Center For A Just Society Forums

July 2: A Tale of Two Rulings by Chip Hammond

Wed, 2 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST

A Tale of Two Rulings

By Chip Hammond
July 2nd, 2008

This summer the Supreme Court handed down two decisions that have set off a storm of emotion. The two decisions, however, couldn't be more different in their foundations.

On Wednesday, June 25, the Court ruled on the question of whether a person can be put to death for raping a child. The state of Louisiana had a law on its books that allowed for the infliction of that penalty on those convicted of raping a child under twelve, and they were prepared to use it in regard to two convicted rapists.

But the Supreme Court struck down the state's ability to inflict this penalty by a five-four decision, split along ideological lines. The court's four liberal appointments (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Beyer) were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy (a Reagan appointee) to strike down the law.

Few people have been happy with the decision. Presidential candidate Barak Obama expressed disappointment. Candidate John McCain expressed something more akin to outrage. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said, "One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."

I come down on the side of outrage. I am close to a family that has endured the horror of child rape. "Hanged by the neck until dead" would be an apt punishment. I could cite Bible passages from the Old Testament that would support my contention, but that would be indulgent of me. The Confession of Faith of my own Church (this Confession's fingerprints can also be found throughout the founding documents of our country) states, "To [the ancient people of Israel] also, as a body politic, [God] gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

General equity must always be determined by a people. It seems equitable to me to execute child rapists. It did not seem equitable to five of the nine justices. In this we have a disagreement. And I must truthfully say that the disagreement is not over facts, but over principle and application.

The day after this decision was issued, the Supreme Court issued another. In the District of Columbia v. Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, not just the right of a nation's military to do so (as though any Constitution would find it necessary to stipulate that the military can have guns).

What is remarkable here is that this was also a five-four decision, split along the same lines: Kennedy again determining the majority by siding this time with Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. This split is remarkable because, unlike the question of the application of the death penalty, this case was a matter simply of discovering facts, not of applying principle to a difficult question.

The facts in this case are not complex. They can be discovered by the average laymen. The dissenting members of the Supreme Court, who have access to the research engines of a historical and legal juggernaut, cannot possibly claim ignorance.

Thomas Jefferson said, "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying to determine what meaning can be squeezed from the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

That is a pretty good summation of the sacred task we entrust to the Justices of the Supreme Court. Just what was the spirit of the debates and the mindset of the Fathers as they codified the Second Amendment?

It is evident that the ideas of the English jurist William Blackstone had a profound effect on the founding of our nation. In the writings of our Founding Fathers, citations of Blackstone abound, second only to citations of Montesquieu. On the right-to-arms question, Blackstone wrote, "And we have seen that these rights... consist primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal liberty, and of private property.... to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defence."

Richard Henry Lee wrote, "A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.... to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and are taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Paine wrote, "The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside."

Samuel Adams: ". . . [the] Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed."

I'll stop with these, not because I must, but because I'd need more space on my hard drive if I were to compile an exhaustive list of citations.

Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Beyer know these things. They apparently just don't care. They are not interested in what the Constitution says, but in what "meaning can be squeezed from the text, or invented against it" to suite their own ideological agenda.

To be sure, the ruling the Supreme Court is a victory for "The People." Had the phrase "The People" in the Constitution been construed by the Court to mean "the government" our nation would have begun its decisive descent to its own demise (read the rest of the Bill of Rights and you'll see why).

But we should be more than a little fearful that there are people on the high court who do not care about what the Constitution actually means. Before the lovers of liberty celebrate too loudly we should observe a moment of silence that this was one justice away from the deconstruction of our nation.

James Madison was prophetic when he wrote, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Chip Hammond is the Pastor of Bethel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Leesburg, VA. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

June 19: Duty, Property and the Death Tax by Dick Patten

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST

Duty, Property and the Death Tax

By Dick Patten
June 19th, 2008

Americans typically (and grudgingly) accept taxes as one of Ben Franklin's two certainties in this world: "death and taxes." It is understood that a just society requires citizen contribution to the maintenance of necessary government institutions, and so we render to Washington that which is Washington's.

This moral justification for taxes does not, however, justify all forms of taxes. This is particularly the case when a tax impinges on the duties citizens owe to others and violates the God-given rights with which those duties are best fulfilled.

Christians have long believed that care for one's family—particularly children and grandchildren—is the top priority in a healthy society. Included in caring for one's own is providing for them as a means for future subsistence when the parents are gone. Scriptural passages, such as Proverbs 13:22, establish the moral duty of the "good man [who] leaves an inheritance to his children and his children's children."

This can be contrasted with other passages such as 1 Timothy 5:8, which explain the consequences for those who neglect their family: "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Citizens of the city of man have a duty to provide for the subsistence and prosperity of future generations—those who will carry on society after the present generation is gone.

Along these same lines, the English statesman and political theorist Edmund Burke noted that society is a contract between "those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." It takes a degraded individualist to neglect the multigenerational nature of society and the importance of providing for one's own posterity.

It is consequent to this sacred duty to support one's family and future generations that Christians have generally accepted the concept of property rights. While the church has historically (and properly) repudiated selfish materialism, and it has equally accepted that the state rightfully must protect the ability to acquire, preserve, and trade assets.

St. Thomas Aquinas, medieval theologian and philosopher, argued in his Summa Theologica that "the power to manage and dispense external goods is necessary for human life." Thomas answers the question "Are Individuals to Possess Property as Their Own?" with a three-part answer, affirming the personal stewardship, financial orderliness, and public tranquility that are promoted by property rights. His argument for property rights falls into his larger natural law articulations, which provided the basis for Christian moral theology.

In the modern world, inheritances and property rights take on an even greater significance due to the legal development of capital. Capital, as explained by the author and economist Hernando de Soto, is a means of allowing assets to earn money. Capital provides the financial support for entrepreneurs and business owners to purchase an office, hire employees, build equipment, and turn an abstract concept into a profitable product or service. Without capital, those ideas remain just ideas—no new product is developed, no wealth is created and no jobs are offered.

Because of capital, an inheritance is not simply a means to further the heir's own consumption, but is an opportunity for increasing the overall wealth in a society. The inheritance left by a father can be used by his son to start a business or invest in an existing operation—enabling the heir to increase his or her standard of living while also introducing new opportunities for the rest of society.

Oftentimes, the heir inherits a closely-held (family-owned) business, in which the family retains a majority stake ownership and passes it through generations of the family. Such family-owned businesses are responsible for over half of the jobs in America.

With this understanding, inheritances are seen as a gift not only to one's own children, but to the children of an entire community. In the words of Richard John Neuhaus, "private property is not the enemy of the common good but an essential instrument for realizing that common good." Everyone wins when new capital is invested in the economy.

Hence, it is all the more strange that U.S. tax policy would single-out and punish those who work hard, practice frugality, and leave their property to their children.

Unfortunately, this is the very operation of the Death Tax. At the current rate of 45%, the Death Tax is guilty of confiscating almost half an individual's life-earnings, after the $1 million exemption. Many individuals will "plan" their estate around the tax, which generally means removing their money from productive purposes to pay accountants and lawyers and "hide" their earnings in tax-free foundations and trusts. Such legal tax-avoidance prevents potential capital from being invested in the economy.

Even more distressing is the fact that the Death Tax is responsible for forcing countless family-business owners to sell off substantial assets—and sometimes the entire business—in order to pay the tax. This is due to the fact that family businesses are often cash-strapped but may have highly-valued assets.

This leaves the family with a large burden without the means to pay for it, except by selling off "hard assets"—the company's machinery, inventory, and connected jobs. Though the number of family businesses sold has not been quantified—the IRS has no form to indicate "how the tax was paid"—there are plenty of testimonials to document the tragedy. In fact, 64 percent of family business owners surveyed in the Family Business Review said the estate tax made survival more difficult.

Nearly 200 years ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the disruptions that would result from an estate tax: "Estate law itself would take charge of destroying fortunes in each generation, and no one would create new ones. The poor man, deprived of enlightenment and freedom, would not even conceive the idea of raising himself toward wealth, and the wealthy man would let himself be carried along toward poverty without knowing how to defend himself."

Fast forward to the late 20th century, in which Tocqueville was generally correct in his prediction. The wealthy man is not carried along without a means to defend himself. However, the very means available for the wealthy man's defense—hiring lawyers and accountants, hiding wealth and selling business assets—indeed stunts the upward mobility of the poor man.

Death and taxes may be a certainty, but that doesn't justify the existence of taxation at death. Civil government's legitimate goal of raising revenue must be balanced against any social and economic disruptions—particularly those which impinge on the duty to provide for society's future generations.

For this reason, Congress should act to permanently and completely repeal the Death Tax.

Dick Patten is the president of the American Family Business Institute, the only organization solely devoted to full repeal of the death tax.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

May 10: On Science, Politics and Religion, Pt. 3 by Dr. Joel Brind

Sat, 10 May 2008 00:00:00 EST

On Science, Politics and Religion, Part III

By Dr. Joel Brind
May 10th, 2008

In this third and final installment on this subject, I propose to use recent events in the industrialized world to make the case that in this ostensibly scientific age, the institutions of science have themselves been usurped by secular anti-religious forces loyal to an agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science, except to commandeer its influence and instrumentality to remake the world in a 'post religious’ image. More specifically, the field of biological science that has been wholly converted into an instrument of those pursuing this agenda. This is crucial because, in a society where the scientific establishment is widely viewed as the source of real knowledge, it is biology that defines the very nature of humanity, the keys to human health and longevity, the world of all living things, and our proper place in it.

As noted in the previous installment, a key turning point in modern biology was the appearance of the totally mechanistic explanation for the origin of life itself. Ironically, the first expression of these ideas by devout Marxists in the Soviet Union (A .I. Oparin) and England (J. B. S. Haldane) in the mid-1920’s coincided with the pivotal Scopes “monkey trial”, the first court test of the classroom teaching of "mindless evolutionism" (somewhat inaccurately referred to as “Darwinism”).

The very idea that the origin of life could be mindless and accidental has a certain charm in its utter simplicity, but it is in fact an insidiously self-annihilating proposition, for it requires the denial of the very existence of life itself as anything fundamentally real. As Oparin wrote in his 1924 book, “There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter.”

This philosophical abomination became firmly entrenched in the scientific and educational establishment, underscored by the almost verbatim expression of the idea over 60 years later by the socialist Linus Pauling, one of the most venerated biologists of the 20th century. In 1987, near the end of his long life, Pauling could not define the line between mere aggregates of molecules and living organisms: “It’s quite arbitrary. The properties of living organisms are those of aggregates of molecules.”

Indeed, it is that very idea which permeates all the biology textbooks and which is taught—to the ruthless exclusion of all others—in biology classrooms all over the modern world. Alas, the simplistic appeal of mindless evolution continues to charm the ruling majority of credentialed biologists, including legions of medical researchers who, by and large, have the public (including political leaders) mesmerized as well.

How did this idea spread so quickly? The mechanistic idea of life—rendering even human beings no more worthy than any other lifeless commodity—had already taken hold of the medical community in Europe by the 1920’s, and the idea that some human beings are “not worthy of life” was picked up and put into large scale practice by the Nazi’s during the holocaust of the 1930’s and early 1940’s. Ben Stein has just produced an excellent major motion picture documentary entitled “Expelled”, which documents this gruesome connection. While not quite as infamous, the slaughter of civilians by Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao in Communist China outdid, in sheer numbers, the atrocities committed by Hitler during World War II.

Another key event in the takeover of biological science by the mindless evolutionists occurred during the 1950’s. In yet another ironic parallel with political history, Oparin’s theory was put to an important experimental test at the same time that US Senator Joseph McCarthy was infamously leveraging his Congressional powers to investigate reports of Communist infiltration through the entertainment business. In 1953, University of Chicago chemistry graduate student Stanley Miller conducted his now famous experimental simulation of Oparin’s origin of life. He constructed a closed system consisting of a flask containing the presumptive primordial oceans (inorganic salts in water), the presumptive primordial atmosphere (methane and ammonia), a source of heat and simulated lightning (static electrical discharges), a condenser (simulating precipitation) and a collecting flask. After days of letting this completely inorganic system run, Miller examined the chemicals collecting in the collecting flask, and Eureka!
Amino acids—so-called “organic compounds”, which were heretofore believed to be makeable only by living beings—were identified.

Miller’s experiment is described in every general biology textbook published, along with descriptions of his apparatus and the conclusion that Miller had provided experimental verification of the Oparin hypothesis. Thus, at the very time McCarthy was so publicly ranting and raving about Hollywood, the fundamental basis of Soviet doctrine about man’s ultimate nature and origin quietly marched unopposed into the biology classrooms of schools throughout the industrialized world.

In reality, Miller’s experiment provided no such verification of Oparin’s mindless evolutionism. Rather, he had merely demonstrated that some relatively complex carbon-containing compounds could be formed abiotically. In other words, they are really not organic after all. But primed by decades of theoretical allegiance to the mechanistic doctrine of mindless evolutionism, the misinterpretation of Miller’s results formed the capstone of fundamentalist biological doctrine that still reigns supreme over half a century later. Miller expressed his own spectacular misunderstanding when he said, “But now we know that there is no vital force and organic compounds are just those that contain carbon.” One recent biology text states matter-of-factly: “We owe our existence to an accident.”

Any alternate hypotheses regarding the origin and nature of life which would imbue life itself with some primordial intelligence (ideas we may collectively place under the rubric of “intelligent design”) are routinely and derisively denounced and even legally kept out of the biology classroom, a policy also documented in Stein’s recent film.

At the outset of this series of articles this author made the bold claim that the mindless evolution hypothesis, rather than being an application of objective science, has in fact no scientific merit whatsoever. While almost no biologist recognized by the mainstream would agree with this claim, there is yet some hope when one looks to other sciences; physics in particular. Hope lies in the particularly clear way in which a genuinely scientific view has been expressed by one whose name is still synonymous with ‘brilliant scientist’. In 1936, Albert Einstein wrote:

“(E)very one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

There is no doubt that, when the day comes again that a truly scientific worldview is accepted by the biological establishment, the teaching and practice of science will once again be worthy of its name.

Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a Professor of Biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

May 2: Lawsuit Reform and the Right to Trial by Ken Connor

Fri, 2 May 2008 00:00:00 EST

Lawsuit Reform and the Right to Trial

By Ken Connor
May 2nd, 2008

This article is a response to Lindsay Boyd's Town Hall article, "Lawsuit Climate 2008: The REAL Climate Crisis."

Last week Lindsay Boyd, Townhall.com’s Associate Editor, posted a glowing review of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform’s recently released “Lawsuit Climate 2008: Ranking the States.”

Before readers vest too much credibility in this “survey” of the civil justice system in all 50 states, some warnings are in order.

First, a poll of in-house counsels and senior litigators who represent corporations with annual earnings in excess of $100 million guarantees a remarkably narrow view of state court systems. After all, these individuals are all responsible for defending corporations against lawsuits. Not exactly a broad spectrum of opinion!

Further, buried in the “methodology” section of the report is the tacit admission that the attorneys surveyed were not expected to have direct, in-depth knowledge of a state’s court system.

Interestingly, the $100 million corporate earnings floor happens to bring into the survey some of the business interests – notably pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance companies – that are among the largest financial backers of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and also the most frequent subjects of serious legal claims of negligence and/or misconduct. Their participation in this bogus “survey” represents nothing more than a very self-interested attempt to undermine confidence in the civil justice system and fuel efforts to raise ever-higher the bar of citizens’ access to the courts.

The U.S. Chamber routinely rails against “greedy trial lawyers,” counting on reflexive support from conservatives in its efforts to undermine the civil justice system.

But conservatives should be wary of buying what the U.S. Chamber is selling.

As a trial lawyer for thirty-five years, I am among the first to admit that the civil justice is imperfect. But access to the court system is a constitutionally protected right, and at a time of rampant corporate misconduct it is a right that needs to be zealously defended. Conservatives who believe in the Constitution and the need for checks and balances in our public life should agree.

Ken Connor is the Chairman of the Center for a Just Society. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org

April 25: "Secular" Discrimination Against Religion by Zachary Gappa

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST

Many people today are concerned about the "separation of church and state." More often than not, this means keeping religion out of the public sphere. They say the public sphere ought to be "secular," free from talk of religion lest someone be offended. Religious freedom is interpreted as the freedom not to hear another person's religious convictions.

Unfortunately, this freedom of religion is freedom from religion. The Founders specifically guaranteed the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech by demanding that the government not make any laws to limit these freedoms. The first amendment in the bill of rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…." The Founders understood that these freedoms were in danger of being eliminated from the public square.

Sadly, these freedoms of the individual are no longer respected. The ultimate freedom is no longer the freedom to speak or practice one's religion, but the freedom to not be offended by anyone else. It is now seen as rude if one person defends their religious beliefs publicly. Beliefs about morality are no longer welcome in the public sphere. The only place left for religion is within the walls of a person's home or church. This new understanding of religion's place in culture has destroyed the freedom of religion which the Founder's sought to protect. Worse yet, Americans have ceased to understand religion altogether.

Most in today's culture believe that a person's religious beliefs do not have a broad impact on their view of life. In reality, a person's beliefs about right and wrong, justice, and how they live their day-to-day lives are dictated by their religious beliefs. For the Christian, these standards are rooted in a belief in the God of the Bible. For a Muslim, they are rooted in the Koran. And for an atheist, they are rooted in the belief that there is no God.

People do not realize that a "secular" public sphere inherently assumes that there is no God. Since every person's religious beliefs impact the way they view the world, a secular sphere discriminates against those whose opinions are rooted in their belief in God. The secular sphere accepts the beliefs of the atheist—that God does not have an impact on public life. For instance, a Christian will often differ from an Atheist in his or her view of public law because their core beliefs are different. One example of this is Christians who oppose euthanasia on the basis that God gives humans life and does not give them the discretion to end their lives. In contrast, many atheists would argue that, since there is no God, humans are free to end their own lives whenever they deem appropriate. By removing God from the public debate on euthanasia, secularism discriminates against the opinions of the Christian.

The idea that a person can divorce his or her daily judgments from their beliefs about God is a faulty view of the human being. Our core beliefs constantly affect our choices and actions, whether we are consciously aware of this fact or not. Thus the idea that these "religious" beliefs can be banned completely from "secular" discourse is simply false. A ban on the discussion of God merely discriminates against those who believe in God in favor of those who do not.

This kind of religious discrimination is seen clearly in a recent lawsuit filed in the UK by The Christian Institute against Google. The Christian Institute sought to purchase an advertisement from Google, "so that whenever the word 'abortion' was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen." Google refused this request, stating, "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of web sites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content'".

If Google had simply declined to allow advertisements involving the controversial topic of abortion, their decision would be completely understandable and fully within their rights as a private company. By removing a controversial topic from their advertisements they would not be discriminating against one religious view in favor of another. But this is not what they did.

Instead, Google accepted "adverts for abortion clinics, secular pro-abortion sites and secularist sites which attack religion," while refusing to accept The Christian Institute's "religious" ad. They did not shun the topic of abortion—just the "religious" view on abortion. In other words, they have discriminated against those whose view on abortion is influenced by their belief in God in favor of those whose view on abortion is influenced by their belief that God does not exist. This is a clear case of a company choosing to discriminate against one religious view in favor of another, and it is unsurprising that The Christian Institute filed suit against Google, claiming they had violated the UK's Equality Act 2006 which outlaws discrimination "on grounds of religion or belief".

Google's policy is yet another example of the modern embracing of secularism. People no longer understand that everyone is religious. In other words, everyone assumes certain facts about God, morality, and justice as they lead their lives. Those who do not believe in God are still making certain assumptions about God which impact their view of the world, and even those who "do not believe in right or wrong" have assumed that no God exists who divides right from wrong. Everyone has beliefs about God and beliefs about morality which impact their decisions.

The word "secular" is used to mask discrimination against religion—as if there were people who had no thoughts on God or morality. The theory of secularism is used to ban those who believe in God from the public square, leaving freedom of speech only to those who do not believe in God. If we continue to fail to grasp the true nature of secularism, those who believe in God will not be granted equal standing in public discourse.

Zachary Gappa is the Director of Research for the Center for a Just Society. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org

April 21: Radical Racism, Darwinism and Hitler, Pt. 2 by Thomas Gilson

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST

Radical Racism, Darwinism and Hitler, Pt. II

By Thomas Gilson
April 21st, 2008

This is part two of a two-part series. For part one, see here.

As outlined Part I of Radical Racism, Darwinism and Hitler, the pro-Intelligent Design film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed alludes to a connection between Darwinism and Nazism. Richard Dawkins has howled in protest. Following his lead, John Rennie complains in Scientific American over the way Expelled "says evolution was one influence on the Holocaust without acknowledging any of the other major ones for context."

Dawkins contends that if a relationship between Darwin and Hitler exists, it is because "Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some garbled misunderstanding of Darwin." We have all of Germany to explain, however; not just one bonkers madman. Why did virtually the whole nation approve and participate in Hitler's atrocities?

Richard Weikart has explored this question in his book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Tying together multiple historical threads, providing the context Rennie called for, Weikart finds that yes, there were many lines of thought leading toward Nazism, but Darwinism (as understood at the time) was an essential part of it all.

Racism existed long before The Descent of Man. Anti-Semitism goes back millennia. Darwinism did not create them and does not philosophically entail them. As a matter of historical fact, however, Darwinism became that which gave them, for Germany, scientific consensus for a foundation, and the force of moral necessity. We have asked, how did Hitler bring a whole nation along with him? He convinced the people that eugenics and genocide were good things. How could he have persuaded them so? They were well prepared for it by what had come out of German Darwinian science.

Now let's pause for a deep breath. This is horrifying and outrageous. Emotions, rightly emerging in response to this, may yet hinder us from recognizing the facts. It's worth reiterating that nobody says this is what ought to have happened. Yet it did happen, as we will see illustrated in a few brief snapshots provided through Weikart's scholarship.

Weikart traces a trail that moves from Darwin's contribution to moral relativism—a historical process carefully documented by Weikart—to its landing upon a new ethic: evolutionary progress as the highest good. "Progress," of course, was the multiplication and expansion of the Northern European "species" (as some called it), coupled with the elimination of less developed races.

Chief among Germany's Darwinian scientists was Ernst Haeckel, of dubious fame for his doctored drawings of embryos, ostensibly providing evidence for evolution. This was not his only foray into creative artwork. In another woodcut he "showed" by comparative physiognomy (p. 107 in Weikart's book) that Papuan and Hottentot humans were more closely related to simians (apes) than to Europeans. (Time for another deep breath.)

The new moral duty was to move the species to a higher plane. German zoologist Robby Kossman explains how that was to be accomplished (p. 78):

"We see that the Darwinian world view must look upon the present sentimental conception of the value of the life of the human individual as an overestimate completely hindering the progress of humanity. The human state also, like every animal community of individuals, must reach an even higher state of perfection… through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual."

Eugenics—the forced sterilization or even killing of "worthless" (minderwerthig) persons naturally follows on this. It's certainly a violent take on morality. In a book that went into four editions, The History of Culture in its Natural Evolution, Friedrich Hellwald wrote (see p. 169),

"Science knows no 'natural right.' In nature only one right reigns, which is no right, the right of the stronger, violence."

Given German Darwinists' view of the races of man, genocide could hardly lag far behind eugenics. Haeckler's protege Heinrich Ziegler wrote (p. 171),

"According to Darwin's theory wars have always been of the greatest importance for the general progress of the human species, in that the physically weaker, the less intelligent, the morally lower or morally degenerate peoples must give place to the stronger and the better developed."

Weikart acknowledges that some Darwinians were pacifists, but generally because the wrong people—the strong and intelligent—were killed, thus thwarting the evolutionary progress of the species.

Weikart summed up over 200 pages of similar material thus:

"It should be clear that among the German educated elites the notion was widespread that racial extermination is an inevitable process that may be lamentable but is ultimately beneficial for humanity—. Racism existed long before Darwin, of course, but Darwinism did radicalize racism in the late nineteenth century, providing scientific justification for racial inequality, racial competition, and even racial extermination. In harmony with the rising tide of positivism and materialism, Darwinism also helped sweep aside ethical considerations."

Hitler latched onto this sense of "scientific" responsibility for uplifting humanity through elimination of its "lesser" exemplars. Anti-Semitism seems not to have been specifically advocated by the Darwinian scientists preceding him, but a moral groundwork for it had been laid. Racial extermination was approved, which became a handy arrow for Hitler to aim at one group in particular. An entire nation joined him in releasing the bowstring.

I find myself taking another one of those deep breaths. I agree with Dawkins and Rennie that nothing about this is right. Yet it happened. The two of them may remonstrate against Expelled for claiming there's a connection between Darwin and Hitler. They cannot, however, change the facts of history. Darwinism contributed significantly to Nazism, and even to the Holocaust.

Tom Gilson is Director of Strategic Processes in the Operational Advisory Services team for Campus Crusade for Christ. His Blog may be found at http://www.thinkingchristian.net Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org

April 16: Radical Racism, Darwinism and Hitler, Pt. 1 by Thomas Gilson

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST

Radical Racism, Darwinism and Hitler, Pt. I

By Thomas Gilson

April 16th, 2008

Did Darwinism lead to Hitler and the Holocaust? Richard Dawkins, atheist extraordinaire, finds it outrageous that the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed would suggest such a thing.

Even 60 or more years after the events, nothing stirs up emotions quite like Hitler and the Holocaust—and rightly so. Its horror wasn't just in the numbers of people who were swept away, imprisoned, and killed. It was in the cold-bloodedness of it all: virtually an entire nation's agreement that this was a fine and moral thing to do. It still brings chills.

Thus we could fairly expect that one like Dawkins, holding to neo-Darwinism as the explanation for all of life, would be highly averse to associating Darwinism with Nazism. John Rennie (in Scientific American) also finds this terribly distasteful. They both point out that even if such a connection exists, it doesn't disprove evolutionary theory. True enough—but there's something about the suggestion of such a relationship that bothers them deeply.

I haven't seen Expelled as of this writing, so I won't presume to comment on how well it handles this Darwin-to-Hitler connection. But did such a link actually exist in history? Or did the film's producers simply manufacture it? Is it real, or is it crass manipulation?

The answer matters a great deal, because so many leading thinkers in Western culture, like Dawkins, take evolution to be the sole explanation for life. There are questions beneath questions here: what difference might it make if we are to rely on this as our ultimate truth regarding life?

Dawkins's perspective on the question is worth exploring. He complains that drawing Nazi ethics out of Darwinian science is just wrong. "It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is,'" he says. On this point he is quite correct. In philosophical/ethical terms, Darwinism surely does not lead logically to the conclusion that one ought to exterminate other races. The "is" of Darwinism—its explanation of natural history—does not lead to any oughts at all.

But does that not leave a hole large enough to drive a whole Panzer division through it? If evolution is the sole explanation for all of life, and if it supplies no oughts, then are there any oughts at all? There's a serious problem here, which Dawkins blithely illustrates in the same article:

"As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian)."

His moral beliefs have nothing to do with his beliefs about the nature of life. From where, then, do they come? In The God Delusion, Dawkins speaks to the cultural and historical relativity of morality. His own morality here seems suspiciously informed by the current cultural climate, and to be otherwise ungrounded. This is not to deny that he has valid and laudable moral opinions—but they are curiously disconnected from all else he holds to be true. On what basis has he chosen them? How does he know they are superior to, say, Hermann Goering's? Just by his feelings?

The answer, if there is one, is certainly not obvious; and therein lies a hint to the connection between Darwin and Hitler—but only a hint. If Darwinism led to the Holocaust, it did so only in one nation. Why was that, and how did it happen? ...

See Part 2 of "Radical Racism, Darwinism, and Hitler" on 4-17-08

April 10: On Science, Politics and Religion, Pt. 2 by Dr. Joel Brind

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST

On Science, Politics and Religion, Part II

By Dr. Joel Brind
April 10th, 2008

In my first installment on this subject on these pages, it may well have surprised the reader when I asserted that the most prominent public conflicts between science and religion—with the evolution/creation battle cited as a prime example—have, in reality, nothing to do with science. Rather, the mantle of science and the scientific establishment, cloaked in the seemingly credible but actually nonsensical garment of "scientific consensus" has been hijacked by an antithetical political philosophy that has largely dominated western political institutions since the early twentieth century.

Now to explain. The modern biology textbooks that have had religious Christians and others locked in battle with US public educational authorities since the Scopes trial all lay out a rather definitively stated set of hypotheses concerning the origin of intelligent life on earth. Although generally referred to as 'Darwinism', after Charles Darwin, whose "Origin of the Species" took the world of biology by storm in 1859, this set of ideas goes far beyond Darwin's own thesis.

The fundamental theory put forth by Darwin is based on what he termed 'natural selection'. He based this idea on the observation of centuries of artificial selection for particular heritable traits by dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and farmers. Nature, he argued, did the same thing. Beginning with a palate of natural variation of heritable traits among individuals within any given species, the daily "struggle for existence" would naturally select those individuals most able to survive until reproductive age, thus enabling the passage to the next generation of those traits which make individuals most fit to survive. This "survival of the fittest" basis of natural selection is eminently commonsensical, as well as testable, making it scientifically valid, even elegant. Indeed, there is no valid argument against it.

But Darwin made a leap beyond the bounds of reasonable hypothesis by tying the idea of speciation to natural selection; the idea that entirely new, reproductively distinct life forms could arise by natural selection. Clearly, if the pool of heritable information (the gene pool) available to any species can only be reshuffled, nothing really new can arise. For new forms to arise then, requires new genetic information to specify the expression of the necessary variations. The mechanism by which Darwin sought to provide such a mechanism is random mutation. (At the time, Darwin did not know the mechanism of information storage and passage. The elucidation of this scientific mystery required the work of a dedicated Catholic priest, Gregor Mendel, who established the laws of genetics in 1865. Mendel's published work, however, lay buried for over 40 years while the world of biological academia swooned over Darwin's work. The continuing swoon over Darwin notwithstanding, this author believes that it is Mendel who is arguably the most important figure in modern biology.) Hence it is not incorrect to credit Darwin with the idea of attributing all the wondrous and myriad life forms and all their living systems to accidental random events over the eons of time, rather than to an intelligent designer far superior to man. But importantly, Darwin did not originate the idea that life itself could have arisen thus from inorganic, inanimate matter; from mindless molecules, as it were, by a multiplicity of accidents; the mindset that forms the fabric of today's biology textbooks.

That last crucial extension of Darwinist thinking coincided with 20th century political developments in Europe. More specifically, we go back to the year 1917 in Moscow. Of course, the world remembers that time and place for the start of the Russian Revolution; the birth of the Soviet Union. But it was also the time and place of the graduation—from the Moscow State University—of Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin.

In 1924, Oparin wrote a short book called the Origin of Life (in Russian), which was translated into English in 1938. The essence of Oparin's hypothesis was that the primordial atmosphere and the primordial oceans contained all the necessary chemical (methane, ammonia and water) and physical (sunlight, lightning) ingredients to produce, spontaneously, through random interactions over time, all the necessary complex organic chemicals characteristic of living organisms, and hence, life itself. A key element in this theory, of course, was the idea that an intelligent designer was unnecessary; a multiplicity of random events would suffice.

A mechanistic, godless idea of the origin of life did not, however, originate with Oparin. Such ideas became increasingly popular among scientists in the 19th century, during which played out the battle between "Mechanism", most prominently advocated by English biologist Thomas Huxley, and "Vitalism", a school of thought led by Swedish Chemist Jöns Jackob Berzelius. Vitalism embodied the idea that only living organisms could produce organic substances. This was in turn based on the idea that organic substances were somehow different in nature than inorganic substances; being instilled with some mysterious "vital principle". Vitalism was ultimately disproved by findings that the chemical nature of the bodies of living beings was not different than that of inanimate objects, and by the demonstration that organic compounds—complex compounds containing the element carbon, such as amino acids—could be produced synthetically in the chemical laboratory.

Philosophically, the wrong turn here is not difficult to discern. The problem with vitalism as a scientific hypothesis is that it necessitated two completely different kinds of physical substances—living v. non-living—rather than drawing the distinction between the same substances being organized by a living system, as opposed to not being so organized in non-living matter. In simple terms, vitalism was a hypothetical explanation of how God created living things in a world of non-living matter. But in disproving the existence of some sort of special living type of matter, and therefore proving the vitalism hypothesis wrong, God himself was (theoretically) erroneously discarded as unnecessary. (It is important to note that vitalism comports neither with discernible physical reality nor the Biblical account of creation. Genesis 2:7 is unmistakably clear, for example: "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 soul.")

Wrote Oparin in his 1924 book: "There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter." Thus did Oparin firmly establish the concept of "chemical evolution"; that life itself arose, by itself, from, as it were, utter stupidity. Such an idea could more properly and informatively be called "mindless evolutionism", rather than "Darwinism".

Nearing the end of this second essay, the reader may well ask what this all has to do with politics. All these quoted figures were legitimate, even prominent, scientists in their day. My answer to this is twofold. These scientists did not operate in a political vacuum. Both Oparin and his exceedingly influential theoretical compatriot, English biologist JBS Haldane, were devout Marxists. Oparin himself, a lifelong Soviet loyalist, was anointed Hero of Socialist Labour in 1969, was awarded the Lenin Prize in 1974 and five Orders of Lenin, among other official honors. He died a hero's death and was buried with all due ceremony in Moscow in 1980. And why not? It was Oparin who had provided the Russian Revolution with the theoretical underpinning of Soviet atheism—a basis necessary to enable the state to commandeer the loyalty of the people—by stripping out their belief in God.

Secondly, I would argue that, for all their scientific credentials, accomplishments and notoriety, those who put their faith in mindless evolutionism were—and are—advancing a worldview which has no scientific merit whatsoever. Scientifically, the biologists drove off a theoretical cliff, but not all scientists did so. That should leave us with hope that true science may once again gain control of the institutions established in its name, and that our clearly unfinished story will find a suitable conclusion in just one further installment.

Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a Professor of Biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org

March 11: On Science, Politics and Religion, Pt. 1 by Dr. Joel Brind

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

On Science, Politics and Religion

By Dr. Joel Brind
March 11th, 2008

The title seems a huge topic for one short article; hence I expect it will take two or three. But this is really more an essay on the proper balance between science, politics and religion in a just and harmonious society.

Many would argue that such harmony and balance exists in American society today, even if imperfectly. After all, there is freedom of religion, to practice one’s own religion as one sees fit, without interference from the government. One need only look to societies like Communist China to find egregious examples of the absence of religious freedom—among other freedoms. Also, in the secularly-governed United States, scientists are freed up from having to answer to religious authorities, when the latter have political control. Galileo provides the classic example here, the celebrated scientist condemned to spend his last years under house arrest in Italy for publishing works deemed heretical to the Catholic Church, and having to smuggle his writings to secular Holland for publication. Many believe that the active support of scientific research by the secular government has nourished the healthy development of true scientific inquiry.

I would argue otherwise. More particularly, I would argue that both religion and science have been laboring under a relentless assault from the secular body politic; an assault already causing great damage to the nation’s scientific and religious institutions, and threatening their very existence. Indeed, much is said and written these days about the assaults on religion—especially on Christianity—in the public square. Since I am a scientist by training and trade, I shall therefore begin my examination with the secular assaults on science in the public square.

This secular assault would probably surprise most readers, at least up until very recently, when the topic of climate change and alleged global warming garnered frequent headlines. Even so, many believe that this very topic proves the primacy of science in the modern world, with its ability to move political mountains over a fundamentally scientific issue. More and more, however, people are coming to realize that the opposite has been going on. It is politics that has commandeered the scientific establishment and used the public’s trust in science to turn it to its own power-hungry ends.

This usurpation of science by secular political forces to achieve political ends is not new. Nor is it restricted to any environmental issue or environmental science as a whole. Rather, it has proceeded over decades quite insidiously—most influentially in the biological and medical sciences.

Perhaps the most important concept at play in this dangerous process is the term "scientific consensus". What this means, in practice, is the gathering of credentialed scientists over some scientific issue of public concern, and the emergence of a majority opinion among them. While all of this sounds reasonable, even necessary for the establishment of scientifically sound public policy, it is, in fact, nonsensical on its face. "Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron, for there is nothing whatsoever scientific about consensus. Consensus is an entirely political construct; being, in fact, nothing more than the application of majority rule. This is not to say that the solicitation of opinions from learned scientists is not appropriate in the formulation of science-related public policy questions, but mere use of the term "scientific consensus" cloaks a messy and unscientific political process in the hallowed white coat of pure objective science.

But the reader may ask, does not scientific knowledge advance through the forging of consensus among scientists? In a word, no. Scientific knowledge advances when some scientist or scientists discover some aspect of natural law or its application that was not previously known. There is no forging of political compromises about matters of natural law. In fact, such discoveries typically fly in the face of the prevailing dogma among scientists of the day. After a period of intense scrutiny and experimentation—not to mention resistance, denial or even withering denunciation—a new paradigm is adopted by a majority of scientists, if and only if it is rigorously proven through the use of proper scientific methodology. Examples of this process working properly are abundant in history, from the classic disproofs of the spontaneous generation of living organisms by Redi and Pasteur, to the late 20th century discoveries by Marshall and Warren that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection, and by Prusiner that mad cow disease is caused by a hitherto unknown infectious protein particle called a "prion".

But this process of scientific discovery is more and more often imperiled by the political intrusion of governmental authority. Of course this does not happen all the time, or even most of the time. After all, the worst liars still tell the truth most of the time, on matters not important enough to them to lie about. But when there are big political issues at stake, pressures on scientists to follow the herd can be intense, for a break with the ruling majority can mean the evaporation of government grant funding. What lay, therefore, beneath the easily observable consensus du jour regarding a particular issue is often a far less monolithic view, especially if the issue is politically loaded.

This is presently the case regarding global warming, but it is also a chronic and worsening problem with other issues that are both politically and religiously loaded; issues such as evolution and abortion.

Regarding the former, we can trace the history of the conflict between evolution theory and creation theory in America from the 1925 Scopes trial to the present day. Here, in fact, is the nexus of the battle between the secular political forces and traditional religious beliefs that continues to rage. What is perhaps most ironic and least understood about this ongoing conflict is that it really has nothing to do with science. Not that scientific theories may not come into conflict with religious beliefs, but that is just a smokescreen here. The debate about the origin of the natural living order and man’s place in it was stripped of its genuine scientific component early in the twentieth century, hijacked by an emerging political philosophy that saw—and still sees—religion as anathema.

And just in case the reader should view the collision of religion and science as natural or even inevitable, it should be remembered that the very edifice of modern science was built by the labors of devout Christians, from Galileo and Kepler to Mendel and Mendeleev; scientific patriarchs all.

How all this went wrong in the twentieth century is an important story, the telling of which I intend in my next installment on these pages.

Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a Professor of Biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org

February 27: Promises for the Poor by Francisco Gonzalez

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

Promises for the Poor
The Synthesis of Government and Charity

By Francisco Gonzalez
February 27th, 2008

Christians beware. There is a man running for President who has made false claims on your cause for Christian charity. Actually, there is a woman this year, too. It seems these days that all Presidential candidates (and many other politicians), Republican or Democrat, play on the Christian idea of charity that has become so fundamental to Western Civilization. It became more apparent to me when I learned of fellow Christians migrating from their previous support of Mr. Compassionate Conservative himself, George W. Bush, to the candidate of “change,” Mr. Hope himself, Barack Obama.

The reason for their migration from what seems like a right-wing politician to a left-wing politician is this: as Christians, these citizens have a deep desire to help the poor and they now believe Obama is the “synthesis” candidate that will bring us all together to work towards that goal. They believe his character embodies the spirit of “change” needed to transform the partisan political landscape. And from their own Christian spirit, they are looking for a candidate that can do this so that we can all serve the poor more effectively—the ultimate goal of Christian charity.

The problem with Obama and many other politicians is they all play to the deep-seated sentiments of Christian charity that we all admire. Their strategy: they make promises to us by listing the government programs they will enact to help the poor—sometimes this requires new programs, other times just more money for existing ones. They promise us that once they are placed at the paternal head of the government, they will begin dishing out these programs and we can all feel good that we are contributing or perhaps partaking in them—because lately it seems that more than “the poor” want government to help them.

College kids want education to be less expensive... through government subsidies. Those same kids and their elders want affordable health care and believe the solution is for government to pick up the tab. One Christian who is supporting Obama even told me there is “more freedom” for the healthy and thus a government-provided health care actually “gives us” more freedom.

I could not disagree more. I do not believe putting more power in the hands of the government is the answer—much less that this solution provides us with more freedom. Senator Obama certainly wants to use the power of government to take over industries and services, such as health care, and he thinks that the government could do a better job than the individual or the market.

The government is not supposed to be in the business of providing health care (or social security, or medicare, the list goes on…) to “we the people.” Our nation is still suffering from the disaster of the New Deal and I realize it every time I get my paycheck. The fruits of my labor are gone before I see them because government needs it to help me live my life. If I could take that money myself and save it and invest it in a very safe, low-risk savings account, I could do much better than the government does with it now. Ronald Reagan said it best: “government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem.”

In his speech on Super Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama told his audience “We are the change we seek.” Given his record and his prescriptions for change, Mr. Obama thinks more government is the solution. I have a question for Mr. Obama: If “we” truly are “the change we seek” then why do “we” need government to enact that “change”? Wouldn't real change be relying on individual action? Wouldn't real change be making “we the people” less dependent on an already too large and too incompetent government? I would think Mr. Obama would agree. After all, in the same speech he talked about the personal stories of how he and fellow community leaders in inner city Chicago got together to fix neighborhood problems. That didn’t take government, it took individuals.

In that same speech, Obama began by telling us all that his thoughts were with the victims of the tornadoes that had afflicted Tennessee and Arkansas that evening. But then his very next comment was something political—“Hopefully our federal government will respond accordingly.”

But, Mr. Obama, I thought “we” were the change we sought? Why then do we depend on the federal government? I find it really odd that he looked first to the federal government. When a catastrophe hits, such as a tornado or hurricane, the first responders should be just that—the first responders—at the city and county level. Then, if more help is needed, you go to the state level, and then, if (in rare cases) more assistance is needed, you call on the aid of the federal government.

As of 11pm (the time he was giving the speech), Obama did not even know the exact situation regarding the catastrophe the tornadoes may have caused and should not have called on the federal government to do anything at the moment—that was inappropriate for a member of the U.S. Senate and for a serious Presidential candidate.

Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of how being dependent on government can lead to tragedy. The people of New Orleans, particularly the poor who lived in government housing projects and depended on welfare and other entitlements, had always lived in the mindset of being dependent on government. Thus, when a hurricane hit, they thought the government would be there. It wasn't. Not on the local level, not on the state level, and not on the federal level. The New Orleans mindset of "depend on government" failed the people of New Orleans—particularly the poor. The government wasn't there for them. It never was and never will be.

As a conservative, I believe in lower taxes, limited government, and more freedom. I believe individuals should have authority over their own property (which includes their income and assets) and should have the personal responsibility to protect that property and the lives of their families.

I also don't think government should take from us the fruits we have earned and give to someone else. Frederic Bastiat made this point clearly in his excellent book The Law, in which he says that if we as individuals did what government does every day, we'd be thrown in jail. What government engages in is “legal plunder”, and government also has the power to kill. We should be nervous at anyone who wants to give such a monster as government more power. For it is governments that engage in legal theft and legal murder every day. Individuals do not have such rights, and thus they (not government) should be trusted with as much of their own power as possible.

When I listen to politicians like Barack Obama, I hear their desire to give more power to government. Of course we all want better health care, better education, less poverty, and more prosperity. The question is: how do we go about it? I believe less government, more market-oriented principles are the answer. And most important, perhaps, we have to respect the proper role of government: federal, state, and local. We should all start with the principle of trying to make decisions and find solutions first at the local level. If it can't be solved there, then you move up in the system (for example, with a crime, responsibility moves from the local police, to the state, and finally to the FBI, if a crime gets more serious or crosses borders).

Christian charity can be observed outside the sphere of government: in churches, neighborhood communities, and other intermediary associations. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the greatest strength of America was not its government, but the voluntary associations that helped bring people together in strong communities. The more powerful government is, the less strong these voluntary associations are able to be; the stronger these voluntary associations are, the less need there is for government. As Christians, we need to work to lessen the power (and need) of government and strengthen our voluntary associations. The first step is to promote, support and involve ourselves in them.

This would be the real “synthesis” between Left and Right that we are looking for when working to serve the poor. Don’t let the politicians promise to do your charity for you. Take the first step and do it yourself—and then take the next step and limit their self-appointed responsibility to do it for you.

Francisco Gonzalez is the Director of Development for The James Madison Institute. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org.

February 21: The Artistic Dialogue of Juno by Mattias A. Caro

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

The Artistic Dialogue of Juno

By Mattias A. Caro
February 21st, 2008

Sunday is the Super Bowl of Hollywood: the Oscars. Millions of Americans will tune in to see their favorite stars celebrate the best in cinematic achievement this year. We Americans—and indeed the world—love our actors of the silver screen. We place them on the pedestal of a quasi-aristocracy. They have becomes our American elites, and elites have always guided and shaped the culture of their day. Even in our modern democratic culture, we still unconsciously look to our elites and want to imitate their values.

But it’s very fashionable on the right to bash the godless and valueless Hollywood—an institution out of touch with our own values. But small signs of change are afoot. In the last few years we have seen a resurgence of genuine attempts to present movies that reflect some of the deepest held beliefs of our society. The Passion of the Christ was one of those, as was this year’s movie Bella. But if there is something more that we’d wish out of Hollywood, it’s to restore and honor art’s ability to transcend mere partisan and petty concerns and take debate in a new direction through drama.

This year’s Oscar nominated movie Juno rises to just that challenge.

The story revolves around a high-school teenager who becomes pregnant after having sex for the first (and only) time. She’s quickly confronted with that all-encompassing choice our society presents: abortion. In a critical early scene, Juno approaches an abortion clinic and is met by a Christian friend and protestor outside the clinic. After her friend timidly gives her rehearsed and impersonal arguments for life, Juno blows her off and proceeds up the steps to the clinic. Then her friend shouts to Juno, “Your baby has finger nails.” Juno shrugs, but the strings of her heart have been pulled.

As Juno walks into the clinic, the gothic, unconcerned receptionist mechanically hands her a medical form and encourages her to take some condoms, for the next time. As Juno sits and waits, she hears, first softly then loudly, the rap-a-tap of her neighbor’s finger nails. Then she hears someone biting their nails. Finally, she looks at her own. She drops the clipboard and in an instant she’s out of the clinic. Simple reality had touched her humanity at her most vulnerable moment.

The movie proceeds with Juno struggling to find a good home for her baby. Along the way, she finds herself and her relationships with those around her transformed through the miracle of this accidental birth. Amidst her mistake so much good emerges. Many have hailed this movie as a not-so-subtle sign of pro-life propaganda permeating even Hollywood. But something more is going on.

Having been rewarded with an Oscar nomination for her performance of Juno, Ellen Page makes this startling revelation when asked if Juno was a pro-life movie:

Not in the slightest, and if you knew me and if you knew the writer and the director, no one would ever say that. It happens to be a film about a girl who has a baby and gives it to a yuppie couple. That's what the movie's about. Like, I'm really sorry to everyone that she doesn't have an abortion, but that's not what the film is about. She goes to an abortion clinic and she completely examines all the opportunities and all the choices allowed her and that's obviously the most crucial thing. It's as simple as that.

Earlier this week, President Clinton went on a rant against pro-lifers at a rally for his wife, accusing them of wanting nothing more than to throw pregnant women into jail, and saying how he, the great supporter of abortion rights, did more than anyone else to reduce the number of abortions in America. I’d ask him why brag about reducing the number of abortions if the right to abortion is such a great good? The former president did nothing more than return to the politics of divide, divide, divide.

But the pro-choice Ms. Paige is showing us another way. The medium of art provides us with the opportunity to examine the tensions and conflicts present in just trying to live life. We don’t have to be partisans or ideologues to realize that there is something tremendously valuable in the story of one girl struggling to accept the responsibility of her decisions. That is what makes art so valuable. Instead of preaching, great art invites us to live and to examine the tensions that life produces. It encourages us to remember there is more than mere political and moral posturing out there. In short, it’s an invitation to connect with those around us. Ellen Paige did just that by embracing an outcome in Juno that might be at odds with her chosen values. Through her complicated role, she invited us all to actually dialogue about the very real issue and challenge of abortion.

That right there is an Oscar Worthy Performance.

Mattias A. Caro is originally from Santiago, Chile. In pursuit of a law degree at George Mason University, Caro's areas of study include History, Philosophy, and Theology. He maintains a blog at http://www.icarusfallen.us/. Please email your comments to forum@ajustsociety.org.