“Left alone [Melkor/Morgoth] could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos” – J. R. R. Tolkien (Morgoth’s Ring, 396)

“The spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness” -Vladimir Lossky (Orthodox Theology, 82)

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” – Romans 5:12 (Revised Standard Version)

The apostle Paul says it simply and clearly. How did death enter the world? Through sin. And how did sin enter the world? Through Adam.

(Not Eve. Which is interesting. And sheds some light on how Paul uses the Old Testament.)

So is death punishment from God for sin? In my opinion no. Although death puts a limit on human rebellion. It is one thing to have a free personal being in revolt against God. It is entirely another if that free personal being in revolt against God is immortal and/or indestructible. Consider Balor from the Space:1999 episode “End of Eternity”.

Rather the first human beings in Genesis 2-3 were not immortal. At least not yet. Perhaps if Adam and Eve had chosen for God and not against they would have been permitted to eat of the tree of life.

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” — 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (RSV)

It is only after the man knows good and evil – has arrogated unto himself the authority to decide what is good and evil? – that God decides it is necessary to send the human beings out of the garden so that they cannot eat from the tree of life and live for ever. Death is a response/consequence of the revolt.

There is another way to look at this. Consider the psychology of evil. If God is the source of life and we choose against God there is a sense in which we have chosen death. Sin is inherently a movement toward death. Again not so much in terms of punishment. But (a) result/consequence and (b) direction away from God who is the source of life.

Why is this important? Because lately I have begun to notice more clearly the relationship between sin and death. By which I mean how much of what we recognize as sin somehow a movement toward death? How much of what we recognize as sin is destructive or self-destructive or even both? I am beginning to wonder if we can discern a pattern.

Now here is where I might step on some toes. Including my own. Because I would rather not discuss Christian theology and politics together in the same post.

I have been struggling to understand why generally speaking certain social-political-cultural views and practices seem to cluster. For example why people who reject the Christian faith – notice how I phrased that not merely faithful members of other religions – are so obsessed with sex. By which I mean it seems to terribly important that people not constrain or restrain themselves in any way. Do it when you want with whom you want. And while they are at it who needs that oppressive institution known as marriage?

(Most of my undergraduate and graduate studies focused on ancient West Asian aka Near/Middle Eastern civilizations such as the Sumerians Akkadians Egyptians Hebrews and so on. I have read and/or collated dozens of ancient marriage contracts. My point being that for thousands of years people who were not Christian or Jewish have thought the legal-cultural institution known as marriage is a great thing.)

And on top of that sex without producing children. So everybody needs to use contraception. And when contraception fails – or was never used – legal elective abortion.

Now do not misunderstand me. I acknowledge that some Christians support and some atheists oppose legal elective abortion. And many Christians have no problems with birth control. And I am not saying anything for or against either of these – neither am I judging anyone who supports or has done either of these. But the hard cold biological fact is that the primary function of sexual intercourse is reproduction – or if you will the creation of new life.

So one the one hand we have people who adamantly oppose any – or at least most surely they would draw the line somewhere – restraints on sexual behavior. On an activity whose original primary function is (a) to create new life and/or (b) to overcome death. (On the latter aspect see Orthodox Theology by Vladimir Lossky p ???.)

And on the other hand they want to make sure that this activity never – or rarely – results in the creation of new life. Either by prevention the creation of new life – contraception. Or by destroying the preborn life that this activity creates – elective abortion.

(For the record there is a reason my wife and I have two children. Without going into detail yes we have used different methods of birth control.)

What prompted me to make this mental connection(?) is something Tony Rossi wrote recently about the movie and more importantly the novel Children of Men by P D James:

Recalling the evolution of the infertility problem, Theo says, “We thought that we knew the reasons — that the fall was deliberate, a result of more liberal attitudes to birth control and abortion, the postponement of pregnancy by professional women, the wish of families for a higher standard of living . . . Most of us thought the fall was desirable, even necessary. We were polluting the planet with our numbers . . . When Omega came it came with dramatic suddenness and was received with incredulity.”

Described in these terms, the story seems like an all too plausible scenario. In a society that has largely divorced sex from procreation, no one ever followed that attitude about reproductive choice to its logical if unlikely conclusion. Now, Omega has arrived and the despair is overwhelming.

There is a marked increase in suicides by middle-aged people who would “bear the brunt of an ageing and decaying society’s humiliating but insistent needs.” Also, every reminder of children (schools, toys, playgrounds) has been removed from the public landscape “except for the dolls, which have become for some half-demented women a substitute for children.”

People’s attitudes toward sex have also changed in an unexpected way. Theo says, “Sex has become among the least important of man’s sensory pleasures. One might have imagined that with the fear of pregnancy permanently removed, and the unerotic paraphernalia of pills, rubber and ovulation arithmetic no longer necessary, sex would be freed for new and imaginative delights. The opposite has happened. Even those men and women who would normally have no wish to breed apparently need the assurance that they could have a child if they wished. Sex totally divorced from procreation has become almost meaninglessly acrobatic.” (emphasis added)

According to P D James in The Children of Men what is the logical conclusion of unrestrained sex without procreation? Death. And despair.

Drugs and other addictions. Consider the misery and destruction caused by people who grow/make and sell drugs. Consider the self-destructive nature of drug use and alcohol addiction. Is that significant aspect of modern life largely an attempt to achieve non-existence?

Violence and oppression. What is Moammar Gadaffi doing right now if not attempting to destroy those he cannot control? Communism – in the Soviet Union in China in Cambodia and elsewhere – has killed more human beings that any religion.

And this is where I might really cross a line or two.

Why does the political-cultural left seem to ally itself with radical Islam? Could it be the movement toward death is something they share in common?

The recent turmoil in Wisconsin. Which of course is only an opening skirmish in the period of soft civil war which the United States may be entering. I understand not wanting to lose money and benefits. Been there done that myself and members of my family. But what we have is an entirely unsustainable trend. Spending/committing more and more money we simply do not and will not have. So why not tax the rich? Well first of all if we appropriate every dollar made by the rich – defined how exactly? – we still would not have enough for the obligations facing us. Second many of the rich would change their behavior and make it more difficult to take their money. Third of all eventually we would run out of money period. Total economic collapse. Anarchy. Chaos. Greece anyone?

There is a sense in which one group that lives off another group – fairly or unfairly or both – may eventually kill its host. Even our current political and economic policies are – when you scratch beneath the surface – taking us inevitably toward death.

I am greatly distressed by the apparent movement toward mob rule in Wisconsin. Do these protesters stop and wonder what would happen if everyone behaved the way they do and took that behavior and rhetoric to their logical conclusions? Can you imagine? Can they imagine?

Well we should care about the poor right? Yes indeed. And keep transferring money to them right? Perhaps it matters how we do that. Because consider the circumstances in which millions of poor African-Americans – and others – live in many of our cities. Are they not surrounded by the threat the fear the reality of death?

Let me conclude with a few qualifying remarks.

First this is a work in progress. I could be wrong. I could be very wrong about some or much or all of the above. But I am attempting to figure out the pattern that unites things I observe that otherwise do not seem to make sense.

Wright’s First Rule of Epistemology.

In any given set of data the anomalous elements are the key to understanding the whole.

Second I want to be careful about how this applies to the conscious motivations of real people. I am sure most people are not consciously trying to destroy themselves or other people. What I suggest is that even when we do not consciously realize it sinful behavior might at some level be an attempt to embrace death/deny life.

Which leads to third I am sure many people who (a) are not Christians and/or (b) are atheists are consciously(?) trying to embrace and nurture life. I am sure many people who are doctors who research new medicines who develop new technologies – or who just plain work to pay the bills and take care of their families you know? – as far as they are aware are trying to live and preserve life.

H/T The Anchoress for the Children of Men article

“Glee” is the only television show my entirely family enjoys watching together. We had been looking forward to the season opener on Monday. There was a “Sarah Palin is stupid” joke. My family did not care about that but thought the episode depressing. After gently disagreeing with conservative criticism of the show I did send a note to Fox saying “that was strike one”.

Gay Patriot makes the interesting comment that they feel more comfortable being gay at a Tea Party gathering than being conservative at a gay community gathering.

In another post they ask:

So, why, I wonder, can’t White House officials, Democratic Congressman and Senators and left-of-center opinion-makers show the same respect for the Tea Party movement? To be sure, many do, but they appear drowned out by a narrow-minded multitude.*

We’ve got reports of Democratic officials in one state bending over backwards to deploy Tea Party Crashers.*   And we’ve got one guy boasting of his efforts to do the same.  Should they succeed, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that some in the MSM will report the left-wingers’ masquerade as genuine tea party hatred.** (emphasis added)

*What was that about defining by extremes?

**You find that difficult to believe? Let me tell you a story.

For 3 years was president of the “pro-life” group Cornell Coalition for Life. There was no “pro-choice” group until 1988. They kicked off with a big Rally for Choice on the arts quad with speakers and a band. Fair enough. People should be free to advocate for what they think is just and against what they think is unjust.

I organized a counter-march. 20 against 200. Just carry “pro-life” signs and walk quietly around the quad. We ran into another group carrying signs against abortion and women who seek abortions. The signs were inflammatory and offensive. I recognized some of these people as active in far left causes. One brave woman from our group confronted them. They said they were taking a stand for women’s reproductive freedom. Oh.

Later that year we put up fliers for a “pro-life” presentation. The next day they were gone and replaced by fake fliers that were similar in design. “Life” was replaced by “Obey”. Nazi salutes were added.

Just as the presentation began these fake “pro-life” activists burst into the room singing patriotic songs and carrying American flags. Announced they were from the Coalition for Life. I said no you’re not. They made some offensive and inflammatory remarks against abortion and finally left.

In my 1989 Cornell yearbook is a picture of the Rally for Choice. There is a picture of these fake “pro-life” activists with their offensive signs. Beneath the picture is a caption. “Members of the Coalition for Life stage protest”.

Update 04/20/2010: Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney spent time at a Tea Party rally and found that even though he disagrees with Tea Party activists on 95% of the issues they are not angry racist violent people.

Eight week fetus(? or embryo?)

For four years I was a hardcore anti-abortion activist.

There. Said it. Now you know.

President of Cornell (University) Coalition for Life for 3 years. March for Life? Been there done that got separated from my group and searched the city for hours until I found them again. Articles. Debates. Meetings.I still have a cassette of anti-abortion songs and speeches by Randall Terry in my garage.

Once I hit graduate school I pulled out. My views on the issue did not change so much as I was sick of it and became convinced that spiritual transformation was more important than politics. Also realized I had been zealous and self-righteous and often obnoxious about the issue. Friendships were poisoned because of differing convictions. You can be right in all the wrong ways.

So please understand I am no longer actively against (elective) abortion. One thing I do still care about is how people think. And I see a lot of truly dreadful arguments and rhetoric in defense of abortion rights. Part of me wants to say to (most) people who favor elective abortion, “You may be correct and perhaps abortion at any stage of pregnancy should not be restricted. But your arguments stink. Big time”.

Please keep that in mind as I refer to a remarkable piece by Gary Graham at Big Hollywood. The whole piece is well worth reading – from a man who used to be strongly “pro-choice”* and has paid for at least a few abortions that he knows of. This is the part that got my attention because it has always struck me as a self-contradictory refrain one often hears after someone says “I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice“.*

I’ve heard from liberals the following quote: “We want abortion to be legal…but rare.” And I ask, Why rare? What’s wrong with abortion, that you think it should be a rare occurrence? I’ve had moles removed from my skin. Doctors don’t tell us that a mole removal should be rare. So what’s with this ‘rare’ business? Or is it a tacit agreement that abortion…is plain wrong?

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

If abortion is not the unjust destruction of a preborn human being then who cares whether it is rare or common?

Let me add this one while we are at it.

Why would anyone want to be against elective abortion? Life would be so much easier and less complicated. Bad time to have a child? (*cough still in seminary and three of us scraping by on about $20K per year? cough*) Abort it. Severe defects/abnormalities? Abort it. Product of a terrible and abusive relationship? Abort it. Human-Cylon hybrid? Abort it. And no I am not being flippant or sarcastic. I am being completely serious. (Except for the human-Cylon bit.) I think any normal rational human being would want abortion to be a good thing or at the very least ethically-morally neutral and certainly legally available. It is not in anyone’s self-interest to be against elective abortion. (Read that last sentence again. Thanks.)

The only reason to be against elective abortion is if there are compelling *compelling* reasons why it is morally-ethically problematic. Why it might be the unjust destruction of a preborn human being.

And if it is not that… then why does it need to be “legal but rare / rare but legal”? Just do it. No regrets.

*Postscript: Notice the language I use. I try to avoid “pro-life/pro-choice” because neither label is fair or accurate. (Are people who favor legal abortion by implication “anti-life”? Really? They favor genocide and mass executions? Are people against abortion by implication “anti-choice”? Really? They think no woman has the right to choose Diet over regular Coke? Whether to wear pants or a skirt?) If I use them I use them in quotation marks only because they are sometimes the prefered terminology. (In other words – I think the expression is inaccurate but if you like it I will sometimes use it to keep you happy. But not without quotes.) Several years ago someone came up with more descriptive neutral language: “abortion opponents” and “abortion rights advocates”. Clumsy but both accurate and fair.

UPDATE 02/03/2009: Just figured out that Gary Graham is the actor who played Vulcan Ambassador Soval on “Star Trek: Enterprise”. (Hard to tell from the photograph.) Dang!