, 2008

Growth hormones in milk (rBGH and rBST): are they safe or not?

According to Monsanto, the manufacturer of rBGH:

Monsanto’s rBST product, Posilac, is a supplement of the naturally occurring cow hormone BST, that when administered to cows allows them to produce more milk. Many dairy farmers use Posilac because they can produce more milk with fewer cows. The milk from treated cows is identical to milk produced by cows that are not treated. There is no laboratory anywhere in the world that can tell the difference between milk from a cow that has been treated with Posilac and milk from one that hasn’t been treated. Milk from treated cows is just as safe as milk from untreated cows. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and regulatory agencies in 30 countries.

But, The Daily Green says:

If you are drinking milk that isn’t organic or doesn’t have words such as “no rBST” or “hormone free” on the label, then you are drinking something that has been banned in Europe, Canada and Japan. That’s because the controversial Monsanto-marketed artificial growth hormone used on cows producing most of the US milk supply is not allowed to be used on cows producing milk for human consumption in most of the rest of the developed world.

A report by Alex Avery (www.milkismilk.com) contradicts this assertion, saying:

Many mainstream news sources and blogs continue to erroneously report that the marketing of milk from rbST-treated cows has been banned in many nations.  This is simply not true and further evidence of the shoddy research that many reporters conduct when writing.  Those who are against GM foods prefer language such as “banned” because it makes readers and consumers believe that a product is unsafe or illegal.  However, rbST use has not been “banned” in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia or New Zealand, as is commonly reported.  True, rbST has not yet been approved for use in those nations, but the glaring omission is that dairy from rbST-treated cattle is allowed to be imported and sold in these countries. Further, the reason rbST has not been approved in these nations is somewhat because of concerns about animal health but largely about trade protectionism ; all of these countries have found rbST safe for human consumption.

Okay…is it banned in some countries or not? (And note Monsanto’s distinction between “banned” and “not approved for use”. Is there a practical difference? Either way, it would be illegal to use it.)

A 1999 BBC News article tells us:

The European Commission imposed a five-year ban on the sale and use of BST in 1994, on what it called socio-economic grounds. That ban is now under review.

Apparently, there was a short-term moratorium while more research was underway. What happened after that? The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics reports that:

At the Council of Ministers meeting held in Finland on December 16 and 17, 1999 a decision was passed down which prohibited the administration and marketing of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) in the European Union. This decision has not been challenged in court so there is now a definitive ban on the use of rBST in the European Union. The ban came into effect on January 1, 2000.

 The article goes into more detail about the moratorium and extensions of the moratorium. It also says that the FDA disagrees with the EU’s findings.

Another article, by Joseph Holstead, mentions that Canada banned rBST in 1999.

A 2006 Online Journal article, “We’re drinking WHAT? U.S. consumers reject milk adulterated with Monsanto’s rBST” , by Martha Rosenberg tells us:

To this day rBST remains banned in Canada, Japan, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and all but 19, mostly nonindustrialized, countries though Monsanto says that’s because of “an oversupply of dairy products” not safety concerns.

What about labeling?

The Center for Global Food Issues says,

“Dairy products which are labeled with absence claims regarding antibiotics, hormones or pesticides are misleading consumers and disparaging milk products which do not engage in these marketing tactics. All milk and dairy products naturally contain over 25 hormones required by cows to produce milk. No dairy adds pesticides to milk, and all milk is tested to ensure it is free of antibiotics,” say Avery. “Marketing claims which imply otherwise are irresponsible and in many cases illegal; however, regulators and the dairy industry are turning a blind eye to these damaging practices.”

Of course nearly every packaged product in the grocery store has some sort of “absence” or “presence” label. Fat-free. No cholesterol. Made “with” whole wheat. All natural. There’s no doubt that these labels are there for the purpose of influencing consumer decisions, and any such label certainly insinuates that this product is better than others, but how is absence of information better? Shouldn’t we simply be worrying about whether the claims are truthful? Rather than “disparaging milk products”, it’s disparaging to my intellect to suggest that I can’t make my own decisons about whether I want something in my food. Should they make that decision for me?

Lastly, the Institute for Responsible Technology has an interesting video about the use of rBGH: http://www.yourmilkondrugs.com/.

Female patriarchs escape women’s roles June 27, 2008

Sixty years ago, Albanian woman Pashe Keqi chopped off her curls, put on her father’s clothes, and assumed the role of the family patriarch. She has greatly enjoyed the freedom of being a man–freedom denied women in her culture. It seemed an ideal choice in a society where a woman’s life is worth half that of a man.

Here are some selections from the NY Times article dated 25 Jun 2008:

For centuries, in the closed-off and conservative society of rural northern Albania, swapping genders was considered a practical solution for a family with a shortage of men. Her father was killed in a blood feud, and there was no male heir. By custom, Ms. Keqi, now 78, took a vow of lifetime virginity. She lived as a man, the new patriarch, with all the swagger and trappings of male authority — including the obligation to avenge her father’s death.

She says she would not do it today, now that sexual equality and modernity have come even to Albania, with Internet dating and MTV invading after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Girls here do not want to be boys anymore. With only Ms. Keqi and some 40 others remaining, the sworn virgin is dying off.

“Back then, it was better to be a man because before a woman and an animal were considered the same thing,” said Ms. Keqi, who has a bellowing baritone voice, sits with her legs open wide like a man and relishes downing shots of raki. “Now, Albanian women have equal rights with men, and are even more powerful. I think today it would be fun to be a woman.”

Customs are changing, however, as Alabania enters the modern era. Some female patriarchs lament the changes as they witness some of the negatives modernization brings in its wake-particularly women who are caught between old and new worlds and don’t know what to do with their new freedom. How do you make fundamental choices when you’ve never had choice before? Is the price society pays for poor choices worth paying in order to have the freedom to make the choices?

Pashe Keqi made the choice that was open to her 60 years ago. As she said, “I liked my life as a man. I have no regrets.”

Some questions:

How is the value of a person determined?

How do we balance rights and duties?

How do we balance freedom and responsibility? And, especially, how do we legislate that balance?

The medical community gets nervous June 22, 2008

Birth is big business. Does the medical community have a vested interest in keeping births in hospitals? What do you think?

Good Morning America recently featured Ricki Lake:

Like a growing number of mothers-to-be, actress and former talk show host Ricki Lake chose to forgo the hospital and give birth at home for her second pregnancy.

…

After her experience, Lake became a vocal champion of women’s right to choose between a home or hospital birth. But the media attention about her passionate views has made the mainstream medical community nervous.

 

“I’m very concerned about anyone who may be advocating for home birth,” said obstetrician Dr. Erin Tracy, of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

…

Tracy said the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was “not singling out any individuals in our resolution. But some celebrities have been interviewed about their experiences on home births. But there are dangers, risks. Babies get stuck in the cord, uncontrollable bleeding et cetera.

“It’s potentially dangerous to have a delivery in a home setting, where you don’t have access to the personnel and the equipment and the facilities that you might need in an emergency setting — even in the best of hands,” Tracy added.

We all know that a certain percentage of births have undesirable outcomes. Since 99% of births (according to the article) happen in hospitals, it would also be true that almost all birth tragedies happen in hospitals. I’d like to see some statistics about the dangers of home birth (do they exist?) rather than phrases like “potentially dangerous”, as if hospitals guarantee safety.

What are the risks?

There are risks to both mother and child–I would suggest that this is true wherever birth takes place, to varying degrees depending on many factors. Conventional medicine is good at acute intervention, certainly. The track record with everything else is another topic.

There is a risk of loss of freedom. Should women have the right to choose? Is the “potential risk” great enough to curb all women’s rights to choose where to give birth? An interesting question is raised here: is a so-called expert’s perception of risk of more value than freedom?

There is a financial risk. Who will be losing money if more births take place at home? I’ve seen estimates of home birth costs ranging from $1200 to $4000. Some of those fees may be going toward malpractice insurance costs. Hospital birth fees seem to vary widely, from $6,000 to $20,000 for an uncomplicated birth, but are generally covered by insurance (which raises another question about the cost of medical insurance!). According to parentdish, “hospital births account for 66% of all hospital revenue in the United States.” Phew! No wonder they’re nervous.

There is a risk of losing the monopoly of expertise. The “experts” know all and decide all. If people become accustomed to making their own health decisions, expert opinion will no longer be unassailable.

As I have said before, it seems strange when something that has been the norm, in this case home births, becomes illegal-or at least lambasted-with the introduction of technology. 

Politicians catering to the electorate (i.e. consumer)? June 20, 2008

I’m sure many of us wonder from time to time whether our one little vote really makes a difference. When will an election actually come down to one vote? However, many of us end up voting because we know that if we all thought like that, no one would vote. Also, we wonder how much we can justify complaining about the state of our society if we didn’t do the one action set aside for the participation of the masses: vote. We call this conundrum the efficacy of the vote.

Here’s another problem: I believe that I should vote. Theoretically, voting is the responsibility of “free” people, but what do I do if I don’t have faith in the efficacy of politicians? Long gone are the days of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Granted, what we know of these greats is colored by the lenses of generally adoring biographers, but I can’t help but think that these leaders had well-thought-out plans and visions that were guided by something other than a desire to stroke their own images. It’s hard to decide between candidates when they all say essentially the same thing: they plan to improve education, improve access to health care, get us out of that mess of a war, etc, etc. What I want to hear is clear arguments and logical plans of action.

Let’s flip the coin over. We have to ask the question, “Are candidates actually giving us what we want?” Given the mindset of the average Joe, are politicians just doing what makes sense? Call it the “dumbing down of America” or the “consumer mindset”. Politicians (and of course the media in general) must sell us because they can’t convince us.

John G. Stackhouse, Jr. writes in his book Humble Apologetics (p. 55):

Who wants us to act like citizens? Who helps us to do so? As pundit Neil Postman tirelessly has pointed out, our news media don’t primarily offer us information to equip us as citizens, but entertainment to keep us interested between commercial breaks. Governments and individual politicians themselves communicate with us to please us and to persuade us to cooperate with them, not to explain what they have done and are doing so as to submit their work to the judgment of an educated electorate.

Really, this post (as well as this blog in general) is just an appeal to all to use and exercise the brain!

A Refresher on the Declaration June 18, 2008

Here’s the familiar beginning:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But don’t forget the other points this declaration made, namely complaints regarding the Tyranny of the King of Great Britain. Here are a select few:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.

Should Home Births be Illegal? June 18, 2008

I always think it’s “interesting” when some practice which has always been done becomes illegal with the advent of technology. Whatever your opinion on the dangers of raw milk, on the safety of vaccines, or on the benefits of maternity wards, is it right that we are forced to make use of these new technologies?

Two days ago, www.realitycheck.org published this article:

In an unmistakably insecure and aggressive move, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a resolution at its annual meeting last weekend to introduce legislation outlawing home birth – according to The Big Push for Midwives.

According to the hard-working women of The Big Push for Midwives campaign, faced with the sisyphean task of convincing the American mainstream medical establishment that midwifery is a viable option for birthing women:

“It’s unclear what penalties the AMA will seek to impose on women who choose to give birth at home, either for religious, cultural or financial reasons-or just because they didn’t make it to the hospital in time,” said Susan Jenkins, Legal Counsel for The Big Push for Midwives 2008 campaign. “What we do know, however, is that any state that enacts such a law will immediately find itself in court, since a law dictating where a woman must give birth would be a clear violation of fundamental rights to privacy and other freedoms currently protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

In other words, advocating for legislation of this kind has the eery ring of familiarity. Legislative attempts at ”criminalizing motherhood” have at their core coercive control over pregnancy and childbirth. Regina McKnight was recently released from jail after a judge overturned her homicide conviction for giving birth to a stillborn baby.

Likewise, Colorado’s ballot initiative in support of a “personhood amendment” would have untold consequences for pregnant women who accidentally or otherwise miscarry a pregnancy. If a fertilized egg is conferred “personhood” status why would a miscarriage not be investigated as potential murder?

The legal issues surrounding “fundamental rights to privacy” also, of course, reverberate throughout the discussions around Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to have an abortion in this country. Those who fight rigorously to strip away womens’ legal right to an abortion somehow seem to skirt the issue of what might happen to a woman if she does choose to access an illegal abortion.

What the AMA’s resolution and these other kinds of potential and actual legislation do is to open the door to penalizing motherhood, in effect. Because most of these legislative attempts do not directly address the issue, they leave the door dangerously open to criminalizing women for making the decisions they feel are best for themselves, their fetuses and their families.

Proposing this kind of legislation would also force women to birth in government-approved settings, a scenario that seems almost unbelievable.

Read the rest of the article here.

The article above misrepresents the reason Regina McKnight was convicted. It appears her conviction was due to her use of cocaine. In other words, her case really has nothing to do with home births, whatever one’s opinion on the matter.

As for Colorado’s 2008 Ballot Initiative:

Colorado for Equal Rights is sponsoring a ballot initiative for Colorado’s 2008 election. This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person in Colorado as a human being from the moment of fertilization, the moment when life begins. This amendment will establish a cornerstone for protecting human life in our society… and we all know this is the right thing to do.

The reality check article’s assertion that a miscarriage could possibly garner a homicide conviction if such an initiative passed is a bit far-fetched.