Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land the LORD, your God, is giving you. — Exodus 20:12
The Fourth Commandment is most often interpreted as a directive for children to obey their parents and, by extension, for persons of all ages to obey lawful authorities. It has also been interpreted to mean that children remain obligated to respect, honor, and love their parents even after they reach the age of majority and are no longer bound to obey them.
Moreover, other passages in Scripture make it clear that this commandment carries with it a certain level of responsibility to care for parents who have become elderly or disabled:
In light of the fascinating discussion of personal and social sin kicked off most recently by Darwin here (make sure and read the comments) and followed up by Joe here, I thought it would be worth posting article 16 of John Paul the Great’s post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, entitled “Personal and Social Sin”. It’s obviously very pertinent, yet unless I missed it, no one has referenced it yet. The actual text is below the break. As the reader will note, one point relevant to the discussion here is that sin properly speaking is an act on the part of an individual person. Yet while social sin is such only in an analogous sense, JPII makes clear that it does describe something real. Now, on to the text.
Is it possible to make a case against abortion, and more importantly, for the importance of valuing human life in all stages of development, that does not rely upon theological assumptions?
This is a question that has undoubtedly bothered many pro-lifers since the abortion debate became one of the political fault lines of the United States. I am not concerned here with objections to pro-life policies and legislation that rest upon a fallacious interpretation of the First Amendment, and which falsely conflate a separation of church and state with a separation of religion and politics – which, if taken literally, would disenfranchise religious people.
Rather I am concerned with an objection to the pro-life philosophical position, namely that which asserts that this position is either partially or wholly dependent upon theology. Or, as the less precise like to say, “religion” – though I believe secular religions such as humanism, feminism, and even versions of Christianity that have virtually been stripped of their theological content are often employed to justify abortion.
Of course there are many individual secular points against abortion, and attempts have been made to construct full secular arguments. Many of these points and attempts, however, focus upon the life in the womb of a mother, and whether or not it deserves the same protection under the law as born persons. While these arguments are foundational and necessary, they may not be sufficient. A more robust secular case against abortion will help the pro-life cause.
Thus, I propose adding to the secular case against abortion by focusing on what I call the subversiveness of abortion, and to recast the pro-life position as the pro-society position. What is subversion? It is an effort to undermine institutions from within, to uproot and overturn them. Abortion was peddled to a society in turmoil on the grounds that its illegality was causing greater harm than would its legality. But its effect has been to drastically undermine a set of social relationships that I call organic social bonds, and to justify their replacement with what I call artificial social bonds, both to be explained below.
This is not the place to address whether or not the forces that are responsible for legalizing abortion in the United States were conscious or not of the subversiveness of abortion. Briefly I will say that I think it is reasonable to assume that some of them were, and that this is why they pursued it. Others had intentions entirely unrelated to subversion, and were sincere enough in their approach, their rhetoric and their actions. For the time being, the subversiveness of abortion refers mostly to the act of abortion itself, and not to the men and women who promote it.
A secular argument can be difficult to make against abortion because it is tantamount to reducing the Ten Commandments to the Seven Commandments by eliminating the three that govern man’s relationship with God. Indeed, I do not believe – nor did the American founders believe – that a stable society can long exist if man cannot acknowledge a being higher than himself. The 20th century confirms that acknowledgment of God has always lead to more freedom, happiness, and prosperity than has resulted from the replacement of God with a dictator, or theology with ideology, or a balance of spiritual and temporal authority with totalitarianism.
That being said, however, society might plod along at a functional level even without acknowledging God, though it may not last much longer than did the Soviet Union. And it is unfortunate, but true, that many people in our society simply do not believe in God, or if they do, they erroneously believe that he has no place in politics. And yet as pro-lifers, we wish to bring abortion to an end now, rather than some future date when the First Amendment is properly interpreted and a subversive minority of secular radicals does not hold sway over the court system. This means, ultimately, that we must construct secular arguments against abortion.
I came across this American Thinker article on the exclusion of Amish and Muslims from ObamaCare:
The Senate health care bill just signed contains some exemptions to the “pay-or-play” mandate requiring purchase of Obamacare-approved health insurance or payment of a penalty fine. As Fox News has pointed out, for instance, the Amish are excused from the mandate:
So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.
Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.
“Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion,” said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. “And that’s perfectly constitutional.”
Apparently, this exemption will apply similarly to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance – and, for that matter, any form of risk insurance – to be haraam (forbidden).
Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light calls our attention to the probability that Muslims will also be expempt. According to a March 23 publication on an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance:
Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). This is what is stated in fatwas by the senior scholars.
In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/277) there is a quotation of a statement of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning the prohibition on insurance and why it is haraam:
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/251):
Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people’s wealth unlawfully, and other shar’i
Secondly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: “but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment”
[al-Maa'idah 5:2]. End quote.
And Allaah knows best.
So, it turns out that observant Muslims are not only strictly forbidden from buying any health insurance under the ObamaCare mandate, but may also not even work for any company that provides such insurance or any other form of commercial insurance.
Being an observant Catholic I don’t have to participate because it goes against my faith to kill unborn innocent children?
The 5th, 7th, and 10th Commandments and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) forbids me from participating.
5th Commandment & CCC 2268-2269: You shall not kill. (ObamaCare kills unborn babies)
So the Republican Party is reeling, trying to find its voice and a clear path forward in the aftermath of a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad defeat. While initially we hear that the party will be led by fresh faces, such as Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, and that forerunners for 2012 will also include Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, this brief noise has been covered over with the deafening sounds of ligaments snapping from too much finger-pointing. These days, if you want to know who is old-guard in the Republican party, you merely need to see who has his index finger splinted and bandaged.