Washington Post | Charles Krauthammer | Nov. 30, 2007
“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” — James A. Thomson
A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan’s Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.
Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.
Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.
Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, to borrow Thomson’s phrase, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.
In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity — a “moral ayatollah,” as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it.
Bush got it right. Not because he necessarily drew the line in the right place. I have long argued that a better line might have been drawn — between using doomed and discarded fertility-clinic embryos created originally for reproduction (permitted) and using embryos created solely to be disassembled for their parts, as in research cloning (prohibited). But what Bush got right was to insist, in the face of enormous popular and scientific opposition, on drawing a line at all, on requiring that scientific imperative be balanced by moral considerations.
History will look at Bush’s 2001 speech and be surprised how balanced and measured it was, how much respect it gave to the other side. Read it. Here was a presidential policy pronouncement that so finely and fairly drew out the case for both sides that until the final few minutes of his speech, you had no idea where the policy would end up.
Bush finally ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem cell lines — but refusing federal monies for research on stem cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos.
The president’s policy recognized that this might cause problems. The existing lines might dry up, prove inadequate or become corrupted. Bush therefore appointed a President’s Council on Bioethics to oversee ongoing stem cell research and evaluate how his restrictions were affecting research and what means might be found to circumvent ethical obstacles.
More vilification. The mainstream media and the scientific establishment saw this as a smoke screen to cover his fundamentalist, obscurantist, anti-scientific — the list of adjectives was endless — tracks. “Some observers,” wrote The Post’s Rick Weiss, “say the president’s council is politically stacked.”
I sat on the council for five years. It was one of the most ideologically balanced bioethics commissions in the history of this country. It consisted of scientists, ethicists, theologians, philosophers, physicians — and others (James Q. Wilson, Francis Fukuyama and me among them) of a secular bent not committed to one school or the other.
That balance of composition was reflected in the balance in the reports issued by the council — documents of sophistication and nuance that reflected the divisions both within the council and within the nation in a way that respectfully presented the views of all sides. One recommendation was to support research that might produce stem cells through “de-differentiation” of adult cells, thus bypassing the creation of human embryos.
That Holy Grail has now been achieved. Largely because of the genius of Thomson and Yamanaka. And also because of the astonishing good fortune that nature requires only four injected genes to turn an ordinary adult skin cell into a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or liver.
But for one more reason as well. Because the moral disquiet that James Thomson always felt — and that George Bush forced the country to confront — helped lead him and others to find some ethically neutral way to produce stem cells. Providence then saw to it that the technique be so elegant and beautiful that scientific reasons alone will now incline even the most willful researchers to leave the human embryo alone.
I notice that Christopher has fired off five posts on the stem cell thread. None of his comments have to do with stem cell research — no information, no links, no quotations from scientists, no references, nothing relevant to the topic.
Instead, as he does with almost every thread, he turns this thread into “Jim and others like him shouldn’t post here,” even though the last time I posted anything on this thread was several days ago.
This is an issue that he has raised many times, and that has been answered many times, and recently answered again in the course of this thread.
Instead of any legitimate content, his five posts are filled with personal attacks, name-calling, insults and challenges to the moderator and Fr. Hans, and even insults to the open discussion concept behind the blog and AOI. Anyone and anything that does not agree with his personal view of what the blog should be about is a target. Rather than promoting discussion his comments are designed to shut down discussion. Even when he tries to “discuss” something, he rarely actually discusses or provides arguments for his position or new information; he simply makes “pronouncements.”
You know, with the blog under new management, some of us here are really trying to make sure that our posts are relevant and on topic, spending extra time in research and fact-checking. Several, myself included, have had our hands slapped for relatively minor lapses, and that’s fine.
But then it’s troubling when Christopher comes along with extensive off-topic comments, emotional outbursts, personal attacks and insults even to the moderators, and the same complaint that has been addressed many times — and nothing is said. It’s like the police are busy ticketing jaywalkers, while across the street there is an armed robbery in progress. This makes a mockery of the whole concept of “rules,” and creates a confusing situation in which it appears that the rules that are supposed to apply to everyone do not apply to him. I hope that is not the case.
Note 50. Christopher writes:
I gave you an answer, you just don’t agree with it. When I ran this blog (I am now an occasional contributer), I structured it as forum. That’s it. If Chris B. runs it the same way, so be it. If he changes it, that’s fine too.
You are free to disagree with this of course, so why not structure a site in the way you would like to see this one run?
I gave you an answer, you just don’t agree with it.
You did not answer the question. Yes, you gave your understanding of discourse, “as a forum”, or to put in other ways as the liberal round table, or “honey-pot”, all phrases with a core likeness but tinged with various positive and negative connotations.
The question is not with the general structure, but the real effects of that structure whish is a modern, liberal “forum”. What happens to the real people who participate? To use the language Chris uses, what of those who “From these exchanges they dig themselves deeper into their God-denying and truth-avoiding arguments”. While you are sharpening your arguments, I pose a moral/spiritual question: What the culpability of those who sharpen their saws knowing full well that real people are digging themselves deeper into a hardened heart against the Gospel. I am as implicated in this question as much as anyone here.
This is the question you have studiously avoided. I don’t see how I can disagree with you as you have never explicitly discussed it (unless I have missed it). I believe it is something that should cause discomfort at the very least.
Chris at least acknowledges the problem…
You are free to disagree with this of course, so why not structure a site in the way you would like to see this one run?
This is not an answer either (though you do seem to return to it frequently)….
I notice that Christopher has….
Nope, you were not able to keep your darkened thought to yourself…
Note 53. Christopher writes:
How does discussing these questions lead to a “hardened heart against the Gospel”?
I wrote:
You responded:
I do return to it frequently because you have all the tools at your disposal. If you don’t like the structure or content of this blog, what is stopping you from creating something that fits your vision of how things ought to run? Maybe my (former) approach will be proven wrong. If so, I’ll adapt. But frankly, the endless stream of postings charging “troll, troll”, while certainly expressing your frustration (and mine to a degree but my take is that it comes with the territory), never posits a constructive and creative critique. I know what you don’t like, but I have no idea of what you might propose in place of it.
For the record, Chris B. runs this blog. I’m not speaking for him, nor do I tell him how to run it. I just check in from time to time.
Christopher, I expressed my position and reasons for continuing Fr. Hans’ vision and purpose for this Blog. I have made some changes and adjustments to tighten up the discussions and keep the comments “on-topic”, but I will not slam the door in the face of those whom we disagree with and have something to contribute to the discussions. The stronger moderation has, to an extent, addressed some of your concerns. That’s as far as I am willing to go for now. If indeed you have a better vision and believe your approach is better, please try it out and show us how that can work. I don’t mind being proved wrong, and I would gladly support such a worthy effort on your part.
I do not believe that I am endangering a person’s salvation by engaging in substantive debates and attempting to persuade others of the truth. The statement about the “darkening of one’s reason” is just a statement of fact not a consequence of engaging conservative Orthodox on this Blog. The discussions are an opportunity for them to maybe get a glimpse of the truth and change their minds or get bothered by what we state. (See the C.S. Lewis conversion excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJVXaW-PKM&feature=related )
A person’s own voluntary acts to disregard the arguments and supportive information we provide is indeed a burden they will have to answer for. But our job as Orthodox Christians is to provide testimony of the truths and realities of this life (and the next) and the world we live in, revealed to us through Jesus Christ and His teachings. Then those that hear and see and refuse to listen and understand can never say “we did not know” or “nobody told us.” The light we have been given cannot be hidden under a bushel and the truths we hold cannot be reserved for the “worthy” only. Christ came to save all of creation and the whole world. He and His disciples did not shy away from taking on the pagans, secularists, hypocrites, scribes, priests, politicians, etc. of his day, why should we?
How does discussing these questions lead to a “hardened heart against the Gospel”?
You know Fr. Jacobse, sometimes I think you are you intentionally patronizing. Do I REALLY need to rehash “doubtful disputations” and all that? Shoot, I think it was yourself who first turned me on to this in an explicit way by linking a talk Fr. Hopko gives explaining the right way and the many wrong ways to engage the Gospel with those who are resistant (complete with a plethora of quotes from the Fathers, etc.). Are you trying to get me to catalog the Tradition on this subject, complete with footnotes, or are you simply being lazy? Surely you are cognizant of this Tradition, or perhaps you find it too stuffy and old fashioned and have laid it aside. I know what you mean by being more interested in the Gospel as opposed to something called “Orthodoxy” – Tradition being reduced to tradition, however sometimes you come off as being uninterested in the Tradition itself (i.e. the Church, the work of God Himself).
while certainly expressing your frustration (and mine to a degree but my take is that it comes with the territory), never posits a constructive and creative critique.
Right, because what is needed least of all is yet another “constructive and creative critique”. Another clever argument is NOT what is needed. You seem to treat this medium as a mere medium, and forget that real people are the other end of the keyboard. As you say, “my take is that it comes with the territory” so apparently you have an idea of the territory that brackets off the persons, the real effects on peoples Hearts when using them as a backdrop for “constructive and creative critique”. You apparently have absolved yourself of any responsibility in this – how did you do it?
Chris says:
The stronger moderation has, to an extent, addressed some of your concerns.
Yes it has, and if I have not acknowledged that yet allow me to do so now.
Let’s be honest about Dean, and admit he was a here simply to counter and debate for years – his last few tirades about hijacking “his” Faith reveals he was not open in the least to anything, he was simply fighting the good fight as he saw it. That’s not discussion, that’s not give and take, that’s not exploring ideas and really trying to get somewhere – on the contrary, it’s a deconstructive purpose.
Jim is of course in the same category, simply coming from the secular left instead of the religious left. Everything he has to say is (by his own admission) deconstructive, it neither builds nor has the intention of adding to an Christian understanding of these issues. So what happens is 90% of the threads get “hijacked” by endless refutations – efforts to define for him and JamesK the very basics of a Christian world view, or usually just to defend the truth against their aggressive slander.
I do not believe that I am endangering a person’s salvation by engaging in substantive debates and attempting to persuade others of the truth. The statement about the “darkening of one’s reason” is just a statement of fact not a consequence of engaging conservative Orthodox on this Blog.
I disagree, and so does Fr. Hopko, certain of the Fathers (St. Paul talks to both sides of this issue), and others (perhaps Michael or Fr. Jacobse will provide the link to the audio). We take on a certain responsibility when we witness, we simply are not to be an argumentation robot – a “fact”. Yes, there will be resistance, but the main point is that we are not to aid this resistance by vein argumentation. As some point we are to recognize this “fact” and change our behavior.
He and His disciples did not shy away from taking on the pagans, secularists, hypocrites, scribes, priests, politicians, etc. of his day, why should we?
No we should not, but it is not a great leap of logic to see that any tool, any communication and way of relating, anything under the sun can be a ladder to Hell instead of a witness, and that we can be wise about this and not hold the ladder for such individuals…
Nice link to the biography on Lewis by the way (this was on PBS a couple of years ago I think). I think it is dangerous to think we are being the Barfield’s to every soul that wonders here. This strikes me as presumptuous, and avoids the question above…
Note 56. Christopher writes:
The “doubtful disputations” reference refers to discipline in the Church. The rest of the paragraph is, well, of the “troll, troll” variety — another expression of frustration.
Well, this is an internet forum, open to most anyone who wants to engage it. What kind of discussion do you think will result? It is going to mirror the kind of talk you find almost anywhere.
That’s not to say that more disciplined venues are not possible. In fact, I am working on one right now (stay tuned). But this blog was never designed as such.
But geez, you’ve got to show a bit more respect and a bit more patience. The way you launch into Jim is disgraceful. I pound on some of his ideas hard, but I don’t pound on the man. Sometimes it appears that you thought (Chris runs this blog now, not me) that the sheer volume of your “troll” posts would force me to shut him down. Well, that was not going to happen. I don’t respond to that kind of pressure.
Look Christopher, it is very clear you are frustrated. You have two options here. Make you case without the disparaging commentary, or have a go at it yourself. Who knows? Maybe you will convince Chris, or maybe a new site moderated by you will be a great service to others.
Or, when my new project is done (a blog for AOI — almost ready for prime-time), I invite you to contribute your comments on it. It will be a moderated blog, not an open forum, which should alleviate some of the frustration you experience here.
Well, I’m glad that this is being discussed, and I hope it leads to some kind of resolution.
Christopher writes: “So what happens is 90% of the threads get “hijacked” by endless refutations . . . ”
Let’s be clear about the facts. As I write this there are 20 articles appearing on the main page. Of those, 15 articles, 75 percent, have no comments at all.
Of the five articles with comments, on four of those the discussions were prompted by some kind of contrary opinion, either secular or religious. The remaining thread had only one comment. This means that 20 percent of threads might have been “hijacked.”
But what of those four threads? One thread was about global warming, only tangentially, if that, related to theology. One thread was about what the pope actually said about global warming. Another thread was about speech codes at universities, and there wasn’t a whole lot of disagreement there. Finally, one thread was about the Golden Compass movie, with a total of three comments, one of which was by JamesK.
So of the articles currently on the main page, exactly ONE might be said to have been “hijacked.” This means that the liberals and secularists could be said to have “hijacked” 5 percent of the threads. That 5 percent is the source of Christopher’s frustration.
Of course, there was no hijacking, because without the contrary opinions, there would have been few or no comments at all. Go back in time as long as you want, and you will see the same trend.
What is that trend?
1) most lead articles generate few or no comments at all.
2) when the “liberals” don’t post, typically no one else does either.
3) there are a handful of threads in which extensive discussions occur only because the “liberals” have posted. And during those discussions is the main time when the Orthodox position is presented in detail. Christopher wants people like me banned. But ironically, a better strategy for the blog would be to put us on salary.
There is this myth that liberals and secularists have taken over the blog. But if you look at the statistics, that claim is revealed as untrue. I would also note that the liberals choose exactly NONE of the lead articles.
Another myth is that without the “liberals” the Great Orthodox Discussion would occur. But there is simply no reason to believe that would happen. And why would it? Why would a great Orthodox discussion occur if everyone already agrees with the lead article, especially since most of the lead articles aren’t about Orthodoxy per se.
Whatever decision the moderator makes, I would only ask that it be based on the actual facts of how the blog functions, and not on misperceptions and emotionalism. Internet discussion groups have their own dynamic; they aren’t church, evangelism, or seminary, as much as some would like them to be that.
The “doubtful disputations” reference refers to discipline in the Church. The rest of the paragraph is, well, of the “troll, troll” variety — another expression of frustration.
That simply is not true. Read the rest post again. It really is not a complicated premise. Let me boil it down to a single simple sentence:
The liberal round table is not neutral, there are moral/spiritual consequences to “discussion”.
Sometimes it appears that you thought (Chris runs this blog now, not me) that the sheer volume of your “troll” posts would force me to shut him down. Well, that was not going to happen. I don’t respond to that kind of pressure.
Your reading too much into it. Think of it this way, everyone brings their own perspective to a liberal round table. You might not like mine, but then your the one who has established the liberal round table (and now Chris continues it).
But geez, you’ve got to show a bit more respect and a bit more patience.
Not sure what you mean here. I disagree with you on a substantial issue, but I do not (as yet) disrespect you. I think your wrong-headed about something important however. You persist on avoiding this issue however, so I am beginning to openly question your thinking. For example, I speculate you have a stake in the liberal round table, because you can’t see passed it and still engage in your intellectual pastimes (or is it your vocation?).
The way you launch into Jim is disgraceful.
I disagree. I deal with a school yard bully in firm and forceful manner, and is not “disgraceful” (at least I don’t intend it to be but now doubt I mess up). You on the other hand persist on treating the situation as yet another intellectual engagement. Jim is MORE than an intellectual opponent, or a sounding board in which to bounce off the next clever apologetic. I think it is wrongheaded to treat him as such. I am not sure the way you would have me “tolerate” him could be described as “disgraceful”, but it certainly is wrong headed.
At the liberal round table, “the man” can be put aside and ideas abstracted away from people. Mean while, back in the God’s universe, people are real and at the end of the keyboard. We have to think about what endless and futile argument does to a person.
Look Christopher, it is very clear you are frustrated.
The pastoral psychology 101 is a diversion. Your still avoiding the issue, my feelings and yours are beside the point. As I said, I believe your the one who pointed me to the link that discusses this very issue (I could be wrong as I admit I can’t find it – it’s not the 2005 talks at the OCA DS clergy that we discussed here a month or so ago)…
Christopher, debate is not going to turn off anyone to the Gospel. You should appreciate the interest people have in discussing these topics. After all, how many people today are completely indifferent to anything religious and would prefer to discuss whatever is in the latest “People” magazine?
What’s going to turn people off from religion is the perception that people pursue it for material gain or simply as a way of finding some sense of personal meaning in a difficult universe. While the latter is more understandable, one should believe something because it is true. If it is true and real, it should be able to withstand difficult questions. Some people tend to probe much deeper into these questions and as such, pre-packaged high-level answers aren’t going to be very helpful.
The questions are not a personal attack. Those of us who persistantly question also tend to be introspective and capable of examining our own beliefs and ideas and willing to re-think things if necessary.
Christopher writes: “I deal with a school yard bully in firm and forceful manner . . . ”
I don’t know how else to say this except to say it: the things that you yourself do, you project on to others.
You claim that others “hijack” discussions, yet here we are on the stem cell thread once again catering to your need to control the participants and content of the blog — an issue that you have raised countless times before.
You claim that I am a “bully.” But just a week ago I suggested to the moderator that perhaps it would be better to have a blog with only conservative Orthodox participants. I guess you could say that I was trying to “bully” myself off the blog. In the past I have suggested “Orthodox-only” or “invitation-only” threads, thus potentially bullying myself out of discussions.
In discussions i try to talk about the issues. When you “discuss” your comments are often filled with personal attacks and name-calling. I’m trying to remember the last time you actually posting something that wasn’t a personal attack, but can’t recall anything. I’m trying to remember the last time you actually did some reasearch, posted links, or quoted someone in a way that was relevant to the discusion topic, but nothing comes to mind.
The issues that you raise about the administration of the blog have been answered many times. Both Fr. Hans and Chris B. have been very forbearing. Anyone else would have been kicked off long ago. As a token of appreciation for their forbearance you give them — more of the same rant, each rant more forceful and demanding than the previous.
I have stated many times that I’m happy to abide by the rules of the blog, even if those rules ended my participation. You seem to care nothing for the blog rules, unless they are rules that you personally dictate. I respect the decisions of the moderator. You seem to have contempt for the decisions of the moderator. I make requests and suggestions; you make demands.
Nonetheless, you call me the “bully.” Son, if you want to see the bully, just look in the mirror and you’ll see him looking right back at you.
Fr. Hans, you say in #57 “I pound on some of his ideas hard, but I don’t pound on the man.”
I find your thought an expression of philosphical dualism. Our ideas an inseparable from who we are, otherwise why would there be such a thing as heresy? It is also a perfect example of the rationalist stupidity that treats ideas as things in themselves (something you have always expressed opposition to). My ideas both come from and form my character, and my being they are expressions of my belief, my faith. That is true for any human being. When you pound an idea someone holds to, you pound the person as well. It is inescapable. To hold otherwise is, at best, a polite fantasy, at worst, a delusion.
Wrong anthopological ideas serve to create human beings who are twisted and disfunctional, if they did not, why object to anything? It is but a short step from wrong ideas to wrong behavior.
Just for the record, it is not the the statement of opposing ideas and beliefs to which I object, but the endless stream opposition that adds nothing new and only hardens opinions on both sides and acts as a barrier to receiving the truth.
#44 Jim Holman
You discounted the value of the German standpoint by comparing it to the Japanese and their post WWII military practice. That is a good point and I need to ponder it a little more; however, I think there is a difference. Japan’s concern was how to re-join the community of nations, and thus has a more practical dimension to it. Germany’s position on ESC research is entirely internal and does not particularly endear it to any other nation. I think it is a more inherently principled stand and therefore more instructive.
I gave you the four axioms that drive the stem cell debate and a scenario under which these could justify harvesting cells from a nine-month old fetus:
1) the fetus will be discarded anyway
2) some people don’t consider it a person
3) science is involved
4) somebody benefits
You said that you don’t “agree” with points 1 and 2. The problem, though, is that all it takes to justify a barbaric practice is for some key judges to “agree” with points 1 and 2. Where were you during the partial birth abortion debates? It is only a slim supreme court majority that prevents the practice.
Michael writes: “When you pound an idea someone holds to, you pound the person as well.”
This is why so many find religion repugnant. Discussions can’t happen: in fact, there is no discussion. YOU are right, we are wrong. End of story. Whoever disagrees is not only wrong but must be quashed. Thus, we have the numerous hatreds and pettiness so well displayed throughout history: between Catholics and Protestants, between Islam and everyone else. Follow any religious fanatic and you will see strife wherever you go: they believe themselves beyond critique and they cannot be reasoned with. It extends into how they treat everyone, including their families. Instead of making them “better”, it simply solidifies their own sense of “rightness”. Charity? What’s that? All this is pretty hard to complain about when one has “divine assurance” of all of this as well.
When a parent corrects a child’s ideas, are they “beating up” on them? Have you never been in a corporate meeting where ideas are rejected but where the person is still respected and not called a “fool”? I have. Life can actually be tolerable when people aren’t pig-headed.
Much has been said about the decline of religion in Europe. What’s interesting is that in this “secular” society, this very diverse society seems to be living in an unprecedented level of harmony and relative peace. I wonder why.
Fr. Hans is correct when he states that the Judeo-Christian traditions are worth preserving. There is, and I oppose any attempts to rid society of its influence. Yet, I still think it’s quite possible for a person to have “too much religion”.
JamesK says:
debate is not going to turn off anyone to the Gospel. You should appreciate the interest people have in discussing these topics.
“debate” is not discussion (at least not how you, Jim, and others use the word – I would include Fr. Jacobse as well). “debate” is deconstruction, discussion is an attempt to understand, build and extend.
What’s going to turn people off from religion is the perception that people pursue it for material gain or simply as a way of finding some sense of personal meaning in a difficult universe. While the latter is more understandable, one should believe something because it is true.
I agree! The Truth is not relative. You however don’t really agree, and almost every post you make reveals it. To you, Truth is relative.
If it is true and real, it should be able to withstand difficult questions. Some people tend to probe much deeper into these questions and as such, pre-packaged high-level answers aren’t going to be very helpful.
This sentence reveals both your ignorance and your arrogance. I think you really think your thought about religion and Christianity is “deep”, and that you really do “probe much deeper” when you post your nonsense. As we keep saying, you need to avail yourself of a basic catechism – your thought on Christianity can only be described as ignorant, incoherent, and confused. We have said it nicely, but you persist. So now I am telling you upfront – your ignorant and confused.
You claim that others “hijack” discussions, yet here we are on the stem cell thread once again catering to your need to control the participants and content of the blog — an issue that you have raised countless times before.
Allow me to say what we have been saying to you for several years now:
Your very presence is a hijacking, because as you admit you are not interested in a Christian world view – you are interested in “debating” it. Thus, way back on post #2 (your fist post) you said
“…something that will eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells.”
A need – a need utilize life independent of moral consequences (as Fr. Jacobse told you).
You hijacked it by making it YET ANOTHER refutation of materialism, utilitarianism, anti-Christian “morality” etc.
You hijacked it by posting post after post of anti-Christian world view.
You hijacked it by being dim-witted, unable (or is it unwilling) to admit the premise of your own thought.
Your protestations that I turn these discussions into yet another 3rd grade explication of the very basics of Christianity is, as Fr. Jacobse might say, “disgraceful”.
WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHY ARE YOU ALLOWED TO POST THIS GARBAGE OVER AND OVER. (The real substance of this post is “over and over” x 70 but Chris will edit it out 🙂
Christopher, enough already! You are really testing my patience, especially with the idiotic user names. I will not let this blog descend into 3rd grade level tactics. You’ve made your point, now contribute something substantive. As Fr. Hans said, start posting the kind of comments and contributions you criticize others for not posting. Consider this an Official Warning. Come on man, you’re above this.
Note 62. Michael asks:
If this were true, then how would repentance (metania — a change of mind) be possible?
And why would St Paul teach: “Be renewed by the the transformation of your mind…”? (Note too the distinction he draws between mind and body: the mind is “transformed”; the body is “offered as a living sacrifice”, that is, ascesis.)
And why must the Gospel be “preached”, that is, spoken? Is it not to transform the mind (nous implied here), to bring seeing (clarified vision) more in conformance to truth (which finds its source and ground in Him who is Truth)?
I don’t think you can categorize the mind as if it is another body part like an arm or leg.
Tom C writes: “You discounted the value of the German standpoint by comparing it to the Japanese and their post WWII military practice.”
I didn’t really mean to discount it. I just wanted to put it in a larger context.
Tom C: “Japan’s concern was how to re-join the community of nations, and thus has a more practical dimension to it. Germany’s position on ESC research is entirely internal and does not particularly endear it to any other nation. I think it is a more inherently principled stand and therefore more instructive.”
I would have to agree with you. I would only say that “more instructive” is not the same as definitive. Even in Germany ESC research is not banned, only highly restricted.
Tom C: “You said that you don’t “agree” with points 1 and 2. The problem, though, is that all it takes to justify a barbaric practice is for some key judges to “agree” with points 1 and 2. [1) the fetus will be discarded anyway, 2) some people don’t consider it a person.]
Point 1 is different in that it is more a matter of fact as it relates to the stated intention of the procedure. In the example you gave the fetus is used only as a source of biological material; that is the intention in creating it. In-vitro fertilization is different in that the intention is to bring about the existence of one or more persons. As part of that process, an unintended, though not unexpected consequence is the creation of more embryos than will be implanted — not as an end in itself, but as a way of maximizing the possibility of successful pregnancies. It’s the moral principle of double effect. E.g., administration of high doses of narcotic analgesia in terminal cancer cases may bring about the earlier death of the patient through supressing respiration, but the intent is pain control, not the death of the patient.
Point 2 is certainly a legitimate concern, in the sense that anyone is free to make any argument. I just see such a vast difference between an eight-cell blastocyst and a nnine-month old fetus about to be delivered that saying that the former is not a person in no way constitutes an argument that the latter also is not a person. If someone, for whatever reason, wanted to make some kind of weird argument that nine-month old fetus isn’t a person, he certainly doesn’t need to refer to eight-cell blastocysts in order to do that.
Tom C: “Where were you during the partial birth abortion debates? It is only a slim supreme court majority that prevents the practice.”
A ban on partial birth abortion does nothing to prevent abortions; it only bans a specific procedure. It’s really not about abortion per se.
Jim writes:
Let me see if I understand this. A ban on partial birth abortion stops the aborting of full-term children, but “it does nothing to prevent abortions.” Really? Then what is be prevented by the ban?
And the ban is “not about abortion per se”. Really? Then what is it about?
Note 64. James writes:
Uh, James. History did not begin on the day of your birth. Do you know the story of Europe in the last century?
The Berlin Wall fell only twenty years ago — no time at all in historical terms. Don’t be complacent. You will end up like the French who are bewildered by the lawlessness (and may prove powerless to fight it) in parts of Paris.
If this were true, then how would repentance (metania — a change of mind) be possible?”
Because metania is a change of heart and will first and foremost, and only secondarily what we call mind. As Fr. Hopko points out, the Hebrews did not really have a word for “mind”, including the concept (if they had it at all) under “flesh”,. Thus “And the Lord your God is to be loved with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5) becomes in the New Testament “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Mark 12:30). Fr. Hopko comments that “mind” is thrown in there so that “the Greeks would understand”. People (i.e. persons) are not their philosophy, not their “minds”. They are better described as an organic heart-soul-mind-strength union. It is false to abstract “mind” from this organic union and claim you can affect one without affecting the other (positively or negatively). Since all thought (at least when dealing with “meaning” – it’s arguable as to the status of sense “data” and it’s relationship to “thought” is) rests on a faith assumption (e.g. in materialism it’s the neo-Epicurean faith) then the futility of dealing only with “ideas” becomes even more clear. You have to deal with the whole person – this is clear in Christian Tradition.
And why would St Paul teach: “Be renewed by the transformation of your mind…”? (Note too the distinction he draws between mind and body: the mind is “transformed”; the body is “offered as a living sacrifice”, that is, ascesis.)
I question your reading of this. The Fathers commentary on what it means to be “transformed” in ones whole person (heart-body-soul-mind) would point to St. Paul using mind in a different way than you would have him use it.
“And why must the Gospel be “preached”, that is, spoken? Is it not to transform the mind (nous implied here), to bring seeing (clarified vision) more in conformance to truth (which finds its source and ground in Him who is Truth)?”
And is not God’s Word something more than the spoken word? He is not a free floating “nous” abstracted from His Body, His entire nature as God and Man. Yes, the transformation of the nous is obviously implied here, but do you really lead off with the nous? If you do, do you intentionally abstract it away from the organic unity of the person?
I don’t think you can categorize the mind as if it is another body part like an arm or leg.
I agree, but then I don’t think you can abstract it off either (from the arm or leg, or the soul, and especially the Heart as the Fathers use the term).
Check out the video biography that Chris links above. What happened to C.S. Lewis on the bus (or more accurately his entire “spiritual journey”)? An intellectual change of “mind”, or a change of “Heart” in the Christian sense?
Michael writes: “Just for the record, it is not the the statement of opposing ideas and beliefs to which I object, but the endless stream opposition that adds nothing new and only hardens opinions on both sides and acts as a barrier to receiving the truth.”
Michael, there is a lot of new information that comes out in the course of these discussions, even when conclusions don’t change. Let me give you an example:
Since his first day here, Tom C has been a skeptic of human-caused global warming. To that end he has presented scientific critiques of the AGW position. He has posted critiques of the AGW worldview and mindset. He has posted links to articles that had not been posted here. He has brought new scientists to the attention of the group, even those who don’t appear in conservative journals. It’s obvious that he does his homework and spends time researching the issue
Has he provided an “endless stream of opposition” to the idea of human-caused global warming? Absolutely. It’s the same old conclusion, over and over. But it would be ridiculous to say that his contributions “add nothing new.” In fact, I think it would be fair to say that much of the new information here on that topic has come from him.
Whether or not he changes anyone’s mind is beside the point. He posts information for all to read and consider, to accept or reject as they will. I wouldn’t say that he’s “changed my mind” but his posts have caused me to be much more careful in how I think about and evaluate material on that issue. In that sense I have found his continual stream of opposition to be very helpful. And the whole time he has done that without resorting to personal attack, labeling, or insult. Though I disagree with him on many issues, I would say that his participation here should be a model for others to emulate. With a few more like him here you’d see discussions rise to a higher level, and maybe even start to see the potential that Fr. Hans thinks a blog like this can have.
Note 72. A couple of points, more later. Christopher writes:
Sticking with the text (our starting point) and not entering into theology quite yet: The “mind” in Romans 12:2 is from the Greek “nous”.
By “God’s Word” are you speaking of the “Logos tou Theou” or the “evangelion”? Note that I used the term “Gospel” to mean “evangelion”, not “Logos tou Theou” (source of constant confusion for the Evangelicals, btw.).
Note too that my point was that the Gospel needs to be preached, that is, spoken.
True, but for the purposes of this forum, quite beside the point. Some people don’t listen at all. You have to do things like arrest and jail them, and even then they still don’t listen. But still, this forum is limited by it’s nature — not a bad thing, but we do ourselves a disservice if we think it is supposed to function as a Church, or bible study, etc.
One doesn’t “lead off” with anything except the spoken, or in this case – the written, word — delivered with decency and respect of course.
BTW, in the Greek “metania” means “to change one’s nous.” And, are you sure Fr. Hopko draws the distinction between the Hebrew “kardia-heart” and the Greek “nous-mind” with the flippancy you seem to imply? It was the Apostle Paul after all who introduced the term in and through the Gospel, so I would approach the point with a bit more deliberation.
In that sense I have found his continual stream of opposition to be very helpful.
Sure, because he indulges your opposition at the only level you operate – “debate”.
And the whole time he has done that without resorting to personal attack, labeling, or insult.
Ah, like when he says :
“For you warmers out there….If you think that there is only a small band of industry-funded “skeptics” you are gullible and wrong.”
You of course are defining “personal attack”, “labeling”, and “insult” to your advantage. If I or anyone else points to the nature of your participation here (i.e. explicitly anti-Christian, materialistic, anti-human) then it is a “personal attack”. If they “debate” you, leaving underlying premises unexamined thus keeping the verbage at the level of the liberal round table, then you are comfortable with that and labels like “warmers” and “gullible and wrong” are not “insults”.
With a few more like him here you’d see discussions rise to a higher level,
I agree! With more real Christian participation then it would be much more difficult for you to define the direction and tone of the threads. With Christians sitting around the liberal round table, the table is of course transformed because Christians do not have the same motivation to define it as liberal, and thus constantly deconstruct and “debate”. It still can happen, but is less likely.
maybe even start to see the potential that Fr. Hans thinks a blog like this can have.
Actually it would go in the opposite direction of Fr. Hans vision of a “forum”. Imagine 20 or so Michael’s and Chris’ and Tom’s. Fr. Hans would not be “debating” them very much, pointing to the moral and logical flaws with penetrating Christian presumptions, or more usually, 3rd grade basic apologetics. Whatever the character of an Orthodox discussion of these issues would look like, it’s not what this “forum” has been up till now, and Fr. Hans participation would look very different IMO…
Note that I used the term “Gospel” to mean “evangelion”
Point taken.
True, but for the purposes of this forum, quite beside the point.
Which is where we disagree (Michael appears to also – not to put words in his mouth). Again, your explicitly bracketing off the consequences of ‘using’ real persons as a means to sharpen your apologetic. Your also ignoring the consequences of enabling someone to build defenses against the Gospel by allowing them to ‘use’ you to sharpen their rhetoric/thinking. Their will is leading them in a direction away from the Gospel, and then you give them the intellectual grist in which to satisfy their desire to have an intellectually compelling justification of the direction they are taking. I of course have participated in this myself all to often.
we do ourselves a disservice if we think it is supposed to function as a Church, or bible study, etc.
True, the medium has it’s limitations. That said, it is a disservice to ourselves and others if we accept the “forum” definition as you are defining it. It is not “neutral”, and to ignore the real damage we would do is spiritually precarious. It may not be a Church, but then it’s not a liberal round table either, because that is a (liberal) abstraction. People are really, truly at the end of the keyboard.
One doesn’t “lead off” with anything except the spoken, or in this case – the written, word — delivered with decency and respect of course.
To which I say what I said above “If you do, do you intentionally abstract it away from the organic unity of the person?”. You seem to think that the medium forces us to ignore the consequences of persons “in discussion”.
are you sure Fr. Hopko draws the distinction between the Hebrew “kardia-heart” and the Greek “nous-mind” with the flippancy you seem to imply?
I am sure I am reading him without the flippancy you suggest. Listen to it yourself. I believe it’s the second talk in the OCA DofS series from 2005. What I find “flippant” is your abstracting of the mind from the heart and the rest of the person. Does not jive with a single thing I have encountered in the Church. Perhaps even more “flippant” is this idea that a “forum” or internet blog can have a positive influence but not a negative. Or perhaps what you are saying is that your not responsible for the negative consequences – Christians are simply “witnessing machines” and have no moral culpability even if they recognize their witnessing is in fact do the opposite as what God calls us to do. The ‘blame it on the medium’ and ‘it’s not a church’ falls flat…
Sorry Christopher, but this comment from you does not make any sense:
Every human interaction has positive and negative effects. To say that defending the truth and engaging in debate on substantive issues causes one to fall, is nonsense. We are not corrupting or leading the unbelievers into darkness, but trying to expose them to the light. Their voluntary reactions and free choices are what determine their change of heart and mind. Our defense of it is not “sin” in any way, shape, or form. I have never heard anyone, dream up such an outrageous “theology of doom” for simply engaging others in discussions and presenting a Christian witness and defense of the truth.
Also, if not from conservative Orthodox Christians, from whom would these folks get some mature and sensible perspectives on Christ, truth, and realities of this life and be exposed to a proper understanding of the issues. Who else will talk to them and “engage the culture” as Fr. Hans has said? If not through us “who have seen the true light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us” then from where will such potential witness and enlightment come from, besides the miraculous and mighty power of the Holy Trinity? Are we not co-workers with Christ in bringing the Good News and the truth of life to others?
Mr. Banescu says:
Every human interaction has positive and negative effects. To say that defending the truth and engaging in debate on substantive issues causes one to fall, is nonsense.
Interesting. I don’t perceive what I am saying is at all subtle or difficult.
Since I recently watched that modern interpretation of “The King and I” called “Anna and the King” (with Jodi Foster) I am reminded of when the King goes to Anna’s young teenage son and asks him if he would like Cigar. He is making the point that Anna had given his son a book that he felt he was not mature enough to handle.
Of course the analogy is poor for a lot of reasons, but perhaps the “maturity” concept will help get across the concept.
You say “Are we not co-workers with Christ in bringing the Good News and the truth of life to others?”
Of course, but don’t we tailor the message to suit the circumstances and the “spiritual place” that the person we are witnessing to the best we can within our knowledge? How many conversations have you had with folks who had a very limited understanding of this or that, or an emotional/psychological hang up, and you adjusted what it is you talked about and how you said it?
You say “Also, if not from conservative Orthodox Christians, from whom would these folks get some mature and sensible perspectives on Christ, truth, and realities of this life and be exposed to a proper understanding of the issues.”
But that begs the question as to HOW to do this. I am suggesting (actually, I read it first in Hopko though – here I think – though I have not been able to locate the reference) “debate” can lead to a hardened heart. It gives someone the opportunity and means to set up intellectual and psychological defenses. If we in the course of our witnessing see that, are we simply to ignore it?? The rules of the debate forum of course says we can’t (it’s not part of the rules of the game). Fr. Jacobse seems to think we have to ignore it, as in ‘it’s not a church or bible study’ or perhaps he might say ‘we are all adults’ and the like.
You say “Our defense of it is not “sin” in any way, shape, or form. ” which if you judge it only based on “the defense” is true, but “a defense” occurs between two or more people, not in an intellectual vacuum or privileged space.
You say “Their voluntary reactions and free choices are what determine their change of heart and mind.” Would you agree with Fr. Jacobse that you can “pound on the ideas” endlessly, and ignore what that pounding is doing to the person, or even the effectiveness of said pounding on that person? I don’t see how you can abstract communicating and relating like that. You don’t treat your wife or your family that way do you? Of course not. So why do the materialists get treated that
way here? Why is it we throw out our normal human understanding and moral sensibility when we “debate” in a “forum”? I don’t see how you can call that a virtue…
Christopher writes: “Would you agree with Fr. Jacobse that you can “pound on the ideas” endlessly, and ignore what that pounding is doing to the person, or even the effectiveness of said pounding on that person?”
I agree that at some point it is useless to rehash the same arguments over and over again. I try (not always successfully) to drop something when it becomes apparent that the writer has exhausted their explanation. At the same time, Christopher, I don’t think you’ve ever answered a question in a coherent way. I had to ask the same question about the criteria for determining physical death about twenty times before you came up with the not-very-helpful and esoteric answer of how it is determined with “spiritual discernment”. Another question I had about Scripture was met with a directive towards Michael to simply not answer it at all. I’m not sure how this is “pounding on the ideas”. It’s not even addressing the ideas.
Another suggestion: don’t point us towards huge volumes of literature that would require weeks of reading. Quote something, anything, that would buttress your point. It reflects that you’re not simply here to arouse emotions but that you have some knowledge of the subject matter.
Jim –
Thanks for all the compliments, but apparently I am not as effective as I had hoped. I am not a skeptic of human-caused global warming. Humans cause global warming by burning carbon-based compounds and building large cities with lots of pavement. I just think the effect is small and that there is no good reason to be alarmed. Even if there is cause for alarm there is no way to stop it; the only sensible course is to adapt.
Regarding stem cells, much as in the case of a legal decision, the importance is not so much in the final decision but in the reasoning used to get there. The reasoning used to justify ESC research lays a groundwork for much more inhuman endeavors.
What on earth does this mean?
JamesK
You wrote: “Much has been said about the decline of religion in Europe. What’s interesting is that in this “secular” society, this very diverse society seems to be living in an unprecedented level of harmony and relative peace. I wonder why.”
The answer is very simple. Every time they decide to start a world war the US goes over and makes them stop and then tries to see to it that they grow up. The US also spent trillions of dollars protecting them from the Soviets so that they could go about re-building their societies.
Relevant quotes:
“The dark night of fascism is always falling in the US but always seems to land in Europe” Tom Wolfe
“If someone played the right march music they would all start goose-stepping again” Tom C’s Grandpa
Holman wrote: ” A ban on partial birth abortion does nothing to prevent abortions; it only bans a specific procedure. It’s really not about abortion per se.”
Tom asks: “What on earth does this mean?”
The partial birth abortion or “intact D&E” is only one method for performing late second trimester abortions. Not to offend with harsh language, but the other method involves dismembering the fetus and taking out the pieces. This may come as a surprise to some here, but that procedure was not the subject of the Supreme Court case.
Gonzales v. Carhart specifically notes that
because the Act [the Nebraska statute] requires the living fetus to be delivered to a specific anatomical landmark depending on the fetus’ presentation, ibid., an abortion not involving such partial delivery is permitted.
As Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissent, one of the reasons why the Court held in favor of the Nebraska statute was because it did not ban the alternative procedure:
As another reason for upholding the ban, the Court emphasizes that the Act does not proscribe the nonintact D&E procedure.
This is why I said that a partial birth abortion ban is not about abortion per se, but only about a specific procedure.
Note 82. Tom C asks:
Here’s what’s going on. Holman is trying to redefine the cultural categories by which the partial birth debate has been debated in the context of Gonzales v. Carhart. This is what he means by, “This may come as a surprise to some here, but that procedure was not the subject of the Supreme Court case.”
Well, yeah, kinda, sorta. Gonzales v. Carhart deals with the attempts to reverse the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 through judicial wrangling. It essentially upholds the Act by denying a challenge that Congress had no compelling interest to save fetal life.
So when he writes:
…he uses the ruling as a baseline and reads backwards. Thats why the language is convoluted.
Fr. Hans writes: “…he uses the ruling as a baseline and reads backwards. Thats why the language is convoluted.”
Worse than that, I said that Act referred to was the “Nebraska” statute, which actually was Stenberg v. Carhart, not Gonzales v. Carhart. That’s what comes from posting late at night.
Tom C writes: “Regarding stem cells, much as in the case of a legal decision, the importance is not so much in the final decision but in the reasoning used to get there. The reasoning used to justify ESC research lays a groundwork for much more inhuman endeavors.”
There is another critique of ESC that I thought might show up here but hasn’t so far. And that critique is actually a larger issue, that ESC represents another example of an uncritical acceptance of modern technology. In other words, there is the presumption in the modern world that technology is good. And the uncritical acceptance of technology has led to extraordinary changes in the world, and how we perceive the world and even ourselves.
For example, in the computer age we now get not only advice or suggestions from others, but also “data” and “input.” At work we “interface” with each other and make sure that we have “backup” for critical employees. We “network” with people from other companies. If your project at work is going too slowly you add not people but “resources.” If your boss wants to give you a raise he might “upgrade” your position. We talk about how people are “programmed” to do certain things, and religious cultists are “deprogrammed.” The flip side is that computers are described using language previously reserved for humans. Computer scientists study artificial “intelligence.” Computers have “memory.”
We use these terms without even thinking about them, with no awareness that these terms represent a fundamental change in how we think about people. It is essentially a view of the person as machine. Interestingly, in the pre-computer age no one ever thought of other people as typewriters or filing cabinets.
Technology also has an invasive aspect. First there was television, then having more than one television, then a TV built into the kitchen, then a DVD player in the minivan, and now video on your cell phone. What happens when we create people who have to be entertained all the time, everywhere they go? And there is no point at which a society can say “wait a minute, is this something we actually want?”
The best exponent of this view of technology is Jerry Mander, in his book In the Absence of the Sacred. Now I’m not going to defend the book, and it’s the kind of book that offends everyone. But allow me to quote a piece of the introduction:
In that context, ESC could be seen as another example of the uncritical acceptance of modern technology. You talk about the “reasoning” behind ESC, but one could make a case that at a deeper level, it is simply presumed by many that since technology and progress are “good,” therefore ESC must be good also. In that sense, it’s not even “reasoning,” but just a kind of instinctive bias in favor of the latest cool new thing.
But that critique would go far beyond ESC and into other areas such as nuclear power, miliary technology, television and other forms of entertainment and so on. Of course, taken to an extreme, one would end up being a luddite, and that’s a criticism frequently directed at Mander. Nonetheless I think he has a point.
You could say that I’m arguing against my previous position on ESC research, and I suppose I am. But I think there is an interesting line of argument, a more comprehensive critique of technology in general, that has not yet been discussed.
#84
I claimed above that ESC research is supported by a set of four axioms:
1) the embryo (or fetus) will be discarded anyway
2) some people don’t consider it a person
3) science is involved
4) somebody benefits
I might not have worded #3 very persuasively, but what I was getting at was the uncritical acceptance of anything having to do with science. It is amazing to me how many people seem to think that scientists should be exempt from moral standards qua scientists.
As far as Jim’s hairsplitting detour regarding Whoever vs. Carhart, the simple point is that many people seem to think that a nine-month fetus is not a person. If that can be part of the rationale for a partial birth abortion it can part of the rationale for anything .
Tom C: you reject abortion and ESC on moral and grounds that’s great, yet you continue to use the primary word that effects dehumanization of the unborn–fetus.
#86 Michael
Good point. The word fetus is not in itself dehumanizing, but it has unfortunately become so due to rhetorical strategy. Another perfectly good word ruined – like “gay”.
Tom C: From the Online Entymological Dictionary: fetus
1398, from L. fetus “the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young,” from L. base *fe- “to generate, bear,” also “to suck, suckle” (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of “offspring, brood” (cf. “Germania quos horrida parturit fetus,” Horace), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of “fruit, produce, shoot.” The adj. fetal was formed in Eng. 1811. The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.
To me the derivation of the word makes it dehumanizing because it ignores the reality of personhood that is human alone. The essential meaning of the word leads directly to the concept of the unborn child as merely a mass of protoplasm that is simply another part of the woman’s body which she can therefore choose to nurture or not.