The Daily Detour

More on the crusade against the "Tebow Super Bowl ad"

Yesterday, I posted on the much-talked-about Tim Tebow ad that was broadcast during last night's Super Bowl. The Washington Post has an article that amusingly reacts to the ad controversy...that wasn't. They link to the counter ad put together by Planned Parenthood. This ad, put out prior to the Super Bowl to try to preempt the deeply offensive Focus on the Family ad, shows former professional football player, Sean James, and Olympic gold-medalist, Al Joyner, talking about why joined Planned Parenthood in putting out the ad to counter the message of the Tebows. While they offer the obligatory comment about respecting Mrs. Tebow's decision, they want to protect every woman's right to choose.

Interestingly, Al Joyner states in the ad, "I want my daughter to live in a world where everyone's decisions are respected." This is ironic coming from Planned Parenthood, given the fact that their over-reaction to Pam Tebow's decision seems to promote anything but "a world where everyone's decisions are respected."

We saw this same irony in the vitriolic reaction by Planned Parenthood and other feminist organizations to Sarah Palin's decisions concerning her career and her choice to not terminate her disabled child, Trig. It seems to me that if we truly respected everyone's decisions, then these women and these ads like the Tebow ad would, at the very least, be non-issues. Or, at most, those women's groups who supposedly suggest that women's choices should be respected, would actually applaud the courageous decisions that such women make.

The truth is, we have come to place in our culture where the most strident advocates of tolerance have become increasingly intolerant of those opinions, perspectives, and choices that do not conform to their own. That is the nature of what I have described here often as "the tyranny of tolerance".

The other truth is that these women's groups have revealed their true colors where the choices of conservative women are concerned. They say they want to protect women's right to make decisions for their lives, but the truth is, they don't--if those women are making choices that they disagree with. This hypocrisy undermines the credibility of their pro-women message. And it is a hypocrisy that is obvious to everyone but those who have been blinded by it.

UPDATE: Politics Daily and the Daily Finance talk about the perfectly clever pump fake by Tebow & Co. Score one for the pro-life team in this round.

Tis' the season for "Reason's Greetings"

Last Christmas, a number of related atheist groups made international headlines with an orchestrated campaign that ran ads on billboards and buses running in cities like London, Chicago, Washington D.C., and even here in Indiana. It began what is apparently becoming an annual tradition.

There is now an additional campaign taking place in certain cities across the country. Slogans like "Heathen's Greetings" and "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." are finding their way onto billboards, sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

I happpened to run across this very interesting transcript of an interview between Laura Ingraham and Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the co-presidents of the organization. Ms. Ingraham was guest-hosting Bill O'Reilly's show. I did not see the actual interview (because my computer is starting to walk down the green mile) but reading the interview raises some issues to light that are worth considering.

In general, I don't have a huge problem with self-described "freethinkers" buying ads of this nature. I don't necessarily agree with their premise, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution extends to all citizens of the United States, especially those with whom I may disagree. That is what makes the governing system in our republic so unique and enviable, is that we have the right to speak up. (And ironically, as I've pointed out here before, that even includes those who bash our Founding Fathers--the ones who ensured that right to speak up.) Such is the essential nature of this wonderful country of ours, and that is a freedom that should be vigilantly protected.

My only real issue with these kinds of efforts by the skeptic community is that they seem more than a bit antagonistic toward those who don't share their beliefs. And I don't always understand why that needs to be the case. It seems to me that there can be (and should be) room for all of us at the table.

Perhaps it's because in many ways the non-religious among us feel as though they have been hurt, offended, or even attacked by the religious devotees. I don't know. But it is interesting to see the reaction by many skeptics toward what they see as the dogmatic nature of Christianity while simultaneously turning a blind eye to their own dogma--dogma about a different set of beliefs, but dogma nonetheless. Isn't the goal to try to be less dogmatic, while still leaving room to hold firmly to those convictions that we believe in? For the Christian, it separates what I call the "non-negotiable" beliefs from the "negotiable" beliefs. And the non-negotiables represent what C.S. Lewis termed "mere" Christianity.

Regardless, I find this particular exchange beneficial in a couple of immediate ways. First of all, it proves very illuminating concerning many of the feelings about, and arguments against, Christianity that many skeptics have. For those Christians who are serious about trying to reach out to their neighbors, the comments made by Ms. Gaylor are essentially what many (if not most) skeptics feel about Christians and Christianity (TDD skeptic readers: please do weigh in here and correct me if this is not the case). The arguments presented by skeptics are not merely theoretical attempts to stir the pot. Real, rational people have staked their lives and future on their sincere beliefs about these things. And they should be respected for that.

Secondly, the exchange here, and the corresponding ad campaign that it highlights, provide a great opportunity to have substantive dialogue about these kinds of issues. (I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Ms. Ingraham or Ms. Gaylor were engaged in that effort, though perhaps the attempt was being made by one side or the other at times.) But we all can certainly seek to explore and understand our differences of belief. And we can thoughtfully engage in the exchange of ideas as we pursue what we all are seeking--the Truth. That is, after all, the reason for any season.

UPDATE: Stephanie Simon over at The Wall Street Journal wrote this interesting article about last year's atheist ad campaign.

Twitter and the loss of shame

(TDD Warning: Some of the content on the linked articles may not be suitable for some of our younger TDD readers. Please use appropriate discretion.)

A story about Twitter was burning up the internet this past week. It involved Penelope Trunk, who broadcasted to her Twitter audience that she was having a miscarriage during a recent board meeting. She went on to express her gratefulness for the miscarriage since there are legal hoops to jump in order to have an abortion in Wisconsin. As you might imagine, her controversial statements are being met with very mixed responses. Among other things, they undermine the pro-choice cause, seeming to reinforce the callous nature that many pro-lifers assume about those who support abortion. Ms. Trunk's responses remind me of a similar article in the New York Times magazine, "When One Is Enough" which also reinforces that mentality.

Beyond that, the book The Death of Outrage also springs to mind. When Bill Bennet first penned the book, its premise was directed at former President Clinton's indiscretions in the Oval Office. But the thesis still applies. We as a culture have gradually descended into a state of apathy concerning societal morality. Such is the nature of a culture that attempts to do away with moral absolutes in favor of tolerance-based moral relativity. We lose our basis for judging right and wrong, and thus, morality gets diluted.

As I have written in the past, we have a collective conscience that has begun to atrophy. And we are not better off for it. Will we ever learn? 

Hospital forced to let patient die

In a most unusual bioethical situation, a hospital in England was legally bound to let a patient die. Kerrie Wooltorton "is believed to be the first person to use a living will to commit suicide." She drank antifreeze, but not before writing a note to the hospital medical staff not to rescusitate here if she is brought into the hospital. As she wrote in her letter, ""If I come into hospital regarding an overdose or any attempt of my life, I would like for NO life saving treatment to be given."

Imagine you're a doctor in that situation. What would you do?

It's a simple question with a not-so-simple answer.

The silence from the pro-abortion lobby

I just ran across this brief commentary from Jeffrey Weiss over at Politics Daily concerning the apparent absence of condemnation by the pro-abortion groups over the recent killing of pro-life activist James Pouillon. His comments are well-written and persuasive. They certainly don't deserve any additions from me. The only thing I would say is that I concur with his observation that their does seem to be a strange silence over the whole affair from those who supporting abortion. I wonder, "Why?"

The latest slide on stem cell's slippery slope

I was just trolling around Facebook and came across fellow Centurion Stuart McKelvie's comment about a disturbing Breakpoint commentary. The subject of Chuck Colson's commentary concerns the latest developments in the stem cell research debate--this time arguing that we should consider harvesting organs from aborted fetuses in order to supply the needs of those waiting on the transplant list. All of this is with the "noble" intent of saving lives.

This entire idea is the essence of utilitarianism--the philosophy built on the idea of "doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people". In this case, taking one life (the fetus) in order to save other lives is justified. But where do we draw the line in such thinking?

Friends, this is not the speculations of futuristic science fiction. We are quickly moving down this gruesome path, and in some cases, we have already arrived.

In settling into my new job, I ran across a compelling quote shared with me some time ago by one of our TDD readers, which I have since posted in my office:

"Doing nothing is no longer an option!"

Especially for those of us who are Christians, the Bible compells us to "Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves" (Proverbs 31:8). And furthermore, it says in Proverbs 24:11-12,

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?

Beyond merely a spiritual perspective, there is a pragmatic consideration that should grab all of our attention whether we're religious or not. The fact is, utilitarianism left unchecked means that ultimately nobody is immune from its grasp. Either we or our families will eventually succumb to the whims and "wisdom" of the most powerful among us. And that is a reality that can become extremely dangerous indeed.

More and more lately I have found myself being confronted with this nagging question, "John, what will it take for you act? How bad do things have to get before you finally say, 'Enough his enough!', and do something to combat the problems?" That is something for all of us to think about. So, be disturbed by this latest commentary on the stem cell debate, and do something about it (or any of the other issues confronting us today). If we don't, who will? 

Fake Sarah Palin Facebook site draws many fans

Over at Politics Daily, Emily Miller reports on the manipulative experiment undertaken by Alex Grossman, when he created a fake Sarah Palin page on Facebook to, according to Politics Daily,

...demonstrate his theory that Sarah Palin is using people who are easily duped for her own political gain. He says "those people" only care about "Jesus, salmon recipes and killing moose."

What continues to strike me is the condescending arrogance that people like Mr. Grossman demonstrate toward conservatives in general and Palin supporters in particular (while at the same time, ironically, complaining that conservatives are so judgmental, and should more open to civil engagement). Here's just a sampling of Mr. Grossman's less-than-generous attitude to toward those who see something in Palin that they resonate with:

Grossman was much more outspoken about his agenda when Politics Daily interviewed him by phone on Friday. He said he made the fake page to show that "Palin is using these Moral Majority, holy rollers who are uneducated and lower-middle class for her own power."

..."She is enflaming hatred like was done in Fascist Germany – go after the uneducated, lower class to gain political power."

He says he is not religious himself and strongly opposes people who vote for religious, social or values reasons because that "violates the separation of church and state."

Grossman says that people who support Palin because she believes in God should "go back to their knitting clubs and pancake breakfasts" and not be involved in politics.

Speaking of "enflaming hatred"...

The bottom line is, we'll never reach resolution on any of the issues facing this country unless all of us (on both sides of the philosophical aisle) attempt less condescending arrogance and more generosity toward one another. This manipulation by Mr. Grossman hardly contributes toward that end (an end, that I assume--perhaps incorrectly--that he too would desire). Ms. Miller rightly points that out in her own summation.

Grossman, though, is not trying to be funny, and he doesn't claim to be. He has a radical, left-wing agenda.

In my view, he preyed on the innocence and honesty of people to further his own gains, and now fame.... 

The tragic consequences of fertility world records

You may have heard of Maria del Carmen Bousada, the woman who holds the world record for being oldest woman to be pregnant and give birth. She was 66 years old when she underwent in vitro fertilization. The subsequent birth of her two twins created news worldwide, and stirred afresh the ongoing debate as to the implications and responsibilities related to fertility efforts (particularly given the fact that she lied to the fertility clinic and said she was 55-years old, the maximum threshold for females who want to undergo artificial insemination).

That debate has taken on a new twist with the announcement last week that Ms. Bousada has died at age 69, leaving behind her now-two-year old twins babies. (So much for her assurances to the fertility doctors that because her own mother lived to be 101 years old, she too would be old enough to properly care for the children.)

As with any of the bioethical issues that are addressed on this blog, the proverbial "slippery slope" is a constant theme. And rightly so, as this particular incident demonstrates. Whether we are considering the implications of such complex issues like embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or cloning, the results of such decisions are typically so far in the future as to render the present discussions virtually theoretical. But then the reality of those irrevocable decisions comes crashing to the fore, as this tragedy confirms. Whatever the motivations behind this increasing trend among older women to try to have children, it doesn't seem as though the long-term ramifications of those decisions are thoroughly considered. And the result is typically a short-term "solution" with long-term consequences.

What is to become of these two little babies? The reality that they now face was something that Ms. Bousada did not presumably anticipate when she went through the fertility process. But it is a reality nonetheless, and this tragedy has the potential to be only the beginning of similar life-altering tragedies along this bioethical trajectory upon which our culture finds itself.

This is all the more reason why Christians and other ethically-minded individuals need to not only strategically think through these pressing issues with a thorough seriousness, but they also must be much more intentional about advocating for better alternatives. If not, we can only expect similar outcomes to become more common in the future. And whether we anticipate it or not, real people are affected by such decisions.

The gradual erosion of our American foundation

Have you heard about the Christian couple in San Diego, CA who have been ordered to stop having a small Bible study in their home or risk paying thousands of dollars in permit fees? Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary were informed by a government official of San Diego County that they can no longer hold a small gathering with friends because their "religious assembly" was in violation of the county code.

The question, as the Jones's pointed out, is not about the money as much as it is the guaranteed right of all American citizens to practice the free exercise of religion, as protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution. The freedom of worship was articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his famous, "Four Freedoms" speech delivered on January 6, 1941 (and subsequently conveyed by Norman Rockwell in his artistic renderings of those freedoms for The Saturday Evening Post).

It is within such circumstances that we see the ongoing clash of church/state issues increasingly envelop our daily lives. Are we vigililant in recognizing that this deterioration of basic American rights is happening in other areas as well? In an ironic testament to the tyranny of political correctness, for example, there is a movement to ensure that anything said against homosexuality should be considered "hate speech". Certainly, there are countless examples of people who have directed crass, disrespectful, even hateful, speech toward homosexuals (the most blatant example being Fred Phelps and his anti-biblical, militant, hate-mongering band of twisted "Christians"). And they should be dealt with accordingly. Included in this assumption of hate speech, however, are also certain reasonable and legitimate pastors who find themselves in hot water for simply articulating biblical passages which do speak out against homosexual practices (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, etc.). Not only are they branded with their own conservative form of the scarlet letter ("C"), but worse, some are in danger of being packed off to jail for such "offenses".

There was a time in our nation's history when our founding fathers recognized and protected those basic human rights which were "endowed by [our] Creator". I fear that time is passing.

It is these rights of the free expression of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and to petition one's government for a redress of grievances which make us distinctively American. And they provide the basis by which Americans down through our history have fought so courageously on our behalf. Moreover, so many Americans have sought to ensure that other people around the world have the opportunity to embrace them as well. It is tragically ironic to consider then that that this great nation of ours which embodies such freedoms may itself be working to deprive them from its own citizens. 

To push or not to push the suicide jumper...

Why that is the question, I don't know. But apparently it was in the Chinese city of Guangzhou last Thursday. And 66-year-old Lai Jiansheng opted to answer that question by pushing Chen Fuchao off the bridge, where had been contemplating suicide in a 5+ hour standoff. Ironically, he callously capped off the shove by saluting Mr. Fuchao after he fell.

As I read about this, I couldn't help but consider this idea within a different context. I wonder, have we Christians ever been guilty of giving those people who are in throes of difficult spiritual yearnings and questions a shove (even when we may not have fully realized the consequences of our actions)? This is a hard a question, and would, on the surface, seem not worth even considering. Of course, we wouldn't...or would we?

I can't tell you how many times I've talked with my skeptic friends--many of whom are former Christians--who describe the less than empathetic and loving reception they've received from Christians when word got out that they had begun to question some of the very fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. And sadly, I myself have been on the receiving end of some very insensitive, even unChristlike, reactions from Christians who question why I would spend so much time reaching out to and thoughtfully engaging with skeptics. The argument goes (or at least it did when I was a pastor), "If they want to wrestle around with those kinds of questions, that's their choice, but there are people here at church that need your attention." I was under the impression that the right kind of leader leads by example. So much that theory, I guess. (Naturally, time spent with the skeptics who are raising some of the most difficult questions may seem like a waste of time to those Christians who don't understand--that is, until that skeptic happens to be their son, daughter, or grandchild.) The sad fact is, I have personally heard/experienced countless stories of many spiritually oriented people who ultimately rejected the faith as much because of interactions with the people of God than with God Himself.

There are so many people, even beyond the skeptic, who are really struggling with various issues in life. Are we even aware? And if we are, how are we responding to them? With an apathetic passivity and dismissal? Or worse, an outright rejection of their struggle? Or, do we not only notice, but intentionally respond to the hurts and pain apparent in those around us with the kind of endearing, restorative love that Jesus Himself might demonstrate if He were in our place? I hope it is the latter. And I know I can always do better in this effort. We would do well to make a concentrated effort to pursue improvement in our interactions with those who are a part of our sphere of influence. The journey continues...