I'm a little confused by the theory that the Australians are cowards. Maybe I don't know enough about their history, but I'm under the impression they aren't overly ... docile.

And, the British! They're like the anti-France! I can not fathom that they would roll over and play dead.

A very interesting post. My (?first?) comment is regarding:

"America's command of the skies approaches the supernatural and America's command of the seas is not far behind"

People see what the Airforces do. People do not see what the Navy does. My personal opinion would be that US command of the sea exceeds its ability to command of the air. Remember Air Supremacy is relatively transient (you need to keep flying sorties from bases within range). The US Navy lives on the ocean, it doesn't sortie. And seems to me to command it completely, in the Blue water and in more of the Brown than is evident.

(As the Admiral knows I hold that _every_ US war including the US Revolution and the American Civil war have been primarily naval. It is just that US command of the sea is so overwhelming no one even considers that the US managed to deploy across the seas to the shores of Iraq "in the face of opposition from the Iraqi Navy/Airforce.")

In another discussion group there was a post of a survey of the Japanese after WWII. The Japanese public thought the US Airforce had defeated them. The stats (shipping sunk, damage to flow of raw materials, finished products, effect on industrial capacity) show that the US submarines essentially won the war, and that there was so little left that the bombing didn't do much (if you can only run 3% of your factories because you have no raw materials blowing up half the factories with the airforce didn't decrease your economic production.) But the Japanese public saw the aircraft. They never saw "that storm tossed fleet always on station over the horizon" to quote General Bonaparte.

Re "Will the US have the political will to stay the course." That is the supremely important question.

We will see.

Found your site through C-P. Thanks for sharing your experiences. One thing I just noticed is that Oman does fairly well in Transparency International's Corruption Index. I was pleasantly surprised.

I am not an engineer but I sometimes play one on Television:

You mean, make something like a microwave oven but one which uses energy to cool things, rather than heat things?

As I understand the second law of thermodynamics, you can't.

There is no "cooling device", only "move the heat somewhere else" devices. Once heat (random kinetic energy) exists you are stuck with it for all eternity.

A refrigerator, for example, doesn't "generate cold" but it pumps the heat from the refrigerator into the surrounding room.

With that in mind, my ordinary refrigerator does something like what you want It takes tap water, cools it inside the refrigerator, and then dispenses that cool water from a tap in the door.

The limits are that you will warm the room by more than the amount of energy you take out of the water, and you probably can't do that on the fly. IE you can't wrap a small device around a pipe, but rather have to take a volume of water, cool it, and wait for someone to want that cool water.

I suspect the minimum size for such a device would be about the size of a bar refrigerator (about 0.5 meters on a side) to hold enough water to be worthwhile (a few liters allowing space for the heat exchange pump).

As an aside, in desert areas of California, some people have an insulated "hot water heater" inside their (airconditioned) houses. They don't turn on the water heater, and use that reservoir of water (which is cooled to room temperature) as the "cold water".

Gee, what do they need a "hot water heater " for? Seems like a waste, heating hot water ;)

BTW - you're absolutely correct, "cool" or "cold" are simply the absence of heat. There is no physical property of "coolness." All objects have a physical property of "temperature" which is percieved as "hot" or "cold." Many chemical reactions are quite exothermic (generate heat) - anyone who has ever used an MRE will know exactly of what I speak, but there are very, very few
reactions which are endothermic.

The only application I can think of which might be feasible for the good Admiral is evaporative cooling.

Have some solar cells power a fan which blows air across a wet surface. If you can move enough air, you can generate substantially cooler temperatures.

I've seen laboratory setups which could reduce water by 50+ degrees by evaporation alone.

Greenhouses use a similar technique to keep plants from cooking in the summer.
These are generally called 'swamp coolers'.

Similar processes can be seen at NFL games with those mist/fan setups.

[quote]Similar processes can be seen at NFL games[/quote]

The cooling process I have seen at NFL games here in Kahleefohneeya where the NFL play in 80 degree Farenheit weather involves cold beer and is therefore inappropriate for Muslim countries.

Hmmmm, outside of the alcoholic variants, some of these ideas sounded promising. The Arabs have actually used a variant of one of these for centuries. When sufficient water is available, they have a pool or fountain in their courtyard and "wind pipes" that bring air down and across the water. The cooler air then flows into the house.

My idea for an innovation was not for an "anti-microwave" - I agree that this is problematic at best. Instead I was thinking of an "anti-water heater." In other words, a refrigerated tank of water. It would not have to be as cool as a normal refrigerator, just knocking off about 40 degrees F would be very welcome. At home I use a special cooler for a van, it has a heat pump that keeps it 40 degrees cooler than its environment. A similar device should be able to chill a tank of water.

I hit post too quickly. I wanted to add that Drew's observation about some Californians would work pretty well here. Air conditioning is fairly common here (and becoming more so every day) and just having a room temperature source of cold water would be much better than the current situation.

A Thermoelectric (T/E) cooler would be a solution if not for the fact that opposite the cool side is a very hot side and that heat must be disapated else the device will burn itself out. In Oman, disapating that heat would be a problem.

They also draw tremendous current, probably far in excess of what a simple solar supply could provide.

Has it ever been law that Omani men cannot marry outside of Oman if so what year? and if not when did the waiver become law?

Jennie,
I was told that Omani law currently forbids both Omani men and women from marrying non-Omanis unless they obtain a waiver (which is difficult to obtain under most circumstances, at least for first marriages - from what I understand, those who are pursing waivers after the death of an Omani spouse usually get waivers, they are presumed to have done their duty). The Sultan passed this law some time ago when he was worried that the Omani culture would be overwhelmed - Omanis are small in number compared to most their neighbors.

You can probably find a link via Google with the exact year. If time permits, I'll try to find one for you later - so let me know if you find one in the meantime.

Oh, one more thought for you. Like everything else, people have figured out a work-around to the Omani law. While it is very difficult for most people to get waivers, it is relatively easy for non-citizens to become Omani citizens, especially if they are well educated. Thus, people become Omani citizens and then are allowed to marry other Omanis...

Thanks for the info! How do I go about becoming an Omani Citizen?

I'm not exactly sure. I suggest contacting the Omni Embassy.

Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman
Consular Section
2535 Belmont Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20008

Embassy/Consular Telephone: 202-387-1980/81/82
Fax: 202-745-4933

Good luck! And please post what you learn - I'd appreciate any verification (or refutation) of what I've been told.

First, it could be interesting hearing some personal ideas from a number of Middle Eastern citizens holding a variety of beliefs on the role that religion plays in current relations and attitudes between the Middle East and North America. Second, same question, but with perceived ideological differences/commonalities instead of religion. Third, what sorts of trends are occuring within the context of the previous two questions?

Good luck and have a safe trip.

Fascinating. I will be praying for your safety and looking forward to your return.

Admiral Quixote called a little bit ago from his final destination. I think he was in-route for about 31 hours.

After we had a "talk" about the fact that he failed to mention his plan to converse with Middle Easterners about incrediblely intense issues during an incredibly volitile time, he asked me to post a little something letting people know he did not have internet access at the hotel. He'll try to find access tomorrow, or maybe the next day.

Feel free to pray for him a lot. And me. You can pray for me a lot, too. Sure, I'm not in the Middle East. BUT I have a husband in the Middle East that thinks its a good idea to engage random locals in extreme conversations. The lengths he'll go to for good blogging!

UPDATE: Internet access is more scarce than he thought it would be.

MRH,
Interesting questions - I'll see what I can learn.

King,
Thank you. Thank you very much.

Lady Quixote,
Thanks for providing the updates. And no fears - I've only had one encounter with the local guards so far and all is well.

After having been called all kinds of nasty names by the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as well as having my patriotism and sanity questioned by conservatives, "idiot" is really not one of the worst things to call someone.

If you want to start a "cost of health care thread" I have a lot to say (when do I not?)

The main problem with the way US Health Care is paid for (as opposed to quality, medical education, distribution of health care between urban and rural areas etc) are:

A) the people who provide the health care, receive the health care, pay for the health care and set the price for the health care are four different groups of people (try to buy food under that sort of system)

B) (a result of A) some groups get health care at a price far below the cost to provide it, and some get health care at a cost far above. IE some groups are heavily subsidized by other groups.

Seems to be a good way to run your comments.

This week, House Republicans did something truly appalling. They eliminated an ethics rule that banned House members from holding leadership positions if they've been indicted on felony charges.

Why, you ask, would our elected officials do something like this? Because House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) could be indicted by a grand jury for felony violations involving fundraising scandals. DeLay has been rebuked twice this fall by the House Ethics Committee for his hard-nosed political tactics.
Compare Congress and its self-voted (2002) salary increase from $150,000 to $155,000 a year with the federal minimum of $5.15 per hour that Congress has frozen for years. Makes you shake your head.

DeLay has been rebuked twice this fall by the House Ethics Committee for his hard-nosed political tactics.

He was admonished for involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter and staging a fundraiser in a way that appeared to link access to the congressman with political donations. He also was criticized for saying he would support a congressman's son to succeed his father if the congressman voted for the bill adding a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.(The Republican colleague originally accused DeLay of outright bribery on a talk show in his home state.) DeLay also threatened a Washington lobbying firm because it hired a Democrat as its chief.
About a year ago DeLay started a childrens Charity and put his daughter in charge. Then he sent out color brochures showing big money doners playing golf with him and other congressmen. Even showing some playing with the president. It was stated in the mailings that for enough of a "donation" the doner might even get to play a round with the president. What a great way to donate to the candidate of your choice(someone who is the head of a certain committee that is pertinent to your business)and not have to declare it...except as a "charitible donation". Sweet deal eh?

A number of DeLay's associates have already been indicted by a Texas grand jury and he's expected to take the hit too in the near future. So his Republican congressional colleagues yanked the rule that was put in place back in 1993 when they said they were trying to clean up Congress.

It's time to spotlight the House Republicans' disgraceful ethical flip-flop. There is also precedent for the Ethics Committee to appoint an outside counsel in cases involving congressional leaders. Outside counsels were appointed to investigate ethics complaints filed against former House Speakers Jim Wright (D-TX) and Newt Gingrich (R-GA). What’s more, Rep. DeLay’s political action committee has given money to four of the five Republicans on the Ethics Committee.

We demand as a nation dedicated to freedom that our leaders exemplify a higher set of ethical behavior than DeLay has shown.

It is time to write or call your Representative and tell them you don't want someone like this in our Nations capital setting this kind of example to our children.

Joe,
I agree the behavior of the House Republican's committee was disgraceful (as a whole, at least there were some who stood on principle), but why did you post your comment here vs. one of the many political posts?

Perhaps you are testing my comments policy? :-) Well, feel free to post, but I suggest putting these types of comments under a relevant thread - it will make it easier for others to find them and respond.

Best,

Don

I don't know how many of you have had personal interactions with Mr. Delay (I have) but a) he does the Republicans a lot of harm and b) I have never been able to find a way to convince him to act any differently nor convince other members of the House to get a less harmful person to front for them.

If you find a way, Go For It!

Uhm, no, the people I have spoken to on the matter are Orthodox and quite conservative on these matters.

However literalism in the scriptures is considered an odd position even among the most conservative Orthodoxy, becuase two thousand years of interpretation, commentary, and common understanding reached by the Jewish community, that document known as the Talmud, has reached answers on many of these questions.

If you read the Judaism 101 FAQ, as written by an Orthodox Jew, the matter is plain: the exact status of an unborn fetus in Jewish law is unclear, although sometimes Jewish law outright demands abortion as a requirement.

You can read more here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion

I believe the pro-life Jews you're talking about are a minority in the Jewish faith, not just in America but worldwide.

I should note, by the way, that the Orthodox Jews are against birth control, period, much like the Catholic Church's. Which means that their position on abortion--permissible under some circumstances--is still spiritually troubling and frowned upon.

Nevertheless, I do note that none of the sources you spoke of specifically asserts that abortion is murder. That's because they can't; Jewish law makes no such definitive statement, and neither do the scriptures; the best you can do is point to evidence that if a man punches a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, he's to be put to death. But they put people to death for wearing the wrong clothes or having gay sex too, so that's a clear statement of anything. And "I knew you in the womb" is nice, but again doesn't strike everyone as anything literal. Especially since there are other verses which say God knew you even before you were conceived.

If a woman miscarries do to an action of a man, then he does not die, he is fined. Only if she is killed is he killed (and the whole notion of the death penalty in Jewish law is poorly understood.)

However, if a woman would be executed for a crime and it is discovered she is pregnant the execution if carried out immediately, rather than waiting for the baby to be born, unless she "is sitting on the birthing stool".

From my understanding the issues is the woman's life (after 40 days. Prior to 40 days post conception there is much less of a problem with abortion) What constitues the woman's life differes however; is it just that the pregnancy itself endangers the woman's life? Then the baby can be cut up in utero to save her life. What if it is something that would make her life horrendous? That differs from Rabbi to Rabbi. Things have become stricter since the Holocaust. If the woman is threatening suicide, most likely an abortion will be granted. I know that was the case where a woman was given permission to abort a tay-sachs child.

BTW, in issues involving her life there is also a question of whether she MAY have an abortion or MUST have the abortion. I believe the latter is most likely correct, and would go a long way to relieving the suffering of a woman who must have an abortion in order to live.

The issue isn't settled easily in debate form; it is a case by case decision (as are many things within the Orthdox world.) A good Rabbi very likely may grant one woman an abortion under XYZ circumstances, and forbid another woman to do the same under XYZ circumstances, because the woman herself is different.

Regarding birth control; again, it is a matter of Rav to Rav.

Also it is a matter of how these questions are asked. If one goes into a Rabbi and says; I really am tired I don't think I could handle another child right now" one might get information on helpful resources. If one goes in and tells one's Rabbi that one has had thoughts of harming oneself/children or that "my wife never leaves the bed" or something along a similar vein, a good Rabbi will most likely answer differently.

The point is to be honest with the Rabbi about one's own feelings and state, or the feelings and state of one's spouse. A Rabbi can't make a decision in the dark.

I'm with Rachel and Dean (mostly) on this one.

There are lots of practices which are "simply impossible to reconcile" with Jewish law. I am pretty sure that R. Freundel's words need to be understood as a moral statement, not a declaration of law. Orthodox understand of Jewish law insists that abortion represents a tragic snuffing out of what COULD blossom into a human life, not murder.

The earliest sources are most clear on this. Dean, you have it wrong. Exodus 21:22 talks about the difference between striking and killing a woman vs striking and killing a fetus. If just the fetus is killed then the verse says that there is no "ason" -- "harm"; meaning that damages still attach, much like if the assailant threw a rock through the woman's window, but that there is the "life for a life" principle does not apply here.

Similarly, the Talmudic sources discuss all kinds of situtation which are admittedly unusual and contrived solely for the purpose of understanding the legal status of the fetus. Case after case indicates that the fetus is the property of the mother, not a distinct individual.

If you want a stark clarification, the question to ask Orthodox Jewish rabbis is not "Is abortion legal or illegal?" The question is "What, if anything, is the punishment for forcibly performing an abortion against the mother's will?" The answer is that such an act is wrong, yes there is a punishment for doing it, but the punishment is a fine (like in cases which involve destruction of property) not death (as in cases of murder).

Exodus 21:22 talks about the difference between striking and killing a woman vs striking and killing a fetus. If just the fetus is killed then the verse says that there is no "ason" -- "harm"

I'm afraid your argument is based on a translation of Exodus 21:22 that is not necessarily widely accepted. Those in favor of abortion will favor your translation:

"...if she has a miscarriage, but there is no serious injury..."

However, I, along with other pro-lifers, would argue that the following is a better translation:

"...her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injry..." Thus, the man is fined only when the woman and her child are both unharmed. If either the woman or the child are killed, then the following "life for a life" penalty applies.

You may refer to this page for more information about the different translations and interpretations of the verse.

Several intriguing posts tonight. I'll try to respond concisely – forgive any typos, I'm just finishing a 17 hour work day (not my norm – I'm preparing for an extended business trip).

Dean, thank you for the link. It provides a nice summary of several Jewish points and it validates a point I made earlier when I quoted Rabbi Freundel. According to the Mishnah, which is a record of oral interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures, abortion is only permitted when a woman is in "hard travail" and her life is in danger. This is a very limiting position, Freundel pointed out, since there must be serious danger to the mother.

I would agree that literalism is considered a bit odd for quite a few Jews because of their oral tradition. Many Jews are far more familiar with the Talmud, which includes many traditions and thoughts that have only a questionable basis in the original Mishnah. (Quick terminology lesson. The Mishnah largely consists of thoughts on the Torah (it is not quite this simple, but Christians may substitute Old Testament for the Torah) and was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince in the second century AD. The Talmud includes the Mishnah as well as doctrines that have developed by influential Rabbis thereafter. This is similar to how many Catholics view their Holy Scriptures. Similar to the Jews, Catholics generally give their traditions and Papal announcement equal weight with their holy Scriptures. In fact, many Jews and Catholics are ignorant of many of their written Scriptures and it is fascinating to watch how well read they become once they realize there is a difference between their oral traditions and their Scriptures.

However, when asked which takes precedence over any conflict, most Jews in my experience will state that their written Scriptures take precedence over oral tradition. (Note: This is not a short discussion if you wish to try it. The standard opening comment by scholarly Jews is usually that they do not believe there is a conflict between their oral tradition and their written Scriptures. It takes a lot of work and patience to get an opinion on this issue. But if you can convince them to either answer a hypothetical situation or that such a situation does exist, then they usually answer that the written Scriptures take precedence (and EVERY Orthodox Jew in my experience has answered in this way IF they admit there could be a conflict between their oral traditions and their Scriptures).

Now I do agree that there is no explicit verse in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures that specifically assert abortion is murder. If there was, abortion would be a less contentious issue. As clearly described in my original reference you can "only" make implicit and explicit arguments from the Scriptures.

Rachel Ann (and later Ben),

I agree many things differ from Rabbi to Rabbi. That is one of the reasons I took such exception to Dean's claim that every Jewish expert believed abortion was not proscribed by the Scriptures. This is also why I took care to quote Rabbis from various denominations who said their Scriptures and traditions proscribed abortion except in the rare case where the woman's life was in danger.

However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that If a woman miscarries do to an action of a man, then he does not die, he is fined. Ben somewhat agrees with you, but has to misinterpret a Scripture to do so (in my somewhat educated opinion, sorry if I sound obnoxious Ben, I'm not sure how to best word the fact that I've been reading up on this for many years now). Exodus 21:22 talks about the difference between striking and killing a woman vs striking and killing a fetus. If just the fetus is killed then the verse says that there is no "ason" -- "harm"; meaning that damages still attach, much like if the assailant threw a rock through the woman's window, but that there is the "life for a life" principle does not apply here.

This is distorting the clear meaning of the words. Let's look at the verses in question. Exodus 21:22-25. If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So if a man causes a pregnant woman to go into premature labor and no harm was done to her or her unborn child, he was punished for risking their lives by a fine agreed to by the woman’s husband and the judges. Thus, the unborn are due protection and even potential threats to the life of the unborn are punished.

However, if a man causes a pregnant woman to go into premature labor and harm was done to her or her unborn child, he was punished severely. If the unborn child was stillborn or died after being born from injuries sustained in the fight, the penalty was death. Since the law of retaliation (life for a life, eye for an eye…) was equal punishment, invoking this law when an unborn child was killed shows that the unborn child had worth equal to that of the man who injured the unborn child. Even if the child was born early but lived, the offender had to pay a major fine for risking the unborn child’s life.

Thus, the Scriptures explicitly recognize the value of unborn humans is equal to that of born humans, that killing unborn children is murder, and that killing unborn children is clearly wrong.

If you want a more detailed dissection of the Exodus passage, borrow or buy the book I mentioned earlier. The scholars dissect the passage (IIRC in its original language) far better than I can and reached the same conclusion. Their expertise on the subject is part of my confidence in the clear meaning of this verse.

Ah, after I finished writing the above, I see ThePyro has posted another reference saying virtually the same thing. Time for me to call it a night. I'll leave everyone with this teaser though. Tomorrow, I'll explain what Bill Clinton has in common with Dean Esmay (or at least Dean's Jewish friends).

OK, time to fulfill my promise. What does Bill Clinton have in common with Dean Esmay (or at least Dean's Jewish Friends)? They all believe that the soul enters the body upon the first drawing of breath. The quote is from Dean, but I have heard others say that President Clinton, who is at least nominally a Southern Baptist, eventually justified his support of abortion by adopting a similar belief. (I quickly skimmed Google to find a source for this story and could not, although this comes close.) But whether or not Clinton really believed this theory, it is obvious that some people do. So I am going to explain why I think this is a silly and very flawed conclusion to draw from the Scripture.

Let's look at the verse itself. Genesis 2:7 (New King James Version): And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. This verse, without considering the greater context of the Scriptures, is used to justify the assumption that the soul enters the body born of woman (unlike Adam) when the body first takes a breath of air. If we consider the Scriptures in context, we would not conclude that souls enter babies formed in the womb only when they take their first breath. However, for the sake of argument, let's only consider this verse without any other Scriptural context.

If the moment Adam's soul was placed in his body becomes the standard for all of us born of women, why restrict our focus to just God's breath? After all, God formed Adam as an adult. Couldn't we apply the same "logic" to the verse and conclude that people do not obtain souls until they are adults? This makes at least as much sense as the breath hypothesis and also resolves some other theological issues that makes people squirm (you do not need to worry about children going to hell if they die unsaved – if they haven't yet been given a soul, they have no eternal existence at all).

Let's look at another silly application of the same "logic". Adam was a male. If we switched the focus from breath to maleness, the same insular thinking would let us conclude only men had souls. See the problem with this type of sloppy logic?

Considering any one verse by itself leads to sloppy thinking. Unfortunately, such sloppy thinking has horrific results. For example, what if the story is true and Bill Clinton was really convinced by this thought? If he had not been given this fig leaf by the pro-abortion movement, what if he had kept to his religious pro-life upbringing? Given his charisma, Bill Clinton could have potentially overturned Roe v. Wade. Of course, now I'm guilty of making huge leaps of logic myself...

Rachel Ann, Ben, Pyro,
I found another site that has much more detail about the Exodus 21 passage.

As we are coming up upon Rosh Hashanah and I am suppose to be cleaning/cooking preparing my soul, I'll be brief.

I spoke with my dh who did receive smicha (Orthodox) though he is not a practicing Rabbi; he learned the law as I have earlier stated; that if any harm came it was referring to the woman and her life, not to the fetus.

I also think the concept that a woman who had been judged guilty of a capital crime was executed even if she were pregnant, The life of the fetus was secondary to the pain and suffering of the woman forced to wait for her execution. That a woman condemned to death would be given more consideration for her emotional state than a fetus where there is no issue of guilt states a lot, imho, about the rights they would enjoy in terms of abortion.

Certainly Orthodox Judaism doesn't condone abortion for less than health reasons;imho it is like amputating a leg or going to war. A flippant attitude is disgusting and morally repugnant. All alternatives should be given attention; and I would spend my hard earned dollar (or shekel in my case) on preserving a life if that is what it took; and I believe that is what it will take.

Finally, I don't know if you have ever visited my blog; if you did and went through my archives (most are at my old site,) you would know I am not an advocate of abortion, I think we need to work our way to making abortion obsolete; I used the term dinosaur. I think we would probably defer in how to reach the goal, but perhaps not.

L'shana Tova!

It's really a matter of point of view isn't it?

I mean, I have my personal beliefs on the matter of abortion, and I have my beliefs on the matter of the Government's proper position in the matter. The constitution clearly states that there is to be a separation of church and state - this despite the fact that our curency claims a trust in a particular deity on the part of said Government. Also despite the fact that this part of the constitution and the laws that have been written based on it is/are used with a clear bias as to which churches are more separated from The State than others.

Since you are talking about beliefs and ethics and when they count, I suppose that this is where I need to state my position or just clam up:

My position is that I am against the practice of abortion - with a few radical exceptions, but that is not the discusion here. I say "the practice" because I am not against having the knowledge that allows for an abortion to be acomplished - much good has come from the studies that lead to the acquiring of this knowledge. Knowledge is not wrong, but what you do with it may be.

My position is that MY Representative Government has NO PLACE in deciding whether or not EVERY ONE ELSE has to have MY position in this matter. My position is that My Government has the OBLIGATION to REGULATE the practice of this action in order that no one's life (okay, another can of worms, but we wont go there for the sake of this argument) is put in danger (grater danger perhaps??) by the improper (bad choice of word) execution (even worse choice of words) of this sort of action. An example is the ban on partial birth abortions versus a ban on abortion in general - the argument can, and should, be made that one of these actions is clearly wrong - even in the case of my "radical exceptions" at the point at which the action is taken. My Government is there to protect the general good of the general population in the physical sense. I DO NOT feel that this needs to extend to the protection of my everlasting soul. Keeping my soul from being cast into the fires of Hell for evermore is my personal job, not the job of MY Government. A responsibility that I cannot delegate. If it is, then we are all damned since My God did not say "Thou shalt not kill except under the following situations:..." (another rather large can of worms that we can open if anyone wishes) Thus when MY Government seeks to solve the problems of man by going to war, it has damned us all since we have allowed leaders to get into place that allow this to happen....and perhaps EXPECT these leaders to take such actions when required - despite what My God says. So, is it to be a separation of Church (My Church clearly) and State - but only when convenient?

Abortion is not legal because it is imoral and against the will of God, but what the heck, let's go kill a few million people in order to defend Democracy and the separation of Church and State.

As you can see, this argument is obsurd.

The constitution also states that we have the right to believe what we want to believe - of course right in there with its statements that there be separation of church and state, it also states that God created all men to be equal - this would seem to be a contradiction at its face. I have not read and studied the constitution any where near as much as I should have - being that I live under its protections, enjoy its freedoms, and have pledged aleigence to it etc. No matter, I shall go on blindly convinced that I am right (I believe that I have this right under the first amendmant, and being that I come from the fine state of Rhode Island, can claim a certian pride in those first ten amendments, as they were added, amung other reasons, to get the vote and signature of the fine gents from this "state" at the time - I suppose you'd like to know the name of the gent in question, well, so would I but I've forgotten it just now - he's standing on top of the state house though.....Roger Williams, that's him)

So, the idea that one hides ones religious beliefs when one votes is not entirely wrong. Allow your beliefs, your personal beliefs as protected by the constitution, to color your ethics and use your ethics to guide your choices as to who should guide us in determining the future of our country and leading the defense of our constitution.

Let us maintain at least a modicum of separation between Church and State....if not, then we slip farther down a very slippery slope.

(first off, we would need to decide which Church is the right Church - and that my friends will be a rather ugly process - one that I fear none of us would survive intact - no fight is so brutal as the one in the name of god...)

A very refreshing change I'd like to see in a candidate is one who says:

I think that abortion is wrong, but I will defend your right to make your own choice to my last breath.

That is what this country is supposed to be all about.

Shall we try to discuss "gay mariage" next?

Oh, I agree with you that abortion is murder. But to say that Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama had to be about the dumbest thing Keyes could have said, regardless of whether or not that might be true.

(1) The constitution does not suggest the separation of state and church in that religion should be kept out of government. It guarentees the separation of church FROM state, meaning that state is not allowed to squash any religion.

For example, in a strict reading of the constitution, nativity scenes on small-town courthouse lawns are legal. However, the same small-town may NOT pass a law making Buddhists sing Christmas carols.

(2) The government exists in part to enforce laws, which are based on moral choices (the nuances of which are determined by its culture and citizens). In the case of America, the culture and citizens are overwhelmingly Christian.

Its time to remember that America is run by the democratic majority. The only caveat is that the majority can't destroy the minority. No where does it say or even suggest that the views of the minority must be treasured and coddled. Only tolerated.

(3) Our government doesn't allow murder. Recent technologies have shown that what was previously thought to be a blob of indiscriminate tissue actually has significant humanity (feels pain, responds emotionally appropriately to audible stimuli, etc). It is only a matter of time before the courts acknowledge that the "fetus" is actuallly a "baby". Abortion has nothing to do with womens' rights and EVERYTHING to do with children's rights.

No matter how conveinent it is to murder someone, our government does not allow it. Eventually, it won't allow abortion either. Its not a matter of legislating religious morality, which our government clearly does already. Its a matter of time.

Lucy makes some excellent points "of" and "from" two small words which make a BIG difference - as stated, I have not studied the text, very much my bad (and somewhat embarrassing actually)

Re point 1) By inference, if the government is not "allowed to squash any religion" it is also not allowed to promote any particular religion. It could be easily argued that our current head of state is certainly allowing his religion to bias his decisions - he has as much as said so. I do not find the fact that he has strong beliefs troubling, but that he will openly make statements that indicate that this or that decision is based more on a religious tennant than on world events and conditions I do find troubling.

re point 2)Nicely summed up. To clarify, I was certianly NOT stating that the minority needs to be protected, coddled, or otherwise raised above anyone else - my point was that just because I have a point of view - which in the case of the argument is more or less in tune with one majority - does not mean that I have any right to assumme that the government has a responsibilty to impose, by force of law, that point of view on everyone else.

Re point 3) Now this is a sticky one. No, the government does not allow murder...of "regular" members of society at large - and under the laws, there is no bias given to any ethnic or class based groups (dilligence of procecution of the efforts to find the criminal who might commit such an act can be argued to be biased by these factors - conciously or not, relative worth of one life over another is assigned in such situations)

But our government does not seem to have an issue with both promoting and commiting "murder" of "irregular" members of society. Once a person's status has been changed to something else - say "criminal" - our Governments stipulates a forfiture of rights and freedoms and has no qualms with separating a particular member from his or her living status. Similarly - once determined a "combatant" we have no problems - ethically, legally, or morally - with separating a member from thier living status (funny how we feel differently if the member who is separated from life is wearing one of our uniforms. Honestly, does anyone living under the American flag feel the same when you hear about an American casualty in Iraq versus an Iraqi casualty in Iraq? Conversly, if any of our readers are Iraqi - or at least not American - I wonder how they feel under same situation? NO matter, this is simply a point of observation )

As for the question of when life begins,this begs the question of "what is life" It also entertains the question of "is something alive if it cannot exist on its own?" or "if medical science can provide an artificial environment in which "life" can continue, does that move the point at wich "life" has been attained?"

Also, it shoudl be noted that both plants, "food animals", and a container of yogurt will "feels pain, responds emotionally appropriately to audible stimuli, etc" Where does that put the argument.

I agree that the most obviously effected "individual" in abortion is the child that never is as a result of the action. And clearly some clarification of my "circumstances" is in order. I am catagorically against the employment of abortion in any matter of simple convenience, "you" should have thought about that before you had the convenient fun. Period. There are more than enough ways to avoid this particular consequence of fun - and not all are provided by medical science even. But that is not the point.

A gross example of one of my "circumstances": A "mere child" of say 13 or 14 is the victim of a crime purpetrated by a trusted "adult" and the added complication results.

The following questoins - using your own words actully - result:

Which child's rights are more important?

Which child will suffer more?

Arguably, the "responsible" adult should be required to raise, provide, and care for the "added complication" - but I certainly wouldn't want that particular adult to be allowed to fail in this role again - so, what provision is going to be made?

This leads me to a point that I have often wanted to aire:

Putting aside the issue of right/wrong legal/illegal moral/imoral for a moment, why is it that we never hear about any discusions of providing for either the mother, or the unplanned for child from the side that says that the mother "must have" the child?

I don't want the pro/con argument entered here, what I would like hear about is why there are no discusions beyond the time frame of 0 to 9 months.

People are willing to kill other people over that time frame, but cast everyone out into the sea of society at 9 months plus 1 day.

I'm fairly sure that if there was some sort of a viable and friendly safety net for the time from 9 months + 1 day until say 9 months + 18 years that the instances of actual abortion would drop - have any studies been done to indicate how many women seek the quick solution because they are scared and have no clue how they are going to go on AFTER the birth - let alone getting that far?

I'm a man, so quite frankly, the entire women's side of the argument is alien to me - I've watched the process of pregnancy and birth - it's VERY powerful - and I've watched other go through it too. I more or less take the chicken's way out of the pro/con discussion and say that I am not in a proper position to say one way or another. Certianly as a potential father the act effects me, but not nearly as much as it does the woman, and certianly it does not effect a government, nor really the people who are the government who come from wealth and privilage - it only effects the people who go through it. Those who stand on the side and say "it's right" or "it's wrong" are reacting to something different. As is quoted often, and atributed to the one who may or may not have voted 'let he amung you who is without sin cast the first stone' How many of those activists go home and violate a few children's rights I wonder, or women's rights, or just other's rights in general? It's an interesting question.

So, for a moment, let's say that the government should focus on removing the stimulus to seek this service rather than on determining the constitutional right for it, or the point at which it moves from a medical procedure to "an act of murder" Those are VERY LARGE issues. Directing our society to one where the negative stigma of being an young, or unwed mother is removed, and one where accepting that option does not condem you to a life of suffering and want and an instant dropping of social class etc. And then, after the new numbers are counted the Government can decide if it wants to go back to determining when life begins and when ending something is murder or not.

This is not a call to avoid the problem, but to attack a different side of it in search of a solution - if no one ever sought to have an abortion for reasons other than say the example that I presented, then the entire argument would mostly go away - there would be no free market driver for a clinic that is more or less devoted to turn key performance of this task, there woud simply not be an economic driver for it. Without the wholesale completion of the task, the furor would die down and rational decision could be made (I say could, because I am confident that they never will pro or con)

Comments?

(1) There are some reptuable studies (which I am too lazy to look up right now :) that found in the case of the woman being raped, that carrying a child to term was actually GOOD for the mental well-being of the victim. It seems that being subjected to an abortion adds to the trauma. Carrying the child to term gives the woman a sense of empowerment in that she didn't let the rapist destroy her child, that she isn't a victim totally at his mercy. Having an abortion doesn't make all the messy emotions go away, it only makes the child's life go away.

Talk to several women that have had abortions. There's a lot of trauma afterward, for years in most cases.

(2) Adoption is a great thing. Some people suggest that the woman is victimized by knowing that she has a child in the world who is beyond her control. However, I'm sure that is infinitely preferable to knowing that you killed your own child. I'm sure the child would rather be adopted than killed. I'm sure the adoptive parents would rather have the baby than have the baby killed. Adoption is a win-win-win situation.

Currently, there aren't enough babies for adoption. I know three couples that are adopting. One couple is adopting from Russia, another from Korea, and another is adopting a five-year-old. To get a baby in this country is easily a 2-4 YEAR wait. These are really nice people. There is a HUGE demand for babies in this country.

Adoption is a fantastic 9 months plus 1 day plan! It perserves the mother's sense of self as a "good" person, it saves the child's life, it provides the adoptive parents with experiences and opportunities beyond value.

"But our government does not seem to have an issue with both promoting and commiting 'murder' of 'irregular' members of society."

I think you're confusing "killing" with "murdering". There is a very big difference.

murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another

kill: To put to death; To deprive of life

If you accept than an unborn child is human, then you must accept that abortion is essentially murder. The child has done nothing wrong, so to kill him is unlawful.

Putting criminals to death is another matter entirely. Nowhere in the Scriptures does God ever tell man that he has the right to life. While human life is certainly valuable to God, He has listed several circumstances in which a man's life may be taken from him. Additionally, the Old Testament is full of examples where God has taken thousands of human lives because of their wickedness.

------------------------------

Now, I recognize that the United States is not a Christian nation. As such, we have no business making laws that try to force Christian ideals on the entire population. However, it is still the government's job to protect its citizens. And I do not believe that the definition of a human life is a matter of one's own interpretation or beliefs... thus, unborn children should be equally protected under the law.

All,

Thank you for being civil in all of your comments. This is a very emotional issue and I greatly appreciate the fact that our community at AQR is a very civil one.

I have a half-written response to Adm Tronthor's first post at my office and I had planned on finishing it on Monday. However, Lucy has already discussed some of my points.

I will respond to some of the provoking thoughts all of you raised, but I have a few questions for you first (to make sure I'm talking to you vs. talking at you).

1) Adm Tronthor wrote that the governmentis also not allowed to promote any particular religion. Are you promoting your belief in the way things should be? Or your belief that this is what our founders intended? Or both?

2) Pyro wrote I recognize that the United States is not a Christian nation. Same question, different context. Do you believe that the US is not a Christian nation now? Do you believe that the Founders did not intend to create a Christian nation? Or both?

BTW, I appreciate and agree with Pyro's distinction between murder and killing. In the eyes of Scripture, at least as I understand it, abortion is murder. In the eyes of the US government, abortion is killing, but not murder.

Blog Jones,
Well, that depends upon Keyes' goals, purpose, and situation.

His goals and purpose are his own (I am not sure if he is deliberately trying to draw attention to abortion, trying to win, or just trying to line up a conservative talk show program for after the election. Maybe all three at once - only he knows.).

However, his situation is pretty clear. He has no real budget and a very slight chance of winning against a popular and well-funded opponent. So he has chosen a strategy of deliberately baiting the press in order to get attention. In my opinion, it is probably the best tactic for a cash-poor campaign. Not that I think that it will be successful, but what else can he do?

That's true; I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. I had assumed that he was playing to win the election. If he's not, that'd explain the "I don't care what they say about me so long as they spell my name right" attitude.

A couple of questions and comments about this fascinating discussion.

Lucy -- I would really like if you could provide the sources for those adoption vs. abortion studies of trauma for rape victms? I am rather skeptical, but would like to take a look at those studies.

My understanding is while there is a shortage of white babies for adoption, there are still not enough families for minority babies. Does anyone know more about this or have statistics?

Pyro -- The problem with the OT's standards for Murder and Killing is that many of the justifications for killing are abhorant to our own morals -- i.e. stoning disobedient children. Since a number of justifications for killing in the OT are way off from what we consider acceptible, it becomes shaky to point to the OT to set the standard. Who determines which justification is legal and illegal?

Furthermore, the State is not God and cannot kill the "wicked" with the same impunity as God. I think it is incredibly dangerous to use that as a justification -- who decides what is legal killing and what is illegal killing? Is the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants by high altitude bombing because they live near military targets murder or killing?

"The problem with the OT's standards for Murder and Killing is that many of the justifications for killing are abhorant to our own morals"

Leviticus 10:1-2
God kills two priests because they did not follow His instructions, and presented a sacrifice incorrectly. "So fire went out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them so that they died before the Lord."

2 Samuel 6:6-7
The Ark of the covenent is being transported on a cart. It nearly falls off, and Uzzah steadies it with his hand. God strikes him dead.

And just so you don't think I'm leaving the New Testament out...

Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira lie about money they received from selling property. God strikes them both dead.

So are God's justifications for these killings absurd by your moral standards? Remember, if there is any such thing as "right" and "wrong", then they are defined by God alone. Man has no more authority to define morality than a US citizen has to declare himself above the law.

Is the law harsh? Yes and no. No, because ultimately the penalty for all sin is death (Romans 6:23), and anything less we receive is just mercy from God. But on the other hand, yes, the law is harsh - because it was meant to point us to Christ (Galations 3:24).

Perhaps this is a topic for another forum (Don?) since I don't want to get too off topic.

Maybe I did not make my point clear, Pyro. Why are those verses you cited more legitimate in our society today than, say, Exodus 22:17--"Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death"(New Living Translation)?

Who determines that verse X is no longer applicable, but that other verses are? I realize that theologically, no conservative Christian will believe this, but in practice, certain verses are ignored and others elevated based on the values and morals of our culture.

We do not value all parts of Scripture eqaully. Our culture does play a silent partner in our interpretation of Scripture, influencing what parts of Scripture we emphasise and what parts we ignore. This is a phenomenom refered to as the "Canon within the Canon."

But the big question remains, who determines which part of Scrpture is more valued than the other? Since we all ignore or at least downplay certain parts of God's law, what then makes other parts of God's law legitimate or justified?

If you do not believe in stoning disobedient children or executing women in engaging in premarital sex, are you then violating part of God's law?

And Pyro, what are the practical implications of the verses you cited? Should someone be put to death if they disrespect a ritual or lie about their tithing? I understand that God kills these people for disobedience, but what does that have to do with now? Would you honestly support a legal system that executes these kind of infractions?

I suspect that most Christians argue that the resurrection of Christ and the concept of Grace would replace the OT's legal system and more horrifying examples of biblical "justice." But yet Grace does not seem to extend to issues like abortion and homosexuality and the OT is trotted out again for arguments. This doesn't seem consistent to me and my question is, by what standard do we pick and choose?

Pyro, you also didn't answer my last question. My understanding from your posts is that killing by individuals (and abortion doctors) is illegal and murder, but killing by the State and the military is legal and so is considered just killing. But the State is not God and cannot kill with the same impunity as God. If the State kills innocents (such as in war), are they also not committing murder?

I apologize if any of my post seems disrespectful, I do not mean to be. I also want to be talking to you and not at you.

Szdfan,

Thank you for asking if a comment was appropriate. The answer is yes and you have inspired me to write a new post on my guidelines for comments.

Now I have a response for you. I think you frame one perspective well when you said:

I realize that theologically, no conservative Christian will believe this, but in practice, certain verses are ignored and others elevated based on the values and morals of our culture.

We do not value all parts of Scripture eqaully. Our culture does play a silent partner in our interpretation of Scripture, influencing what parts of Scripture we emphasise and what parts we ignore. This is a phenomenom refered to as the "Canon within the Canon."

I grant that culture has an impact on how Christians behave and it does so in many ways. However, I suspect you mean more than this. Let me address the point I think you are making and you can let me know if I'm missing the boat.

Most Christians do not believe that every verse in the Bible applies to them. To paraphrase an old saw, the entire Bible is for our education, but not all of it directly applies to us. For my part, I find it helpful to think of the Bible in three parts for the purposes of this discussion. Part I – God's plan for all people as laid out in the first part of Genesis. Part II – Jewish law for the Jewish people. Part III – The New Covenant with specific restrictions and freedoms for Christians. In this view, Part I applies to everyone. For example, when asked about divorce, Jesus Himself discussed God's original plan (Matthew 19:4-6) when He discussed the sanctity of marriage. Part II does not apply to Christians. It is fascinating reading and it is very enlightening because it helps us understand a small part of the mind of God, but Christians are under no obligation to follow Jewish law (in fact the Apostle Paul warns Christians against trying to do so). Part III applies to all followers of Christ.

So if you meant that modern Christians do not follow the laws aimed at the Jews of ancient Israel as much as they follow the laws aimed at Christians, then I 100% agree. But I find solid grounds for this practice. However, if you meant something different, then please elaborate.

There seems to be much discussion/disagreement/misinterpretation of the division of church and state in the US. Out of curiousity, I would not mind a little clarification on this point.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

From this I read there are two protections. The second phrase prohibits the government from passing a law making Buddhists sing Christmas carols and other interference. The first phrase, I'm a bit fuzzy on. "Establish" could mean the creation or it could mean stabilization. If the latter, would not nativity scenes on courthouse lawns or prayers in public schools be unconstitutional? Doing so would place a government stamp of approval on the represented religion, advancing it before other religions within the state; a de facto state religion. Is there a legal distinction between the two possible definitions?

The issue of text reading is one of the reasons I am not a Biblical literalist. Even if the Bible is the infalliable word of God, our readings and interpretations are falliable. We filter any text through our own experiences and culture and this can cause radically different understandings of the same text.

I am not saying that Scripture is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong. I however take issue with the practice I witnessed growing up in which some Christians insisted that God commanded us to do X because of verse Y.

My concern is that when we insist that Scripture is infalliable, we really mean that our own interpretation of Scripture is infalliable.

Don, I think you and I are on the same page on some of these issues. I agree the resurrection of Christ replaces the OT covenants and are not applicable to Christians.

However, my question is that if Christians do not need to follow OT law, why then are parts of the OT used to argue "Chrstian positions" (I use the quotes not out of disrespect, but because there is so much diversity among Christian communities, rarely is there a universal position on social issues). For example Don, your white paper on abortion primarily uses OT references and Pyro uses basically an OT definition of murder and killing.

I am not saying that the OT needs to be completely discounted, but what is the guiding principle that establishes verse X to be relevant today and not verse Y? Am I making myself clear?

My questions to Pyro were based on my impression that he did not make a distinction between OT and NT, but that it was all lumped together as "God's Law." Please correct me if I misunderstood you, Pyro.