Category: Politics

Posted on

Planned Parenthood and Infanticide

By Jim Spiegel

In February I presented a paper at an ethics conference in which I critiqued a Journal of Medical Ethics article that defended infanticide.  The thesis of the article is that so-called “’after-birth abortion’” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”  Upon its on-line publication a year ago, the article generated so much controversy that it was temporarily taken off-line.  The authors and editors had apparently underestimated the severity of outrage that a serious defense of infanticide would generate.

However, the authors of the article, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, are far from the first moral philosophers to defend infanticide.  In recent decades the practice has been advocated by such prominent scholars as Mary Ann Warren and Peter Singer.  And in ancient Greece Plato notoriously defended the practice in his classic work The Republic.

However, it is one thing for a practice to be embraced by a small minority of scholars.  It is quite another for it to be accepted by the most prominent reproductive health organization in the country.  In a recent hearing in the Florida state legislature, a Planned Parenthood official, Alisa LaPolt Snow, essentially defended the right of abortion providers to kill newborn babies—in particular, those which are born alive after a failed abortion.  Snow was pummeled with questions from several legislators, inviting her to acknowledge that such newborn babies have a right to life.  But Snow coolly demurred, insisting that “any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”  Of course, “any decision” would include the decision to kill the baby.  You can see an excerpt of the discussion here.  As you watch, bear in mind that Planned Parenthood is an organization that our tax dollars support.

This is a vivid and disturbing example of how yesterday’s most implausible academic theories become today’s horrific practices.  But given the demise in our culture of a Judeo-Christian ethic and its core notion of the sanctity of human life (as opposed to a quality of life ethic), we shouldn’t be surprised.  Ideas have consequences.  And when a society reject an idea that is crucial to the preservation of basic morality, extreme evil will follow.  Infanticide is such an evil.

Posted on

Hodgepodge

By Jim Spiegel

1. Cursive handwriting is almost a thing of the past, a fact that is bemoaned by many people.  Check out this piece in Prospect about the “Curse of Cursive Handwriting.”  My sentiments exactly.

2. Here is an interesting piece from the Chronicle of Higher Education about “The Quest for Permanent Novelty.”  It provokes reflection about the nature and purpose of art but also—presumably aside from the author’s intentions—thoughts about the ineradicable human desire for what is eternal.

3. And, in case you missed it, take a look at this clip where Senator Ted Cruz repeatedly asks U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder this question:  Would it be constitutional for a government drone to kill a suspect who poses no imminent threat.  Simple, right?  Not for Eric Holder.  Gulp.

4. Lastly, here is my Books & Culture review of Bob Dylan’s latest album, Tempest.

Posted on

Thoughts on MLK’s Case for Civil Disobedience

By Jim Spiegel

As today we are celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., I have again been looking over his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” a crucial document in the history of the civil rights movement.  It is in this potent defense and application of an ethic of civil disobedience that we find such well-known statements as these:

  • “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
  • “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust…is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
  • “The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be.  Will we be extremists for hate or for love…for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

In his argument for full equality for black Americans, King appealed repeatedly to Scripture (especially the New Testament and the words of Jesus) and the authority of Christian theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas.  Now it is interesting to note that today many Americans Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTSstaunchly oppose any mixing of religion and politics.  More specifically: they are critical of any use of theological arguments to defend public policies.  So by this standard, King was way out of line when he appealed repeatedly to Scripture to defend his views.  And he was completely off base when declaring “We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.”

Of course, some theological arguments are better than others, whether they regard issues in metaphysics, ethics, politics, or any other subject matter.  Some criticisms of theo-political arguments are quite warranted.  But the point is that not all such arguments are necessarily flawed or illegitimate.  And if one believes otherwise, then one must be willing to accept the uncomfortable conclusion that King’s approach was fundamentally flawed.

So the next time you hear someone complain tout court about appeals to theology to defend political views, you might want to kindly inquire what they think of the tactics and rhetorical strategy of Martin Luther King, Jr.  I suspect that more often than not the person will be disturbed by the realization that their anti-theological dogma forces them to bite a bullet they aren’t prepared to bite.

Posted on

Hodgepodge

By Jim Spiegel

1. The Illusion of Time — A few months ago I stumbled on this Nova series “Fabric of the Cosmos,” narrated by Columbia University physicist Brian Greene.  I was transfixed by the second installment in the series entitled “The Illusion of Time” which explains the relativity of time in lay-friendly terms.  I defy you to watch the entire episode without uttering the word “wow.”

2. Doing Politics Well — This piece by Messiah College professor Dean Curry might be elementary in certain respects, but in the current atmosphere of division and rancor such balance is refreshing.

3. The Roots of Mass Murder — I have read numerous articles in response to the Newtown school shooting, but perhaps none as wise as this Washington Post commentary by Charles Krauthammer.

4. Life Imitating Art — Check out this disturbing story about a Ukranian teenager who wants to look like a cartoon character, specifically characters from Japanese anime films.  Apparently, she is considering undergoing eye surgery to make the change permanent.  Ugh.

Posted on

Post-Election Reflections

By Amy Spiegel

I suppose at this point that most of you have had it up to the proverbial “here” with politics and any discussion thereof. I have felt a strange absence post-election—no more pundits predicting this outcome or that, no heated debates filling the airways, etc.

I am trying to put absence to good use, however. Pre-election, I participated in a political panel discussion on Taylor’s campus. The topic was civility—how we can discuss and debate issues many of us feel very passionately about without discrediting ourselves, or our Savior. I have been considering some of the things that were said that night and one thing keeps coming back to me, maybe because I said it. In response to a question I sadly don’t remember, I encouraged the students to make sure that their lives reflected their political convictions. That is to say, if you say you are for the poor then make sure you don’t just depend on the government to take care of the poor. If you say you are for freedom of speech, then don’t shut down others when they try to speak.

So I have been thinking about how my life reflects my political convictions and how I can better align those convictions with my everyday life. Here are a few ways I am doing so:

1)  I believe that the ultimate solution for our woes as a nation, as the human race is Jesus, so shouldn’t I spend at least as much time listening to people talk about Christ as I do listening to people talk about the right and the left? My kids can rattle off talk radio hosts like nobody’s business, but shouldn’t they be able to rattle off famous pastors and theologians just as easily? So I am trying to listen to Christian radio more. I say “trying” because so much of it is so awful I would rather listen to NPR’s coverage of the Republican Convention, but I am finding some of it very edifying. It has added depth to our car conversations. So no matter what Alistair Begg is saying, I’ll listen. I would happily listen to that man read a telephone book.

2)  I have been very critical about the wasteful and truly immoral way our government is frittering away billions of dollars, and yet am I as careful as I ought to be with my own family’s resources? If I want a government that spends wisely, then shouldn’t I be a citizen who spends wisely? We are hardly extravagant people, but when I think of the needs that are out there, I am sure we could do better. I also want to be willing to see government programs from which I benefit, namely public charter schools, cut for the sake of whole, however painful a loss to me personally.

3)  I believe in the American republic and the right to elect our governmental officials, but what happens when those elected don’t reflect my positions? Since the election, I have been reminding myself that one side has to lose, and why do I think I have the right to be in the majority? It feels pretty safe to be in the majority and it is easy to talk about democracy then, but what about when you are in the minority? Even if I dislike the outcome, I must respect the process.

Ultimately, all these things add up to this, I want to live a life that makes politics irrelevant. I want to teach my kids, and myself, that the best public service we can perform isn’t done on election day but every day before and after.

Posted on

Foundational Documents of Israel and Hamas

By Jim Spiegel

The recent violence in the Middle East has prompted me to take a close look at the founding documents of Israel and Hamas—the governing authority of Gaza.  Reading through the Hamas Charter it is clear that the principal aim of Hamas is the extermination of Jews.  As article seven Small_hamas_logostates, “Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” Hamas is fundamentally committed to jihad and opposed to peaceful negotiation with Israel (see article 13).

As for Israel’s founding documents, it is interesting to note that they have no formal constitution.  Rather, the legal foundation of the country is a document called the Basic Laws of Israel.  See especially the basic laws on Human Dignity and Liberty.  These fundamental laws concern the protection of human rights to life, property, dignity and privacy, regardless of a person’s race, religion, or ethnicity.  It is striking to note the vast difference of content and tone between this document and the Hamas Charter.  In short, we see in these two documents Emblem_of_Israel.svgthe essential differences between founding principles that respect human rights and those which do not.  Or, to be more blunt: the difference between a rational political system and a terrorist state.

I would encourage anyone interested in Middle East relations—which should include all of us—to take a close look at these documents.  They go a long way in explaining the on-going events in that region.  As it is with individual people, so it is with nations and political systems:  Our basic values drive our conduct.

Posted on

Pressing Questions About Benghazi

By Jim Spiegel

Four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, were killed over six weeks ago, yet we still have not been told the truth regarding the circumstances surrounding their deaths, no thanks to news media that seems willing to let the story fade.  But the Benghazi story won’t go away, and for good reason.  President Obama has been asked a few questions by news journalists, but he consistently stonewalls, such as he does here in response to the question whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for help.  In other interviews Obama has similarly avoided answering the question, which suggests that, indeed, the requests were denied.  After all, as commander-in-chief, he would know whether such requests were made, and if they weren’t, he would say so.  But if the requests were not denied, then actions would have been taken to protect the Americans.  But no such actions were taken…for seven hours.  Obama cannot feign ignorance on this one.  Thus, other pressing questions need to be asked as well, including the following:

  • Who gave the order to the U.S. counterterrorist forces not to defend the Americans under attack?
  • If someone beneath you disobeyed your orders to protect the Americans, then why have you not fired them or at least told us who is responsible?
  • Since it was clear from day one that this was a terrorist attack, not a mob protest of the film, then why did the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, and the UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, give the media the “film protest” line for several days?
  • Who directed Carney and Rice to tell the media it was about the film and not a terrorist attack?

These are potentially damning questions, of course.  Yet the news journalists from the mainstream media who have had the opportunity to question Obama have failed to ask these questions.  They are not doing their job, and the only plausible explanation is that they are protecting Obama.  Perhaps protecting him from some extremely serious charges, including treason.

In recent decades we have seen some major presidential scandals, such as Nixon’s Watergate and the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.  But there were no deaths involved in those scandals, let alone murder of a high-ranking U.S. official.  In Benghazi four Americans died, apparently because of the abject failure of the President to act on their behalf.  If ever a story deserved aggressive media scrutiny, this is it.

Fortunately, some members of Congress are keeping pressure on the President to clean and answer some of these questions.  At least they are doing their job.

Posted on

On Disagreement and Civility

By Amy Spiegel

I am not a big fan of Facebook. Or rather, I am not a big fan of what Facebook brings out in me. A few years back, I took a much welcomed hiatus that only ended with my need to utilize social media in order to promote my book. I have enjoyed being back in the loop more than I thought I would. I like challenging an old friend to a game of Words With Friends or learning about the marathon that a college classmate that I don’t really remember just ran. When things turn political, however, I get a bit uncomfortable. There is often something presumptuous in the way people post their political opinions online, an assumption that by being “friends” we must share more than just part of our past.

When confronted with strongly worded missives from either side of the aisle, I must confess, I have been tempted to simply de-friend the offender or at least hide any further posting. But the other day, a college acquaintance threw down the gauntlet and I chose to face the challenge head on. I carefully worded my comment, attempting to at least fake open-mindedness, though I hoped I was doing more than faking it. And guess what? My acquaintance didn’t reach through the computer screen and yell at me. He responded with great civility and we moved on to new recipes and amusing e-cards.

While I was pleased with this encounter with civil political discourse, I was embarrassed to realize how hesitant I am to share my political views in an unfiltered environment. Admitting a strong leaning to one political affiliation or another feels like an invitation for backslapping from one side of the aisle and discord with another. Why is arguing about politics such a big deal? I have debated with people about plenty of issues, so why should I shy away from doing so on political topics?

I guess the problem boils down to the fact that I love being right but hate making other people feel “wrong.” I discovered this when I finally won a game of Settlers of Catan only to realize that in order for me to win, other people had to loss. I have always assumed the same to be true of political battles. One side wins and the other loses. But what if this isn’t necessarily true? Isn’t our country based on the idea of checks and balances? Aren’t there plenty of goals we all agree on? The differences seem to be ones of means rather than ends. I don’t hate poor people or the environment. I don’t stay up late at night hoping for more wars or economic disaster. When did politics become such a winner takes all proposition?

I have been greatly encouraged by Mitt Romney’s recent comments regarding the issue of compromise. He has said he isn’t willing to compromise on the goals but the methods are up for negotiation. While some might say this is a lack of clear planning, I see it as an opportunity for bi-partisanship. Maybe if we all stop looking at the future of the country as a mere game, we just might all manage to win.

Posted on

Obama’s Birth Certificate a Forgery?

By Jim Spiegel

We thought we had heard the last of the questions about the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.  Now, armed with new information, Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio is calling upon Congress to look into the matter as a matter of national security.  Arpaio is making his appeal based on an official study, led by Michael Zullo, chief investigator with Cold Case Posse, which has concluded that Obama’s birth certificate is actually fraudulent.  One major indicator concerns the box on the form for “Race of

Photo Credit: AP/Ralph Freso

Father.”  The number “9” appears there, signifying “no information,” yet the box is not empty.  The word “African” is printed there.  This is also problematic because that term was not used as a racial indicator until the late 1980s, almost three decades after Obama’s birth.  Additionally, the birth number on the form is discrepant, according to the investigation.

So…the plot thickens.  We can expect the ad hominem attacks on Arpaio to grow more intense.  He has been a controversial sheriff, and some complain that his motives in undertaking the investigation were self-serving, specifically to draw attention away with problems with his agency.  Others will continue to politicize the investigation, arguing that the whole thing is motivated to undermine Obama’s re-election bid.  Of course, all of this might be true, but none of it is relevant if there really is significant evidence that Obama’s birth certificate was forged.

Posted on

Hodgepodge

By Jim Spiegel

1. Facebook Enemies – Have a lot of friends on Facebook?  Would you like to establish a few enemies as well?  You’re not alone.  Take a look at this recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

2. About Face – Speaking of Facebook, check out this excellent Touchstone article by my friend, and CIU professor, Steve Baarendse, who offers a (baker’s) dozen reasons why he is not on Facebook.  Interesting stuff, which will prompt some healthy critical reflections on all of your on-line activity, whether or not you’re part of Facebook nation.

3. Billy Corgan on Dissent – I never was a big Smashing Pumpkins fan (though I do own Siamese Dream), but I sure found myself cheering as I watched this fascinating InfoWars interview with the band’s front man.  If more people thought like this, we could really have some productive public discourse in this country.

4. Zombie Town Detroit! – Here’s a wild and crazy (and potentially profitable) idea to bring some renewal to Detroit.  Critics think the proposal for a Zombie theme park is exploitative and insensitive.  Judge for yourself.