NZ Government Policy Inconsistency #237

Consider two families: one has a two-year old girl with Down Syndrome, and the mother is pregnant, the other has a normal two-year old and the mother is also pregnant. The mothers both have antenatal screening tests. The first mother is expecting a normal child; the second mother is told that her child has Down Syndrome.

It is typical in New Zealand for the mother in the second case to be offered an abortion by their doctor or midwife.  (Although New Zealand law does not permit abortion on demand, the High Court has found that the statistics on abortion approvals indicate that that is what we have in practice.)

However, in the first family, we don’t allow the mother to kill her child with Down Syndrome and keep the normal one that she is carrying in her womb.

Why the difference?

The National Screening Programme which identifies unborn babies with Down syndrome is promoted by the Government as the “Quality Improvement Programme”.  If the Government is really serious about “improving the quality” of the New Zealand population by getting rid of people with Down Syndrome, why is it restricting the programme to the unborn?  Is Health Minister Tony Ryall too squeamish to send the men in white coats round to the IHC?  No; he just realises that New Zealanders are not ready (yet) for the culling of 2-year olds, 22-year olds, or 42-year olds.  But unborn children? No problem!  That doesn’t create even the smallest blip on the media radar.

Catholics and Images: Response to Jeff Williams, MBBC

In his Bible Answers column in the Blenheim Sun newspaper, May 11, 2011, Marlborough Bible Baptist Church pastor, Jeff Williams, writes:

“When Catholicism says it is okay to erect images in the church building and to venerate and adore these images which includes bowing before them while the Bible specifically condemns all of this (Exod 20:4-5), guess who is wrong.”

The answer is: Jeff Williams is wrong.  Jeff’s columns are often filled with simplistic, idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible: too many to bother responding every time.  But when he writes such arrant nonsense about fellow Christians, a response must be made.

Firstly, the Bible nowhere says that it is wrong to erect images in a church building.  On the contrary, the Bible records God requesting just that.  Since Jeff uses an Old Testament reference as his text, we shall do the same.  God asks Moses to fashion images of two cherubim and put them at each end of the mercy seat, upon the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:18-19).  This was then placed in the tabernacle of the Israelites’ tent of meeting, the equivalent of a church for them (Ex 40:2-3).  Images of cherubim were also worked into the cloth that formed the walls of the tent of meeting (Ex 26:1).

Later, God commanded Moses to make an image of a serpent out of bronze so that when the Israelites were bitten by poisonous snakes they could look upon the image and be healed (Num 21:8-9).

Later still, Solomon built a temple for God’s dwelling.  He constructed cherubim to spread their wings over the sanctuary (1 Kings 6:23-28).  The walls and doors were also decorated with cherubim (1 Kings 6:29-32).  Images of lions and oxen featured in the sanctuary (1 Kings 7:29).  God indicated his pleasure with all of this by consecrating the temple (1 Kings 9:3).

So God is quite happy with images, especially in places of worship.

Osama Bin Laden: Why was killing the object?

One could have a long discussion about whether the killing of Osama bin Laden (if we proceed on the assumption that it did occur) was a murder, an assassination, an extrajudicial killing, a targeted killing, a killing in self-defence, etc. (for information on the distinctions, see the useful articles on Wikipedia).

However, one should also consider whether killing should have been the objective of the operation.  There certainly appeared to be a need to neutralise OBL’s influence over Al Queda and a need to bring him to account for the terrorist acts attributed to him or ostensibly claimed by him.  But, as with the defendants in the Nuremburg Trials after World War II, it would have been far preferable to deal with OBL in accordance with due process.  It seems clear that President Obama and the Navy SEALs were very much intent on a killing, rather than capture.  The unfortunate – but quite foreseeable – result is the current controversy and speculation about OBL’s death, his motivations, etc.  This could have been avoided, and proper justice done, if Operation Geronimo had been directed at capturing OBL.  The SEALs should have gone out of their way to avoid killing him.  President Bush’s “Wanted: Dead or Alive” belongs to the Wild West of the past that he dredged it up from, not in today’s culture. 

The world should have had a chance to see OBL face his accusers, just as it did with Saddam Hussein, and with Göring, Hess, Keitel, et al, at Nuremburg.  It would not have been right for the Allies to simply shoot the Nazis in their beds.  Interestingly, 4 of the 19 Nuremburg defendants found guilty (24 were charged) expressed repentance.  The most important argument against capital punishment (to which targeted killing bears many similarities) is that it removes any further opportunity for repentance and conversion of heart on the part of the one brought to justice.  I pray that those involved in OBL’s killing utilise the time they have left for repentance and conversion.