Detail of Compound Microscope by Claude Passemant, Photo by Sage Ross (CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic, 1.0 Generic, GFDL 1.2 or later)
Quick: Name a Christian scientist. No, not a member of the Church of Christ Scientist founded by Mary Baker Eddy (“Christian Scientist”), and not a member of the Church of Scientology founded by L. Ron Hubbard (“Scientologist”).
Give up? Consider a combination of the terms “Christian” and “scientist” an oxymoron? Then you, like many other Christians today, might benefit from a short science lesson.
Scientific Ignorance
Somehow, we have been convinced that the abandonment of reason is a requirement of Christianity, and that ignorance of science is a badge of honor among Christians. However, a large number of leading scientists over the centuries have been Christian. Georges Lemaitre, for instance, was the astronomer (and Catholic priest) who proposed the “Big Bang” theory.
On the Shoulders of Giants
Christian scientists have made enormous contributions in fields ranging from astronomy and physics to genetics and seismology. Here are just a few examples:
- Nicolaus Copernicus, Father of Modern Astronomy
- Andreas Vesalius, Father of Modern Anatomy
- Galileo Galilei, Father of Modern Science
- Johannes Kepler, Father of the Planetary Laws of Motion
- Carolus Linnaeus, Father of Taxonomy
- Antoine Lavoisier, Father of Modern Chemistry
- Michael Farady, Father of Electronics
- George Boole, Father of Computer Science
- Gregor Mendel, Father of Genetics
- James Maxwell, Father of Modern Physics
- George Washington Carver, Father of Chemurgy[i]
After the fall of the Roman Empire, it was the church which – almost single handedly – preserved literacy in Western Europe. During the Dark Ages, monks saved works of classical scholarship from destruction at the hands of barbarian invaders. The church established some of Europe’s earliest universities, along with thousands of smaller schools. Read more…
As legal professionals, we can become hardened – almost in self-defense.
We deal regularly with extremely difficulty life situations. A will is contested on the death of a loved one. An auto accident raises questions of liability. Criminal allegations must be contested or the viability of defenses assessed.
For the clients’ benefit as much as our own, we steel ourselves to the emotional context of these situations; become increasingly inured as situations recur.
At times, we become the focus of misdirected anger by individuals or families attempting to deal with crisis or tragedy. We must face down ruthless and unscrupulous adversaries, without sinking to their level; may work side by side with colleagues whose ethics are less stringent than our own. “Lawyer jokes” to the contrary, we are often unappreciated and underpaid.
Worst of all perhaps, we see injustice triumph. We see base tactics succeed.
As a result of this, we can become jaded and worn down over the years. One plaintiff, one defendant, can become much the same as another to us.
God, however, calls us to mercy. After all, it is on His mercy we ourselves rely.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5: 7).
Merciful God, You above all know how much it is we need mercy.
Remind us to safeguard the weak, and forgive even those who would harm us. Help us to remain effective advocates while extending Your mercy to clients and adversaries, alike. Give us the strength and the heart to do so.
Amen
READERS CAN FIND MY VIEWS ON ABUSE AND ABUSE-RELATED ISSUES AT ANNA WALDHERR A Voice Reclaimed, Surviving Child Abuse
https://avoicereclaimed
ALIENS Logo Design by Terry Lamb/ Mike Salisbury Communications, LA, CA (1986), (PD)
These days the term “aliens” refers either to extraterrestrials or illegal immigrants. We find it easier to believe in the former, than deal with the latter. Human beings have a great capacity to see what is not there, while ignoring what is.
The Mosaic Law made provision for aliens, i.e. non-Israelites living among the Chosen People. Read more…
Author Ayn Rand is, of late, experiencing renewed popularity with her philosophy of self-interest (“Objectivism”) increasingly being applied to NeoConservative (NeoCon) and Conservative political policy.
While political views may differ, this essay will attempt to expose the errors and misassumptions in Rand’s reasoning, and the dangers inherent in her philosophy.
The concept of so called supermen was discussed in Part 1 of this series.
Compassion as Worthless
Rand denigrates compassion which, from a biblical perspective, has enormous value (more so than all or most measurable achievements).
Rand argues in The Virtue of Selfishness that all selfishness is morally good, and all altruism morally evil (“moral cannibalism” to use her phrase). She refers to those who do not agree with her philosophy as “lice”, “parasites” and “looters”.
Yet the Bible is filled with exhortations to assist the poor.
“You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy…” (Deut. 15: 11).
God is, in part, defined by His mercy toward the poor. Here are a few examples:
“He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the beggar from the ash heap, to set them among princes…”(1 Sam. 2: 8).
“But He saves the needy from the sword, from the mouth of the mighty, and from their hand. So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts her mouth” (Job 5: 15-16).
“ ‘For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now I will arise,’ says the Lord; ‘I will set him in the safety for which he yearns’ ” (Ps. 12: 5).
“He will bring justice to the poor of the people; He will save the children of the needy…” (Ps. 72: 4).
“He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty” (Luke 1: 52-53).
Christians hold that there is an affirmative obligation to use their ability and talent not only to benefit themselves, but to benefit those not equally blessed. Men and women with greater gifts will be held accountable for the way in which those gifts are used. It could be said that the challenge for those well off lies in giving generously; the challenge for the destitute lies in avoiding envy, bitterness, and despair.
Man as God
Herself an atheist, Rand argues that man is God and does not need Him. Human beings, in Rand’s view, define their own morality. This is an old argument – false, but as appealing as when first made to Adam and Eve. It flatters readers, minimizing the distinction between their creative acts and those of the Creator who brought them (and the universe they inhabit) into existence. Read more…
Tragically, 1 in 7 people on the globe – 925 million men, women, and children – go hungry daily.[i] The Sub-Saharan region of Africa – including the nations of Angola, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda – is particularly prone to famine. Famine on a large scale has, also, occurred in Russia, India, and China.
To say that famine involves great suffering is inadequate. But there can be spiritual famine, as well. When the prophet, Amos, wrote of a famine in hearing the word of the Lord, surely he spoke of our time, as much as his own:
” ‘They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the Lord, but shall not find it’ “ (Amos 8: 12). Read more…
Scales of Justice, Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site, Topeka, KS, Author Chris Light, (CC BY-SA 4.0 International)
The Beatitudes are a set of teachings the Lord delivered in the Sermon on the Mount. Eight times the Lord cited people viewed by the world as afflicted, and proclaimed them instead blessed. There could be no better illustration that God’s ways are higher than the world’s, and His thoughts higher than our own (Is. 55: 9).
The eight are with us still. They are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, the persecuted, and finally those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt. 5: 3-12).
All but the last of these give an impression of calm, gentleness, and resignation. Those of us who hunger and thirst after righteousness – attorneys, in particular – are not meek and mild. We are angry. That anger drives us. We are tormented by the injustice of the world; disconsolate that we can do so little, but determined to do all we can. Read more…
Photo of Ayn Rand used for first edition back cover of her novel “The Fountainhead” (1943), Author published by Bobbs-Merrill Company, credited to “Talbot” (PD)
It has been over 50 years since the publication of Ayn Rand’s best-selling novel, Atlas Shrugged. Rand has been rediscovered in the past few years with sales of her books climbing. Two of the three parts of a film trilogy based on Atlas Shrugged have reached theaters. One poll ranked the novel as second only to the Bible among influential books of the 20th Century.
Whether the films succeed commercially or not, a new generation is being exposed to Rand’s philosophy of self-interest as the highest good. Worse, Ayn Rand is developing a growing popularity with the Tea Party, NeoConservatives (NeoCons), and Conservatives, in general.
This essay is an attempt to expose the fallacies in Rand’s position, and warn that her pernicious philosophy is rapidly being translated into a dangerous political reality.
Pride: A Skewed Viewpoint
From the outset, Rand appeals to the pride in her readers, few of whom would consider themselves anything less than exceptional. Since we all have a sin nature, i.e. a natural inclination to choose evil over good, pride is always a temptation. But pride always presents us with a skewed view of existence.
Rand assumes – erroneously – that men and women with exceptional ability somehow merited that quality which, in fact, was a free gift of God, bestowed for His purposes. Rand argues not only for a sense of superiority by those so blessed, but entitlement (that entitlement deriving solely from an accident of birth, if one does not choose to believe in a Divine Being).
Many of Rand’s supporters argue that she could not have meant what she said or advocated what she did; that “selfishness” as Rand used the term meant nothing more than being true to one’s own values; that, in her view, the challenge was to adopt rational values. These supporters would, themselves, include in such values a concern for those in need of help through no fault of their own. Rand, herself, never conceded that point.
Quite to the contrary: Rand said what she believed, i.e. that “[i]f [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite.” Read more…
“Stream!”, Photo by Jon Sullivan (“jons”), Source
http://www.pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=&pg=6916
“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield its water…’ ” (Num. 20: 7-8).
“You can’t get blood from a stone.” It is an idiomatic phrase we have heard countless times. There is more than a hint of anger conveyed by the expression. The source, in other words, is unyielding or has been bled dry.
“You can’t get blood from a stone.” Why would anyone try to get blood from a stone? How could that even to be done? Surely, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Short of water for thousands of thirsty people he had led into the desert, Moses must have thought the same. “Why did you make us leave Egypt?” they whined. “Why did you bring us to this evil place to die?” they complained to him. Read more…
Sadly, Christians can appear self-righteous, smug, and hypocritical to the unsaved world. This is hardly the way to attract converts, let alone live out our faith.
We need not compromise Christian beliefs to convey them in a loving manner to those unfamiliar with Christianity or with backgrounds we consider less “pristine” than our own. None of us is without sin.
Hypocrisy
Christ, Himself, hated hypocrisy and self-righteousness. He repeatedly criticized the Pharisees for these faults:
“Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, ‘Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?’ He answered and said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” ’ ”(Mark 7: 5-6).
“Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: ‘Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.” And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted’ ” (Luke 18: 9-14).
In a State of Sin
Christians, of all people, should be conscious of their sin and inadequacy. We, ourselves, were on the road to death, destruction, and damnation. Under the law, every last one of us deserved execution for our sins. Read more…
This is an examination of the question whether money – particularly in the form of government assistance programs supported by tax dollars – should be set aside for the needy, in the knowledge that an unprincipled few will attempt to cheat the system.
The USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly “Food Stamps”, is our case study, for this purpose.
The moral duty and various rationales for aid were set out in Parts 1 and 2 of this series.
Fraud
Philosophic questions aside, the first difficulty lies in keeping cheats off the rolls; the second, in catching them; the third, in penalizing them sufficiently to dissuade others from attempting to defraud the system. Each of these has an associated cost.
If we do set up a system that provides financial assistance to destitute children, how do we keep shirker parents from accessing the funds, logistically speaking? What about parents who work 18 hours a day or two jobs to put food on the table, and give their children a better life? Is it “fair” to those parents that we use their tax dollars to support the children of cheats?
There are no cut-and-dried answers. Fairness would depend on the number of such cheats, eligibility for the assistance program by struggling parents, and tax equity respecting the cost of the assistance program. Sadly, a focus on cheats is often used to distract from the issue of tax equity. Read more…
A Lawyer's Prayers 