Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?

In fact, the whole song "Yahweh" has some really deep stuff to it.  I think people run into problems when they are scared or afraid to bring their doubts to the surface.  They think they may ask some question which will invoke the wrath of God or worse be "unforgivable" and so shove them way down deep where they fester and are never tended or healed. One of my very first blog entries  can be found here.  While I didn't reveal it at the time, I wrote it minutes after I had been called to the ER (during a moonlighting shift) and pronounced a four-month old dead on arrival secondary to SIDS.  Many casual readers would not associate such questions with someone who is deeply devoted to his faith.   If you are mad or confused or upset at God, you need to verbalize it so you can seek answers or healing.  Questions lead to thought, thought leads to seeking, seeking leads to peace. 

Grace
It's a name for a girl
It's also a thought that
Changed the world ...

She carries a pearl
In perfect condition
What once was hurt
What once was friction
What left a mark
No longer stings

Because grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things

Grace finds beauty
In everything

Grace finds goodness
In everything

Have people started to noticed that I tend to ask questions I don't have the answers to?  I guess the benefit is partially catharsis for myself, but I also like to hear other's opinions on the subject.  This blog is going to be no different.

I have often rebelled against both materialism and consumerism which I see as being rampant in this country.  This, however, does not mean that I do not invest in an attempt at securing my family's future.  Don't worry, you will not get stock tips from me.  I save all my speculating ideas for conversation with my brother.

I will say that I have stock in a well-known, large, pharmaceutical company.  I have chosen to invest in this company because a) being in the medical field I feel I have a better handle on what the company does and b) the whole pharm industry has been out of favor and I like being an investor contrarian.

My morality question does not involve the fact that I may or may not prescribe drugs made by the very company I am a partial owner of.  This does not bother me because I understand that even if I wrote 10x the necessary prescriptions, it wouldn't make one iota of difference in the bottom line of a company which makes literally billions and billions of dollars.  Armed with that knowledge I merrily go about prescribing whatever drug I feel is best for the patient.

My current dilemma is this:  Yesterday NPR did a segment on another large pharm company which you can find here.  (You can both listen to it or read it.  I recommend listening just because I love Snigdha Prakash's accent.)  In essence, Merck is being accused of using various forms of pressure to silence a particular doctor who had become a critic of their drug Vioxx.  Drug companies, like doctors, are in the odd position of being there to both help people and to make money.  Sometimes the two goals are not in perfect alignment and that leads to problems.  I am not surprised such examples exist within the drug industry.  I interact with drug reps nearly every day.  I know the drug companies are keenly interested in selling their product.  I assume if this is happening at Merck, it is likely happening at my company.  Here is my dilemma:

If I don't have a good handle on the moral dealings of a company in specific, or an industry in general, should I be invested?  I would not invest in a tobacco company.  I would not invest in the gambling industry (Harrah's being, I think, the only publicly held casino).  The drug industry does not seem to be in the same category, but at the same time, I wonder about some of their practices.  Margins on drugs can be huge (although I don't know if that includes the large amounts of money that go into developing a drug that works (along with the ten others that failed)).  Is that wrong?  Just because a company produces a product that is beneficial to humanity, does that force them to make it affordable to as many people as possible?  Am I just as culpable by being a 0.000000002% owner?

Truth being said, I will probably be uncomfortable with wealth for the rest of my life.  Finding that line between what is enough and what is too much is difficult.  This probably could be called "liberal's guilt" (although for the record I consider myself centrist and not liberal, something my father often forgets).  Do I work at ridding myself of this guilt? or should it be an uncomfortable bedfellow which I should always hold close?

Just some musings on another hot day in Pittsburgh...

I came across this in my Word archives.  Having mildly complained that a list  Holly linked on her blog had declared Origin of Species as to be among the most damaging books written in the 19th and 20th century, I feel I need to "redeem" myself.  I found an essay I wrote for a moderated atheist newsgroup I frequented for a number of years back in the '90s.  It deals with Abiogenesis which deals with the origin of life from non-life.  While I would argue that evolution is quite successful as a theory, our intellectual cupboard is quite bare when it comes to abiogenesis.  Anyway, below is just a bit of what I had to write.

I'm not sure if I've attracted the type of reader who will appreciate it.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  As always, if you think it's boring, take a look at my pictures.

We've had fun discussing abiogenesis in the thread "Why beleive?" (and who spelled that anyway?)  I wanted to bring up a new idea here to discuss as well as the implications and consequences (see the next thread Part II: Naturalism, standing on nothing too?)

I have successfully argued in the last thread that we have a lack of ideas about possible ways that life arose de novo from inorganic building blocks.  In this thread I will argue that in fact we know too much.  The information we have gathered has exposed many paradoxes that must be solved to allow life to proceed.  Instead of having only portions of a complex but understandable map illuminated, we seem to have illuminated portions of a map complete with contradictory and paradoxical information.  I will list three below (from least troubling to most).  There are others, but I'll keep the scope simple as the conversation tends to get spread too thin.

Paradoxes of abiogenesis:

I.  The oxygen paradox.

  The orginial investigators into possible methods of abiogensis Urey, Miller, and Oparin (not all working together, but had similar ideas) envisioned a primordial atmosphere without oxygen.  This would be benefitial as oxygen rapidly destroys the organic building blocks that they sought to build.  (Amino acids, etc.)  Life, it was felt, could not arise in the presence of oxygen.

   Later, new evidence arose that led to the idea that the sun may have emitted more than 1,000 times the ultraviolet radiation it does today.  UV light is one of the most potentially devastating forms of radiation to early life constituents (DNA and RNA especially).  We all know what protects us currently from such rays because it's existence is in some peril, the ozone layer.  Most of us know also what the ozone layer is made up of, oxygen.

   This paradox has driven current theories underground, literally.  The cradle of life has been driven down to hydrothermal vents or even deeper into the crust of the earth. This paradoxical requirement has driven us far from Darwin's original "warm pool".  Unfortunately, some critics contend, it has driven us from the frying pan into the fire.  Hydrothermal vents may destroy more organic material than they produce.  The earth's crust as well may be far too hot to support life especially in its fragile infancy.

2. The RNA vs. Protein paradox

  This paradox is quite old as far as abiogensis is concerned, but only marginal headway has been made.  RNA (or DNA, but I will refer only to RNA as this is the darling molecule of the moment.) requires protein to catalyze its replication.  Proteins require RNA to replicate.  We are left with the famous chicken-or-egg paradox.  The ISSOL symposium in Berkeley of 1986 tried to address this issue.  The "protein-first" side of the debate argued that making RNA under prebiotic conditions was well-nigh impossible, a crticism that was ignored rather than rebutted by the "RNA-first" side.  The latter responded by insisting that proteins are too inept to be the vehicle for the first living system, since they are insufficiently versatile.  With the protein-first side providing no rebuttal to this criticism, the debate ended with both positions fatally flawed and no more promising alternatives suggested.

  To be sure, a little progress has been made.  Some RNA has been found to be weakly autocatalyzing.  However, little progress has been made on the original manufacture of RNA.  For those who have worked with it, RNA is a notoriously fickle molecule and manufacturing it from constituent building blocks under anything conceivably close to natural conditions seems impossible.

3. The "error catastrophe" paradox

  Manfred Eigen, a German biochemist coined this term to represent what he felt was a fundamental paradox in abiogenesis.  Simply put, the more complex a genome the less it can withstand copying error.  For example, human cells are able to copy their DNA with a precision of one base error for a billion bases (amazing on it's own).  A bacterial cell can accomplish a precision of one base error for a million bases.  Luckily for the bacteria, it is simple enough that it can survive the 1000 fold error rate of human cells.  If we were to have the same precision, our race would soon die out.

   Eigen contends that a paradox arises.  If a genome is too short, it can't store enough information to build the copying machinery itself.  He believes that even the simplest replication equipment requires much more information than could ever have been accomodated in a primitive nucleic-acid sequence.  To reach the sort of length needed to code for the necessary copying enzymes, the genome risks falling foul of the very error catastrophe it is trying to combat.  To put it simply:  complex genomes demand reliable copying, and reliable copying requires complex genomes.  So which came first?

So while it would be possible to argue that abiogenesis is merely the tedious process of piecing together a very large jigsaw puzzle, it does not appear to be so.  It appears to be very much more complex.  At what point do start asking philosophical questions as to the origin of us all?  (I have previously been hammered between two questions:  Where is the scientific proof for God? and How can you believe in a God-of-the-Gaps?)  You may chose one question or the other, but you cannot chose both for they form a clever but illogical trap.  The first offers a tantalizing open-minded approach while the second lies in wait to destroy any proof offered.  I will no longer be part of that game.

Jason

I thought I'd use a separate thread to argue the philosophical rather than scientific implications of my previous thread.

Other threads ("standing on nothing" for example) have hammered theism for their apparent lack of foundational belief that is provable.  It is contended that theism has legs that, contrary to the old joke,"do not reach the ground."  I counter that naturalism, or atheism as a closely related system of belief is no better off.

For naturalism to exist as a coherent theory, such answers as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness must be answered.  Currently none are.  While this state of affairs exists all naturalists assume, as a consequence of their bias, that naturalistic answers will be found.  You can rationalize all you want as to how things point in that direction, but to quote all major mutual funds "past performance is no indication of future earnings."  At some point you are left with your own feet dangling a few inches off the ground.  Who cares who's feet are further?  It doesn't matter.  It all comes down to where you are going to place your chip when the roulette wheel of life stops spinning.

I don't mean that you should abandon your atheistic or natural beliefs.  Rather I encourage you to stop the stubborn dogma that you are somehow planted more deeply into the truth of the universe.  We are both making a choice and taking a risk.  While you have made yours, I have made mine.  But threads like "standing on nothing" appear to be a matter of attempting to remove the speck in your brothers eye while one is in your own.  (I'll refrain from the original "log" wording as it implies incorrectly that naturalism is much more a leap than dualism.  I'd probably also get a ton of responses ignoring all my work above to flame me for implying that an atheist has a log in his eye. :))

join the party....

Jason

Sometimes pop culture sparks thoughts in me or crystalizes feelings which have been swirling around in my head.  As you know, I watch limited TV (because I tend to watch more film), but one of the shows I've enjoyed is LOST.  One of the best characters is a man by the name of John Locke.  The writers probably didn't name him by accident as he is the philosopher of the show.  Marooned on a island after a plane crash, Locke has mysteriously regained the used of his legs after years in a wheelchair.  Locke views the crash as purposeful and constantly speaks of "the Island" as a being capable of rewarding, punishing, and testing faith.  His counterpart is Jack, a surgeon and man of science.

My question is who does Locke really represent?  Is Locke the idealized man of faith? or is he the way hollywood (or the writers in specific) picture such a man?  My answer is the latter rather than the former.  Locke's faith is portrayed as blind; he questions nothing and never seems to doubt.  When his friend Boone is killed in a jungle accident, Locke declares the Island demanded a sacrifice.  Although he is portrayed as one of the few survivors more or less at peace, he is also viewed as a bit of a nut job by his fellow castaways.

Is this the person I should use as a model for my life?  Is this the person I want as the poster-boy of faith?  In the end, I don't think so.  My faith is a blending of both Locke and Jack.  My faith is grounded in just that, faith, but I do not blindly ascribe meaning to each and every event that occurs in my life.  My not getting a ticket last week for taking an illegal left turn (while the car in front of me did) is not God sending me a message or "taking care of His own", but rather a bit of luck (which I have no more right to than the next guy).

Apparently the pop culture reference did not crystalize things as clearly as I had hoped and this blog is a bit of a mess.  In the end I wanted to rebel a bit at the portrayal of "true faith" as being sorta crazy and quite blind.  Many Christians think about their faith; they probe and question, learn and revise.  Locke is an interesting character to watch on LOST, but not in real life.

Comments?  Criticism?  Merely want to tell me how scattered this piece is?  Drop a line.

ADDENDUM:  From a friend and fellow LOST fan, a snippet about the real John Locke.  Does this sound like the one we know?

Do Justice, Love Mercy, Walk in Humility

It appears to some that my favorite passages in the bible would be, "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" or "Why note the speck in your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own eye." (both of those are paraphrases).  I actually enjoy turning the critical eye inward to realize I am guilty of everything I tend to fault others for.

Nowhere is this more true than in the elevator and in my car.  Apparently, while driving, only I know the exact point on an exit ramp where to merge before is just silly (why merge two miles back, you are only going to be waiting at the end of the line) and to merge after is just rude (look at that guy cutting in way up there).  Likewise, on an elevator only I know the requisite number of floor needed to travel to justify getting on (four).  If you get on and hit one floor up, I may not say anything, but (and at this point you have to imagine either Ann or Nancy Taylor of Heart bellowing out...) "If looks could kill, you'd be lying on the floor".

I also really, really dislike it when people don't walk up an escalator; they "ride" as if expecting two hundred puppets to suddenly burst forth from the walls and start singing "It's a small world after all" in six different languages.

The proper questions to ask myself are these:  Have I ever ridden an elevator up one floor? ("yes, but.."  eh! guilty!)  Have I ever merged late onto an off ramp? ("well, i was in a hurry!" uh uh! GUILTY!)  Do I know what the person I'm judging is thinking or going through?  Perhaps this is their first time for doing this.  Perhaps in the grand scheme of things they have actually done it less than I have.  Maybe they really are tired when they are standing there on that escalator.

In the end, my righteous anger is holding others to a standard I am not willing to live up to myself.  We love to set "the bar" just below our feet.  It is so human nature to do so.  Unfortunately we not only do it in silly things like the ones I've mentioned, but in bigger, more meaningful ways:  Just what is "acceptable behavior" at work?  What "office supplies" are ok to take home?  Do I really have to declare all of my income?

As we turn the mirror inward, we are less happy in life because we realize that we are not as perfect as we thought.  But if you keep up that mentality, life actually gets better.  Little things others do no longer bother you because you know that you do them as well and thus there is no reason to be bothered.  Walking around "holier than thou" really hurts nobody but ourselves.

So the next time you are on an elevator and someone gets on for that one floor ride (yes I know she's fat and could use the exercise), just close your eyes and ignore it.  You'll soon find that such tasks as waiting behind the old lady trying to work the self-checkout machine at the grocery store aren't nearly as onerous as you once though....

Do Justice, Love Mercy, Walk in Humility

I spent last week in the Northwest where I grew up.  I was able to spend a few days with my parents which is always fun.  Over the years our political philosophies have drifted apart and now we are able to have fun and engaging conversations we wouldn't have been able to have before (because we would have agreed).  These conversations can involve raised voices, but are always civil and hopefully leave us all the wiser.  At one point this weekend I was accused of Bulvarism.

What now?

That's right. Bulvarism.  I thought I had better find out what crime I was supposedly committing so I bit.

What's that?

My parents directed me to an essay by CS Lewis with the same title (Found in God in the Dock  for those who want to read it themselves).  In it I came across a quote which was the key.  Lewis had invented a doctor, Dr. Bulvar, who had this to say:

"At that moment there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that
refutation is no necessary part of argument.  Assume that your opponent is
wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet."

Perhaps an example would be helpful.  Those on both sides of the Terry Schaivo case would often accuse the other side of pushing an agenda.  They are misguided, the argument would go, because they are ruled by the overriding desire to advance their cause.  This desire has made them miss the subtle (or not so subtle) points of this case and thus their view can be ignored.

It doesn't matter which side you mentally inserted into the above paragraph, it is likely still true.  Notice that no facts or debate or logic is needed or mentioned.  We simply assume they are wrong, then explain why.  Once you see the simplicity of this method you immediately see its deviousness.  The Truth is shoved to the side as a quaint, but obsolete relic.  In the 10 second sound-bite, you do not have time to argue real facts, you have just enough time to say, "My opponent is wrong, and I can see clearly enough to tell you why."

The point of this blog is to encourage us to set out and look at the world with Bulvar-colored glasses.  Once we are horrified at how pervasive Bulvarism is in our society, we need to keep the glasses on and look in the mirror.  Perhaps I was guilty in that conversation with my parents.  Perhaps I am guilty every day.  Only when we can agree to listen to each other and be open enough to entertain the possibility that our opponents may have something to say after all; only then will we get somewhere in dealing with society's challenges...

Some lyrics from an excellent song I heard on my local independent station WYEP (check them out online, once you get used to radio with no commercials, you don't want to go back...)

Mercy Now - Mary Gauthier

My church and my country could use a little mercy now
As they sink into a poisoned pit
That's going to take forever to climb out
They carry the weight of the faithful
Who follow them down
I love my church and country, and they could use some mercy now

I have no idea of Mary's background, but I liked the tone of her song.  Discuss amongst yourselves...

Sometimes I like to sign off my more philosophical entries with "Do Justice, Love Mercy, Walk in Humility".  I thought I'd explain it a little and perhaps show where, I think, we often miss the boat. 

Why read any further?  Those who are Christian can always use encouraging to "walk the walk", those who are not can try to get an "inside peek" at what some of us think is really important.  At the very least you could ask your neighbor (who likes to wield his Christianity like a blunt instrument) what his take on Micah 6:8 is.  That might get a good double-take.  If you could care less, then I welcome you to check out my pictures again. :)

The quote comes from Micah 6:8 which says, "He has showed you, O man, what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."  The core of Christianity involves our relationship with God, but another very important part of Christianity is the application of our faith in the world.  Micah 6:8 speaks to the latter more than the former.

Justice -  Perhaps the most misunderstood virtue of Christianity in our time.  Many people concentrate on the idea of, "getting what you deserve".  The cynic in me sometimes thinks we have mangled it into, "our enemies getting what they deserve".  But this leaves out a larger and much more important part of Justice.  For Christians, one reading of the book of Isaiah should make it fairly clear that God's Justice involves seeking equality and protection for those who cannot seek it for themselves.  In Isaiah's day it was, "the fatherless and the widow";  in our society it is the poor, the minority, the uneducated, and, I believe, the unborn.  Unfortunately, I often see the Religious Right espousing a strong Puritan ideal of, "God helps those who help themselves."  The poor and uneducated are looked down upon because they just aren't trying hard enough.  What they needs to see is that the system is stacked against them.  How can you raise your kids "right" when you are a single mom working two jobs at minimum wage?  Personally, I don't know how it ever gets done (although it does).  To put it another way, the difference in the effort required for "success" between my son and a four-year-old poor, inner-city child is immense.  My son will practically have to try to fail.  The inner-city child may try her hardest and still not succeed.  We, as Christians, should be painfully aware of this and strive to seek Justice for these people.  When one takes a global view, we become even more guilty.  Why does it take a tsunami which kills 200,000 to invoke an outpouring of charity from our government and ourselves? 

Mercy - Often described as the opposite of Justice, "not getting what you do deserve".  (This leads to a common question, how can God be both Just and Merciful?  The answer, to me, often seems convoluted; one simply needs to look at the question with the definition of Justice mentioned above and then suddenly the two seem to be synonyms rather than antonyms.)  While this idea comes closer to Mercy than the opposite came to Justice, it still seems that the Religious Right misses the application.  Why do I always see the most conservative to be in staunch support of harsher prison terms and the death penalty?  They often point to their ill-defined Justice, but even if we accept that definition, what happened to Mercy?  The only example I find of Jesus confronting the death penalty led to the famous line, "Let him without sin cast the first stone."  If Jesus wasn't down with the death penalty, why should I be?  Mercy should involve second-chances instead of "three-strikes and you're out". 

Humility - This is a virtue, I think, not to be understood by the non-Christian.  Our society values the absolue opposite of humility.  I won't dwell on it too much, but simply stated we should never have the phrase, "there, but for the grace of God, go I" far from our lips.  Those of us who are successful (by whatever standard) should realize we had very little to do with it.  Did I pick when I was born?  Where I was born?  Who my parents were?  What my genetic potential was?  Did I have one iota of input in those four questions which probably dictate 90% of my life?  The obvious answer is no and we should never forget it.  As a country, we should not be proud of the blessings heaped upon us.  Too often we look at it as a reward for our actions. (I often hear we are "God's favored nation".)  In reality, we should be a little overwhelmed and slightly apprehensive because in truth it is a sign of our immense responsibility.  "To those who have been given much, much will be asked."  Once Christians have been accepted into heaven, the poor and destitute will be welcomed straight to the banquet while the rest of us will be pulled aside to "settle up accounts".  (That's a paraphrase...)  Am I going to be able to offer God more than my 2004 Outback and my 42" plasma TV (which I don't even have yet)??

ADDENDUM:  I'm glad this blog has gotten some attention and people have challenged a little.  I wanted add two comments, one to Nhahapatmadalba and another to FierceKF (and my brother who took me to task on humility).

I think something was lost in the translation in regard to Nhaha.  We seem to agree more than we disagree.  I, too, feel that the American Culture stands "guilty as charged" with regards to consumption and materialism.  I have heard (although I don't know the source) that if the whole world consumed resources with the same zeal the US does, we would need four planets to keep up.  Does that sound just?  Not to me.  Nevertheless, two truths remain: a) God is soverign and b) America has vastly more wealth than 90% of the rest of the world.  While some see the relationship between a) and b) as one of "blessing", I see it as one of "responsibility".  Again, "to those who have been given much, much will be asked"; a description of what I feel is closer to the truth.

I also wanted to clear up my view on humility a little.  Both FireceKF and my brother reminded me that humility is not an exclusively Christian virtue.  I agree in one regard, and disagree in another.  When I said humility is a virtue not to be understood by the non-Christian, I should have more properly said humility is a virtue understood differently by Christians.  Compared to secular, American culture (my only reference point), Christians view humility as a proper view of our importance compared to God.  It is the opposite of Pride because humility seeks to instill the idea that everything (and I mean everything) we normally attribute to being a good result of our actions is, at its base, attributable to God.  We are the powertool capable of making beautiful woodworks, but can do nothing without God's electricity.  I don't think this is easily graspable by the secular culture because there is no reference point to compare ourselves to.  There is no "God" in the secular picture and thus good results of our actions can and should be attributed to ourselves.  Pride can be a virtue in secular society (although we all know it can be a vice as well).  I don't think Pride has much place at all in the Christian life.

I hope I haven't just made things even more confusing.  Keep the comments coming.  I may respond to some in either Comment form or as Addendums to my posts.

Sorry it has been a while since I have posted something.  I have been busy with work doing things ranging from paperwork for my new job to studying for an in-service exam I took today.  Anyway,  I have a few pics to process this weekend; will post them ASAP.

A few weeks ago I had to come into work on a Sunday to do a consult.  On my way home I came out of the hospital complex and turned onto one of the main drags in the area of Pittsburgh where all the schools are (University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.).  There was a lot of people standing around and I quickly realized it was a protest.  Lining the sides of the road every 50 feet on both sides were large posters with a photograph of a decapitated head from a likely late-term abortion.  I didn't hear any screaming or yelling (no protest chants), but the posters were jarring, disturbing, and impossible to avoid.

Our country is, of course, quite divided on the issue of abortion.  Not only are we a country divided, but the schism is aggrevated and inflamed.  Perhaps I should state my position on the issue before I go further.  I oppose abortion.  If we recall an earlier blog I posted about justice, you can quickly see my argument.  God's Justice is exquisitely interested in protecting those who cannot protect themselves (the "fatherless and the widow").  There is a saying that society can be judged by how it treats its weakest members (can anybody attribute that quote to someone?).  Who is weaker among us than the unborn? physically, politically, or otherwise? 

Unfortunately the real world is not as "clean-cut" as arguments and rhetoric claim.  As a medical student I sat in an exam room when a 15 year old was told she was pregnant.  I saw the fear in her eyes and the desperation.  Could I stand there and tell her she did not have the autonomy to refuse a safe-harbor for this fetus?  I will tell you, in those situations, your arguments catch in your throat and you suddenly wonder if things are so obvious after all.  Abortion often pits one group of the "weak" (low-income, single, teenage mom's, for example) against another (the unborn).  This is why it is a sticky and messy situation.  Ultimately the morality of my faith will side with the unborn, but reality leaves a gradual gradation of ethical grayness.  It's easy to deny the wealthy mother who doesn't want a girl her right to bodily autonomy, but very hard to do the same to the mother who's life is in medical jeopardy.

The purpose of my writing is not to state my opinion, but rather to deal with the techniques we use to try to change other's opinions.  Two weeks later I had to return to my office to pick up a book.  I drove down again on a Sunday, but this time with my 4-year old son.  I had to think long and hard about bringing him because I was afraid I might face the same posters.  While they were disturbing to me, how much worse could they be for him?  Do the protesters think about such collateral damage?  While such in-your-face methods do bring to light the unarguably brutal reality of abortion (these pictures are not faked somehow; I have been in the room when a 21-week fetus has delivered prematurely; it is not a "mass of tissue", it is a very small, but very identifiable baby), they are tantamount to carpet-bombing.  Your target may be destroyed, but only at the cost of a large amount of unintended damage.

The worst part, and the part that weighs heavily on my heart, is that the typical anti-abortion person is also a Christian.  Are we evidencing Christian virtues and the "fruits of the spirit" (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, for those not hip to such things)?  I wholeheartedly say no.  We should be trying to find common ground and healing the rift.  This does not mean we need to compromise our values, but there are better ways.  There is common ground to be found even in such a divisive issue as abortion.  For example,  nobody wants abortion.  Everybody agrees there should be fewer abortions.  What is in disagreement is how to bring this about.  Perhaps the answer isn't to make illegal "desperate decisions by desparate people", but rather to encourage policies which avoid the situation altogether.  Proper, practical sex education stressing both safer-sex and abstinence until the person is in a position to deal with the possible consequences (i.e. a baby) would be a start.  Social progress in education and practical aid for those at highest risk (low socioeconomic and minority women) would also go a long way.

Let us try to realize that our method of communication sometimes carries more impact than the message itself.  I applaud those who feel compelled to "make a difference", but please remember who you represent (Christian, literally, "little Christ") while doing so.  Luckily my son did not see those posters, but I'm sorry for those children who did.

Agree or disagree?  Comments always welcome....

ADDENDUM:  I've never figured out a good method for having a discussion on Spaces.  Do I write a comment to a comment or just add to the original text?  I'll try doing it this way in response to Chipiswhy.  I think we actually agree more than we disagree.  While I was calling out the militant faction of the "pro-life" side (hate those phrases, as if the issue can be boiled down to a bumper sticker slogan), there is just as much inflamatory rhetoric on the "pro-choice" side.  While I would call for them to look for common ground as well, I feel I have more sway or justification in trying to speak to Christians (being one).  As Paul says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church?" (I Cor. 5:12).   Your pointing to prengancy care centers is an excellent example of a positive avenue for an activist's energy.  I certainly think that reflects the Heart of God more than what I experienced two weeks ago.  Thanks for the comment...

I am not a catholic in the modern sense of the word, but we forget that the original term meant "universal" as in "the catholic church".  In that sense I am a part of the catholic church and with that in mind the life of John Paul II mattered to me.

I am overwhelmed by the outpouring of respect and admiration displayed by the world and covered by the otherwise secular media.  One thing seems apparent; by remaining faithful to his convictions, by respecting all peoples, and by championing those the world otherwise ignored, John Paul became one of the most influential people of our time.

In an age where the church seemed to be ever more obsolete, we see that, in fact, it was still one of the strongest of powers (political or otherwise).  What other dignitary could possibly have drawn such a crowd of kings, presidents, queens, and religious patriarchs to his funeral?  Who else could have done that without also attracting those wishing to protest or promote their own agenda?  Try finding reports of protests in Google news.  They either do not exist or are not covered (both are significant).  (China protested by not sending an envoy; an action directed at the invitation of the VP of Taiwan, not any argument directly with the church.)  Israel's president Katzav shook hands with the presidents of both Syria and Iran, chatting briefly with the latter.  Ponder that for a moment.  John Paul, for a short time, brought together bitterest enemies, neither of whom has a religious connection with him.  That alone must speak to the power and success of this one man. 

Christians everywhere must pause and learn from him.  If Jew and Arab Muslim can come together to pay respects, how much more should we put aside petty bickering between denomination and creed?  I take this to heart.  Yes, there are denominations which cause me to reflexively roll my eyes; must I do this?  I am sure there are members of these churches who are far closer to the Heart of God than me.  We may disagree on the trappings and clutter of applying our faith in this world, but we both worship the same Savior.  The same Jesus I put my faith in will also welcome George W. Bush into his arms in heaven; am I righteous enough to argue?

In the end, we must make the most of the opportunity given to us.  One man has pulled the entire world; Christian, Jew, Gentile and atheist; to a momentary place of reflection and peace.  He was placed in a position of power and despite his brokeness (and John Paul, being human, was broken) carried out the Work of God and earned a return on his investment which rivaled the man with ten talents.  We can only attempt to continue his work of sharing Christ's love while encouraging peace and dignity for all...

ADDENDUM:  I found Bladebehr's comment to be thoughtful and had to respond.  I agree that the position of the Catholic Church is difficult for me to understand.  I don't see much support for it in the bible.  However, to lay much of the ills of the world at the feet of this doctrine is probably going too far.  In the context of monogamy, HIV is not much of an issue.  How many catholics out there are going to not wear a condom because their church is against it while at the same time ignoring the church's position that they should only be having sex in the context of marriage?  While there may be some people with that strange juxtaposition of morals, there probably aren't many.  However, I do think you have more of a point with overpopulation.  Effective birth control can only be helpful in the context of the third world.  Still, the third world probably doesn't have easy access to condoms in the first place, and Catholics are not nearly the only religious group opposed to encouraging widespread avaiability.  But, again, any guilt borne by John Paul is probably on the political/policy level, rather than coercing someone who wants to use a condom, not to.

As far as being near the Heart of God, I am speaking more of a measuring stick of out actions, not how God views us.  John Paul's whole life was based on serving God.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was further down the path than I am.  But don't get me wrong, in God's eyes we are both sinners and he is no nearer earning salvation than I am.  Were it not for Jesus, John Paul would be denied heaven just like you and me.

Thanks for the comment.  I didn't take offense at all.