"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
C.S. Lewis
"The fingers of your thoughts are molding your face ceaselessly."
Charles Reznikoff
"Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
G.K. Chesterton
"Humility enforces where neither virtue nor strength can prevail, nor reason."
Francis Quarles
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
C.S. Lewis
Resistance Thinking Society
'Society' is a term used to describe a grouping of individuals and outlines the structures employed to ensure that the individuals within a society relate to each other in an appropriate fashion. Different societies may have distinctive cultural behaviours and different institutions. In this society section you will find news, articles and reviews that relate to Australian society, or more specifically, individuals who live in Australia.
Topics in this section will cover: science and technology - stem cell research, IVF, cloning, intelligent design, evolution etc.; politics - ideologies (communism, anarchism, totalitarianism, capitalism etc.), state and federal politics, the free market, the United Nations etc.; sociology - globalisation, prisons, welfare, government; environment - global warming, alternative energy etc.; and moral issues - poverty, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion etc.
The role of the Christian within society is to stand for truth, for justice and most importantly, to represent God's agenda on the earth. As the Resistance Thinking journey continues, our aim is to stimulate engaging dialogue exploring the complexities of how followers of Jesus should engage with society in our day and age.
Whitney Houston was a prolific singer and the only female artist I would willingly admit to listening to. In fact I have The Essential Whitney Houston in my car. I believe that there are very few songs that can match the power of her voice in the song I Have Nothing. Despite my impressions of her as an unbelievable vocalist I must confess to being quite critical of many of the messages that permeated through-out her musical career.
Let me pose one song from her collection as an example. In 1985 Whitney released a self-titled debut album which topped the Billboard chart for fourteen weeks. The sixth and final single from the album was the song Greatest Love Of All (which came 11th in the year-end 1986 Billboard chart). The song, written originally by Michael Masser and Linda Creed, states that "[l]earning to love yourself ... is the greatest love of all":
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
This is where the real tragedy of Whitney Houston lies. If she believes what she sings then she has deviated a long way from her Baptist upbringing. We know that life is not about depending upon ourselves but about depending on God. We are not the masters of our own fates nor does learning to love ourselves possess any merit. To the contrary it encourages self-obsession and self-dependence. These are the hallmarks of sinfulness and do not lead to any inner strength. Paul admonishes such behaviour:
"When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise."
(2 Corinthians 10:12 NIV)
Whitney's song is the polar opposite to what David sings about:
"Praise be to the LORD, for he has heard my cry for mercy. The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and he helps me. My heart leaps for joy, and with my song I praise him.
The LORD is the strength of his people, a fortress of salvation for his anointed one. Save your people and bless your inheritance; be their shepherd and carry them forever."
(Psalms 28:6-9 NIV)
Our strength does not come from loving ourselves. It is on the cross we depend. It is Jesus' sacrifice that is truly the greatest love of all. It eclipses any love generated by humans. So be careful when you listen to Whitney that you are not taken in by false messages. Her musical legacy is large and incorporates many elements but the truth is not one of them.
Safe sex gets more complicated. What? Sex before marriage has consequences?? Who would have ever guessed.
Sexual infections rise among Gen Y The Age, July 3, 2008 Lily has always been pretty savvy about safe sex. The 24-year-old nursing student used protection when she had sex with her first boyfriend several years ago, and on the one occasion the condom broke, she had a sexually transmitted infection (STI) check-up. When she began her next relationship, then aged 22, Lily (not her real name) made sure her new boyfriend had also been tested before they stopped using condoms.
Everyone seems to love a tragic. The layperson prescribes his/her theory as to what was the real cause of their downfall. The tabloids lick their chops as they contemplate how big this news story will be. The death of a tragic, well that is something to behold. This isn't your average story about a celebrity taking a vacation or going to rehab. This is life or death. A topic worth discussing because each of us is indeed mortal. Society, it seems, teeters towards the negative aspects of life rather than uplifting and encouraging events.
Then there are those who leave the status-quo and choose instead to reflect upon what this celebrity achieved to make themselves so famous. You won't hear the words "wasted talent" uttered by this group. Rather they will speak about how this person was one-in-a-million. Many people who fall into this category do so because they wish to feel that they (like the celebrity they admire) stand apart, different from the average Joe.
In the case of Whitney Houston both groups are going to town in the wake of the news of her death. But they are not the only ones to exploit the story for their own nefarious purposes. Tony Bennett, jazz singer, used Whitney's death (on the night of her death at Clive Davis's annual pre-Grammys party) to say:
"I'd like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit themselves to get our government to legalize drugs. So they have to get it from a doctor, not just some gangsters that just sell it under the table."
Regardless of the tactlessness of saying this on the night of Whitney's death Tony Bennett has encapsulated the non-argument. This argument crops up in many forms in so many different social issues. It is essentially "we should legalise this activity so people who wish to participate in it do not have to put themselves in danger because it is not readily available". Such reasoning has been prevalent in the abortion debate. It is believed that by legalising abortion a woman can go to a doctor and not risk the dangers of getting a "back-yard abortion". Surprisingly those who are pro-abortion deem this as a strong argument.
It is in this moment that the advocate loses any grip that they may have had on morality. Everything should be permissible and, as such, everything should be safe to participate in. Nobody is required to justify their actions. If they want to engage in self-destructive behaviours then it is their own business and the government should not interfere. Principles are sacrificed and complete autonomy reigns supreme.
Such a basis for modifying regulations is absurd. Governments should consider the ethical consequences of law-change most carefully before deciding on a course of action. Perhaps we need to turn our attention to the dangers of getting addicted to prescription drugs. Sandy Rea has written a great piece in the Herald Sun in which she says:
"Foul play has been ruled out but Houston's long battle with substance abuse is well known.
Of course, the singer is not alone in that battle.
Other major stars such as Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse and even Heath Ledger have fallen victim to the perils of prescription drug addiction.
With Houston's death we are again confronted with the broader social problem of prescription drug use and abuse.
The research tells us such misuse is increasingly pervasive. While Houston asserted that she was no "crack head", there is suspicion that the prescribed anti-anxiety drug Xanax may have played a role in her death.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported the number of Australians who used pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes in 2010 had risen by more than 100,000 since 2007.
These include benzodiazepines used for anxiety and sleep disorders, antidepressants used for mood disorders, opioids for pain management and amphetamines used, for example, in the management of ADHD...."
"As science continues to shed light on the secret life of the unborn child, a U.K. study has found that babies appear to distinguish painful stimuli as different from general touch from around 35-37 weeks gestation – just before an infant would normally be born.
“We are asking a fundamental question about human development in this study - when do babies start to distinguish between sensations?” said Dr Lorenzo Fabrizi, from University College London, who led the study, A Shift in Sensory Processing that Enables the Developing Human Brain to Discriminate Touch from Pain, which was recently published in the journal Current Biology.
The scientists looked at the brain activity of 46 babies at the University College Hospital Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Wing. Twenty-one babies in the study were born prematurely, giving scientists the opportunity to measure activity at different stages of human brain development, from babies at just 28 weeks of development through to those born ‘full term’ at 37 weeks.
Using electroencephalography (EEG), the scientists measured the babies’ electrical brain activity when they were undergoing a routine heel lance – a standard procedure essential to collect blood samples for clinical use.
In the premature babies the EEG recorded a response to the heel lance of non-specific ‘neuronal bursts’ – general bursts of electrical activity in the brain. After 35-37 weeks the babies’ response changed to localized activity in specific areas of the brain, which the researchers said indicated that they were now perceiving painful stimulation as separate to touch...."
Embryo: A Defense of Human Life Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg, Culture Watch, April 2008 (Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, Doubleday, 2008)
In this important volume two philosophers with interests in bioethics and law make the case for the moral worth of the human embryo from non-religious grounds. The case instead is made with a combination of science (biology, embryology, genetics) and moral philosophy.
Thus this book covers a wide range of topics, and deals with the various technologies that threaten the human embryo, from abortion to cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Much of the discussion focuses on the scientific questions: what is an embryo, how is it formed and developed, and so on.
The authors show that at fertilisation a new and distinct human organism comes into existence. The newly formed zygote is genetically unique, and its sex is established. This newly formed zygote is genetically distinct from either of its two parents.
When sperm and oocyte unite, there is a new human individual which comes into existence. It is a “single, unified, and self-integrated biological system”, argue the authors, which is on a “developmental trajectory” toward a mature stage of human being.
The authors remind us that the zygote is no longer some functional part of either parent, but a “unique organism, distinct and whole, albeit at the very beginning of a long process of development to adulthood”. All the mother does from now on is provide nutrition and a safe environment for the embryo to grow.
And this growth is internally directed. It contains within itself all the “genetic programming and epigenetic characteristics necessary to direct its own biological growth”. It is a complete or whole organism, in the very early stages of development. And the changes from embryo to fetus to child to adult, etc., are simply changes in degree, not changes in kind.
Thus the scientific question is easily answered. This is a wholly new and distinct genetic individual. And it of course is fully human. But questions arise as to whether this new human embryo is in fact a person. Here the authors move from science to philosophy.
For science cannot answer these sorts of questions. Thus the need for moral philosophy. And here the authors take on all the leading critics of the personhood of the human embryo. Peter Singer, Lee Silver, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Michael Tooley and others are all interacted with.
Drawing on a rich history of philosophical discussion, going back at least to Plato, the authors seek to establish the substance or essence of an entity, in distinction to its various characteristics or properties. Distinction, in other words, must be made between the kind of thing an entity is, and its accidental or contingent properties. For example, being left-handed or red-haired is not an essential feature of peronhood, but is simply an accidental property.
Utilitarian and consequentialist definitions of personhood fail to make this important distinction. Thus personhood is tied up with functionality and activity, instead of one’s innate nature or essence. So persons are described as those with sentience, or self-consciousness, or various other functions. But the authors argue that the utilisation of these accidental properties is not the same as our fundamental nature or substance.
The various abilities to reason, communicate, make free choices, and perform other functions of course are not fully formed in the embryo, or even in a young child. They take time to mature and properly develop. But the capacity to perform such functions is with us from the very beginning. Each new human being “comes into existence possessing the internal resources to develop such capacities”.
Thus human beings live personal lives, argue the authors. These lives are “characterised by a certain range of potentialities, which need not be fully instantiated or realized all at once or to the same degree in all cases”.
The bulk of this book then takes on the various arguments made against the personhood of the embryo, and these functionalist definitions of personhood. Various philosophical and moral challenges and objections are carefully dealt with. Specific issues such as brain death, twinning, natural embryo loss, lifeboat ethics, surplus embryos, and other problems are discussed in detail. Challenges from cloning and other new reproductive technologies are also addressed. Finally, political, technological and cultural recommendations are made, based on this understanding of the complete humanity and personhood of the human embryo.
This is a very fine book that covers most of the bases in what is often a highly emotive and controversial debate. The scientific, moral and philosophical case for the worth of the embryo is here clearly and dispassionately made. The authors have produced a welcome addition to the growing body of pro-life literature.
Review found at culture watch (Used with permission)
In the case of Whitney Houston both groups are going to town in the wake of the news of her death. But they are not the only ones to exploit the story for their own nefarious purposes. Tony Bennett, jazz singer, used Whitney's death (on the night of her death at Clive Davis's annual pre-Grammys party) to say: