Ted Carnahan

A short blurb from an interesting article I stumbled across about the difference between Maintainance and Missional Congregations. The that reminded me most of something I’d seen before was #10:

10. When thinking about growth, the maintenance congregations asks, “How many Lutherans live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?” The mission congregation asks, “How many unchurched people live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?”

I think that churches are called to be community to one another (derisively called “Maintenance” in the article) and to reach out into the community to spread the Gospel (”Missional”). But Percy is right - too often our attitudes turn inward, and as we get caught up in our own internal issues, we lose sight of our mission in the community. It doesn’t have to be that way.

The definition of human life is not without controversy, and especially with the arguments surrounding the proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 in Missouri, it’s important to examine.

Definitions of human life or personhood proposed in this debate can be categorized into particular deadlines (e.g. implantation, a certain fetal age, fetal viability outside the womb), collectively Time, particular circumstances (e.g. actually living outside the womb or not), collectively Location, or particular abilities (e.g. ability to breath without assistance, ability to have a heart beat), collectively Abilities. All of these definitions suffer from one fallacy: arbitrariness.

First, time. Impassioned arguments can be made for personhood beginning at conception, beginning within a few weeks with the beginning of embryonic heart or brain activity, at the point where the fetus is viable, at the moment of birth). But if personhood is based upon (always someone else’s) standard of time, what abuses do we see? We see late term abortion, where healthy, viable babies are delivered halfway, then murdered with scissors before they take their first breath. We see euthanasia, where families sue each other to decide whether an elderly family member should live or die. Time is an arbitrary standard, always defined chiefly in terms of someone else’s convenience.

Next, circumstances. What can be more arbitrary than the location of the baby? If a baby is partly in the womb when it is killed, it is legal abortion, but if the baby is completely out of the womb, it is illegal murder. Mere inches - and absolutely nothing else - span the gap between one and the other.

Finally, and most sinister, is the standard of abilities. What abilities make a person? Who gets to decide? What happens when someone grows old and doesn’t have the same abilities - whether that is being able to clean their house or being able to breath without assistance? One of the first eugenics programs run by the Nazis used this standard to justify killing the insane, the chronically ill, and the elderly. Unfortunately this story isn’t often told. For more information, I recommend the book Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by former President Ronald Reagan (interestingly, this book is the only book ever published by a US President while in office).

I am strongly pro-life based upon two standards. First, the Christian view of life is that all human life is created in God’s image, and therefore all human life is to be protected. Second, I think the most responsible response to the arbitrariness of the foregoing standards is to err on the side of the protection of life (the “principle of maximal life”). If there is any doubt as to the reliability of any standard, be it Time, Location, Ability, or anything else, then the most responsible choice is to choose the version of each standard which protects life the most. Therefore, we should treat human life as sacred, no matter how young or old, no matter where it is (in uterus or in hospice), no matter what it can do (breath or cry or feed itself).

The greatest risk that arbitrary standards for personhood run is that there will be a time when human life deserving personhood will not be given dignity and justice. Whether or not you agree that human life is created imago Dei (in the image of God), the priniciple of maximal life is still the principle most likely to grant personhood to everything which is actually a person, and therefore it is the most just standard we can ever apply.

Why is Michael J. Fox going on TV in Missouri supporting Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 2 when he hasn’t even read it?

Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I— On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.

Maybe if he read it, he’d realize that even though the ballot summary says it bans human cloning, the actual amendment makes it legal (it authorizes “somatic cell nuclear transfer” which is cloning). And it doesn’t even define “clone” in a scientifically accurate way (see section 6-2)

What business does Fox have supporting an amendment that he admits he hasn’t even read?

Important information on Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2

There are number of blog posts out there that mention --lock-all-tables as a good option to backup MySQL tables with mysqldump - even InnoDB tables. Don’t do that! That option is for MyISAM tables that don’t do transactions. InnoDB has ooey-gooey transactional goodness that will take a consistant backup without locking all your tables and keeping your applications from running in the meantime. Just do your InnoDB hot backups like this:

mysqldump -u USERNAME -p --add-drop-table --add-locks --create-options --disable-keys --extended-insert --quick --set-charset –single-transaction –all-databases | gzip > OUTPUTFILE

Then viola! No nasty table locks!

But not just any artificial dangly bits. According to NPR this evening on the way home, “Neuticles” are (and you can’t make this stuff up) “the Cadillac of Prosthetic Dog Testicles.” Apparently some men are so completely insecure about neutering their pets that they are willing to spend as much as $1000 to replace their pets missing nuts with the equivalent of silicon breast implants.

Grow up, man up, and do like Bob Barker. Help control the pet population. Have your pets spayed or neutered.

And don’t feel the need to replace what you remove. They won’t miss them. Promise.

Unfortunately, three facts have gone unacknowledged in the debate over Missouri’s proposed constitutional amendment 2 in the upcoming midterm elections.

1. There is no established scientific reason why any therapy possible with embryonic stem cells would be impossible with adult stem cells. A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell - a cell that could become any other cell.
2. While there are over 50 proven treatments which use adult stem cells, there are no treatments using embryonic stem cells which have been approved by the FDA. Moreover, the big problem is that embryonic stem cells cause cancer.
3. No matter where the embryo comes from - whether the product of a sperm or an egg or the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer (aka “cloning”), an embryo is a genetically unique organism, capable of developing into a human being. Such a thing is, like you and me, created in the image of God, and ought to be respected and protected.

This debate isn’t just about embryonic stem cells, of course. I oppose the amendment because it is only designed to give up the right of Missouri to choose for itself different policies than the rest of the country. This is an issue of states’ rights - should we be allowed in the future to make decisions about stem cell treatments, or do we choose now to let the federal government impose a policy upon us in the future?

Proponents of this amendment are like those who are afraid of what will happen when Roe v. Wade is reversed. Reversing Roe v. Wade won’t immediately illegalize abortion across the United States. It will give the states the right to choose their own policies. Why is it that people who say they are in favor of “choices” oppose this one? What are they afraid of?

For another Christian perspective on Missouri Amendment 2, visit this site.

Jennifer and I stopped a few days ago at Backyard Burgers for a quick dinner, and were behind two people ordering for what I can only guess was a big party or a lot of coworkers. Their bill came to $100, so no wonder it took a while to get everything ordered and prepared. There was a long line forming behind us, but it didn’t seem to me like anyone was in a big hurry. Nevertheless, the manager came around to several of the tables while we were waiting for our food to be brought out and offered us coupons for free burgers to make up for the wait. I wasn’t all that irritated, but that manager definitely went out of his way to make things right, and we appreciated it.

I think that the church can learn from that. We can either put our heads down, do the minimum we can get away with, and be mediocre, or we can go the extra mile by doing our best, putting others first, and trying to make things right when we fail.

I got a letter on Friday telling me that my just-past-extended-warranty Dell Inspiron 5150 that died of overheating would be repaired for free by Dell. Apparently, they decided to settle the class action lawsuit, rather than fight the legal battle (which they would have lost, as my overheated lap and broken computer can attest).

So instead of a painful call to technical support involving a woman trying to sell me a new battery (hint: when the computer won’t start with or without the battery, it’s probably not the battery), I told them to send me a box, and they said “OK.”

Jennifer and I tried really bad food from Red Burrito the other day. I ordered a burrito combo, but instead I got what tasted like leftover burger meat (Red Burrito is co-branded with Hardee’s) wrapped in a dried-out tortilla. It came with plastic beans with cold cheese on top, and some very disagreeable “spanish rice.” It was served with love in a styrofoam to-go container which had the lid ripped off (and in the process, they managed to rip the styrofoam all the way down to the table — mmm, sanitary).

It gets worse. Jennifer ordered “nachos.” It’s very important for you to notice the scare quotes around “nachos.” I generally define nachos, at a minimum, as having chips with cheese on them. There was no cheese on these nachos. When we asked the people at the counter about the cheese, they said that they were out of it. How did the cold cheese get on my beans, then? Edit: They were out of guacamole too. Some nachos!

Red Burrito? More like Wretched Burrito.

After five hours of debate last night, the City of Columbia, MO passed a smoking ordinance forbidding smoking in any public establishment (including restaurants). Hooray!

I’ve heard a lot of people complaining, saying that it violates peoples’ rights. What about the rights of restaurant employees, asthmatics, and people suffering from emphysema to breath?