withallyourmind.net

’Twas August, and the fierce sun overhead
Smote on the squalid streets of Bethnal Green,
And the pale weaver, through his windows seen
In Spitalfields, looked thrice dispirited.
I met a preacher there I knew, and said:
“Ill and o’erworked, how fare you in this scene?”—
“Bravely!” said he; “for I of late have been
Much cheered with thoughts of Christ, the living bread.”
O human soul! as long as thou canst so
Set up a mark of everlasting light,
Above the howling senses’ ebb and flow,
To cheer thee, and to right thee if thou roam—
Not with lost toil thou labourest through the night!
Thou mak’st the heaven thou hop’st indeed thy home.

I forgot to mention this before I left, but I’ve just returned from a wonderful spring break vacation to Asheville, NC and the surrounding area. It was a wonderful time of refreshment and a much-needed break for me and my wife from school and work. Alas, it is now ended and I am back to school and work tomorrow. This explains my lack of posts last week (I amazingly survived five whole days without touching a computer other than to get directions), and I should be back in full gear this week with some hopefully thought-provoking posts. Below are a couple of my favorite pictures from the trip. The first is of me on top of Chimney Rock, and the second is of my beautiful wife and me on Grandfather Mountain. You can click the pictures to see them full-sized.
   

An article appeared on CNN today concerning the reproductive “rights” of men. I found it quite interesting on several accounts. The most striking thing about this article to me is that it reveals the total hypocrisy and inconsistency of the pro-abortion advocates.

The case, filed by the National Center for Men on behalf of a 25 year old male who has been ordered to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend for their daughter, is nicknamed Roe vs. Wade for Men. He claims that his former girlfriend had assured him that she could not become pregnant. The case argues that if a woman can choose abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy, a man should be able to decline the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. Furthermore, a man should have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.

Jennifer Brown, an abortion advocate, dislikes the comparison with Roe vs. Wade:

Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want. There’s nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.

What!? An extreme intrusion by the government? Who forced the woman to have unprotected sex? If a baby is just an inconvenience one can toss aside if desired, why isn’t the inconvenience of paying a substantial part of one’s paycheck every month for 18 years equal justification. Instead of aborting the child, why doesn’t the woman “use contraception” or “get sterilized”, as Brown said.

Feit, director of the men’s center counters:

Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences. No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say. The problem is this is so politically incorrect. The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility. If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible. If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.

Women’s rights supporters (inconsistently) become concerned about the rights of the child when it comes to the financial responsibility of the father. Where is this concern about the child’s rights when it comes to being murdered by the mother? Kim Gandy, president of NOW, states:

None of these are easy questions. But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.

I hope that our courts will realize that the whole abortion issue is about the rights of the child, an unborn human being. It is hypocritical to appeal to the rights of the child when it comes to making a man pay child support, but to ignore them when it comes to terminating a life. Of course, I do believe it is about the rights of the child. Their is a sure way to make sure no one is “inconvenienced” by a child…don’t engage is sexual intercourse. The “choice” should be made before conception takes place. In that regard, I am totally pro-choice. One must choose not to seek gratification for one’s own sexual impulses, and then either kill a child or refuse to financially care for the child because one is inconvenienced. Hopefully, this suit will reveal the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the “pro-choice” movement.

O GOD, I love thee, I love thee-
Not out of hope of heaven for me
Nor fearing not to love and be
In the everlasting burning.
Thou, thou, my Jesus, after me
Didst reach thine arms out dying,
For my sake sufferedst nails, and lance,
Mocked and marred countenance,
Sorrows passing number,
Sweat and care and cumber,
Yea and death, and this for me,
And thou couldst see me sinning:
Then I, why should not I love thee,
Jesu, so much in love with me?
Not for heaven’s sake; not to be
Out of hell by loving thee;
Not for any gains I see;
But just the way that thou didst me
I do love and I will love thee:
What must I love thee, Lord, for then?
For being my king and God. Amen.

- poem by Francis Xavier, translated by Gerard Manley Hopkins.

In a previous blog, I referred to some lectures I was listening to by Dr. Lawrence Principe on Science and Religion. In that post, I offered his debunking of this thesis, which states that science and religion have always been at war with each other. I also indicated that this thesis is still adhered to today by such men as Richard Dawkins.

Principe illustrates that the books by Draper and White which popularized this theory in the 19th century were examples of poor scholarship and sometimes outright fabrication. He also asserts that they rely on a central and fallacious assumption.

They assume that scientists and theologians formed two separate camps throughout history and that theologians imposed their will on scientists.

The problem is that these categories are modern ones. Pre-modern thinkers (scientists) felt that theology and religious texts were relevant to their work and vice versa. Religion was not an imposition but a key part of the background and motivation of natural philosophy (as science was then thought of). Divisions between science and religion may seem familiar to the modern American mind, but they were not historically so.

For example, Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (of Boyle’s Law fame) was deeply religious and viewed the role of the natural philospher (”scientist”) as a “priest of nature”. Newton was also deeply religious, as is the case for essentially all the “scientific greats” of the early modern period. Copernicus was involved in Holy Orders of the church. One could go on and on.

The bottom line is this. As has been stated before, scientific advancements came because of Christianity, not in spite of it or in opposition to it. Science arose in a context of understanding shaped by a Christian worldview: that of a rational supreme being who created an orderly world which can be understood by a rational creation made in his image.