The Plucked Chicken

In View of Our Weaknesses

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:34:41 -0800

We see that great princes stumble and that the best bishops often show themselves as the most foolish.

Then what? Should nothing at all be done, and should all managing be shunned entirely? Not at all. Rather let everyone diligently and faithfully do his duty which has been committed to him by God. But let him beware of relying on his own strength or his own wisdom and of considering himself such a great man that everything should be directed in accordance with what he counsels. For it is incurable and damnable rashness and arrogance on my part when I claim to be such a person and such an extraordinary man that I can manage the state, the home, and the church wisely and properly. But if you are a judge, a bishop, or a prince, you should not feel ashamed to fall on your knees and say: "Lord God, Thou hast appointed me as prince, judge, head of the household, and pastor of the church. Therefore guide and teach me, give me counsel, wisdom, and strength to attend successfully to the office committed to me."

...

Hence everyone should learn to acknowledge his weakness humbly and to ask GOD for wisdom and counsel. For men are not summoned to govern because they should arrogate to themselves perfect knowledge of everything, but because they should be taught and learn what God is and what He does through the government and the rulers, who are the instruments of God's works through which God rules the people. Then they become truly wise and successful in governing. But if they follow their own counsels and their own thoughts, they do nothing properly. No, then they disturb and confuse everything. Therefore one must take refuge in prayer, set forth the difficulty of the office to God, and say: "Our Father who art in heaven, etc., give me the wisdom that sits by Thy throne" (Wisd. of Sol. 9:4)

But above all a ruler in the church should pray in this manner: "Lord God, Thou has appointed me in the church as bishop and pastor. Thou seest how unfit I am to attend to such a great and difficult office, and if it had not been for Thy help, I would long since have ruined everything. Therefore I call upon Thee. Of course, I want to put my mouth and heart to use. I shall teach the people, and I myself shall learn and shall meditate diligently on Thy Word. Use me as Thy instrument. Only do not forsake me; for if I am alone, I shall easily destroy everything." The sects and the sectarians do the opposite, for they ascribe to themselves the wisdom and the ability to rule and to teach. Therefore they burst rashly into the church, do not pray, and do not believe that the administration either of the church or of the state is a gift of God; but they force themselves in as teachers and leaders. Therefore it eventually happens that they confuse and hinder what has been profitable built by others.

...

But you could find many who do not acknowledge this higher power and wisdom in governing. If any obstacles are put in their way, they suppose that they will set things right more properly if they employ greater severity in their punishments, so that their subjects are held in check by the fear of the punishments and are driven to obey even against their will. Surely there is need of discipline -- and rather stern discipline at that -- especially in the matter of these morals of ours; but it is completely certain that you will never achieve anything without prayer. For governing is a divine power, and for this reason God calls all magistrates gods (cf. Ps. 82:6), not because of the creation but because of the administration which belongs to God alone. Consequently, he who is in authority is an incarnate god, so to speak. But if they force their way into the government of the church, the state, or the household rashly and without due preparation, exclude God, do not pray, and do not seek advice from God but want to rule everything with their own counsels and strength, then it will eventually happen in the management of household affairs that an honorable and chaste wife will become a harlot of the worst kind and that the children will degenerate and come into the power of the executioner. In the civil government the state will be thrown into confusion by insurrections, wars, and countless other perils. In the church heresies, Epicurean contempt for the Word, desecration of the sacraments, etc., will arise. Why? Because such a head of a household, prince, or pastor does not recognize GOD as the Author of all counsel and government but by his presumption and arrogance destroys himself and others over whom he rules.

LW, AE vol. 5, p. 122-124

The Purpose of God's Gifts

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:52:08 -0800

Hence the purpose of God's gifts is not the pleasure or the tyranny of those who have the gifts, but the lawful use should be directed toward the glory of God and the welfare and benefit of the neighbor. But although people receive God's blessing, sovereignty, priesthood, power, strength, and intelligence, and have the efficient, formal, and material cause, they are not concerned about the final cause. But why are you a king? Why are you a prince, a priest, a father, or a mother? "In order that I may be blessed in this life," you will say, "in order that I may indulge in pleasures, in order that I may gratify my lusts. I am learned and rich in order that I may get a great name and glory among men." But then the rule of which you boast is completely done away with, because God does not want His blessings poured out for any other purpose than for His own glory, for the praise of Him who bestows them, and for the welfare of the church. The government is held in honor in order that it may benefit the state. Husband and wife are joined together in order that they may bring children into the world and rear them for the benefit of the home and the state. But the world cuts off the final cause in all the gifts of God.

LW, AE vol. 5, p. 112

The Means of Grace

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:15:43 -0800

Without an appearance of angels, and strengthened by the Word alone, the martyrs met death for the sake of the name of Christ. Why should we, too, not be satisfied with the same thing? Baptism is a sufficiently manifest and clear appearance. So are the Eucharist, the Keys, the ministry of the Word. They are equal to -- yes, they even surpass -- all the appearances of all angels, in comparison with which Abraham had only droplets and crumbs.

LW, AE vol. 4, p. 126

A Context for Love and Mercy

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:55:06 -0800

There are so many differing opinions and beliefs. It occurs in the political realm, and also in the theological realm. It must be a consequence of Babel. I'd like to describe something that might be agreeable to people who usually disagree with my own opinions and beliefs. It's about love and mercy.

Generally, everyone would be in favor of love and mercy, especially at those times when we might be the recipient of them. Even the most legalistic Muslim would joyfully receive mercy from his god rather than damnation for his sins, would he not? It seems to me that all liberals, all conservatives, and the squishy-squashy people in the middle; all Christians, all pagans, and all those conflicted atheists are in favor of love and mercy, in some form, at some time.

The point I'd like them all to consider is that love and mercy don't exist in a vacuum. Imagine pure anarchy: the lack of rule or law. How could anyone show love or mercy in a context like that? Mercy is unnecessary, because it would be impossible to do wrong. Love is undefined, because there would be no expectations on inter-personal relationships.

In order for mercy to exist among us, there must be the possibility of earning certain, definite punishments. In order for love to exist, there must be some kind of inter-personal behavior considered to be the norm, to make loving behavior distinguishable.

Someone might argue that love and mercy are just nonsense syllables until each of us assigns our own meanings to them. That is nonsense, and is easily demonstrated as false by simply communicating with one another, in any number of languages. No, there is some kind of mutual understanding we have of these two words, and that understanding requires that the things they represent have a context of laws and norms.

I'd like to write more about this later. For now, here is an exercise for the reader. Ask yourself: "What laws and norms exist to provide a context for love and mercy, from where have they come, and how are they enforced?"

Religiously Scrupulous

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:33:41 -0800

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...

So begins the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Having read about the formation of that amendment, as well as some of the Federalist Papers, I know that the militia was an important priority for the Founders and their generation. It was so important that Congress was given the authority to regulate the militias of the various states, and citizens were obligated by law to report for an annual muster. In the course of setting out these requirements, there was a debate about conscientious objectors. A frequently-used term was "the religiously scrupulous," designating who were exempted from both the muster and a financial levy toward the common defense. After some discussion, the Founders wisely recognized that protecting the free exercise of religion preempts the need for a well-regulated militia.

Now it is reported that the Senate version of the nationalized health care bill requires everyone with public health insurance to pay monthly into a fund that will pay the cost of abortions. Apparently, the drafters and supporters of this bill consider the free exercise of religion to be less important than the "right" to health insurance coverage, even for abortions. (Though I don't find that right in the Bill of Rights.) There seems to have been a shift. Whereas the Founders prioritized religious scruples before other important things, our current leadership has chosen new priorities that are not found in the Constitution, and promoted them above the First Amendment.

If you are a Christian in more than name, now is a good time to pray and to exercise your responsibility as a Christian in the kingdom of the Left. That is certainly easier than being prosecuted later under unjust laws for abiding by your religious scruples.

Luther on Living a Holy Life

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:44:28 -0800

But the holy orders and true religious institutions established by God are these three: the office of priest, the estate of marriage, the civil government. [See Large Catechism, 4th Commandment, 158, and the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI] All who are engaged in the clerical office or ministry of the Word are in a holy, proper, good, and God-pleasing order and estate, such as those who preach, administer sacraments, supervise the common chest, sextons and messengers or servants who serve such persons. These are engaged in works which are altogether holy in God's sight.

Again, all fathers and mothers who regulate their household wisely and bring up their children to the service of God are engaged in pure holiness, in a holy work and a holy order. Similarly, when children and servants show obedience to their elders and masters, here too is pure holiness, and whoever is thus engaged is a living saint on earth.

Moreover, princes and lords, judges, civil officers, state officials, notaries, male and female servants and all who serve such persons, and further, all their obedient subjects -- all are engaged in pure holiness and leading a holy life before God. For these three religious institutions or orders are found in God's Word and commandment; and whatever is contained in God's Word must be holy, for God's Word is holy and sanctifies everything connected with it and involved in it.

Above these three institutions and orders is the common order of Christian love, in which one serves not only the three orders, but also serves every needy person in general with all kinds of benevolent deeds, such as feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, forgiving enemies, praying for all men on earth, suffering all kinds of evil on earth, etc. Behold, all of these are called good and holy works. However, none of these orders is a means of salvation. There remains only one way above them all, viz. faith in Jesus Christ.

For to be holy and to be saved are two entirely different things. We are saved through Christ alone; but we become holy both through this faith and through these divine foundations and orders. Even the godless may have much about them that is holy without being saved thereby. For God wishes us to perform such works to his praise and glory. And all who are saved in the faith of Christ surely do these works and maintain these orders.

(AE 37:364-365)

Note that neither the three broad categories (churchly, domestic, and civil) that Luther describes, nor the examples he gives, are meant to be mutually exclusive. Our church Treasurer supervises the common chest, but also holds other churchly responsibilities, as well as responsibilities in the other categories.

Government: Not Evil, but Fallen

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:00:00 -0800

I was just looking at reports of today's rally on the west lawn of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. One attendee was quoted as saying that it now seems the government has become evil.

I'm glad to see eyes opening to the possibility of evil, even in our own country. Yes, it can happen here. At the same time, I caution anyone who cares to read this against thinking that any government is evil in a civil sense. Governments are gifts from God, to benefit the lives of their citizens in this fallen world. The American system of government is no exception, and neither is the current (or any prior) slate of elected officials.

Government can become twisted in service to evil, until it seems to be inextricably bound to it. Certain 20th Century examples spring to mind, and perhaps present-day Persia. Yet even there, the government as such has certain divinely-assigned responsibilities, which make it a blessing to its people, and even to neighboring nations.

While a government is not intrinsically evil, it is certainly part of this fallen world. That means that it can make mistakes, like the rest of us. The difference is that when I make a mistake, it affects fewer people. I just finished reading a history of the Great Depression called The Forgotten Man, by Amity Schlaes. The disregard of F.D.R. and many of his advisors for the tremendous negative influence of government mistakes is astounding. That disregard was probably induced by the politics of the crisis, but I would rather have a President willing to be denied reelection as the cost of doing the smallest possible harm to others. The governing philosophy of Coolidge might have helped Americans much more, though they would have missed the hollow comforts in F.D.R.'s fireside chats.

Please do not think that government is evil, even when it has done evil. In a spiritual sense, it is no more evil than you or I am evil. (We are all condemned sinners in a world destined for destruction.) Christians who have the forgiveness of sins can appreciate that Christ's redemption has also provided us a sanctified use of the government. Christians can serve as elected or appointed officials, as bureaucratic employees or soldiers. Whether we do or not, we must also hold our fallen government accountable, so that it does less harm, and promotes the only kind of justice for which God has made it responsible. That's not "social justice" or "media justice" (which are really different kinds of injustice), but the punishment and suppression of evils that threaten the lives and property of its citizens.

Christians can also take comfort that we are citizens of a better and perfect government. It's a monarchy, but only subjects of this King are ever truly free. Thanks to the blood and death of our risen Lord, we will enjoy this freedom for eternity. All earthly governments will go the way of Rome, into mere history. Our Lord and King lives forever.

The Church Militant Lives in the Kingdom of the Left

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:51:53 -0700

The Church Militant lives in the Kingdom of the Left. That is, the Church of Christ on earth, consisting of all who believe and trust that He is their Savior, exists within the framework of secular and worldly laws and rulers that encompass life on earth. Christians live beside non-Christians, under the same laws.

Individually, Christians have as much interest in laws and justice as everyone else does. The mission of the Church is different. It revolves around the message of the Gospel. When we believe that message, that Jesus Christ, God's Son, gave His perfect life upon the cross as the sole, sufficient payment for the guilt of the whole world, then God has made us members of the Church, and we possess all of His gifts. On the other hand, the faith that receives this greatest of all gifts in a completely passive way, does not remain passive in our life as Christians.

Christian faith must be active, and that activity takes place in the Kingdom of the Left, within that framework of laws and justice that defines civil society. The activity of our faith is directed by a conscience informed by Holy Scripture. That's one of the reasons we teach the Ten Commandments in our catechesis: to inform and guide our actions of faith.

When we study the Ten Commandments, they teach us that the Kingdom of the Left -- our government -- exists as a gift from God, having certain responsibilities that represent His blessings upon us when they are fulfilled. For example, the Fourth Commandment describes not only our responsibility to figures of authority, but implies that they exist to serve our well-being. The Fifth Commandment shows that human life is to be protected, even by our government, when it is not fulfilling its greater responsibility in the Fourth Commandment. The Sixth Commandment reveals that God would also have government protect and encourage lifelong marriage, obviously between one man and one woman. That relationship provides the context for the basic meaning of the Fourth Commandment, "your father and your mother," so that the institution of marriage is fundamental to civil society itself. The Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Commandments show that God would have government enforce the respect of private property, which is the fruit of our labor. The Eighth shows that God hold government responsible for protecting the good name of its citizens.

God blesses every citizen, Christian or not, when government fulfills these responsibilities. What's more, Christians are then better able to live our their active faith in love toward their neighbors. Yet before any of those commandments, God commanded that we have only one God, and that we sanctify His name and His Word in their proper and daily uses. If this is forbidden or suppressed in the Kingdom of the Left, then Christians must disobey the errant earthly authority in order to obey the greater authority of God. Certainly, this will result in hardship or even death, especially when the earthly authority is not interested in justice or the other responsibilities that God has given it. It is for that reason that the Bill of Rights is such a blessing to the Church, in particular the First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion. Of slightly less interest to Christians is the Second and subsequent amendments, which also exist to provide citizens the means to protect their individual freedoms in the rest.

These days, people seem more concerned about the "establishment clause" of the first amendment, prohibiting the government from establishing a national religion -- or a state religion, as the Supreme Court has further interpreted it. However, just as important as the "establishment clause" is the "free exercise clause," which forbids the national (or state) government from prohibiting the free exercise of an individual's religion. The clause assumes that the religion in question does not threaten the freedoms of other citizens. Especially in this area, Christians in the Church Militant should be concerned and involved in the American government, because it applies directly to the activity and scruples of faith.

For an application of this concern, see Gene Edward Veith's blog post about how the federal Equal Opportunity Commission is requiring Roman Catholic institutions to pay for birth control in their health insurance plans. You may be tempted to consider it "someone else's problem" if you're not Roman Catholic, but that would be unwise. A government willing to ignore the free exercise clause in the case of Roman Catholics will not hesitate to ignore it in the case of Lutherans, Reformed, Evangelicals, Orthodox, etc.

Chesterton: A Thinking, Christian Citizen

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:43:07 -0700

Part of a Christian's duty on earth is to uphold his government by encouraging justice, the rule of law in civil society, and the protection of his fellow citizens from evildoers both inside and outside his nation. To that end, God has provided individual gifts like memory, reason, and strength. The Christian worldview is fully compatible with the right use of reason, and even demands that use when circumstances make it necessary. Here is an example.

Eugenics is an old name for the "applied science" of influencing the human gene pool for the benefit of the future human race. It was quite popular in some circles toward the beginning of the 20th Century. Well-known advocates were Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger. (In case you don't know, Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood, a leader in the abortions-for-profit industry.)

G. K. Chesterton wrote a book against Eugenics, which I found available in audio as a Librivox recording. (BTW, the listing I browsed placed the Communist Manifesto just after Thomas Paine's Common Sense. There's a contrast for you.) What Chesterton wrote is well worth reading. You may think that Eugenics is no longer an issue in the 21st Century. If so, then find a copy of the movie Gattaca and watch it. In fact, what Chesterton wrote is also quite applicable to today's public discourse about government and its role in providing health insurance for citizens. You can find the whole book at Project Gutenberg.

Here is Chesterton's note to the reader.

I publish these essays at the present time for a particular reason connected with the present situation; a reason which I should like briefly to emphasise and make clear.

Though most of the conclusions, especially towards the end, are conceived with reference to recent events, the actual bulk of preliminary notes about the science of Eugenics were written before the war. It was a time when this theme was the topic of the hour; when eugenic babies (not visibly very distinguishable from other babies) sprawled all over the illustrated papers; when the evolutionary fancy of Nietzsche was the new cry among the intellectuals; and when Mr. Bernard Shaw and others were considering the idea that to breed a man like a cart-horse was the true way to attain that higher civilisation, of intellectual magnanimity and sympathetic insight, which may be found in cart-horses. It may therefore appear that I took the opinion too controversially, and it seems to me that I sometimes took it too seriously. But the criticism of Eugenics soon expanded of itself into a more general criticism of a modern craze for scientific officialism and strict social organisation.

And then the hour came when I felt, not without relief, that I might well fling all my notes into the fire. The fire was a very big one, and was burning up bigger things than such pedantic quackeries. And, anyhow, the issue itself was being settled in a very different style. Scientific officialism and organisation in the State which had specialised in them, had gone to war with the older culture of Christendom. Either Prussianism would win and the protest would be hopeless, or Prussianism would lose and the protest would be needless. As the war advanced from poison gas to piracy against neutrals, it grew more and more plain that the scientifically organised State was not increasing in popularity. Whatever happened, no Englishmen would ever again go nosing round the stinks of that low laboratory. So I thought all I had written irrelevant, and put it out of my mind.

I am greatly grieved to say that it is not irrelevant. It has gradually grown apparent, to my astounded gaze, that the ruling classes in England are still proceeding on the assumption that Prussia is a pattern for the whole world. If parts of my book are nearly nine years old, most of their principles and proceedings are a great deal older. They can offer us nothing but the same stuffy science, the same bullying bureaucracy and the same terrorism by tenth-rate professors that have led the German Empire to its recent conspicuous triumph. For that reason, three years after the war with Prussia, I collect and publish these papers.

G.K.C.

Below is his first not-so-long chapter, answering the question, "What is Eugenics?"

The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

There exists to-day a scheme of action, a school of thought, as collective and unmistakable as any of those by whose grouping alone we can make any outline of history. It is as firm a fact as the Oxford Movement, or the Puritans of the Long Parliament; or the Jansenists; or the Jesuits. It is a thing that can be pointed out; it is a thing that can be discussed; and it is a thing that can still be destroyed. It is called for convenience "Eugenics"; and that it ought to be destroyed I propose to prove in the pages that follow. I know that it means very different things to different people; but that is only because evil always takes advantage of ambiguity. I know it is praised with high professions of idealism and benevolence; with silver-tongued rhetoric about purer motherhood and a happier posterity. But that is only because evil is always flattered, as the Furies were called "The Gracious Ones." I know that it numbers many disciples whose intentions are entirely innocent and humane; and who would be sincerely astonished at my describing it as I do. But that is only because evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin. Of these who are deceived I shall speak of course as we all do of such instruments; judging them by the good they think they are doing, and not by the evil which they really do. But Eugenics itself does exist for those who have sense enough to see that ideas exist; and Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.

It is not really difficult to sum up the essence of Eugenics: though some of the Eugenists seem to be rather vague about it. The movement consists of two parts: a moral basis, which is common to all, and a scheme of social application which varies a good deal. For the moral basis, it is obvious that man's ethical responsibility varies with his knowledge of consequences. If I were in charge of a baby (like Dr. Johnson in that tower of vision), and if the baby was ill through having eaten the soap, I might possibly send for a doctor. I might be calling him away from much more serious cases, from the bedsides of babies whose diet had been far more deadly; but I should be justified. I could not be expected to know enough about his other patients to be obliged (or even entitled) to sacrifice to them the baby for whom I was primarily and directly responsible. Now the Eugenic moral basis is this; that the baby for whom we are primarily and directly responsible is the babe unborn. That is, that we know (or may come to know) enough of certain inevitable tendencies in biology to consider the fruit of some contemplated union in that direct and clear light of conscience which we can now only fix on the other partner in that union. The one duty can conceivably be as definite as or more definite than the other. The baby that does not exist can be considered even before the wife who does. Now it is essential to grasp that this is a comparatively new note in morality. Of course sane people always thought the aim of marriage was the procreation of children to the glory of God or according to the plan of Nature; but whether they counted such children as God's reward for service or Nature's premium on sanity, they always left the reward to God or the premium to Nature, as a less definable thing. The only person (and this is the point) towards whom one could have precise duties was the partner in the process. Directly considering the partner's claims was the nearest one could get to indirectly considering the claims of posterity. If the women of the harem sang praises of the hero as the Moslem mounted his horse, it was because this was the due of a man; if the Christian knight helped his wife off her horse, it was because this was the due of a woman. Definite and detailed dues of this kind they did not predicate of the babe unborn; regarding him in that agnostic and opportunist light in which Mr. Browdie regarded the hypothetical child of Miss Squeers. Thinking these sex relations healthy, they naturally hoped they would produce healthy children; but that was all. The Moslem woman doubtless expected Allah to send beautiful sons to an obedient wife; but she would not have allowed any direct vision of such sons to alter the obedience itself. She would not have said, "I will now be a disobedient wife; as the learned leech informs me that great prophets are often the children of disobedient wives." The knight doubtless hoped that the saints would help him to strong children, if he did all the duties of his station, one of which might be helping his wife off her horse; but he would not have refrained from doing this because he had read in a book that a course of falling off horses often resulted in the birth of a genius. Both Moslem and Christian would have thought such speculations not only impious but utterly unpractical. I quite agree with them; but that is not the point here.

The point here is that a new school believes Eugenics against Ethics. And it is proved by one familiar fact: that the heroisms of history are actually the crimes of Eugenics. The Eugenists' books and articles are full of suggestions that non-eugenic unions should and may come to be regarded as we regard sins; that we should really feel that marrying an invalid is a kind of cruelty to children. But history is full of the praises of people who have held sacred such ties to invalids; of cases like those of Colonel Hutchinson and Sir William Temple, who remained faithful to betrothals when beauty and health had been apparently blasted. And though the illnesses of Dorothy Osborne and Mrs. Hutchinson may not fall under the Eugenic speculations (I do not know), it is obvious that they might have done so; and certainly it would not have made any difference to men's moral opinion of the act. I do not discuss here which morality I favour; but I insist that they are opposite. The Eugenist really sets up as saints the very men whom hundreds of families have called sneaks. To be consistent, they ought to put up statues to the men who deserted their loves because of bodily misfortune; with inscriptions celebrating the good Eugenist who, on his fiancée falling off a bicycle, nobly refused to marry her; or to the young hero who, on hearing of an uncle with erysipelas, magnanimously broke his word. What is perfectly plain is this: that mankind have hitherto held the bond between man and woman so sacred, and the effect of it on the children so incalculable, that they have always admired the maintenance of honour more than the maintenance of safety. Doubtless they thought that even the children might be none the worse for not being the children of cowards and shirkers; but this was not the first thought, the first commandment. Briefly, we may say that while many moral systems have set restraints on sex almost as severe as any Eugenist could set, they have almost always had the character of securing the fidelity of the two sexes to each other, and leaving the rest to God. To introduce an ethic which makes that fidelity or infidelity vary with some calculation about heredity is that rarest of all things, a revolution that has not happened before.

It is only right to say here, though the matter should only be touched on, that many Eugenists would contradict this, in so far as to claim that there was a consciously Eugenic reason for the horror of those unions which begin with the celebrated denial to man of the privilege of marrying his grandmother. Dr. S.R. Steinmetz, with that creepy simplicity of mind with which the Eugenists chill the blood, remarks that "we do not yet know quite certainly" what were "the motives for the horror of" that horrible thing which is the agony of Œdipus. With entirely amiable intention, I ask Dr. S.R. Steinmetz to speak for himself. I know the motives for regarding a mother or sister as separate from other women; nor have I reached them by any curious researches. I found them where I found an analogous aversion to eating a baby for breakfast. I found them in a rooted detestation in the human soul to liking a thing in one way, when you already like it in another quite incompatible way. Now it is perfectly true that this aversion may have acted eugenically; and so had a certain ultimate confirmation and basis in the laws of procreation. But there really cannot be any Eugenist quite so dull as not to see that this is not a defence of Eugenics but a direct denial of Eugenics. If something which has been discovered at last by the lamp of learning is something which has been acted on from the first by the light of nature, this (so far as it goes) is plainly not an argument for pestering people, but an argument for letting them alone. If men did not marry their grandmothers when it was, for all they knew, a most hygienic habit; if we know now that they instinctly avoided scientific peril; that, so far as it goes, is a point in favour of letting people marry anyone they like. It is simply the statement that sexual selection, or what Christians call falling in love, is a part of man which in the rough and in the long run can be trusted. And that is the destruction of the whole of this science at a blow.

The second part of the definition, the persuasive or coercive methods to be employed, I shall deal with more fully in the second part of this book. But some such summary as the following may here be useful. Far into the unfathomable past of our race we find the assumption that the founding of a family is the personal adventure of a free man. Before slavery sank slowly out of sight under the new climate of Christianity, it may or may not be true that slaves were in some sense bred like cattle, valued as a promising stock for labour. If it was so it was so in a much looser and vaguer sense than the breeding of the Eugenists; and such modern philosophers read into the old paganism a fantastic pride and cruelty which are wholly modern. It may be, however, that pagan slaves had some shadow of the blessings of the Eugenist's care. It is quite certain that the pagan freemen would have killed the first man that suggested it. I mean suggested it seriously; for Plato was only a Bernard Shaw who unfortunately made his jokes in Greek. Among free men, the law, more often the creed, most commonly of all the custom, have laid all sorts of restrictions on sex for this reason or that. But law and creed and custom have never concentrated heavily except upon fixing and keeping the family when once it had been made. The act of founding the family, I repeat, was an individual adventure outside the frontiers of the State. Our first forgotten ancestors left this tradition behind them; and our own latest fathers and mothers a few years ago would have thought us lunatics to be discussing it. The shortest general definition of Eugenics on its practical side is that it does, in a more or less degree, propose to control some families at least as if they were families of pagan slaves. I shall discuss later the question of the people to whom this pressure may be applied; and the much more puzzling question of what people will apply it. But it is to be applied at the very least by somebody to somebody, and that on certain calculations about breeding which are affirmed to be demonstrable. So much for the subject itself. I say that this thing exists. I define it as closely as matters involving moral evidence can be defined; I call it Eugenics. If after that anyone chooses to say that Eugenics is not the Greek for this—I am content to answer that "chivalrous" is not the French for "horsy"; and that such controversial games are more horsy than chivalrous.

Christian Anderson Speaks to the Present

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:03:37 -0700

Fed up with church politics? Then here's something you should appreciate. I may have blogged about this before, but re-reading it impresses upon me the importance of what this ELS church father wrote. Please read the whole thing at ??????? (diatheke). It contains wisdom for every Lutheran church body today, even districts, circuits, and congregations. This is from the end of that post:

Since the Church Council had gradually become such a strong influence in the Synod, when its power was taken into service of the liberal element, it was something which was not easy to resist. Woe to the poor pastor who dared to oppose this Council and come into its disfavor! And because this institution had so long been highly respected by the majority of the members of the Synod, the culprit could not count on much support.

"We see this same danger asserting itself in other synods, even if the vehicles of power may be called by different names."

All Americans Required to Buy a Warehouse Store Membership

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:32:36 -0700

The United States Congress should consider addressing two problems at once: the poor state of the economy, and the affordability of every-day goods for families living in Main St. America. Both can be addressed quite easily, by requiring every American citizen to purchase and maintain a membership at a warehouse store like Sam's Club or Costco. It may even be beneficial for Congress to authorize the creation of a new warehouse membership store, to be run and provisioned by the United States government. ("Stuff Mart" is one possible name for such an effort.) The funds needed for a government option could be obtained by taxing the private warehouse stores up to 80% of their gross profits, or by printing more money.

The benefits of these stores is well known. Low prices on bulk-packaged items, as well as generous food samples in the aisles that can help Americans provide for all the basic needs of their families, saving money that might be useful in the next few years, when our government's Social Security expenses threaten to make it insolvent. These cost-saving benefits have previously been limited to only a few Americans and illegal immigrants, which has not only deprived them of this basic human right, but also driven up the cost of membership for everyone else. By requiring every American to join one of these stores, Congress would drive down prices for all, while giving the economy another needed stimulus.

Some might claim that a membership would not be much help to them. For example, I live in Oregon, 80 miles from the nearest Costco, in Portland. (Sam's Club doesn't even exist in this state.) Someone in my shoes might wonder what good a membership would be, but that would be selfish thinking. We should think instead of the good of our country. How could Congress drive down the membership costs and prices for people living in Portland, if people like me refused to buy our own membership, just because I would seldom shop there? My infrequent use of membership privileges should really be considered a strong reason to dive in and help my fellow citizens, since my membership dollars would come with no strings attached!

Thankfully, far more Americans live nearby one of these stores than live in the sticks, so if it came to a popularity contest based upon personal interests, the few holdouts must eventually bow the neck and bear the patriotic burden of making life easier for our neighbors in the azul states--- whether they live here legally or not. Yet I hope that Congress and the American people will see the wisdom in this without much controversy. If necessary, perhaps the legislation could be attached in the eleventh hour to some unrelated, but vitally important and urgent bill like the one about universally mandated health insurance. It should be obvious that the potential good outweighs the lack of honesty, integrity, and wisdom that may be necessary to impose it upon the nation.

Missed Your Senator's Town Hall? Mine's Having a Teleconference!

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:02:04 -0700

This will make communication so easy! No doubt the good senator will have a good sense of how his constituents are thinking after this. If you've ever participated in an audio conference over the phone, then you also know just how easy it is to get your points across. The senator will have people across the entire state on the phone, all at once!

	September 28^th, 2009 Visit My Web Site \| Unsubscribe

Sign up Today to Join Senator Merkley for a Telephone Town Hall Meeting

Deadline to Sign Up is Tuesday at 10:00 am PT

As Congress continues to tackle the challenge of fixing our health care system, Senator Merkley wants to hear your thoughts, what's working and what isn't, and how we can best make it work for Oregon's families and businesses. Senator Merkley knows that not everyone can make it to his town hall meetings, and that's why he wanted to make sure Oregonians have every avenue available to them to reach out to him and make their concerns known.

This Wednesday, September 30th at 5:50 pm PT, Senator Merkley will hold a Telephone Town Hall, where Oregonians can ask questions and share their views about the current effort to reform health care. The deadline to sign up for the health care telephone town hall is tomorrow, September 29th at 10:00 am PT. Hurry and sign up today!

Join Senator Merkley for a Telephone Town Hall and make your voice heard.

Please note that any reply to this email address will be sent to an unmonitored email address. To contact Senator Merkley, please visit his website.

Visit My Web Site | Contact Me | Unsubscribe

For Whom Is that Church Bell Tolling?

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:30:28 -0700

This Wikipedia article on the ringing and tolling of church bells says:

Ringing them occurs in three basic ways: normal ringing, chiming, or tolling. Normal ringing refers to the ringing of a bell or bells at a rate of about one ring per second or more, often in pairs reflecting the traditional "ding-dong" sound of a bell which is rotated back and forth, ringing once in each direction. "Chiming" a bell refers to a single ring, used to mark the naming of a person when they are baptized, confirmed, or at other times. Many Lutheran churches chime the bell three times as the congregation speaks the Lord's Prayer, once at the beginning, once near the middle, and once at the "Amen". "Tolling" a bell refers to the slow ringing of a bell, perhaps once every four to ten seconds. It is this type of ringing that is most often associated with a death, the slow pace broadcasting a feeling of sadness as opposed to the jubilance and liveliness of quicker ringing.

Customs vary regarding when and for how long the bell tolls at a funeral. One custom observed in some liturgical churches is to toll the bell once for each year of the life of the deceased. Another way to tell the age of the deceased is by tolling the bell in a pattern. For example if the deceased was 75 years old, the bell is tolled seven times for seventy, and then after a pause it is tolled five more times to show the five.

At Concordia Lutheran Church in Hood River, the bell is rung before church every Sunday, but we do not observe the custom of chiming. On the other hand, we do toll for funerals and on Good Friday. Those who can recognize a tolling bell might easily wonder who has died: "For whom is that bell tolling?"

A tolling bell is only one example of the way a church bell communicates to the community. I realize that some community members may think a church bell to be a nuisance, because they would rather continue sleeping (or whatever they are doing) unmolested. Yet the very purpose of having a church bell is to help rouse our earthly neighbors from their slumber of doubt and unbelief to find the immortality that God has prepared for them through Jesus Christ alone. Many of them should find it a nuisance, since they do not wish to have any reminders of their sins and mortality.

Since the Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary included the hymn "Wilt Thou Forgive that Sin," a poem by John Donne, I have been more interested in Donne's works. I find them devotional and provocative in the best possible way. Today, a passing reference on Cyberbrethren reminded me of a certain test-taking time in college, and connected it with John Donne. I had taken my seat, expecting a rigorous test, and the bell rang as the professor began passing it out. I said something about the bell tolling, and he said (as if quoting): "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." Ominous, if you understand the whole tolling thing.

A little digging on this wonderful Internet has turned up a fuller context of that quote. It's not really from a poem, though some consider it so. Rather, it's from a meditation by John Donne, in which he would have the reader consider his connection with all of Christendom in the body of Christ. Every time the church bell tolls, it marks the passage of one of our members into eternity, and so every toll is personally relevant to each Christian. In a similar way, every human being is connected with every other, so that we should recognize that the humanity we share with those who die means that we also participate somehow in all those deaths.

Another point of interest about this meditation is Donne's now-familiar statement "No man is an island." It's good finally to know the original context of those words, and see how the author put the metaphor to a salutary use.

Here is the text of the meditation:

PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness. There was a contention as far as a suit (in which both piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled), which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his, whose indeed it is. The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee. Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security.

Python Imaging Library: easy_install or setup.py makes a difference

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:33:03 -0700

Chances are most readers of the Plucked Chicken will have no idea what I'm writing about here. That's OK. Just move along.

For anyone who may find this post when searching for Plone and an Import Error, when it claims that the Python Imaging Library is not installed because it can't import PIL, read on.

I'm just now getting a handle on installing Plone via zc.buildout, with a view toward a migration path from a current install on a somewhat critical web site to the next great thing (TM). I decided to install a custom Python in a custom location, so that zc.buildout and easy_install would be able to do their thing without messing up my system Python installations. So far so good.

The problem came after easy_installing PIL (which isn't as easy as one might hope), running buildout, and starting Plone. Plone complained that it couldn't import PIL, implying that PIL was not installed. I first made sure that the Zope instance was running the correct Python install, and then I was baffled. I could verify that PIL was installed by a successful "import Image" in the Python shell, but Plone does not import Image directly. Instead, it imports PIL, or perhaps imports through PIL, as "from PIL import Image".

Two different ways to import PIL, giving access to the same code. Two different ways to install PIL, with the "easy" one being a little more complex than usual. Putting two and two together, I removed my PIL installation, downloaded a tarball, and ran "python setup.py install", which uses setuptools without easy_install. Everything worked smoothly. I started a Python shell and tried "import PIL" (which hadn't worked before). This time it worked. Tried starting the Zope instance. It worked too.

Conclusion: Python Imaging Library and easy_install don't work together the way PIL and setuptools do, resulting in two different ways to import the PIL code. This may be a PIL bug, or it may be that the egg-creation mechanism in easy_install doesn't handle the requirements of PIL as it should. Either way, if you intend to use PIL with Plone, you'll have to install it via setuptools. If there's a better way, I'd appreciate hearing about it.

Mexican Civil War: Could US Be to Blame?

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:33:03 -0700

Here is a veiled propaganda article about a supposedly new development in the Mexican civil drug war. American women with clean records are being paid to buy firearms for soldiers of Mexican drug cartels. Here's an example of the propaganda, couched in weasel words.

Some of the largest and most deadly gun smuggling operations in the country have involved women. The development highlights the key role straw buyers are playing to keep what Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., once characterized as the "Iron River" of guns flowing from the U.S. to Mexico.

Deputy Attorney General David Ogden has described the role of straw purchasers as the spark which has led to "horrific acts of violence."

"It's a nationwide problem," Ogden said, "that requires a nationwide commitment."

In a case outlined in court documents unsealed here last year, an organization of 23 buyers, including at least one woman, was linked to purchases of 339 guns during a 15-month, $340,000 buying spree across the region.

As you can see, the author (Kevin Johnson from USA Today) is advancing the notion that we need some kind of federal solution to this problem. That would mean that the United States is to blame for Mexico's civil war, because we allow these morally defenseless women with inexplicably benign legal records to break the law brazenly by buying firearms on behalf of someone else, who works for an illicit foreign army.

Do you understand the point Mr. Johnson is advancing with his careful sentences and selective quotes?

Now consider this. The legitimate Mexican army apparently has organizational and supply problems. Can that be blamed on the United States?

Another article states (in what may have been translated into English by the sound of it) "The weaponry occupy Mexico’s towns and cities and include grenade launchers, TNT, machine guns, rifles, anti-tank rockets and other heavy arms used to equip a military during a civil war or conflict." Do you think that the weapons bought through morally-defenseless Texas women includes grenade launchers, TNT, machine guns, and anti-tank rockets? (Why did the author, Tala Dowlatshahi, include rifles among "other heavy arms" in that list?) The fact is, it would be impossible for those poor women to buy such things here, because it's illegal in the United States, and perhaps unlike Mexico, we tend to enforce those laws consistently. (On the other hand, I understand it's much easier to buy such things in Mexico.)

Consider that the same article claims that some of these "heavy arms" come into the hands of the illegitimate drug armies through the legitimate (but corrupt) Mexican army, and that an estimated 90% of firearms imports come from the United States, through a federal attempt to arm and train the Mexican military (called the Merida Initiative).

Now, do you suppose that 339 privately American-bought rifles or pistols over a 15-month period are more or less of a problem for the legitimate Mexican army than grenade launchers, TNT, machine guns, and anti-tank rockets? Bear in mind that most of those rifles or pistols must have come from either capturing or killing the illegitimate soldiers that carried them. Also bear in mind that these 339 traced firearms represent a miniscule number of weapons actually chosen in Mexico for tracing, the weapons more likely to be successfully traced than the thousands of weapons that were not chosen. Also bear in mind the difference in scale between the reported $340,000 "buying spree" and the reported $1.6 billion budget of the Merada Initiative. (Let's see... $1.6 billion divided by $340,000 equals... 4,705.)

The latter article mentions that the United Nations will be having a conference on disarmament in Mexico. No doubt there will be propaganda about how the United States is to blame for the warfare in Mexico, because we allow our own law-abiding citizens to obtain, keep, and even bear arms. Some of this propaganda has already been floated in our own federal government. But finally, consider this: if the Mexican problem arises from the constitutionally-protected freedom we enjoy in the United States, then why is that problem manifested in Mexico? If our freedom is the problem, then shouldn't we be the ones in a civil, shooting war? After all, the freedom exists here. Maybe instead of focusing on disarmament, the UN should help the Mexican government to arm and train all of its own law-abiding citizens. That might result in more peace south of the border, like we have now in the United States.