Came across a Los Angeles Times article criticizing a Tea Party coloring book for kids. Fair enough. More interesting are the comments. Most take issue with the criticisms. Only a few take issue with the Tea Party movement and/or the coloring book.

One of the persons who takes issue with the Tea Party movement comments:

The Tea Party “claims” to be for small government, yet many of the candidates that are currently running for office think nothing of promoting ideas in which the government has jurisdiction over our private affairs and sex lives. That isn’t smaller government to me.

This is a point others have made. “You conservatives claim you believe in freedom and smaller government. And yet you have no problem supporting laws against same-sex marriage or elective abortion. These are private matters. In a way you want an even more intrusive government”.

It is not a bad argument. There are a few responses.

Really? Which Tea Party candidates – and how many are there really? – are promoting such laws? It is true that many social conservatives are part of the Tea Party movement. But for the most part it seems that the Tea Party movement and Tea Party candidates are being careful to focus on a broader consensus regarding smaller government and less government spending.

The person quoted above surely exaggerates. Although there is at least one example. Joe Miller running for United States Senator from Alaska.

A stronger response is to point out that smaller government means smaller government. It does not mean less government on every single issue. Let me put it this way. A statist might want the government to control 50% of everything we say do and spend. A classic liberal might want the government to control 10% of everything we say do and spend.

But it is entirely possible for a classic liberal to believe the government should control some things that the statist thinks the government should not control. That does not mean the classic liberal contradicts herself when she advocates more liberty and less government. As long as overall there is a net increase in liberty and a net decrease in the size and scope of government. Ten percent of our lives is still much less than fifty percent of our lives. It is entirely possible for someone to say “the government should intervene in how we define marriage or family relationships or at what stage a human being deserves legal protection – but it should not intervene in how much money we make or where we go to school or what kind of health care we receive or what legal contracts we honor or what political and religious opinions we hold or express and so on and so on”.

Smaller government means exactly that. Small-er government.

This is why when some Christians err when they invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics against the(?) theory of evolution.

Basically the argument goes like this.

Evolutionary theory states that things are becoming more organized and complex as organisms evolve naturally over time. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the amount of order in a system decreases over time. There is no way that organisms could evolve without divine intervention.

There is a colossal problem with this common argument against evolutionary theory. It misunderstands and misapplies the Second law of Thermodynamics also known as the Law of Entropy.

So long as there is a net overall decrease in energy and order in the universe – it is entirely possible for there to be local instances of increased energy and order. Or as Professor Alan McNeil said to those of us studying biology at Cornell University “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we have to eat lunch”. Yes human beings are examples of order and organization. But we have to eat lunch. Something that is ordered and organized – food – must be destroyed in order for us to continue.

Not to mention the fact that we grow old and die. Even lunch cannot stave off the long term effects of the Law of Entropy.

Automobiles are examples of order and organization. But they use up large amounts of fuel. There is a net decrease in order in order to maintain a local instance of organization.

And yes this opens up a whole list of theological questions which will be raised in a future post.

It hit me while watching the movie “Marley and Me” with my family.

Owen Wilson is left-handed!

I have noticed how quickly I notice left-handed people. Watching a movie. Watching a television show. Signing some forms at a store or business. (Even the science-fiction novel The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin. Read carefully and there is a single passing reference that most of the inhabitants of Anarres are left-handed.)

“Hmm. Left-handed”.

Sometimes what tips me off is where that person wears their watch. Left-handers tend to wear their watch on the right hand.

On an overnight trip to Houston with the Baptist Campus Ministry our intrepid van driver – left-handed. We had quite the conversation about this.

Why is it that we notice each other? Why do we think of ourselves as this invisible tribe? We are not particularly oppressed. Especially in the west where no one particularly cares which hand you use. In many countries you are not supposed to touch people with your left hand because that is the uh washing/wiping hand. It is considered dirty. My Chinese friends (most of my parishioners are Chinese) quickly notice that I use my left hand and express their surprise. “You use your left hand?!?” Apparently in China very few people use their left hand – and partly because of social custom and pressure. (As was once true in the United States or so my left-handed grandfather told me.)

Okay there are occasional minor ways in which the world does “discriminates” against us. Watches (where are the buttons?). Many power tools (how is the handle designed? where is the dead-man’s switch?). Firearms (many rifles the hot cartridge flies out and hits you in the face if you hold it left-handed). Heck – even the space shuttle discriminates (all the joysticks are designed to be grasped by the right hand – there is no way you can hold them with the left).

Granted we generally accomodate. I golf, throw frisbee, play guitar, use scissors, use a computer mouse right-handed. I understand there are websites out there that sell nothing but products designed for left-handers. Do you know how hard it is to find a good left-handed baseball glove?!?

Half of United States presidents are left-handed. Half! That is remarkable and makes one wonder.

During the presidential election this came up on BaptistLife.Com. Turns out many forum participants are left-handed! And – this is interesting – for a brief shining moment liberals centrists and conservatives all regarded themselves as “brothers”. Members of the same invisible tribe that transcends our otherwise profound theological and political differences.

Why do we notice each other?

Yesterday I was listening to “Talk of the Nation: Science Friday” with Ira Flatow who interviewed two scientists to ask how they felt now that President Obama has lifted the ban on using federal funds for stem-cell research. Notice how the NPR website characterizes the move: “President Obama loosened restrictions on stem-cell research this week and mandated that science should inform policy”. The significant distinction between what President Bush actually did and how NPR describes the lifting of the ban is instructive.

• President Bush (August 09, 2001) restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells from embryos that had already been destroyed. It was not a blanket restriction on stem cell research or even on embryonic stem cell research.
• Whereas NPR says rather blandly “President Obama loosened restrictions on stem-cell research”. The important nuances of the Bush policy are completely lost.

Both scientists Flatow interviewed were just plain ecstatic. One described being on the platform with President Obama as “electric” and characterized the Bush policy as being based on “not science but ideology”. Neither scientist even attempted to explain precisely how the Bush policy was ideological. Nor did they even attempt to explain why the Obama policy is not ideological. We are being asked to believe this is about science informing policy.

“Science informs policy”. As opposed to what?

Yes of course policy should make use of scientific “fact” (or at least well accepted theory). But does that mean ethical and moral considerations have no place? I am sure all sorts of human experimentation would advance the cause of “science”. “Well drat. That procedure did not work. The subject survived for only ten minutes. Hand me another Alzheimer’s patient. Sooner or later we will figure out how to cure this disease”. But most people recognize that just because we can do something to advance scientific understanding does not mean we ought.

So for these scientists along with President Obama to say this is about science is not quite correct. It is about redrawing the ethical lines.

President Bush along with many say “we think stem-cell research is a great thing with much promise – but there it is ethically problematic to create human embryos in order to destroy them for scientific research”.

President Obama along with many is saying “we have no ethical problems with this – creating and destroying human embryos is just fine with us”.

This is no more than taking a different ethical stance. To dress this up as “science in its rightful place… science informs policy” is pure dishonesty.

For the record – I have never had particularly strong opinions or feelings about this. What riles me up is sloppy thinking and dishonest rhetoric. What riles me up is people asking me to believe outrageous nonsense.

Charles Krauthammer continues to impress with his recent article on this. He thought the Bush policy was too strict. But he gives it the credit that President Obama along with these two scientists refuse.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of “science” and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.

That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part — the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on “restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making” — would have made me walk out.

Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

What an outrage. George Bush’s nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president.

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

I am disappointed in Ira Flatow and his failure to treat the matter with the care that it deserves. Could he not have had one voice on the program to present a different perspective?

You know – I was influenced by the barrage of anti-Bush rhetoric especially those last few years. Even I was beginning to think “gosh yeah he really is a bad president although surely not the worst ever”. Although yes I still am convinced he made his share of mistakes I also am learning a strange new appreciation for the “bad president” who was far better than the one we have now.

ADDENDUM (03/14/2009): David Harsanyi disagrees with opposition to human embryonic stem cell research – but makes a similar argument. The president and others have “reignited an intellectually deceitful debate”.

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!