You don't want your children sitting on these politicians' laps...

I recently came across an online newspaper article concerning the admission of a Paedophile political party in the Netherlands being given the green light to contest in the next General Elections (to view article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html) .

Although disgusted, I found myself somewhat unsurprised. Afterall, the Netherlands were the first country that I’m aware of to legalise things Marijuana smoking, Gay marriages and even Euthanasia, it seems like only a matter of time. It seemed like if it had to happen anywhere, it would happen in the Netherlands. Afterall, if I do remember correctly, there was an openly homosexual politician who almost contested in the last election! (unfortunately, he was murdered!)

Over the last few days I decided to revisit some of the papers I had written and research I had done during my days in law school ( I think that its is something worthwhile doing – revisiting my views, beginning the questioning process again, and perhaps revising some of one’s views). The one area that I had spent a significant amount of time dealing with was the subject of abortion and euthanasia. In almost every year of law school, I managed to write at least one paper which dealt in some way with that subject. In the first year, it was in relation to the Criminal Justice System. In my second year, it was in relation to Medical Law. In my final year, it was used as an example in one of my two undergraduate dissertations – incidentally on Christian Jurisprudence.

Surprisingly, I haven’t really thought about or looked into the subject since I finished my undergraduate studies – I guess I know the reasons why, but will remain undisclosed for now. However, as I began to read up and think about the subject again, which realised that although my views on abortion and euthanasia have not changed, I found myself having a little mixed feelings about whether I think the law itself should be changed.

I mean, its certainly one thing to be able to argue that something like abortion is morally wrong because one is killing either an innocent baby, its quite another to consider the implications if it were outlawed. Abortion is already legalised in most countries, and widely accepted. Supposing that Christians and other pro-life activists are able to achieve a change in the law, what can they do about the fact that a large percentage of the worldwide population do not believe that the act is immoral? And if people do not believe it to be immoral, but merely an exercise in personal autonomy or a convenient method of ridding oneself of life’s common mistakes, how are we going to prevent them from finding an alternative means to get it done? And wouldn’t it be worse if people had abortions done illegally (this would in most cases certainly be in un-sanitised conditions and therefore be even more dangerous).

Of course these questions are nothing new. There, along with many others like it, have been used time and time to justify the case for the legality (and perhaps morality) of abortion. However, I did not expect to find myself sympathetic to the course. I found myself “wanting” there to be a way in which I can reconcile the two – a way in which everything could be work perfectly. But such a thing does not exist.

As I began to ponder on it further, I began to rediscover the reasons for my convictions – Life is Sacred – and any dispatching of an innocent human life is unacceptable. If it was a genuine mistake made by two horny teenagers, then shouldn’t they learn to own up to the responsibilities and accept the consequences of their actions? If it was really the result of a rape, should the woman be allowed to take it out on another innocent human being? Afterall, being a victim of any other crime such as a robbery certainly does not give us the right to commit a criminal act against another innocent party – this is basic common sense isn’t it? Every action produces consequences, if you’ve been robbed, it is quite likely that you would sustain some form of financial hardship as a result. It obviously isn’t fair, but that’s a fact of life. If you were shot, stabbed, and raped – the consequences are physical. You didn’t ask for it, but it happened. You can’t do anything about it, and you certainly should not have the right to take it out against someone else, especially not by committing an act of violence against an innocent party!

This led me to another issue though, which was how the Christian should respond to such laws. Well, first, the easy one. If a Christian found himself/herself in such a situation, he/she should accept the responsibility to care for the child. The fact that the law allows one to have an abortion does not necessarily mean that one should exercise that legal right.

Now comes the one that is more difficult (and I must confess, the one I’m, more interested in) – should Christians canvass to have the law changed. This is where I saw the conflict remember?

On the one hand, I’m a believer that Christians would do well to stay away from politics. However, I realised that this is probably because I have noticed many Christians, especially in America, who engage in political activism and continually make a nuisance of themselves and seemingly never actually achieve anything. So many Christian organisations have been set up, demonstrations carried out and petitions raised to challenge government policies with no or limited success.

But, I then realised that its not so much the idea of Christians seeking to effect a change in the law that I was adverse to but rather the method in which it is normally carried out. Well-intentioned people often do cause the most damage.

So if Christians want to effect a change in the law, how are they to go about it? Well, I think they the first thing that we need to do is research the subject thoroughly (often times this portion is overlooked – although it is probably the most important bit!). By this I mean that we are to examine the issue in its entirety. The next thing that we need to do is remove the trappings of a religious challenge. What I mean by this is that if we cast ourselves as Christians challenging a particular law on the basis on what the Bible says, then we beg the question, what about the non-believers? Should they listen? Should they be made to submit to a God that they do not acknowledge and accept?

Don’t be too quick to say “yes”. Think about it.

It seems to me that this is one of the main reasons why Christians fail to make a successful contribution to the laws of the country in which they live and why they fail to get a fair hearing too. If we examine that argument more closely, it does begin to sound a little like an uncompromising, proud, intolerant and insolent little child who demands to get his way. Is it any wonder why they don’t listen? That they accuse Christians of being bigoted?

How do I think that a Christian should respond? I remember that this very question was what prompted me to always attempt to deal with those topics in an objective position. I never used the bible explicitly. This was not because I was ashamed of the bible, certainly not! But my rationale was that if the bible is true, then it would not be a stretch of the imagination that the available facts would support its conclusions. This provided me with the much needed common ground to engage people in an open discussion, because let’s face it – the mere mention of the bible and/or Christian is bound to make some people completely closed to anything else that proceeds from your mouth thereafter. The point of that our conclusions can and probably will be based on our Christian beliefs, but we can and probably should, use extra-biblical means when we reason with those outside the faith. Afterall, doesn’t all of nature and even the heavens declare the glory of God and the works of His hands?

I believe that this is probably the main reason why the Intelligent Design advocates are experiencing some measure of success in America. I had the opportunity to meet and speak to one of the advocates – a Christian, a highly-respected legal academic by the name of Philip E. Johnson. In his books and other writings one issues such as this, there is little, if any, reference being made to God or the bible. And this in fact, adds credibility and acceptance to their cause (which simply is that evolution cannot fully account for the existence of life and that the evidence suggests a case for an intelligent designer). Because, if I accept the evidence, I could possibly accept Intelligent Design without being a Christian – something that we Christians would do well to realise are two distinct things. If a Christian read his books, it would not be difficult at all to know where Johnson gets his inspiration and guidance – his own Christian beliefs!