With Due Respect: Men should not have a say in abortion!

Recently, the American state of Alabama voted to ban abortion in the state. Regardless of whatever our stand on abortion is, I feel there is always a debate and conversation to be had. Unfortunately, lots of the discussion seemed to be spend blaming white men lawmakers for making the decision.

In this post I will examine the question posted by the BBC, "should men have a say in the abortion debate?"

Arguments based on identity, not logic

The authors of this question are committing a logical fallacy in their statement. Since men do not under pregnancy or abortion, the argument is that men do not have a right to set the law.

The best form of the argument is this :

1) Men do not go through pregnancy or abortion
2) Abortion law should be only set by individuals who go through pregnancy or abortion
3) Therefore only women should set the law since it only concerns the women.

However, this line of argument is flawed.

Logical failure: Does not match reality

We would not apply this line of logic to any other circumstance. Imagine making the following statements:

"We cannot set animal rights because we are not animals."

"We cannot make laws concerning illegal immigration because we were never immigrants."

"We cannot set laws concerning burials because we were never dead or buried."

All these statements are obviously incorrect yet when it comes to abortion, we are more than happy to follow it.

Logical failure: Your identity makes you more virtuous

The argument also assumes that the identity of speaker or lawmaker is essential to the support of the argument.

Let me make this clear: arguments are valid or invalid regardless of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, eye colour, height, weight etc. An argument should be weighted on logical consistency and real-world application, rather than identity.

Allowing such shenanigans would set a dangerous precedent -- we would have no common ground of logic to reach a proper discussion.

Conclusion

It is irresponsible and rather quite disappointing that the BBC chooses to promote identity as a narrative in their articles.

Alternative Culture: Battle Royale Review

A band of school girls discuss how to survive the slaughter

One of the greatest things about being adult is that I can watch all the films that were previously restricted to me when I was a child. I wanted to watch many films as a youth such as Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of Christ and Battle Royale.

Thus when given a chance to watch the 2000 film Battle Royale recently, I jumped at it.

Premise
In alternate future of fascist Japan, delinquency rates skyrocketed. In response the government picked a class of high school students each year to dump them on an island. The students have to kill each other, and the last remaining student will be allowed to return to society. If they fail to do that within three days, their collars would detonate and kill them all. Yes, the Hunger Games took inspiration from this film.

The reaction of the students differ. How do you respond to such a horrible situation?

Response 1: Play the game

Mitsuko, one of the female students decided to play the game. Using her assets like her good looks and acquired weapons, she sees no wrong in attempting to win the game by killing as many as possible. After all if she refuses to win, there was nothing to stop others from killing her.

Response 2: Avoid reality

Another female student, Megumi refuses to engage the game and seeks refuge into her own little world. In doing no harm, she hopes in vain. She forgets that there are people out there who are willing to kill her to ensure their well-being.

Response 3: Find another way

Some of the students like Yukie is determined to find a way to defeat their captors non-violently. They attempt find a flaw within the captivity system and save as many as they can.

How do we respond to the world?

I am not sure what the intent of creator of Battle Royale was. Yet I find similarities between my observations of real people and the students in the film.

There are many who resort to response 1 in which they seek to gain as much from the world in terms of power, wealth or any other gain. These are the high achievers we admire in our mundane lives.

Yet there are others who seek response 2 because they reject real truth for the fantasy of comfort. These are the hedonist aka the pleasure seekers.

But both response 1 and 2 cannot save us.

Yet Jesus offers us a way out of the struggle of everyday life.

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

-- Romans 3:22-24

So why not choose response 3 and explore Christianity?

Alternative Culture: Spectral review

Overcoming the odds

Ever so in history we encounter a black swan event, or an out-of-context problem. The Japanese of World War 2 knew they were outclassed when they faced atomic annihilation. The warmongering New World Aztecs had no counter to the visiting Spanish steel and horses. The medieval Europeans experienced it as when they had their first encounter with Black Death.

No amount of thinking could have prepared them for the disasters that followed. After all, how could you fight a problem that did not even think exists?

That is the premise of the 2015 film Spectral, which I caught on Netflix recently. Military scientist Clyne travels to war-torn Moldova as reports of soldiers dropping dead mysteriously reach him. Using advanced visual equipment, Clyne discovers that the soldiers were being attacked by spirit-like entities called "spectrals". After deducing the composition of the spectrals, Clyne and the remaining soldiers have to come up with a plan to counter the spectrals before they overrun the world.

Analysing the situation

At one point of the film, Clyne argued about the solution to defeating the spectrals. The local villagers believed the spectrals were supernatural entities. The CIA analyst, on the other hand, concludes that the spectrals were a form of advanced camouflagued. Clyne, however suspends judgement till more evidence is gathered. He accurately points out that his counterparts were more interested in solutions rather than actual problem identification, leading the team to implement faulty methods to deal with their new threat.

Later in the film, Clyne notices that the spectrals had human forms yet intangible, could move through walls yet not ceramic, and had no compulsion in killing children yet felt pain. This helped him construct an effective counter against the spectrals.

Unlike how Clyne's counterparts often read their biases into the situation, we Christians must be cautious about interpreting the Bible according to our fancies. I have seen too many a time where my fellow Christians haphazardly apply the Bible verses from Jeremiah and Habakkuk into their lives. Bible verses should be read with little personal bias as possible with much prayer and understanding of context.

Making moral decisions

Late in the movie, Clyne also had to make a decision to end the generation of spectral. Acknowledging his decision was beyond science, he delved into the realm of morality before making his decision.

Similarly, we Christians must acknowledge that we are incapable of making all decisions rationally. Ultimately if we honest with ourselves, there are things beyond the pure reason. Thank God He is charge of everything.

Conclusion

Spectral is a thrilling movie, with predictable plot twists. Do watch it if you have the time.

With Due Respect: Jesus was not born on Christmas Day, so therefore Jesus did not exist

As Christmas passes, I find myself dealing with yet another objection to Christianity. After all to throw doubt into the existence of Jesus would diminish Christian belief.

One of my atheist friends love to point out every Christmas that Jesus was not born on December 25th. This proves strong doubt that Jesus existed since his birth date is unknown. Furthermore, the Christian Romans set aside the date to coincide with the winter festival. Therefore 25th December was chosen for cultural and political purposes, and therefore not an accurate dating.

A red herring

Let's relook his line of logic:

1. Jesus's birthday was made to coincide with the Winter Festival and was not the actual date that Jesus was born on.
2. Since Jesus's birthday is unknown, we cannot be sure that Jesus was born
3. Therefore if we cannot be sure whether he was born, we cannot be sure Jesus exist.

Immediately, you should spot the error. Whether 25th December was the actual date is irrelevant to the truth of Jesus's birth.

To give an analogy, let's say I am unsure when my grandmother was born. This does not change the fact that my grandmother was born.

This fallacy (false logic) is also known as a red herring. In other words, the objection is irrelevant to the point made.

So when was Jesus born exactly?

No one really knows. According to Wikipedia, it could be September or October.

Conclusion

Whenever Jesus's exact birthday was, we can know that he was born.

With Due Respect: What about the Crusades?

[The editor and author of this post is not a history major. He also does not endose violence against people with differing views, nor seek to justify the Crusades. The purpose of this post is to encourage deeper thinking on whether Christianity is an inherantly violent religion that led to terrible atrocities, in this case the Crusades.]

Map of Medieval Europe, Asia and Africa from the game, Medieval 2:Total War

I often heard from my friends that Christianity is violent. They point out that during the Crusades, the Christians rode into the Middle East unprovoked and slaughtered both Jews and Muslims. This seems to concur with Richard Dawkins's (2006) assertion that Christianity is a violent religion For instance, King Richard I mercilessly executed 2,700 Muslim soldiers captured at Arce in 1191.

For this post, I will be focusing on the Crusades of the Middle East, and not other campaigns, such as the Northern Crusades and the Reconquista.

What are the Crusades?
The Crusades were a series of Christian military expeditions to the Middle East that started in 1095 to 1272. These soldiers were blessed by the Pope and aimed to return capture the Middle East for Christianity.


How do you justify such violence?
I don't. The Crusades was a horrific event that happened and etched the horror of Christianity in the minds of its opponents.

I do not deny that the Crusaders did in their zeal and greed led to the massacre the residents of Jerusalem and the sack of Constantinople.

Misconceptions of the Crusades

A) The Crusades were an unprovoked attack on the Middle Easterns
In 1095, much of the Byzantium Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) had fallen to the Muslim Arabs. Looking at the map, this included cities like Nicaea, Antioch, Arce, Alexandria, Damascus and of course, most importantly, Jerusalem. Facing anniliation, the Byzantium Emperor Alexois I appealed to Pope Urban II to aid him in the interest of Christian brotherhood (The Byzantines were Orthodox Christians, while the Pope was the head of the Roman Catholic Church). This kicked off the First Crusade, where Pope Urban II's rousing speech (and promises of instant paradise for those who perished in the expedition) convinced a force of 35,000 men to embarked on this venture.

Furthermore, Western Europe was not untouched by the Arab aggression. In fact, Arab pirates had threatened Rome (where the Pope resides) before. To the Western Europeans, the Arab attackers were not far away, but near.

In other words, the Crusades were a response to the aggression against Christians in the once-Byzantium lands. 

French Medieval armour, taken at the French Imperial War Museum in 2011

B) The Crusades was a period of constant warfare
The Middle Eastern Crusades lasted from 1095- 1272. This seems to suggest that the Christian soldiers were actively attacking the Holy Lands for about 200 years. However, about 90% of those years were spent organising and travelling.  For instance, the Third Crusade (the longest campaign) lasted for six years (1187 to 1192), but the actual fighting in the Middle East only started in 1189 (with the Siege of Arce).

C) The Crusader Kingdoms mistreated the non-Christians
Another criticism is that the Crusader Kingdoms that were established abused and mistreated the non-Christians inhabitants. The Crusaders did segreate their community from Jews, Muslims and Eastern Christians (Prawer, 1981). While slavery of non-Christians was allowed, Crusaders had to free slaves who chose to convert to Roman Catholicism.

However, it has to be stated that the Crusaders generally allowed a degree of autonomy among the non-Christian inhabitants. Ibn Jubayr (an Arab Muslim chronicler) complained

"Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule. Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks [Crusaders], whose justice they can always rely on."  (Pernoud, 1963)

In fact, the Crusaders relations to the non-Christian inhabitants was not regarded as especially special for that time period. It was "neither friendly, nor hostile" (Ellenblum, 2006)

Conclusion
The Crusades were an example of the misuse of Christianity. In fact any idea can be manipulated to violence. Even the belief in no God (i.e. atheism) had led to the despotic regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (Mcgrath , 2004).

To pretend that the Crusaders were particularly worse than their contemporaries is misleading.


References
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

 Ellenblum, R. (1998) Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem

Mcgrath, A. (2004) Twilight of Atheism

Pernoud, R. (1963) The Crusaders

Prawer, J. (1981) Crusader Institutions

For further readings

Aren't Christians responsible for most wars?

My Confessions: Reflection on Esther 4

One can sometimes do good by being the right person in the wrong place. -- GK Chesterton

One of the Bible's heroes I admire is Esther. After all, she was queen, had a book (and possibly a sweet-smelling chemical compound) named after her and was the beauty of the land. When i was young, I thought she was pretty brave to stand up to the king to save the Jews.

Recently, I had the privilege of reading it again. While not diminishing her bravery, I realised that she was initially reluctant to save her people from governmental persecution when first informed of a conspiracy by her cousin Mordecai. In fact, she only moved to action after she was told that she would be an eventual target. In Esther 4: 12 -14,

When Esther’s words were reported to Mordecai, he sent back this answer: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”

I began to realised that God had placed Esther in a position of power not because she was particularly courageous or moral, but so that she could be used for a divine purpose.

What I learnt
Despite my current predicament or situation (no matter how bad it is), I know that God can use me. Not because I am particularly talented, but because of God's foresightedness and love.

Alternative Culture: Yours Scotland

John Knox, leader of the Scottish Reformation

When I think of Scotland, I think of tough individuals amplified by the movies of Brave, Outlaw King and Braveheart. Even more so, I admire Scotland for John Knox, the theologian who led the reformation of Scotland.

Yet, recently the Scottish government put out this ad below.




Although seemingly an inclusive message, the Scottish government has made its stand clear: if you disagree with the way they define gender, sexuality, discrimination and religion, you are not welcome to Scotland.

Ironically, their message of tolerance only tolerates people who agree with their message. If Christians stand up for the exclusivity of the Gospel message, they could be charged for a hate crime. What a drastic change from the Reformation!

My deep concern is that this will bring Christianity to the forefront of scruinity. Will the Scottish Christians stay true to the Gospel, and what Christ has done for us? Or will they follow the ways of the world?

Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”  -- Acts 5: 29 - 32

For further reference

Christian Concern