| | "Because the Gentiles had previously taught the doctrine of the plurality of gods, who were numerous and different in youth and old age, in weakness and strength, so that some of them were able to do this and some others that—Christ ordered His disciples against this to teach all the nations to turn from all the error of paganism, and to believe in the unity of nature in the Godhead, as was the case with the doctrine first taught to mankind, from which the knowledge of religion was received; and also to learn that the one who is from eternity and is the cause of everything is one Divine nature known in the three persons of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." --Theodore of Mopseuestia
(Commentary on the Nicene Creed, chap. II, par. 4) Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino nostro Iesu Christo. Hello again, all. I've been off my painkillers for quite a while, and it seems I've made a fine recovery. Did go through another of my depressive phases, and that was pretty bad, but it lasted less than two full days of absolute, unmitigated misery... and now I'm fine, so far as I can tell. The next few weeks should be quite interesting. My mother's boyfriend friend Adrian is staying with us until the beginning of July, and my girlfriend will be staying here for two weeks starting tomorrow. I'm looking forward to it greatly, as always. Adrian hails from North Ireland and is beginning to adjust to America, and particularly the land of the Pennsylvania Dutch. Last night he thought he was going insane, because he'd evidently never seen fireflies (or as we call them, lightning bugs) before, and so seeing a smattering a little blinking, flying lights in the yard... well, he questioned his grip on reality for a time. This morning we went to breakfast (he learned what "jelly" and "pancakes" are, as well as syrup), and fortunately as we were leaving, we found a lightning bug on the door to examine. (He immediately began speculating on what would happen if he could capture a whole bunch of fireflies, bring them back home, and let them loose in his friend's garden after the friend had downed a pint or two... I like this guy.) This should prove to be a fascinating month. Reading: I've gotten quite a bit of reading finished since the last time I posted. Here are the things I've managed to complete: - American Islam: Growing Up Muslim in America by Richard Wormser
- Far less informative than I'd hoped. Having gone through it, I really don't see any reason why anyone would choose to read this. There are far better books out there on Islam, probably far better books on Islam in America, and no doubt even better books dealing with Muslim teenagers in America.
- Christianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraaff
- Like I said before, this book was very informative with respect to the doctrinal poisons of the Word of Faith movement. Remind me to cite some of the more peculiar teachings analyzed here.
- Re-entry: Striking Parallels Between Today's News Events and Christ's Second Coming by John Wesley White
- Supposed to be eschatological, but turned out to be just a very pessimistic review of then-contemporary society. It was written in 1970, so.... yeah, kinda missed the mark on the predictive aspects, and the rest was just dull and frequently consisted of unsourced quotes. Why is that so prevalent in popular Christian literature (esp. that from the futurist eschatological perspective)?
- On the Free Choice of the Will by St. Augustine
- A lot better than I expected. This has renewed a fair deal of my respect for Augustine. He actually quite adamantly defends a fairly robust notion of free will, although he tries to play things a bit differently in his Retractiones, the relevant portion of which was included with my edition.
- Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith Miller
- Overall, a great book. However, the last chapter absolutely sucked. Badly. It attempted to introduce and defend physicalism as a superior Christian anthropology, but failed to even attempt to address the issues that substance dualists might have with that model, particularly respecting mental activity and causation; and a lot of the time, it just didn't explain what was going on. Perhaps I'll have a slightly more favorable opinion of it after I read a better treatment of that position... but I somewhat doubt it. Other than that, and my aforementioned complaints and gripes, I'm very glad I read this book. (By the way, I plan on responding to the evolution comments on the last post when I get a chance. It's going to take some thought, but more pertinently, I need to finish some of the citations and stuff.)
- Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors by Douglas Stuart
- Not quite what I expected, but if I ever have an Old Testament exegesis class in seminary, I'll know what to expect and how to go about it, I suppose.
- Approaching Hoofbeats: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse by Billy Graham
- Also not what I expected. I was figuring on more of an eschatological focus, but Graham had more of a look at things like war, famine, etc., in today's world without much of a seeming desire to tie it into the 'end times', except for occasional vividly imaginative descriptions of what it might've been like for John to receive his vision.
- The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrell Bock
- Great book. Very capably refutes 'New School' contentions regarding the position of Gnosticism and traditional views as equally pedigreed descendants of original Christianity. Could've done with less extensive quoting from the Gnostic documents, perhaps, but I understand and sympathize with what Bock was going for there.
- Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1), edited by James Charlesworth
- I can't believe I've finished this... Remind me later to share more things I've learned from it.
- Exploring the Worship Spectrum: Six Views, edited by Paul Basden
- Good book in the Counterpoints series. The only 'style' mentioned that had no appeal was the chapter on "emerging worship", which reminds me of a bunch of kindergarteners with severe ADD turning church into a monstrous hybrid between 'arts and crafts time' and a RadioShack. Also, the defender of 'contemporary worship' made some remarks about emotion being integral to worship, and the one who called him out on it was the charismatic, which I didn't exactly see coming. But on the whole, everyone was very irenic and civil, and largely supported one another.
- On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen
- Excellent treatment. I mean, really excellent. I can wish that he'd dealt more with certain passages than he did, or that he would've spent less space analyzing the minute details of individual archaeological sites, but it was a solid tour-de-force in favor of the Old Testament as a substantially reliable historical record--and, I might add, he does not suffer fools gladly and has a lively sense of humor. I went into this book considering the fifteenth century BC to be the most likely date for the Exodus, but after coming out of it, Kitchen has managed to sway me towards the thirteenth century BC, though not definitively so. I'm impressed, though.
- Belief by Gianni Vattimo
- This book was pretty bad, in my opinion. I really wish I could be kinder to it, but that would involve lying. This is not the "epoch of the end of metaphysics". Metaphysics = good. Professore Vattimo: you may be living in a peculiar world of your own construction, but others among us are quite aware that metaphysics as a discipline is more alive and well than you can possibly fathom. (Of course, then again, we know that you don't exactly even read any analytic philosophy, but rather flip the page if you so much as see logical notation.) And natural theology is not inherently "violent", because (1) that makes no sense whatsoever, (2) your definition of violence is not the only philosophically viable one, and I don't think that yours is really all that tenable at all, and (3) you repeatedly caricature virtually everyone with whom you disagree. So Jesus did not come to abolish the nexus between violence and the sacred--your exegesis is atrocious, by the way. And thus secularization--and you have a rather poor definition for this as well, I might add--is not the natural heir of the Christian message; the Christian message needs no heir, because the Christianity of the creeds is still quite alive and well. (And I'm still not sure what on earth you mean by "weak ontology", because you seem to share with Derrida the perverse urge to use deliberately opaque language to prevent understanding.*)
And I'm now reading: - The Qur'an: Text, Translation, and Commentary, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
- Still sufficiently boring to kill.
- Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 2), edited by James Charlesworth
- Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie
- Very informative, and also occasionally offensive. But more so informative. And sometimes quite dull. Still, a handy resource.
- Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John's Gospel by Andreas Köstenberger and Scott Swain
- Very good so far! It's more scholarly than I expected, and so I have high expectations for this book.
- Israel's 48 Signs of Christ's Return by Gordon Lindsay
- Lame. But brief, very brief. It's more futurist eschatology, with a special focus on purported "signs" that the Second Coming is near... with the vast majority of those signs having no relation even attempted by the author, let alone successfully so.
* Back in the 90s, the University of Cambridge decided to give Jacques Derrida an honorary degree, and in response to this plan, a number of very eminent philosophers all signed a letter to the local paper denouncing that decision on the grounds that Derrida contributed nothing of value to the field. You can read the letter here, and I highly recommend that you do. But more important at the moment is that the page to which I just linked is actually by a Derrida supporter, who says--and I am not making this up--that clarity and coherence have a proven inverse relationship, and so naturally Derrida would want to be unclear, because otherwise he couldn't have such a coherent philosophy. ...Let that soak in for a moment. Savor the insanity. As my best friend Daniel said succinctly when I showed it to him: Q: What time is it when your philosophy makes increasing clarity lead to decreased coherence?
A: Time to get a new philosophy.
Discussion: Now, I said last time that I'd be discussing a Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode in this post, and so I shall. To set up, the episode ("Selfish" - season 10, episode 19) was based on the Caylee Anthony case from last year as well as the MMR vaccine controversy. In the show, it's thought that a little 11-month-old girl named Sierra Walker was murdered by her teenage mother Ashlee, quite in parallel with the aforementioned real-life case. However, while Casey Anthony was found guilty of murder, Law & Order twists things around by having Sierra's death actually as a result of encephalitis due to measles, which Sierra caught from the 4-year-old son of Monica Stewart, a neighborhood mother, who allowed her sick*, unimmunized child to go to the playground. (*Because of the nature of measles, it is stated in the show that Monica was unaware at the time that her child was ill.) That said, here are the most relevant quotations from the episode (I transcribed it, so I can't guarantee 100% verbal accuracy): [At Monica's residence]
BENSON: Monica Stewart?
MONICA: What, did my neighbors call you?
BENSON: Why would they do that?
MONICA: Because they're upset at the choices I've made for my family.
STABLER: Like not vaccinating your son?
MONICA: I won't put my son at risk because Big Pharm and their lackeys in the media try and jam 'vaccination' down our throats.
STABLER: Even if that puts him at risk?
MONICA: What risk? He had measles two weeks ago, and the immune system he was born with kicked in and now he's fine.
BENSON: Well, Sierra Walker isn't fine. She's dead after being infected by your son.
MONICA: What? What, that little girl from the news? No, her mother killed her.
STABLER: No, measles did, measles that she got from your boy.
MONICA: No, I'm not responsible for other people's kids. It's my family, it's my choice. Go lecture someone else. [At the Special Victims Unit]
STABLER: That lady is a lunatic, what she's doing is a danger to society.
MUNCH: Yeah, but, not illegal.
STABLER: What, are you defending her?
BENSON: Maybe he's right, Ell, I mean, sometimes parents know what's best for their kids.
STABLER: Right, and we decide to vaccinate our kids so they'd be safe.
MUNCH: Well that was your choice. Telling parents how to raise their kids, that's a quick slide down the slippery slope of government tyranny.
BENSON: Monica Stewart's son got the measles and nothing happened to him. I mean, it's not so black and white.
STABLER: Wait a minute, wait a minute, Sierra got the measles from Monica's son and died. Now all of a sudden my little boy's at risk because of some nutcase mom?
MUNCH: Well she's not the only nutcase mom. Ashlee takes that prize.
STABLER: But her kid was too young to be immunized. Every child under a year old is at risk, it's just stupid not to vaccinate your children. [Public statement by Ashlee's lawyer]
LAWYER: The lax safeguards of the New York park system allow people with deadly and communicable diseases with the elderly and children. We are suing the city of New York for a hundred million dollars, which pales in comparison to the priceless young life which was taken by Monica Stewart and the city. Is your child next? [In court at the trial of Monica Stewart on the charge of criminal negligent homicide - opening statements to jury]
CABOT: This case boils down to one simple word: choice. Not whether a parent has the choice to vaccinate their own child, but whether or not another parent can make that choice for your child. This case isn't about her, it's about you, and you, and all of the people you love. Because any one of you could have been in the park on the day that Monica Stewart decided to bring her unimmunized, sick child to play, thereby endangering each and every one of you. And because of her choice, this little girl is dead. Make no mistake: Sierra Walker would be alive today were it not for Monica Stewart's choice.
DEFENSE: Ms. Cabot couldn't be more right. Choice--we can choice how to pray, where to live, what to eat, and whether or not to immunize our children. Ladies and gentlemen, the obligation right now is to defend your right to choose. Don't let her [Cabot] take it away. [In court - medical examiner Dr. Melinda Warner on stand]
WARNER: Measles is one of the most communicable diseases on the planet. It stays in the room for up to an hour after the infected person has left. It's transmittable from up to 200 yards away.
CABOT: I thought measles had been eradicated.
WARNER: It was. But right now England has a measles epidemic because people are refusing to immunize themselves and their children. And the last serious outbreak here in the early 90s led to 123 deaths in unvaccinated children.
CABOT: Why would people choose not to vaccinate their children against something so dangerous?
WARNER: The most common reasons are for religious beliefs or suspicion about the science behind immunization.
CABOT: Is the science behind immunization faulty?
WARNER: Absolutely not. Measles is totally preventable with the MMR vaccine. Not being immunized is irresponsible.
CABOT: Despite any side effects from the vaccine?
WARNER: There is a minimal risk, but it's more dangerous to drive a car than to take the MMR vaccine. Not being vaccinated can lead to infection, sickness, and death for unimmunized children and for babies who are too young to receive the vaccine.
CABOT: Doctor, in your opinion, did Monica Stewart risk the public's health by not having her child vaccinated?
WARNER: In my opinion, Ms. Stewart's negligence caused the death of Sierra Walker.
CABOT: Nothing further.
DEFENSE: Dr. Warner, those side effects to the MMR vaccine you mentioned--what are they?
WARNER: Deafness, seizures, coma, permanent brain damage... but again, these are very, very rare.
DEFENSE: So rare that the U.S. government has set up an agency to compensate victims of these serious side effects, am I correct?
WARNER: Yes, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
DEFENSE: And what is the most serious 'injury' that can occur with the MMR vaccine? I think you left it off your list.
WARNER: Death. But the number is miniscule, possibly zero.
DEFENSE: I bet that's small comfort to the parents of the children who die as a result of those side effects.
CABOT: Objection!
DEFENSE: Uh, withdrawn. Dr. Warner, are there any laws in New York that can force a person to vaccinate themselves or their children against measles or other diseases?
WARNER: Yes, in order to enter school, a child must be immunized, unless it goes against the family's religious beliefs or when the child is being homeschooled, in which case no one would know.
DEFENSE: Monica Stewart's child is four years old and not yet in school, so she isn't breaking any laws. In fact, doctor, isn't it true that unless a quarantine is placed in effect, no person can be forced to undergo any medical treatment against their spiritual beliefs?
WARNER: Yes. [In court - Monica Stewart on stand.]
MONICA: I read everything I could get my hands on. Books, articles, journals, the Internet. In the end, I was just uncomfortable with the side effects.
DEFENSE: So you didn't just wake up one day and say, "I'm not going to vaccinate my son against measles." You considered every option before making the most educated decision.
MONICA: Yes. I love my child. That's why I chose not to immunize him. And I believe with all my heart that God wouldn't want me to do this.
DEFENSE: Thank you.
CABOT: But you didn't think about how your choice would affect other children.
MONICA: Sierra Walker isn't my child. I can't make choices for her.
CABOT: But you did! You made a choice, and now she's dead. Your actions are directly responsible her death. If she hadn't contracted measles, she would still be alive.
DEFENSE: Is there a question here, Your Honor?
JUDGE: Is there, Ms. Cabot?
CABOT: Ms. Stewart, what is your medical degree in?
MONICA: I don't have one.
CABOT: But you were making medical choices on behalf of your child.
MONICA: Just because I don't have a degree, doesn't mean I can't be an informed parent.
CABOT: You chose your 'informed' opinion over that of people who do in fact have a medical degree and understand the science behind vaccinations and recommend that all kids be vaccinated.
MONICA: I know what's best for my child.
CABOT: If you know what's best, and the doctors are of a different opinion, then it stands to reason that they don't have your child's best interests at heart.
MONICA: Their 'science' is just another opinion.
CABOT: Your opinion killed a little girl.
DEFENSE: Your Honor...!
CABOT: I'm just trying to show that if Ms. Stewart had vaccinated her child, Sierra Walker would be alive today.
MONICA: I'm not sure that's true.
CABOT: You're not?
MONICA: That woman was a horrible mother. It was just a matter of time until something tragic happened.
CABOT: You're the one on trial, Ms. Stewart.
MONICA: Exactly. And how fair is that? I'm the good mother. I make sure my child eats well, is taken care of. She buried her daughter in a shallow grave!
CABOT: Yes. She buried the child that you murdered. [At the Special Victims Unit]
CABOT: You should've seen the look on the jury's faces when she started playing the blame game. I predict they come back before noon with a guilty verdict.
STABLER: Alright, well, I'll drink to that. Still think she's innocent?
BENSON: I think Monica has a point. Ashlee was a bad mother who did everything wrong while Monica was trying to do everything right.
STABLER: Monica exposed innocent children to a deadly disease.
BENSON: She didn't know that her kid was sick. He didn't have any symptoms when she took him to the park.
STABLER: And that's the problem with measles, that you're infectious before you even get the spots. Now if Monica wants to take her kid and live in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, fine, but the minute she walks out that door she's got to play by society's rules.
CABOT: Or somebody truly innocent ends up paying the price. [At Special Victims Unit - after Monica found not guilty by jury]
BENSON: I gotta say, this one hurt. [She has a copy of the New York Ledger with the headline, "Anti-Vaccine Mom Gets Victory Shot"]
STABLER: I think it wasn't even the case, it was a personality contest. The jury liked the defendant more than they liked the victim.
CABOT: Tell me about it. I talked to them after the verdict. They all thought Monica should've vaccinated her child, but they did not think that Sierra's death was her fault.
STABLER: Eh, they passed the buck.
BENSON: It's tragedy all around. Both mothers' lives are ruined.
The other day, I watched the episode again with Daniel (who nearly demolished half my house while he was here...) so that we could have an interesting discussion about it. (We also watched an episode of regular Law & Order ("Rapture" - season 19, episode 425), which was rather fascinating in its own right.) I haven't had a discussion that stimulating in quite some time! We both agree that Monica Stewart is, to some degree, morally culpable for Sierra's death. That much seems fairly uncontroversial. We also, after some discussion, both came to the conclusion that the jury rendered the correct verdict in the case--although I will admit that my initial impressions were somewhat the opposite. First of all, it seems that the defense was strictly correct in maintaining that Monica had not broken any law. It also appears that a guilty verdict might have constituted 'legislating from the bench', and Daniel and I both frown quite strongly on that. I think that perhaps, had Monica been aware of her child's illness at the time, a somewhat stronger case for criminal negligent homicide could have been made--though as Daniel noted, this case seems more as though it might be better pursued as a wrongful death civil suit. (I'm of the opinion that Monica's portrayal in the episode is one with an attitude of indifference, and I believe Daniel concurred near the end of our discussion.) Still, there are always problems with setting dangerous precedent, and Daniel and I are both strongly enough libertarian with respect to freedom of conscience as to be quite wary here. So what do you all think? Is Monica Stewart personally culpable for the death of Sierra Walker? Should Monica have been found guilty? Would minor alterations to the scenario change your verdict? Some other thoughts: I think that Monica's defense of "not my child, not my responsibility" is, to a great degree, a load of crap. It seems quite clear that, if it is the case that Monica's decision (to not only leave her child unimmunized, but bring her child into contact with those who cannot be immunized) directly resulted in Sierra's death, then some manner of responsibility would be present. There is a sense in which we really are all responsible for one another's wellbeing, morally or otherwise, at least to some extent. Moreover, I think the defense really blundered in attempting to attack the underlying medical science. Better to simply emphasize Monica's freedom from any legal guilt and urge the jury to adhere closely to the law. On the other hand, the prosecution pulling the "Are you a doctor?!?!?!??" card doesn't seem to have been a great move either. The fact of the matter is that, except in very exceptional circumstances, parents are the ones ultimately authorized to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, and so while they should heed expert counsel very closely, in my opinion, it is still their decision in this case--and while that poses problems, the alternative is far more frightening. Daniel and I then proceeded to discuss a second case, Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith (494 U.S. 872), which he brought up. Here are the basic details of what happened. Two men (Alfred Smith and Galen Black) work at a drug rehab clinic, where part of their contract involves abstaining from all illegal drugs. They subsequently partake in a Native American Church ceremony involving the use of peyote, an illegal drug. And while some states have legal exceptions for religious use, Oregon is not one of them. So the men are found to have used illegal drugs contrary to their contract, and thus are fired for breach of contract. The men file for unemployment benefits, and Oregon denies their claim on the grounds that their termination was for work-related misconduct. The case was finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 in favor of the state. Daniel and I both disagree, however, with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia (with whom we both frequently agree), which essentially gutted the Sherbert Test (derived from the 1963 Supreme Court case Sherbert v. Verner (374 U.S. 398)), a set of criteria intended to determine whether or not the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has been violated. Simply put, the court must assess (1) whether the individual can claim sincerity in their religious belief, (2) whether the government is placing any substantial burden on that belief, (3) whether there is a compelling state interest, and (4) whether the government could've done all this an easier way. I'm inclined to think that the Sherbert Test is a fairly decent rubric, at least within the realm of plausible such rubrics. The case also had a concurring position by Justice O'Connor in which she stuck to the Sherbert Test and decided that the law was acceptable under it, whereas the dissenting opinion by Justice Blackmun (and joined by two others) was that the law failed the Sherbert Test. Daniel and I are both somewhat torn between these two opinions, though I tend to side more with O'Connor on this one. (Now there's something I never thought I'd say...) What do you think? Finally, Daniel and I had a rousing conversation about the philosophy of law in general. (I got him a book about it a while back, the Oxford Readings in Philosophy volume The Philosophy of Law, edited by Ronald M. Dworkin. I finished it before the end of the semester, while he's just recently managed to get through the first few essays.) The topic we opted to discuss is this: what is law? Two important positions for comparison: in the legal positivist tradition, law consists of a set of rules, or 'laws'. (Consequently, in any case in which the rules are unclear, the judiciary must simply make a decision, and thus 'legislation from the bench' is quite inevitable.) Dworkin's position, however, is that law consists of both rules and principles, where the latter are simply maxims generally agreed upon by society, such as, "No one may profit from his/her own wrong." (Thus, rather than legislate from the bench, the judiciary is responsible for turning from rules to principles, weighing these principles, and rendering a verdict--all still from within the bounds of the 'law'.) He and I both find ourselves somewhere between these two camps. On the one hand, the positivist position is untenable in our eyes. On the other hand, precisely what constitutes a "principle" is somewhat vague and problematic. By the way, I should note that this is not merely an idle question for discussion but of little consequence. Take, for example, the Free Exercise Clause. Either this is a rule, or it is not. Suppose that positivism is true for a moment. If the clause is a rule, then it must be absolute, for rules have no exceptions unless specified explicitly, and so a positivist must then be a First Amendment absolutist. If the clause is not a rule, however, then it is not a rule and so is not actually of legal force, strictly speaking, but rather may be construed as a helpful suggestion. If positivism is false and Dworkin's position is correct, however, the Free Exercise Clause may be construed as other than a rule yet more than a suggestion--in short, perhaps, as a principle. So, again, what do you think--both about the cases and about what law itself is? (Oh, and by the way, please pray for Daniel's family--his grandfather finally passed away this morning.) Gratia vobis. |
