Saturday, July 01, 2006

Personhood NOT vested at conception?

A few quotes from the "Excerpts From Opinions on the Use of Military Commissions to Try Detainess", New York Times, June 30, 2006.

Scalia wrote in his dissent:
"We should undertake to determine whether an unlawful combatant has been charged with an offense against the law of war with an understanding that the common law of war is flexible, responsive to the exigencies of the present conflict, and deferential to the judgement of the military commanders."
Emphasis added. Does anyone else shudder here? He makes reference to a "common law of war" which trumps the Geneva Conventions. This man seriously gives me doubts as to whether the pro-life position could be morally incorrect. Even as I have come closer to a moral position of "personhood vested at conception" on the abortion issue, the fact that men such as Scalia would be its such ardent supporters causes me to take serious pause. Not that the Democratic party is correct on abortion, but that a moral necessity is first to be virulenty against a certain sector of Republicanism. Maybe somewhere out there there is a "bloody evil, misanthropic pro-life position," and a "God-fearing, non-neighbor-hating, pro-life position."

Meanwhile, Justice Paul Stevens writes for the majority:
"We need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not one between signatories. Article 3... provides that in a "conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, 'certain provisions protecting' [p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by... detention.' ONe such provision prohibits 'the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.'"

Emphasis added. The question is to what extent the present form of the Christian church on earth has numbed folks against the law written on the heart, common decency, yea even the values of the Declaration of Independence, such that when a group of them gather you might need to fear the value positions they espouse. They that might excuse horrors that offend values recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Don't get me wrong. I still believe that some kind of Eternal One Out There speaks truthfully through the bible, not only in bible as Word and as Cradle of Christ but also in bible as papyrus-- the actual literal words on paper handed down to us. I believe that the Book of Concord and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church are to be found in the list of correct descriptions of the theology in that Bible. If however you are to recommend the opinions of a professor, the Boy Scout troop led by a particular man, or even some guys' lawn services on the basis of any one of them being Christian, I am first and foremeost dubious, given the climate we are in.

No comments: