John 8:7 (American Standard Version)
But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
A controversy is happing in Canada. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a man who fought for the right for women to get abortions on demand, is receiving the Order of Canada. Many are unhappy with this.
First, the argument is being made that the Order of Canada is a positive award to unite the country, not to create division, as his appointment has clearly done.
Second, many feel that abortion does not protect the rights of the unborn, whose lives begin at conception, not at birth. Our legal system calls an unborn human a fetus to strip it of its identity.
Get into a discussion with people who condone abortion and you hear the “what ifs” come out of the box. What if the woman was raped, and even worse, by her father? Guess what? I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but I can counter with a few “what ifs”.
What if the only reason the woman wants an abortion is that she doesn’t want to look fat? What if she wants to terminate a life so she can go out partying and potentially get pregnant again? What if the reason is that she doesn’t want to give birth is that it is the wrong gender? This is happening in countries like India and China where sons are valued more than daughters.
However, I want to get back to the casting the first stone business. Many letters to the editor of the Toronto Star today accused a Catholic priest of casting the first stone. What right did he have to protest Morgentaler being inducted into the Order of Canada when the Catholic Church had committed so many of its own sins?
Personally, I don’t know that one Catholic priest can be held responsible for all of the sins of the Catholic Church. I find that a bit unfair.
People often use the “casting the first stone” argument because they want the other person to stop telling them they are doing something wrong. They want to silence him, and usually because the arguments are cutting a bit too close to the bone. “What right do you have to tell me that I am doing wrong when you have flaws, too?”
First, let’s get something straight. The men who confronted Jesus were about to kill this woman. They weren’t merely trying to slap her on the wrist. In fact, they were setting him up by quoting the Law of Moses, which meant that a woman caught in adultery should be stoned. They conveniently forgot that the man caught in the act should have suffered the same fate.
This is when Jesus said the words about the person without sin should cast the first stone. He saw through the purpose of their confrontation. It was to try to discredit him, not to deal with the woman.
Next, while Jesus did not condemn her, many forget that he told her to go and sin no more. In other words, he said, “You are doing wrong. Stop it!” He certainly didn’t condone what she did and he didn’t say, “Look, I realize that you are only human. What you are doing is quite natural and it is love (in once sense of the word), so I will keep on forgiving you without any consequences, because I understand the temptation.” How convenient is it to forget his response.
If I take the suggestion that because I am not perfect I shouldn’t pass any judgement on anyone, then as a schoolteacher, I should not try to stop the bully from picking on others. I shouldn’t try to prevent any behaviour that will hinder learning in the classroom. And why? Because I have made mistakes, too, and I shouldn’t cast the first stone. I have no right to do so.
As far as I am concerned, stating an opinion is not casting the first stone. My intention is not to kill somebody, nor condemn him or her. However, I do not intend to sit idly by and allow injustice to occur, either.
I accept that people don’t like others to tell them that they are doing wrong. I don’t like them telling me I am wrong either, but that’s the chance I take with people I really love. I don’t condone things that may potentially hurt them. Granted, I need to work on my delivery at times, but I did mention that I am not perfect either, right?
Clare Hoy, a Canadian journalist, once said that just because you accept something happening in society doesn’t mean you have to condone it.
If I raise my voice in protest (I am a product of the 60s), though, please don’t accuse me of casting the first stone. By making that statement, are you not casting a stone at me? And feel free to try to correct me of my wrongdoings. I may snarl a bit if you try, but I can’t think of a true friend who hasn’t tried to steer me in the right direction occasionally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Johnny V..we may not agree with the actual procedure when it comes to terminating a pregnancy..but I am sure that it must be a difficult one for anyone in the situation. However, we must respect the right to choose and that is what Dr M got the award for..for providing the choice to women who otherwise might die in a dark dirty room because they had no alternative. God bless any woman who is so desparate that she must make the choice to end a life barely begun....but it must be her right, none the less.
The church should take a long hard look at itself before making decisions for others.
A few things.
1. While I might respect the right for somebody to make a decision, that doesn't mean I have to respect the decision. I have no respect for somebody who aborts a baby merely because it is a girl, which happens in a few countries.
2. Yes, we hear of the back-alley deaths that happened in the past, but few talk about the near-birth abortions that take place. Few people actually know what takes place during an abortion. Also, few talk about the emotional issues that many women suffer from after their abortions. These need to be considered, too.
3. As far as the church making decisions, people seem to have no problem with respecting the values of religions that advocate wearing turbans and daggers, but when it comes to Christian values, there is suddenly a problem. If we live in a free society, then all viewpoints must be considered. I find it amusing that there are people who are against the death penalty, but for abortion. There are vegetarians because they don't want to see animals killed who have no problem with a human life being terminated. Yes, there are many "what ifs", but I have been told that in some countries, abortion is a form of birth control. At the end of the day, you have to decide whether taking that life is right or wrong. Yes, the woman can decide, but that still doesn't make the decision right or wrong. Most church-going people who believe that abortion is wrong are not brainwashed. They sincerely think it is wrong to take a human life. Is there something wrong with that? Again, people who warn against the church making comments are usually just trying to silence a viewpoint they don't agree with by pointing out the flaws in the church. Even if I am a thief, that doesn't mean that I don't think it is wrong.
4. I guess the United States should give Dr. Kevorkian an honour, too. He assists people in terminating their own lives. The argument is that they should have the decision to end their own lives and stop suffering. My argument is not whether they should have this choice, but whether we should honour that person with one of the highest awards in the land when so many people are against it. One can't deny the importance of Mortgantaler; people do have the right to protest against it (or do they without facing ridicule?).
5. What's wrong with having the baby and letting people adopt it? Marie and I have tried to adopt. When Mother Teresa visited Ottawa, somebody asked her about this issue. Her reply was, "Give the babies to me."
6. A lot of the back-alley abortions were performed years ago because "good girls" didn't get pregnant. That stigma is much less in today's society. There is also much more support for people to have their children in safer environments.
So, while I respect your opinion by considering your arguments, I don't fully agree with it. My bottom line is that too many abortions are happening that are not necessary and other options are not often considered.
My assumption in the casting of the first stone is that these men were actually going to kill this woman for an act that some, if not all, of them were guilty of themselves. In other words, the punishment was going to be unjust.
Hi John...sorry I didnt get to read this earlier..dead on..Dr K should be honored too....people should be given the honor of choosing for themselves...no matter what...if anyone is to judge them, that person is not on this earth.
PattiO
Then how do we honour the unborn child's honour of choosing?
Read Johnny V's April 12th blog. Too often people use the "you have no right to judge others" argument and pass this duty on to some higher power, which in many cases means nothing because many of these people do not believe in a higher power.
We judge others all the time. It's a fact of life.
Just because I think doing something is wrong does not mean I don't have love or respect for that person. Quite the contrary. If I think my friends are screwing up, I tell them, and if they go ahead and do wrong anyway, I still love them.
Post a Comment