Sub Ratione Dei

Hunter and the Pro-Life Terrorists

Over the last week the BBC has been showing Hunter, a two-part pretty standard cop finding terrorists in a race against time drama (readers in the UK can find the programme on iplayer for a limited time. Hunter is not a great show although passable.

What was interesting though was the subject matter: pro-life terrorists. It's not an original point but the presentation of pro-life (anti-abortion) abducting and murdering young children in alleged furtherance of their aim. Some of the reviews of the show suggest that this transparent inconsistency made the plot ludicrous, I disagree. What the contrast raised for me was the question of the perceived relationship between the Fundamentalist and the Terrorist, a relationship often taken particularly by the non-religious to be symbiotic.

It is I think a given that not all fundamentalists are terrorists. However, the reverse, namely all terrorists are fundamentalists is assumed. What the spectre of the pro-life murderer presents us with is a challenge to that view.

The fundamentalist is, according to Giddens (2001: 557-558), one who "believe[s] that only one view of the world is possible and that their view is the correct one: there is no room for ambiguity or multiple interpretations". The birth of the self-confessed fundamentalist in American Protestantism at the beginning of the twentiethth century is indicative of such a move; not only is the approach epistemologically foundationalist but it makes a virtue of its resolute aversion to all caveat and ambiguity. More recently Richard Land, one of the better theological contemporary fundamentalists (which is not exactly a ringing endorsement!), applies fundamentalist logic to the subject of abortion. The dividing line is the sanctity of human life; one is either acknowledges life's sacredness or one participates in the culture of death - there is no via media.

As an aside it is interesting that Peter Singer (2004), whom Land castigates in his essay has made the point that to be pro-life and support the death penalty, for example, is inconsistent. However the point to note is the unambiguity of the position, fundamentalism engages in an action based on perceived universal principles regardless of consequence - teleology is not a relevant factor.

One can put this in terms of a counterfactual argument. Suppose that one could know infallibly that a particular foetus would upon reaching adult maturity become a medical practitioner who over the course of their career would (for the sake of argument) assist hundreds of women in terminating their pregnancies. The fundamentalist, dealing as they do in moral absolutes, unambiguously oppose the termination of this one foetus, irrespective of the 100s of murders (from their perspective) such an act would instantiate.

While the counterfactual and the infallible knowledge may be imagined the logic is not; as the case of Paul Hill (whom I referred to here) shows the aim of saving lives was precisely the rationale used for justifying the murder of Dr John Britton.

It is at this point that the alleged parasitic relationship of terrorism on fundamentalism can be challenged. Although some continue to characterise Hill's actions as those of a "religious fundamentalist" it seems to be that Hill's terrorism (although I am not sure I would in this instance characterise Hill as a terrorist) is not borne of fundamentalism but rather is borne of its rejection. In this instance it was in walking away from the unambiguity of the fundamentalist mindset that murder was conceived.

This is what happens when I watch TV!

References ...

Richard D Land, Abortion and the Culture of Death, in ed. David P Gushee, Christians and Politics Beyond the Culture Wars: An Agenda for Engagement, Baker Books, 2000.

Anthony Giddens, Sociology, 4th Ed, Polity, 2001.

Peter Singer, The President of Good and Evil: Taking George W Bush Seriously, Granta, 2004.

Health, Religion and State Intervention.

In today's Telegraph Damien Thompson reports on some internet speculation concerning the death of Jett Travolta, the son of John Travolta on early this month (HT Madpriest). At issue is the suggestion which creepily was speculated upon over a year previous that Jett Travolta would die, allegedly because of his "autism". To quote from Thompson's piece the reason this is pertinent is "They [the anti-scientologists] claim that Jett - who apparently died after hitting his head in the bathroom following a seizure - suffered from autism. The Travoltas have always denied this. The campaigners also note that the Church of Scientology disapproves of psychiatric and drug treatment of autism, just as it rejects all psychiatry as pseudo-science." The Travolta's rather have always claimed that Jett was suffering from Kawasaki disease. In the absence of alternative evidence I see no reason to doubt that, therefore if accepted which is, as i say, my default position then there is no culpability by either Jett's parents or Scientology for Jett's death arising from their resisting medical (mental health) treatment for their son. I assume that the autopsy will identify any pertinent medical factors and i prefer to deal in evidence rather than supposition. Granted there are problems categorising Scientology as a religion and as I briefly discussed a couple of years ago I am unconvinced it should be. The broader point is that of a religion's conflict with medical expertise with regard to treatment - which raises the very real possibility the fidelity to the religions dictates result in the death of its adherents those under the care of its adherents.

In this way the problem stretches far beyond Scientology. For example, Christian Science has a strong anti-medical ethos and and the debates over Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions are well known. Christianity too has had its moments of conflict with the state in regard to the non-treatment of ailments. For example, as James Goff (p. 38-39) shows Charles Parham at the close of the nineteenth century disavowed all medical treatment and preached a gospel that called on individuals to trust god entirely for their health even to the point of refusing medical treatment or life insurance. Parham of course was later to become a leading figure in early Pentecostalism.

More recently certain strands of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity such as those lined to Word of Faith theology have to different degrees advanced similar theses and, at their worst, these are far more harmful than Scientology's alleged prohibition of medical treatment in certain circumstances for there is an in toto prohibition where literally to see a doctor is tantamount to losing one's salvation.

To give a specific example consider the case of Hobart Freeman. Writing in A Different Gospel D R McConnell writes that for "sheer volume of death and tragedy, none can match the record of Hobart Freeman, pastor of Faith Assembly, Wilmot, Indiana. Estimates of the number of preventable deaths associated with Faith Assembly are as high as 90." (P.79). What made Freeman different from many other Word of faith leaders was a) he held a earned doctorate in Old Testament theology and b) he himself was to succomb to a preventable death following his own refusal to seek medical attention for and ulcerated leg and bronchpneumonia, he was as McConnell notes "[another] victim of his own teaching" (P. 80). While prompted by news stories about Jett Travolta's untimely and tragic death I wanted to raise two issues in this post.

First, that the issue of not providing medical treatment is a lot larger than Scientology and other minority New Religious Movements. While not representing mainstream Christianity it represents sociologically speaking a sizable minority of Christians in Western and African Christianity (theologically the movement is sub-christian). The second is what politically speaking should be done about it. This is an area where respect of religion is frequently played out and shown to be at least partially fallacious. If to have a blood transfusion is sinful then I don't care - if a minor needs one I will impose a sinful act on a JW family with no moral qualms, in defiling religious precept I have saved a life - I have no moral qualm with that (and incidentally, placed in the same situation I am certain the majority of JW's would do the same). Competency is crucial here. Is the individual capable of an informed decision? Therefore, as a matter of course of child or severely mentally impaired individual can ever, for reasons of faith which, morally speaking we could not satisfactorily assign to the individual be withheld necessary medical treatment. I do not believe the faith community or parents are capable of determining comptency or medical necessity, although they should of course be given the opportunity to be heard. Whatever their flaws I am thinking along the lines of the Conscientious Objection panels. Where the withholding of medical treatment results in the early and preventable death of another I do not respect it - I am pro-life for a reason. It should however be tolerated. If there's doubt about competency, medical treatment takes place. But more than that, to return to the Hobart Freeman. That 90 individuals died represents not just a reprehensible theology but a failure of the surrounding community. That 90 people were allowed to die is also the problem. Mistreatment is still mistreatment, even if done with the best of intentions. Sometimes a nanny state is a social good even though that will mean bluntly imposing one conception of the good over another.

References
James R Goff Jr, Fields White Unto Harvest: Charles F Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism, Arkansas UP, 1988.
D R McConnell, A Different Gospel, rev ed, Hendrickson, 1996.

Elsewhere ... Death By A Thousand Papercuts.
Nashville Anonymous

Book Round-Up

I'm a little behind on book reviews at the moment so the perfunctory short reviews to "catch me up" are posted below -

Richard J Evans, Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial, Verso, 2002. This is the first of my Christmas book presents to have read - overall quite an enjoyable book to read although one with more than a hint of self-congratulation in the text. The book revolves around a libel action brought by David Irving the controversial revisionist 'historian' David Irving over claims made by Deborah Lipstadt that Irving was a holocaust denier, anti-semite and had falsified evidence in his book Hitler's War. Richard Evans,  a Professor of Modern History at Cambridge was one of the key defence witnesses and produced over a couple of years a 750+ page report on Irving's work and found it wanting and evidence of Lipstadt's charge. This book represents a condensed version of this work together with reflection on the trial itself. In the process Evans does a decent job of discussing the role of integrity on academia (i.e, the requirement not to just make things up) and also the state of UK libel law. Verso, Abe, Amazon (UK), Amazon (US)

Raymond Williams, Culture and Materialism: Selected Essays, Verso, 2005.

Prior to reading this book I was only aware of Williams by reputation and, even then, not particularly forcefully. As with so many of the most interesting political writers Williams' academic specialism appears to be in English literature. This collection of fourteen essays which spans over twenty year (1958 to 1980) is, according to the publisher's note that prefaces  the collection intended to serve as a "compact and representative" guide to his longer works. I cannot comment on whether the entirety of Williams' oeuvre is consistent with the wide-ranging and provocative character of this collection, but if it is then Williams deserves to be read a lot more widely. Some essays, and often the one's one least expects, are an absolute delight to read. Highly recommended. were a key moment in the history of English democracy; whereas so often where the army is the tool of repression of debate and demonstration here the Levellers, in large part an movement with the (New Model) Army, were its main protagonists. The Putney debates in 1647 come during the hiatus after the arrest of Charles I and before his escape and renewal of hostilities and therefore come at a time when the political settlement was very much in flux.

Verso, Abe, Better World Books, Amazon (UK), Amazon (US)

Slavoj Zizek, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, Picador, 2008. This is the first Zizek I have read where I actually feel confident in stating I understand his argument. As I have stated before I am not sure this is just that I am getting more accustomed to his style - Violence is also a better written book. Moreover, although I am not convinced by the argument to inactivity, or rather, the call to mere cerebral activity, I do think the objective/subjective distinction that runs through the book is an important one. A book I think I am likely to refer to again. Interestingly this book and the subject of the first, David Irving, coalesce in this post by Nigel Warburton. Abe, Better World Books, Amazon (UK), Amazon (US)

Ian Williams, The Alms Trade: Charities, Past, Present and Future, Unwin, 1989. I picked up this book on a whim in a second hand bookstore, it has turned out to be one of the most interesting books I have read this year even if it is now a little dated. Williams offers an ideologically driven (I don't take that as a bad thing) account of UK Charity Law - it may not sound lije the stuff of political debate but as Williams shows at its heart there lies in the subject the question of what charity, or rather the public recognition of a work as 'charitable' confers. As I intimated a couple of weeks ago this is of consequence to contemporary political debates. Charity, which was once concerned with the alleviation of poverty, has now 'developed' into a system of intstitutionalised privilege (see, for example, debates over the charitable status of public (fee-paying) schools which still persist albeit slightly curbed after the 2006 Charities Act. As Ian kindly notified me in a comment to my earlier post this book has been republished so should be in print although I don't know the extent of the revision. Recommended. Cosimo, Better World Books, Amazon (UK), Amazon (US)

Geoffrey Robertson (Introduction / Editor), The Levellers: The Putney Debates, Verso, 2007. The Putney DebatesGeoffrey Robertson better known as a QC before offering some of the key documents around the debate, including tracts by John Lilburne. An enjoyable read. Verso, Abe, Better World Books, Amazon (UK), Amazon (US).