MandM: June 2009

Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Evolution should not be taught in State Schools: A Defence of Plantinga Part I

In this two-part series I will sketch and defend Alvin Plantinga’s proposal that evolution should not be taught as “the sober truth” in state schools. In Part I, I will sketch Plantinga’s position and the arguments he provides for it; in Part II, I will look at what should be taught and then I’ll defend this position against the most significant critique offered of it by Robert Pennock. I have developed this position partly out of reading and reflecting on the published debate between these two men but also through correspondence with Alvin Plantinga over the issue.

Part I. The Argument against Teaching Evolution in State Schools
Arguably the most sophisticated argument against teaching evolution in state schools has been made by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga begins by offering a couple of qualifications; first, Plantinga’s inquiry is limited to whether evolution should be taught in the state schools of countries that display significant pluralism and diversity of opinion.[1] This would include, not just Plantinga’s own country, the United States of America but also New Zealand. Second, Plantinga limits his inquiry to whether “evolution should be taught as the sober truth of the matter” [Emphasis mine][2] as opposed to “the best current scientific hypothesis, or what accords best or is most probable (epistemically probable) with respect to the appropriate scientific evidence base.”[3] Plantinga’s conclusion is that it is unjust to teach evolution in this way. His argument proceeds in three stages.

First Plantinga notes that American (and the same is true of New Zealand) society is “radically pluralistic; and here I am thinking in particular of the plurality of religious and quasi-religious views.”[4] Following John Rawls, he calls these religious and quasi-religious views “'comprehensive' beliefs... deep ways of understanding ourselves and our world, other deep ways of interpreting ourselves and our world to ourselves.”[5]

Second, Plantinga suggests that with state schools, “It is as if we are all party to a sort of implicit contract: we recognize the need to train and educate our children, but don't have the time or competence to do it individually. We therefore get together to hire teachers to help instruct and educate our children, and together we pay for this service by way of tax money.”[6] However, given that “[for] most citizens, these comprehensive beliefs are of enormous importance… some even thinking that one’s eternal welfare is tied up with accepting them, parents will typically want their children to be educated into what they take to be the true and correct comprehensive beliefs;”[7] This, however, raises an immediate question of fairness,

It would clearly be unfair, unjust, for the school, which we all support, to teach one set of religious beliefs as opposed to another--to teach that evangelical Christianity, for example, is the truth. This would be unfair to those citizens who are party to the contract and whose comprehensive beliefs--Judaism, naturalism, Islam, whatever--are incompatible with evangelical Christianity.[8]

From these points Plantinga argues that parents possess what he calls a basic right that, “each of the citizen’s party to the contract has the right to not have comprehensive beliefs taught to their children that contradict their own comprehensive beliefs.”[9] A basic right expresses a prima facie right not an absolute right; that is, it is a right which can be overridden by other considerations. Teaching evolution clearly violates a basic right; a significant proportion of people hold comprehensive religious views, views that contradict evolution. Hence, their rights are being violated if evolution is taught as true in state schools. It follows then, that in the absence of other considerations, teaching evolution in state schools is unjust.

The final step in Plantinga’s argument is to contend that, in the case of evolution, there are no other considerations that override this prima facie right. Commenting on a defence of the teaching of evolution made by Robert Pennock, Plantinga identifies two considerations made in favour of teaching evolution. The first is that evolutionary theory is true; the second is that it is an empirically supported theory, the best supported theory of origins in the biological sciences.

In response to the first consideration Plantinga notes that even if evolution is true, it does not follow that it is just to teach it as true in a pluralistic society.

Suppose Christianity is in fact true, as indeed I believe it is, would that mean that it is fair to teach it in public schools where most of the citizens, citizens who support those schools, are not Christians and reject Christian comprehensive beliefs? I should think not; that would clearly be unfair, and the fact that the system of beliefs in question is true would not override the unfairness.[10]

Plantinga’s response to the second consideration is more nuanced. Plantinga has not claimed that evolution cannot be taught as “the best current scientific hypothesis, or what accords best or is most probable (epistemically probable) with respect to the appropriate scientific evidence base,”[11] his claim is that it should not be taught as true. The fact that evolution is the best scientific theory does not, by itself, entail that it is true. To get the conclusion that evolution is true one needs to conjoin the claim that evolution is the best scientific theory of origins with an epistemological claim that Plantinga labels PC,

(PC) The right way to answer questions of empirical fact--for example questions about the origin of life, the age of the earth, whether human beings have evolved from earlier forms of life--is by way of science, or scientific method.[12]

Plantinga notes that PC is not an empirical or scientific claim; it is rather a claim of philosophy or epistemology. Second, PC is a claim that contradicts the comprehensive beliefs of many parents. Hence, to justify teaching evolution as true, as opposed to just the best scientific hypothesis, educators would have to go beyond the mere scientific empirical evidence and teach substantive philosophical views that contradict the comprehensive views of parents.[13]

Plantinga concludes that the considerations put forward to override the prima facie rights of parents do not override these rights, hence, “is that it is improper, unfair, to teach either creationism or evolution in the schools--that is so, at any rate for areas where a substantial proportion of the parents hold religious or comprehensive beliefs incompatible with either.”[14]

In my next post, Evolution should not be taught in State Schools: A Defence of Plantinga Part II, I will look at what should be taught in state schools and I'll address Robert Pennock's criticisms of the position.

[1] Alvin Plantinga “Creation and Evolution: A Modest Proposal” in Robert Pennock Ed Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives (Cambridge, The MIT Press - Bradford Books, 2001) 779.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid 780.
[5] Ibid; John Rawls Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)
[6] Ibid, 781.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid, 780.
[10] Ibid, 784.
[11] Ibid, 779.
[12] Ibid, 786.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.

RELATED POSTS:
Evolution should not be taught in State Schools: A Defence of Plantinga Part II

Monday, 29 June 2009

Bloggers Drinks this Thursday

On the first Thursday of every month, Auckland bloggers gather for the Bloggers Bar Bash:

What: A social gathering of bloggers and bloupies (those who read, comment on and hang out with bloggers)
When: 2 July from 6.30pm
Where: Galbraiths, 2 Mt Eden Road, Mt Eden, Auckland

Open to any blogger who happens to be in Auckland. Regular blogger attendees include those from Annie Fox, Not PC, Lolly Scramble and MandM, others have been known to stop by ...

See you there :-)

Sunday, 28 June 2009

Sunday Study: Slavery, John Locke and the Bible

It is often affirmed, as an incontestable and obvious truth, that the Bible supports slavery. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong cites Leviticus 25:44 as evidence of this charge in “Why Traditional Theism is not an Adequate Foundation for Morality.”[1] Although Armstrong is not the alone in making this claim, I think the charge is mistaken; the Bible does not support slavery.

This claim was refuted by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, one of the founding texts of contemporary liberal political theory. Locke was a famous English philosopher, less known is that Locke was also the author of several commentaries on scripture and the First Treatise of Civil Government was essentially a class argument from scripture against the divine right of kings. In the Second Treatise, Locke argued that the law of nature, which for Locke is the law of God, forbids a person selling themselves or another into slavery.[2]

In response to the line of argument Armstrong cites, Locke responded with

I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi.[3]

Locke’s argument here is as follows,

[1] If a person is a slave then that person is “under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.”[4]
[2] The institution referred to in scripture that people could sell themselves into, was not one where they were “under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power.”

The conclusion Locke draws from [1] and [2] is that the institution scripture refers to is not slavery. Locke’s response here is interesting and fundamentally correct. Here I want to simply elaborate on it in more detail so I will address each premise in turn.

What is Slavery?
Central to Locke’s argument is his definition of slavery and understanding of what makes slavery wrong. Locke understands the state of slavery as,

[1] If a person is a slave then that person is “under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.”

Rodney Stark utilises a similar definition,

A slave is a human being who, in the eyes of the law and custom, is the possession, or chattel, of another human being or of a small group of human beings. Ownership of slaves entails absolute control, including the right to punish (often including the right to kill), to direct behaviour, and to transfer ownership.[5]

The Oxford Dictionary gives a similar definition; a slave is defined as a “person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience, human chattel.”[6] Timothy Keller notes correctly that the English word ‘slave’ carries connotations of new-world slavery as it was practiced in the British Empire, made infamous in the antebellum southern states of the US.[7] It is this paradigm that critics of scripture tend to allude to. John Loftus, for example, cites an eyewitness description of antebellum practices and then links it slavery in the Bible,

He took her into the kitchen, and stripped her from neck to waist. He made her get upon the stool, and he tied her hands to a hook in the joist. After rolling up his sleeves, he commenced to lay on the heavy cow skin, and soon the warm, red blood came dripping to the floor … No words, no tears, no prayers, from his gory victim, seemed to move his iron heart from its bloody purpose. The louder she screamed, the harder he whipped; and where the blood ran fastest, there he whipped longest. He would whip her to make her scream, and whip her to make her hush; and not until overcome by fatigue, would he cease to swing the blood clotted cowskin.
Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?[8]

In the British Empire and in many US states, slavery was governed under the Code of Barbados. This code was explicitly racist and described Africans as “heathenish, brutish, and an uncertaine, dangerous kinde of people.”[9] It allowed owners to use, “unlimited force to compel labor without penalty even if this resulted in maiming or death;”[10] It denied slaves due process rights, allowed owners to, in effect, kill their slave for any cause, forbade slaves from marrying and effectively, prevented owners from setting their slaves free.[11] Keller writes that, “The African slave trade was begun and resourced through kidnapping.”[12] Stark notes that “20 to 40 percent of slaves died while being transported to the coast, another 3-10 percent died while waiting on the coast, and about 12 to 16 percent boarded on ships died during the voyage.”[13]

Does the Old Testament Approve of Slavery?
Armstrong argues that “the bible contains some horrible passages about slavery;”[14] to substantiate this he cites from the English Standard Version, "as for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations around you." (Lev 25:44) [15]

The ESV here uses the English word ‘slavery’ to translate the Hebrew word ebed. An important initial observation is that ebed is the noun form of the verb abad which means ‘to work’ or ‘to serve.’ Ebed does not have the same semantic range as the contemporary word ‘slave;’ Freedman notes,

The word ebed however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank.[16]

Locke suggests that an examination of The Torah’s references to an ebed shows that, in fact, it is not the equivalent of what in English language and culture is referred to with the word ‘slave.’ I noted above that Locke’s second premise was,

[2] The institution referred to in scripture that people could sell themselves into, was not one where they were “under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power.”

I will give four examples to demonstrate why I think Locke is correct.

First, an ebed was not acquired by kidnapping; kidnapping a human being and selling them as a slave was a capital offence in The Torah (Ex 21:16). Moreover, slave trading is implicitly condemned in the book of Revelation (Rev 18:13) and explicitly condemned by Paul as contrary to the law and sound doctrine (1 Tim 1:9-10). An ebed is used in The Torah to refer to a person who offers to work for another, free of charge, in exchange for a debt being cancelled. During service the ebed worked for and served another, lived in that person’s house and probably received free food and board.

Second, the institution was not based on racist notions that ebed were of an inferior race. In fact, the opposite is affirmed. In the book of Job we read,

If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves [Hebrew: ebed amah] when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:13-15

Here Job refers to an ebed as having a right to go to court and sue their “owner” in pursuit of their rights. Job bases this on the idea that both he and his ebed are equal; both are created by God.

Third, as Locke notes, an ebed was not the property of another so that they could dispose of them as they saw fit. To deliberately kill an ebed is a capital offence (Ex 21:20-21). Similarly, it was illegal to strike an ebed (Ex 21:26-27). This latter point is often denied on the basis of Exodus 21:20-21,

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Some interpret this passage to mean that because a slave is the property of another they can severely beat the slave and providing the beating is not fatal, there is no punishment. This fails to deal adequately with the context and the Hebrew text; the word translated as ‘property’ here is actually ‘silver’ (a reference to money) and the word translated ‘punishment’ here is not the usual word for punishment. Christopher Wright notes that the word implies “the shedding of the blood of the master of the slave”[17] and so refers to capital punishment. It is used in direct contrast with the same word in the previous verse where it is stated that deliberately killing an ebed is to be avenged. Therefore it does not say the person will not be punished for beating a slave, it says he will not be executed for it unless he kills the slave. For further evidence that the passage is not a licence to beat, a couple of verses later even causing a minor injury on an ebed, such as a bruise, is explicitly condemned.

The same contrast occurs in the passage immediately preceding where a free man who struck and killed another was to be “held responsible” but not if the person survives. It is clear from v 19, however, that the person was in fact to be punished; hence, again, the ‘held responsible’ is referring only to being held responsible for murder and is not speaking to the lesser charges. What Ex 21:20-21 says then, is that if a person deliberately kills their ebed then they are to be held responsible for murder and executed. If the slave if the slave “gets up after a day or two,” they are not to be held responsible for murder because the ebed is their “silver.”

This makes sense when a few verses later, in Ex 21:26-27, striking a slave is explicitly prohibited and the legal punishment is for the ebed to go free. In The Torah, the penalty for assault was for the assailant to provide monetary compensation to the victim.[18] This would create a quandary in this case as an ebed is in a position of servitude because he or she is in debt to the person they work for. In such a case the assailant would owe money to a person who owes him money. The Torah resolves the issue by declaring that even a trivial strike (such as the causing a bruise 21:25) resulted in an immediate cancelation of the ebed’s entire debt, which would often result in a financial loss to the assailant.

Third, unlike new world slavery which was life long and where, under the Barbados code, emancipation was effectively prohibited, an ebed could not be held in service for more than six years (Exodus 21:2).[19] Upon release, their employer was morally required to give them sufficient resources for them to be set up on their own feet (Deut 15:12-18) and the community left resources for them to live on for a year (Ex 23:10-11, Lev 25:2-7). In fact, The Torah encouraged people to prevent family members from becoming an ebed by paying their debts for them (Lev 25:48). Paul, after writing to the Corinthians and encouraging them to “retain the place in life that the Lord assigned,” encourages slaves to purchase their freedom and not to remain in this position (1 Cor 7:21-22).

Finally, if an ebed fled from an oppressive employer it was illegal to return him or her to “his master,” instead he or she was to live, “wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses” (Deut 23:15-16). It was forbidden to send him or her back to his owner. This law stood in stark contrast the Ancient Near Eastern legal customs of the day.[20] The code of Hammurabi, for example, proscribed the death penalty for receiving a runaway slave.[21] In the antebellum south, the Fugitive Slave Act 1850 required the return of run-away slaves at penalty of law.

It seems then that Locke’s response is fundamentally correct. While it is true that many English translations of the bible use the word slavery to translate the word ebed it is mistaken to see the two institutions as the same. Slavery refers to the state of being the property or chattel of another; regardless of what connotations various words in English translations have, the institution referred to in scripture did not permit, condone or allow this.

[1] Walter Sinnott-Armstrong “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality” in Is Goodness without God Good Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism and Ethics eds Robert K Garcia and Nathan L King (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008) 101-116.
[2] John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government Ch IV.
[3] Ibid, sec 24.
[4] Ibid, sec 23.
[5] Rodney Stark For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the end of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003) 292.
[6] The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Oxford: Oxford Clarendon University Press, 1974 ) 5th Edition, 1199.
[7] Timothy Keller Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton books) 110.
[8] John Loftus Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (New York: Prometheus Books, 2008) 231. Many thanks to Dean Mischewski for gifting us a copy of Loftus's book.
[9] Stark For the Glory of God: 312-313.
[10] Ibid, 313.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Keller Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism 111.
[13] Stark For the Glory of God: 303.
[14] Sinnott-Armstrong “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality” 110.
[15] Armstrong omits to mention the previous passage which forbids any Israelite taking another Israelite as a ‘slave’ on the grounds that they are a “slave of God” whom God has redeemed. Paul applies the same teaching to Christians in 1 Corinthians 7:23 prohibiting Christians from being sold as ‘slaves.’ This teaching led many early and medieval theologians to forbid the enslavement of Christians resulting in slavery all but disappearing from Christian Europe in the early Middle Ages; Stark documents this in For the Glory of God: 329-330.
[16] D N Freedman Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group,1992).
[17] Christopher Wright God's People in Gods Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids Mi: Paternoster Press, 1990) 242.
[18] See Exodus 21:19.
[19] There is an apparent discrepancy between Exodus 21:1-6 and the release laws of Leviticus 25:39-43; Christopher Wright in God's People in Gods Land: 253, noted that the law in Exodus 21:6 refers to Hebrew slaves. Wright notes that in its original context the word ibri designated a social class, not an ethnic group. This was the class of people who did not own land, who survived by hiring themselves out to land owners. Lev 25, on the other hand, deals with an Israelite landowner who has been forced into poverty by mortgaging his land and then selling himself and his family into the service of another land owner.
[20] Wright God's People in Gods Land: 249.
[21] Code of Hammurabi 16.

LINKS TO THIS POST:
John W. Loftus Nitpickers Have Started to Attack
Glenn Peoples Skeptics and the annoyance of the little things…. like facts.
John W. Loftus Madeleine Flannagan is Happy to be Treated as Women Were in the Bible!
Wintery Knight Does the Bible condone slavery?

Saturday, 27 June 2009

Liston College: Bullying Update

We removed our son from Liston College in May 2009 after a year and half of bullying. In this time it became clear that the problem with the school wasn't just those students doing the bullying but that the school itself did not take bullying seriously enough.

In every previous blog post on our bullying saga we have avoided naming the school as we wanted to give them a chance to rectify their mistakes and do the right thing. However, after much consideration, we have changed our policy (although we will not name staff members or students). This is due to the letter we received from the school's Principal after submitting a formal complaint to the Board of Trustees, on 23 May 09, who have to date not responded themselves.

It is clear to us that Liston have no intention of learning from what happened to our son on their watch so we feel we have an obligation to ensure parents considering Liston College are aware of what they could be getting their son into.

If Liston College want this blog post to be deleted they can send our son an apology, give us a refund of his fees in full, develop a bullying policy and make a commitment to ensure that bullying in the classroom, in front of teachers, is always followed up on and by followed up on, we don't mean that the victim is sent to the back of the classroom to separate the two and that parents are never informed that their son's are bullies.

The letter from Liston's College's Principal:

Dear Dr and Mrs Flannagan,

I am in receipt of your letter dated the 23rd of May 2009 outlining your reasons for removing Christian from Liston College. It is disappointing that you both feel that the school has let your son down.

I feel that my staff have acted professionally and they have worked extremely hard to resolve the issues but as parents you have the right to remove your son from our College.

There will be a part refund on fees and this will be processed by our Accounts Department and sent to you by the end of the week.

I wish Christian all the best at his new school.

The part refund, according to the accompanying note from the accounts department, was simply an adjustment to reflect the time Christian actually spent at Liston which we would have received if we had left the school for any reason. We are asking for a full refund due to breach of contract and resulting harm; Christian did not get the education we paid for due to their failure to effectively deal with his bullying and both his mental health and education suffered considerably as a result.

As for 'staff acting professionally' and 'working extremely hard to resolve issues' see the complaint we sent to the Board of Trustees below and then let us know in the comments if you think we are over-reacting. We wish to be fair so tell us if you think we are not.

To the Board of Trustees of Liston College,

Our son has recently been withdrawn from Liston College as we have lost confidence in the school’s ability to provide him with a safe physical and emotional environment.

Christian began attending Liston at the start of 2008 as a Year 9 student. Since that time he has been repeatedly bullied by other students. This bullying included being called names, threatened, being taunted about his medical condition (he has Aspergers Syndrome – see the attachment “medical condition”); he has been shoved, choked, hit, punched, knocked over, kicked, had his pants pulled down and has been dragged across the concrete while a student filmed him on his cell phone. During class, he has had objects thrown at him, he has been hit, punched, kicked, he has been knocked out of his desk, has had people steal his belongings, call him names and taunt him about his condition. Frequently the response of the teachers in these classes to these incidents has not been adequate, often it has been him moved instead of the bully.

Not once, when staff were aware that he had been assaulted, were we ever informed by the school that he had been attacked; including the time he came home with a swollen, blackened, split lip and was crying so loudly the receptionist could hear him from the sickbay or the time he was dropped to the ground and kicked by a group of boys. Instead, each time he would be sent back to class (where sometimes he would be assaulted again) and the first we would hear about any attack on him would be when he got home; by then he would be in an extremely distressed state at, not just the assault, but at having had to come to terms with what had happened on his own, not being able to contact us, and at having to face his attackers before he was ready to.

To our knowledge, no student has been stood down, reported to the board of trustees or even had their parents phoned over the assaults and harassment they have committed against our son in his year and a half at Liston, including the repeat offenders. As far as we can tell, punishments ranged from being spoken to by the dean, sometimes detentions or some form of mediation between Christian and the bully concerned; which Christian often reported to us that he felt he had no option but to consent to participate in even when he did not feel up to facing his attacker.

We were not always informed of the outcome of complaints, so Christian would often return to school not even sure if any justice had occurred. This made summoning the courage to face his attackers more difficult. On other occasions we have been told that Christian’s annoying Aspergers-related behaviour had some how mitigated or made the assaults more understandable.

In response to complaints about bullying during class-time being tolerated or trivialised by his teachers (See the attachment written by Christian entitled “bad teachers”) Christian was told by his dean, XXXXX to just get up and walk out of class. However, Christian was paralysed with fear at the thought of doing this, so was unable to do so in response to subsequent classroom incidents. YYYYY [the Guidance Counsellor] made Christian a card to use in such situations, the card was supposed to work so that he could just show it to the teacher and the teacher would then permit him to leave but when he tried to use it he was not allowed to leave. It seemed to us that a better solution would have been for the teachers to simply not tolerate bullying in the classroom as opposed to putting the solution to the problem onto Christian.

We found as we supported Christian through these events that there was sometimes a lack of understanding of the effects of the bullying on him; Christian often would not feel comfortable reporting the bullying to anyone at school and would instead tell us when he got home. The reasons why he did this were often not understood by the school despite this being a very commonly documented occurrence in victims of bullying and despite our attempts to explain this on Christian’s behalf. For example, in an email dated 3 March 09, XXXXX wrote,
“I met with Christian and Matthew this morning concerning the e-mail you sent. Once again Christian continues to take problems home and not seek immediate assistance when something untoward happens to him.”
This type of comment was made frequently despite it being a very normal reaction on the part of victims of assault and harassment to not report it.

Christian felt that many of the adults at the school had failed to act justly on this matter previously so he did not feel safe going to them. Sometimes, as reporting it opened the whole thing up, took him out of class, ate up his lunch-times and got us upset, even though he wanted some justice and wanted it to stop, it seemed easier to leave it but then it would escalate and he wouldn’t know what to do then because he would have to explain why he had left it. This was especially common on days or weeks where there were several separate incidents. Further, he was also aware that his condition makes him annoying to other children and that given his struggles with social contexts, he frequently lacked the confidence to be sure that what had happened met the standard for bullying. Given all of this, we don’t think that it was fair to expect him to always feel able to report it immediately and to make comments to that effect to him. We understand the need for immediate reporting but victims are not always capable of doing this and understanding that is an important part of helping them.

Notwithstanding this, we do not want to give the impression that XXXXX or YYYYYY or ZZZZZZ, the former guidance counsellor, did not care about what was happening to Christian or that they failed to follow through on investigating complaints. This was not the case and we appreciated their concern and their investigations. Our issue was that we were not always informed of outcomes of complaints; we were never informed of attacks on Christian – even the more serious ones - and there was insufficient understanding of the effect bullying has on a victim. In addition we were not happy with the consequence meted out to the offenders or with Christian’s teachers more than once failing to act on classroom bullying.

It seemed to us (aside from the repeat offenders) that as each bully was dealt with another one popped up to take his place. This suggested to us that a culture of bullying had developed within the school; that to the other students, bullying didn’t come with serious consequences: your parents didn’t get told, you were not at risk of being stood down and the teachers didn’t really view it as anything serious anyway when it happened in the classroom. We feel that this is why the situation was never able to be gotten under control and why the school cannot, at this point, provide Christian with a safe learning environment.

The result of the last year and half of enduring bullying at Liston is that Christian’s education and mental health has been harmed. He has been recently referred to mental health by his doctor and he reports suffering from severe panic attacks 4-5 times a week when he is at school. Discovering this meant that continuing to try to work with the school was no longer in Christian’s best interests. We could not in good conscience keep him in an environment that was causing him that much harm.

The consequence of this decision is that he now has to face adjusting to a new school, change is a big deal for someone with Aspergers Syndrome, and having to face this in the middle of his first year of NCEA is especially difficult. Further, having a Christian education is also something very important to Christian, who has a strong faith, and he is disappointed that he now he has to go to a secular school where he cannot take his favourite subject, religious education. Finally, his grades have slipped, which he says is due to his constant worrying about avoiding bullying and the panic attacks which have messed with his ability to concentrate and also, due to the amount of time he was spending either out of class reporting bullying or the days off school emotionally recovering from bullying.

Needless to say we are extremely unhappy at what has happened to our son. We seek a full refund of Christian’s school fees on the grounds that he has not received the education that we paid for due to the breach of duty of care that the school owed him. Further, it is our and Christian’s, hope that as a consequence of what he has endured at Liston, that the Board will develop and implement a just bullying policy that has consequences as its primary focus, is more closely mirrored with what happens in real life when an adult commits assault against another, so as to prepare students for what awaits them when they turn 16 and engage in this behaviour, and involves a joint strategy with both home and school for all parties concerned.

Assault and harassment carries serious legal consequences if people engage in it when they are adults. Given this, a school does its students no favours if it fails to treat these things as seriously as the law does. The school we are moving Christian to has a very strong policy on bullying; the first offence earns the offender a trip to the deputy principal’s office and a letter home and a second offence is an automatic stand down and a report to the Board of Trustees. We feel that a similar policy is warranted at Liston.

Please see the attached appendices to further support and elaborate on the claims made above.

We won't list all the appendices as the whole complaint was 16 pages long but here is Christian's report on the incidents that happened in class with the teacher present; it relates to four separate teachers:

Bad Teachers

Written by Christian

Social Studies: Once, I was attacked and the teacher said I deserved it because I hadn't done my work. Another time I tried to use my card and I couldn't leave. On Liston Day some boys were punching me, I told the teacher and she believed them when they lied and said it was all someone else (who she didn’t talk to).

Physical Education: I was pushed right out of my seat onto the floor, knocking over my desk in the process, by CCCCCC who always hits me, I told the teacher and CCCCCC lied, saying that I was "shouting in his ear". I was actually facing the opposite direction talking quietly to somebody else. I told the teacher this and he confined me to my seat and said that CCCCCC was justified in assaulting me.

Graphics: I was hit in the head. I reported it, the teacher said he would deal with it but he did nothing. About 10 minutes later I reminded him, then he said "let’s just put it behind us". Ok, fine. I got angry and couldn't do any work. If the teacher complained, I would say exactly what he said: “let’s just put it behind us.”

Science: CCCCCC was throwing paper, folded so much that it was hard, at me. I reported it. Teacher didn't notice (the class was misbehaving, I’m not surprised he didn't notice when I reported it). He did nothing about it.

I hate the school because I am ALWAYS being pulled out to avoid bullying because the school won't take the bullies out. This is wrong and I think it’s wrong to do anything they tell me to if they are that stupid. EVERY SINGLE TIME I get bullied in class I'M the one who has to sit in the back of the class. The bullies just get told to stop it (and they never stop) when they should be the ones made to sit at the back. When I speak out against the teacher I get told off and threatened with detentions but they can do what they like to me.

We could go to court and we reserve our rights to do so, but the education sector is highly regulated and there is the cost and the time frame to consider. The official complaints mechanisms via the government departments are bureaucratic and backed up; as a result only severe bullying tends to get followed up on (what happened to Christian is deemed low level). Options like the blogosphere, Fair Go, the media are more accessible, quicker and are generally more effective.

We realise that this is a bullish move but we have been trying to resolve this issue with Liston College for over a year now and they appear to think they did nothing wrong and do not owe our son anything.

Friday, 26 June 2009

Michael Jackson Dead

I just turned on the news and saw that Michael Jackson died a few hours ago, aged 50, apparently from cardiac arrest; the Herald has the story, Pop Star Michael Jackson Dies.

I saw him in concert when he came to New Zealand in 1996. Whatever one can say about his personal life, the man was brilliant at his day job.

UPDATE: Contra Celsum reproduces this excellent obituary by Andrew Sullivan.

A Counter-Point on the David Bain Re-Trial

David Farrar links to this interesting opinion piece in The Press on the David Bain re-trial, Plenty of Doubt in Bain Jury's Verdict. While we normally do not link to media reports of trials, because the media tend to publish selective, sensational snippets of trials removed from their context, this piece is different. It is the opinion of a reporter present for virtually every minute of the trial and in the absence of the official court report it makes for very interesting reading - particularly the actions of Jury members that the reporter observed.

Thursday, 25 June 2009

Issues to Consider in Moving from Blogger to Wordpress?

Our comments feed died a few weeks ago. Not only does our recent comments widget no longer work but we get no notification of new comments so if people leave comments on old topics we have no idea. It is extremely annoying and it means we cannot properly manage our blog; if someone left something defamatory on our site we wouldn't know unless we happened to stumble over it; the recent comments widget enabled visitors to see other people's interactions with our blog at a glance, we have noticed a drop in comments since it has been down.

Repeated attempts to get some help from Blogger, some indication of when this will be fixed have been unsatisfactory. As such, I am now seriously contemplating moving MandM from Blogger to Wordpress.

However, I am concerned with the effect on our backlinks, particularly the deep links. Will these still work if we shift the blog? Are there any other issues? When we moved to our own domain last year we lost all our Technorati rank and had to contact everyone who linked to us and ask them to update their links some of them took a lot of hassling and a few we've given up on. If you have every moved blog platforms, particularly if you have moved from Blogger to Wordpress, please let us know what we may be in for.

Alternatively, if you have any idea how we can fix our comments feed that would be my first preference. The feed stopped on 25 May. I had made no changes to the site around that time. Prior to this it would occasionally stop for a few days and then restart and it has been doing that on and off since December.

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Sunday Study: The Virtue of Judging - Jesus was not a Relativist

About a year ago I gave a talk on moral relativism for Thinking Matters Tauranga. During that talk I noted that relativism entails that one cannot apply the moral principles you (or your culture) accepts to the practices of other people (or cultures). I was critical of this position arguing that it suffers from all sorts of problems. Predictably, someone in the audience asked me a question about Jesus’ comments in the Sermon on the Mount,

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matt 7:1-2)

It is common to hear people interpret this passage as a commandment to not “judge other people;” in fact, it is common for people to use this statement as a kind of rhetorical club to silence Christian theological and moral critique of various cultural practices. When a particular practice is subjected to such critique those who engage in the practice will complain they are being “judged,” that Christians are being “judgemental” and that this is contrary to what Christ taught.

"In other words one should try to rectify the serious moral flaws in one’s own life precisely so one can assist others with theirs."I think this is a mistaken interpretation of this passage. In fact, if one wants an example of the claim that it is wrong to make moral judgements about other cultures in scripture, the most explicit example actually comes from the men of Sodom in the story of Lot. When the men seek to sodomise Lot’s visitors, Lot condemns what they desire to do as a “wicked thing.” Their response is recorded as follows,

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

Here the men of Sodom objected that Lot is from a different culture and yet he dared “play the judge.” Jesus was not defending the men of Lot's behaviour in Matt 7:1-2. Hence we need to look closer at this passage that is so often cited.

First, the claim that it is wrong to judge other people is problematic; it is so problematic that it is amazing that anyone gives it credence. There are several reasons for drawing this conclusion. For starters, if it is wrong to judge other people then, since Hitler was another person, it is wrong to say that what he did was wrong; to say that his actions were wrong is to make a judgement about them and hence, judges him. Similarly, Martin Luther King Junior was wrong to criticise racism and William Wilberforce was wrong to make moral judgements about the slave trade. Taken consistently, the claim that it is wrong to judge entails that we should have no legal system, no laws and no courts as all these things involve judging certain conduct as wrong and condemning and punishing those who engage in it.

Not only would these historical and contemporary cases of judging be wrong, much of the Hebrew scriptures, parts that purport to describe people faithfully following God's will, in fact, are exercises in wrong doing. The Prophets offer, in some instances scathing, moral critiques of (and hence make moral judgements about) the actions of Israel, Judah and also surrounding nations such as Assyria and Babylon. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, etc in uttering such judgements were engaging in sin. It is not just the Hebrew scriptures that are implicated in wrong doing, the opening chapters of the book of Romans contains a moral critique of both the gentile and Hebrew cultures of Paul’s day; Paul made judgements about other people. In fact, if one seriously believes that judging is wrong and contrary to the will of God then Jesus was a sinner. Jesus after all made some very harsh and scathing judgements about the Pharisees and Sadducees throughout the synoptic gospels.

The problems with this interpretation of Matthew 7:1-2 do not stop there; a little reflection will demonstrate that the claim, that it is wrong to judge other people, is itself incoherent. To claim it is wrong to judge others is to make a moral judgement, it is to judge that a particular action is wrong. Moreover, when a person announces this to other people, he or she is implicitly making a judgement about other people’s actions. To utter it is wrong to judge others therefore is to engage in judging others. This kind of thinking can easily induce a kind of intellectual vertigo. It is analogous to the person who states, in English, “I can’t speak a word of English” or a person who tries to convince you that the claim “there is no truth” is true.

Fortunately, one does not need to attribute to Jesus such absurd, incoherent, platitudes because it is doubtful that Jesus meant anything quite so stupid. Several factors bear this conclusion out.

First, one needs to note that the claim, “do not judge, or you too will be judged,” occurs as part of the Sermon on the Mount. In this Sermon, Jesus regularly used hyperbole to vividly illustrate a point; interpreting these hyperboles too literalistically leads to obvious absurdities. In Matt 5:9, for example, Jesus states (when referring to the act of looking at another person’s spouse with lust) “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.” It is evident that Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation but simply illustrating his point about not lusting in a vivid, hyperbolic fashion. Similarly, Matt 5:16 commands people to, “do good deeds before men,” while verse 6:1 tells us, “not to do good deeds before men.” Taken in a strictly literalistic sense this is a contradiction. However, a reading of the context shows these extreme statements are simply vivid illustrations of a point; one’s good deeds should be motivated by a desire to honour God not a desire to advance one’s own reputation.

Similar things apply to the statement, “to swear not at all.” A statement, which at face value, flatly contradicts both the Old Testament and the practices of Paul and Jesus; however again, an examination of the context shows that this is another hyperbole, illustrating the principle that one should be honest in all one’s dealings, one should not use legal loopholes and so on. In light of this context, the phrase, “Do not judge,” should be seen for what it is, a hyperbolic statement illustrating the point elaborated in the surrounding verses.

Second, when one turns to this context, one can see quite clearly the point being made. The phrase translated in the NIV as, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” was originally written by Matthew in Koine and then transliterated from the Greek. What is stated is, “Do not judge that you be judged” (Matt 7:1 Interlinear Bible). In other words, do not judge others in a way that leads one to put oneself under judgement. This is clearly borne out by the context which states,

2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:2-6)

Here the qualifications are evident. One is not to judge in a way that brings judgement on oneself. “For” (because) the standard one uses to judge others is the standard one’s own behaviour is measured by. Jesus goes on to illustrate, with a sarcastic example, precisely what he is talking about; a person who nit-picks or censures others minor faults (taking the speck out of their brothers eye) yet who ignores the serious, grave, moral faults in their own life (the log in one’s own eye). His point is that such faults actually blind the person’s ability to make competent moral judgements. This suggests that Jesus is focusing on a certain type of judging and not the making of judgements per se.

In fact, the conclusion that Jesus does not mean to condemn all judging of others is evident from the last two sentences in the above quote. Rather than engaging in the kind of judgement Jesus has condemned, a person should “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” In other words one should try to rectify the serious moral flaws in one’s own life precisely so one can assist others with theirs. One needs to avoid hypocrisy in order to make constructive and effective moral judgements about others. This would make no sense if Jesus meant to condemn all judging by this passage.

This is borne out by the reference to “pigs and dogs” in the verse 6. Dogs and pigs, to Jews, were unclean animals and the term was frequently used to designate people considered to be of low moral character who were “unclean” before God. In this verse Jesus is simply repeating the Old Testament teaching found in Proverbs 9:8, which states, “Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you: rebuke a wise man and he will love you.” The reason why one is exhorted to not do this is because it fails to be constructive to do so. The implication again, is that one should try and make constructive judgements rather than simply provoking anger.

Just in case I have not belaboured the point enough, my interpretation is further reinforced by what follows after these passages,

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:15-23)

Here Jesus actually instructs his disciples to make moral judgements about others. He tells his disciples to judge whether a person is a false prophet or not by their “fruit.” Anyone familiar with Old Testament prophetic literature (as Jesus’ hearers were) would know that fruit is a metaphor for character. Isaiah’s use of the metaphor is paradigmatic.

1 I will sing for the one I love a song about his vineyard: My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside.
2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choicest vines. He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well. Then he looked for a crop of good grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit.
3 "Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.
4 What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?
5 Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed; I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled.
6 I will make it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated, and briers and thorns will grow there. I will command the clouds not to rain on it."
7 The vineyard of the LORD Almighty is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight. And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress. (Isaiah 5:1-7)

The fruit looked for is such things as right conduct, justice, etc. Paul uses the same metaphor when he states that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal 5:22-23a). Jesus makes it clear that he is utilising this metaphor. He goes on to stress that, in this context, the fruit of a prophet is whether he or she “does the will of my Father” and is not an “evil doer.” It is clear then that Jesus here is exhorting his disciples to make moral judgement about other people, to critically evaluate other people’s lives and actions and to make judgements about their spiritual authenticity based on these judgements. All this would be very odd if it was wrong to judge.

In sum then, Jesus never commanded people to “not judge others.” Incoherent and absurd platitudes about it being wrong to judge are the ramblings of the confused and ignorant or are uttered by people mistakenly thinking that being a script writer for a second rate television drama makes them a competent theologian or ethicist. Such platitudes are most certainly are not among the teachings of the New Testament.

RELATED POSTS:
Cultural Confusion and Ethical Relativism I
Cultural Confusion and Ethical Relativism II

Cultural Confusion and Ethical Relativism III
With God Anything can be Permitted: Another Bad Argument against Theistic Morality
On a Common Equivocation

Monday, 22 June 2009

Anti-Smacking Referendum: Vote No Website Launched

Visit the official Vote No website to get an overview of the issues, facts and arguments as to why you should vote no in the upcoming referendum on smacking being de-criminalised. You can also pick up banners to advertise the site:

To put this banner on your site, copy and paste this code where you want it to sit:

<a href="http://www.voteno.org.nz"><img src="http://voteno.org.nz/img/side.gif" /></a>

Not Voting is a Vote for Keeping Smacking Criminalised

I just had an interesting conversation with someone who is not remotely political, a sort of Joe Bloggs citizen. (Being somewhat outside normal, in that I like politics and analysing and debating issues and would find life boring without such things, I don't interact with many 'normal' people on a day to day basis so this was insightful).

My friend, like most 'normal' citizens, does not support the new s59 law and thinks it is ridiculous that a smack in now legally on par with child abuse. She would like to see the law restored or changed so that smacking is not a criminal offence. However, she will not be voting in the referendum because she is not happy with the cost of the referendum and because John Key says he will ignore the result regardless. Her view is that voting is a waste of time and by not voting at least that is one less vote to be counted which might help to reduce the cost of the exercise.

I explained to her that it is in the interests of those who support the new law to ensure the voter turnout is as low as possible. A low turnout is much easier to justify ignoring than a high one. If the turnout is high and the margin separating the yes votes from the no votes is wide then no matter what John Key says now, he will not be able to ignore the result.

The last referendum on tougher penalites for crimes (somewhat vague) was largely ignored and the government took a lot of stick for it. This one is being held in the age of the blogosphere and on an issue for which the precise action the electorate wants the government to take is much clearer. It will be very hard for National to ignore the result if the result is large and loud and ignoring a big turnout with a very clear margin could be politically very stupid. Key knows this, so he is trying to prevent this from happening.

In addition, the cost could have been kept down by tagging the referendum to the election but those who support the current law had strong reasons, turnout being one of them, for ensuring it was not tagged to the election. The cost of this referendum is pretty awful, however, this should not be a reason to not vote - why not ensure that if we have to pay this cost regardless that something positive comes from it?

While these things may seem obvious to we the bloggers who pay close attention to things political, we know that a politician's yes or no can be as changeable as the climate - look at the internet blackout campaign - so I do think it is worth pointing out to our readership that by not voting you are not remaining neutral and just protesting the cost; you are in fact ensuring that the status quo continues. We all know which way this vote is going to go but it is how many who vote that will be crucial. Do you want John Key to be able to say "well, so few New Zealanders voted that it wouldn't be fair to take any action from the result"?

Everyone who does not support the new s59, who wants a legal differentiation between smacking and child abuse, where one is legal and the other not, needs to get past their issues around the cost of the referendum, the not so optimally worded question, etc and vote.

Sunday, Monday ...

The observant will have noticed that Sunday has been and gone and the Sunday Study is, once again, not online. It's location is currently in Tauranga, either in Matt's head or partially written on his laptop or (my preferred speculation) in email transit to me for editing.

In Matt's defence he has just finished teaching a three week intensive History of Philosophy course for Laidlaw College which saw him up til sometimes 3am every night writing the next day's lectures. Amidst those three weeks he had to prepare and give a seminar on Moral Relativism for Thinking Matters, research, write and preach a sermon for church, prepare for and sit his end of semester exams for his Teaching Diploma, celebrate Brittany's birthday and help me put together a party full of 9 year old girls. The minute he finished the lecturing stint he then had 3 essays to write due this afternoon and last night he had to prepare and give a bible study and drive to Tauranga for his last class of the semester which he is in now.

He is due home tonight and I expect him to be shattered when he arrives. Outstanding is the Sunday Study and two seriously overdue pieces refuting key arguments put forward by anti-smacking proponents that he promised to write ages ago but now he is finally clear of the chaos I am sure these will spring forth forthwith and the Sunday Study will be up later today.

Friday, 19 June 2009

No Defences Permitted for the Accused

In, The referendum campaign is underway, No Right Turn's Idiot/Savant gives an excellent example of an argument we see coming up a lot in the debate around the upcoming referendum on smacking. In addition to trotting out the standard ad hominem, that everyone who supports the reinstatement of the old section 59 of the Crimes Act is a "child-beater," I'd like to examine the emphasised part:

Over the next month I expect to see a succession of unhinged press releases from the child-beaters claiming that the law somehow impinges on their religious freedom or has caused the widespread persecution of parents. It does nothing of the sort. What it has done is prevent parents who punch their children in the face or beat them with a soup ladle from claiming a defence of "reasonable force". And that is unequivocally a Good Thing. The only people who oppose that are people who wish to abuse children in that way - and we should treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Essentially Idiot/Savant here claims the parent in his example are guilty, apriori, and as such, when they go to trial, they should not be able to attempt to raise a defence. The problem is that the whole point of having a trial is to determine guilt or innocence. Even when it seems pretty obvious, trials are still necessary and the right to due process still applies. This right to due process includes, alongside the presumption of innocence, a right to raise a defence, no matter how stupid or implausible, and have the court assess it. The importance of this concept can be summed up by Blackstone's Ratio, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."[1]

Supporters of the anti-smacking law do not seem to get this. This 'claiming a defence' issue has been raised a lot ever since Sue Bradford first began promoting her bill to remove the old s59 defence, of reasonable force for the purposes of correction, from the Crimes Act. If you read the Vote Yes site, if you read the media releases and the articles and listen to the interviews you will hear it a lot.

Of course what Idiot/Savant, Bradford, the Vote Yes people, et al miss is that there is a world of difference between claiming a defence and succeeding in doing so. The court is not stupid and the people making the determinations of guilt or innocence in our courts are normal, everyday people. If it is so obvious to all of us that hitting a child across the face with a soup ladle is child abuse, and it is obvious to all of us, a court, made up of people like us, is not going to rule that such an action is an example of reasonable force.

The 34 reported cases on the old s59 are readily available in any law library and if you read them, instead of the media reports and politicians and websites and blogs, you will see time and time and time again child abusers failing in their attempts to raise the defence of reasonable force. The majority resulted in convictions and the few that did not were more often than not due to things like it not being proven who abused the child - which is terribly sad for the child, but you can't just convict anyone so that you can chalk up a conviction! Wrongly decided cases are a fact of life. Just like doctors making mistakes on the operating table, just like us making driving errors. We should try very hard to ensure that these do not happen but to remove a defence entirely and risk the prosecution of the innocent is not the answer. Besides, some of the cases cited in the media as being wrongly decided were not even cases where s59 was raised, other defences like self-defences were in play... shall we remove self-defence as defence?

The contempt for due process does not stop here; statements like Idiot/Savants that, "The only people who oppose that are people who wish to abuse children in that way," show that he is willing to accuse anyone of being a supporter of child abuse because they support the right of an accused to a fair trial.

Chilling. Basically once accused of something heinous, one should not be allowed to defend oneself and anyone who disagrees is morally on par with a child abuser.

There is another patently obvious flaw in Idiot/Savant's argument; removing the defence doesn't just prevent people who seriously abuse children from raising the defence it also prevents the wrongly accused from being able to raise it. However, without defences there is no way of separating the two. I am not speaking here of those who can stand up in court and honestly state 'I did not touch my child,' such accused could plead 'not guilty,' I am speaking of those who end up in court for smacking their children, not hitting them with soup ladles across the face; I am speaking of those who with an open hand, lightly, smack a child on the bottom once, not out of anger or in the midst of rage but in response to disobedience on the part of child. Such people cannot plead not guilty if accused of assault, they have no legal defence if they end up before a court. To remove legal defences from people innocent of child abuse to ensure that the net catches everyone is wrong.

Hat Tip: HalfDone

[1] William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1760).

We're Confused about the Anti-Smacking Referendum Question

... we're confused that anyone could find it confusing. The referendum question is:

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Should it or shouldn't it? It seems pretty simple to me.

According to TVNZ,

Labour leader Phil Goff says the question implies that if you vote 'yes' that you're in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents, when actually nobody believes that. [Emphasis added]

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, the defence to the criminal charge of assault (“Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances”) was part of our c r i m i n a l code. To reinstate s59 of the Crimes Act (or not) is the question.

If Mr Goff wants anyone to believe that removing a defence from the Crimes Act will not have any bearing on criminal sanctions against those charged with assault he needs to stop being a legislator.

Does making something a criminal offence mean that criminal sanctions should not be brought against those who commit the offence? If yes then it does not follow that giving a yes vote in the referendum means that you support criminal sanctions against those who smack their children. If the answer is no then it is already the case that criminal sanctions can be brought against offenders who smack their children because it is currently a criminal offence to do so - Goff's claim that nobody advocates this is false because the Crimes Act does.

The only people confused here are Goff, Key, Bradford who seem to not understand that if your action crosses the Crimes Act then your action is criminal. Twits.

The only ambiguous, confusing thing about the law is the convoluted crap they inserted in place of s59. It reads like the sort of thing those who think they know a few things about the law write to impress their friends; read subsection (4) and see if you can work out what it means, it's the bit that starts "to avoid doubt..." but then doesn't (one wonders if Bradford wrote it herself, if someone with a law degree wrote it they should be up before the Bar).

Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 No 18, Public Act

New section 59 substituted
Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

“59 Parental control
“(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
“(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
“(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
“(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
“(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
“(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
“(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Theology and Natural Sciences Conferences

TANSA (Theology and Natural Sciences in Aotearoa) run conferences in Auckland. As Matt will be speaking, on "Does Evolution Make Belief in God Untenable? – An Examination of the Common Arguments," at the TANSA August Churches Conference, Faithful Science? – Just How Well Do Science and Faith Get Along? I thought I would refer you to their events page so you can check out what other events they have coming up.

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Blog Ranking Buttons

Andy made some buttons for those blogs who make the various New Zealand blog rankings and he kindly sent me the code for each to share with you. Just copy the code for the button you want to display on your blog and past it wherever you want it.

<a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/christian-blog-ranking-report-for-april.html"><img border="0" src="http://equipbiz.co.nz/hosted/nzc10.jpg" style="padding: 2px;" /></a>
<a href="http://nzblogosphere.blogspot.com/2009/05/nz-blogosphere-rankings-april-2009.html"><img border="0" src="http://equipbiz.co.nz/hosted/nz10.jpg" style="padding: 2px;" /></a> <a href="http://nzblogosphere.blogspot.com/2009/05/nz-blogosphere-rankings-april-2009.html"><img border="0" src="http://equipbiz.co.nz/hosted/nz100.jpg" style="padding: 2px;" /></a>

There is also our button,

<a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/christian-blog-ranking-report-for-april.html"><img style="PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px; PADDING-TOP: 2px" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoGv-Vjkf49IkSI_WAYCNAG6VCd4larLN8TTAb3YDwX0Uov9dreqkPO4FmQ3q6Tv_XGApbBlHQ3aSM3N12QgPQ23ZOlBSGAEsmbnXggdfUeDGmKSMp7MMSiGUGpj5LVw617AnAtxnPIqTi/s180/10sqmm.jpg" border="0" /></a>

Monday, 15 June 2009

Sunday Study: Ask, Seek, Knock - Treating God Like a Genie

This is yesterday's Sunday study as promised. It’s based on a message I gave at Riverhead Presbyterian Church yesterday.

A couple of months ago Madeleine was corresponding with a person who claimed he could prove that God does not exist. Madeleine challenged the person and in the ensuing dialogue it became evident that a theological misunderstanding under lied his opposition to the gospel. This man’s family were Christians; his father had suffered an accident resulting in one of his legs being amputated. The family and father had, apparently, earnestly prayed that the leg would grow back and it did not. Madeleine’s correspondent went on to claim that there are no documented cases of a person’s leg re-growing after amputation, as such he considered this to be conclusive proof that God does not exist.

Now neither of us took this line or argument seriously for a moment; our interlocutor was assuming that if God did not grow limbs back on request then it followed that God did not exist. We saw no basis for accepting this rather dubious premise and Madeleine stated that God was not some kind of Genie you could ask for your wishes to come true from. In response our correspondent referred us to a verse in Matthew; chapter 7:7-11,

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Our correspondent informed us that Jesus states in this passage that whatever you ask for you receive.

Having never heard this line of argument before I figured this incident was an isolated one and wrote it off as one of those things that people say online. So I was surprised when a month later I heard the very same objection raised in conversation. Madeleine and I attend the monthly Auckland Bloggers Bash and have a couple of drinks with various Auckland bloggers. Two of the regulars edit widely circulated atheist or free-thought non-net publications so the conversation is often interesting.

One evening I ran into someone who was clearly very interested in meeting me. He had read several things I had written and wanted to know more about Christianity and why someone like me would believe in God. In conversation I discovered that he had been brought up as a believer. However, later in life he had seen sick people die despite the fact that his family had prayed for them and this had rocked his faith. On conversation with him it was apparent that he believed that if a Godly person, like the local pastor, asked God for something then one should expect God to do it. This, to him, was something Christianity taught and as his experience had showed this claim was false he had rejected Christianity. Let me note that this person was not being argumentative for the sake of it; he was interested in the issues and wanted to talk about them.

I realised that I had seen a similar understanding of Christianity in many churches in New Zealand. When I was at university I attended a church for some years where many people taught that a believer can “claim things” in the name of God, that God had given them authority and if they simply and sincerely claimed something then, provided they believed it strongly enough, God would give it to them. Others used to pray for convenient car parks when going to the supermarket under the belief that God would, if they asked, give them the correct place to park. Many believed that they could write a checklist of traits they wanted in a future spouse and then pray regularly to God about the list and “believe in God for it.” These were usually justified on the basis of passages like the one I cited above. Don’t passages like this make it clear that if a believer asks for something then God will give it to them?

To answer this question I will to look at three things. First is I will examine briefly what the passage says. Next I will look at the context in which the passage in Matthew occurs and finally I will examine how the same passage is interpreted and explained by Jesus in a parallel passage in the gospel of Luke.

In Matthew 7:7-11 Jesus asserts three imperatives and three promises which correspond to each command. He then follows this up with an argument or analogy to illustrate the point.

The three imperatives are a repetition of a single command to pray. Jesus uses three common rabbinic metaphors for prayer, “asking,” “seeking” and “knocking.” Moreover, the three imperatives are in the present tense which the original Greek indicates as continuous, persistent prayer. Hence, Jesus is commanding that we consistently, persistently and continuously pray for something. The promise that is annexed to this command is that if we do persistently pray in this fashion then we will receive the thing we are asking for.

Jesus reiterates the point. He tells us that even though we are evil, none of us would give our children a stone if they asked for bread or a snake if they asked for fish. (Bread and fish were the common forms of food around Lake Galilee, as is evident from the feeding of the 5000 in Matt 14.) Moreover, a round loaf would look like a stone and the eel-like catfish commonly found in Lake Galilee looks a bit like a snake (it doesn’t take much imagination to realise that snakes are dangerous animals capable of killing children).

Jesus’ point, then, is fairly vivid; when our children need food (something which nourishes them and is good for them) we don’t offer them something that looks like food but, in fact, is either inedible or dangerous and likely to kill them. He draws from this the conclusion that similarly, God would not, when we ask for something good, give us something evil.

Nothing in the passage itself tells what the thing we are to “seek,” “ask” or “knock” for is, nor does the analogy make it clear what Jesus is asking his disciples to petition God for is either except that, like food, it is “a good thing.” In the examples I began this post with the interpretation that was provided was that it referred to “anything” one asks for. I suggest, however, that the context and a parallel passage in Luke, suggests otherwise.

Turning first to the context, the passage occurs in the midst of a series of instructions Jesus gives about judging others. In v 1 Jesus stated that a person who judges the conduct of others will be judged by the same standard that they apply to others. From this he draws two important qualifications that need to be followed whenever a person attempts to criticise or correct the behaviour of other people. The first of these is that one should not attempt to “take the speck out of [another’s eye,] when there is a plank in their own eye?” instead you should “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” Jesus’ point is fairly evident; before we criticise the minor character flaws of others we should make sure that we have dealt with the serious character flaws in our own life. Only when this is done will we have the requisite discernment to make informed and correct moral judgements about others. (Far from the prohibition on judging that is usually ascribed to this passage.)

The second qualification Jesus makes is that one should “not give dogs what is sacred” nor should one, “throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” Dogs and pigs to Jews were unclean animals and the term was frequently used to designate people considered to be of low moral character and hence “unclean” before God. Jesus simply repeated the Old Testament teaching found in Proverbs 9:8, which states, “Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you: rebuke a wise man and he will love you.”

What both these passages emphasis, then, is discernment; the ability to see one’s own moral failings, to be able to correct them, to have the wisdom to be able to correct others as well as the discernment to be an effective judge of others character.

This does not just occur immediately before the passage in question, similar things can be said about the texts that immediately follow. Immediately after telling us to ask, seek and knock, Christ states,

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The word “so” at the beginning of this passage tells us that this text draws a conclusion from what has preceded. Again the context is the discernment and strength to do what is right and to avoid what is wrong. The text enjoins us to look at our own actions and ask if they are actions we would object to having done to us; it asks us to discern the narrow gate as opposed to the wide gate. Consequently, the imperative to ask, seek, knock, to continually petition God, occurs in a context where Jesus is discussing discernment, exhorting people to develop character and integrity. To suggest that in this context it is an unqualified promise referring to anything is I think mistaken.

The same basic point can be seen when we examine how Jesus presents the same teaching in Luke 11:9-11,

One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples." 2 He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.3 Give us each day our daily bread.4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.'"5 Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread,6 because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.'7 "Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.'8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs.9 "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.11 "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Here we see the same teaching that Jesus affirms in Matthew 7. Jesus states, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you,” moreover he uses the very same illustration of a father giving fish to his children when they request it. The difference is that Jesus adds some further commentary and interpretation on these phrases that enable us to get a better understanding of what he meant by them.

First, we can see again the context; in this passage we know precisely what Jesus is referring to when he asks us to seek, ask, knock because he has just instructed his disciples on how to pray and what to pray for. He has asked them to hallow his name, to proclaim that his character and reputation are sacred and holy, worthy of respect and adoration. Moreover, he has commanded them to pray that his kingdom come and will be done. In other words, to ask that their lives would be lives lived under his lordship and in obedience to him. This is emphasised by the fact that Jesus has told them to sincerely seek forgiveness for their sins and also for assistance in temptation and trials to help them to do the right thing and to not stumble into wrong doing. It is just after this that Jesus uses common rabbinic metaphors (ask, seek, knock) for regular, continuous and persistent prayer.

Further, in this passage we see Jesus illustrate the teaching further with a parable. The scene is of a Palestinian home where a family are all asleep in one room. Walter Leifield notes that this would probably mean they were all asleep on the same mat.[1] He notes that “The father could not get over to the door and slide back the heavy bolt that bars it without waking his family. In such a situation no one would be happy to respond especially in the middle of the night.”[2] Leifield interesting notes, however, that the friend who approaches him is actually duty bound to do so even with a midnight arrival,

A host in that first century society would be expected to provide a welcome. Rather than insult his guest with too little bread … the host would seek out a person with a good supply, knowing who in his small town had recently done baking. The visitor would have been the guest, not only of the individual and his family but of the whole community. This placed a great responsibility both on the traveller’s host and on the friend he approached at midnight.

Note then, that the parable Jesus gives is of one person asking another to assist him in fulfilling his duties or responsibilities. Even when it is irksome to do this for a friendsuch as in the middle of the night, a person will do this if another persistently bangs on his door.

When Jesus then says “ask and you receive” in the next verse, it seems fair to say that he is referring to asking for assistance in fulfilling one’s duties, leading a godly life where one confess one’s sins, avoids temptation, lives according to Gods laws, etc. This is further reinforced in v 13 where Luke identifies the good thing God can be relied upon to give that Matthew mentions (7:11) as the holy spirit, the advisor or counsellor, who assists believers in living a sanctified life.

When Jesus tells us then to ask, seek and knock and promises that we will receive, he is not promising that whatever we want God will give us. Rather he is commanding us to continually and persistently pray for God to help us to glorify him, to obey his commands, avoid temptation, do the right thing, etc. He is promising that a person who sincerely, continually and persistently seeks to live such a life will receive God’s spirit and assistance in living such a life. The text has nothing to do with amputated limbs, car parks, future spouses or any other thing that we may want or desire. And it’s mistaken to think that God ever claimed in scripture that he will give people whatever they ask for.

[1] Walter Leifield “Luke” The Expositors Bible Commentary ed Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing Company) Vol 8 948.
[2] Ibid.

Linkbar