Health care adherence and responsibility

A recent study published in PLoS Medicine confirms what has previously been thought by those working in African health field. Adherence to antiretroviral (Anti-HIV) medication in Africa is high (> 90%) and higher than the West. After several hundred interviews the reasons were documented. Summarising the responses,

[Medication] adherence through a number of deliberate strategies aimed at prioritizing adherence: borrowing and “begging” transport funds, making “impossible choices” to allocate resources in favor of treatment, and “doing without.” Prioritization of adherence is accomplished through resources and help made available by treatment partners, other family members and friends, and health care providers. Helpers expect adherence and make their expectations known, creating a responsibility on the part of patients to adhere. Patients adhere to promote good will on the part of helpers, thereby ensuring help will be available when future needs arise.

I am not certain how robust this study was, nor whether other factors (age, religion, sex, income, etc.) were adequately addressed, but it is interesting that the high adherence was due to perceived responsibility of action.

Relationships confer responsibility in addition to providing resources. Recipients of help must recognize what they receive and reciprocate. To ignore these responsibilities is to risk resentment on the part of helpers.

It is their sense of duty within the domain of immediate family, supporters and community. There is no disconnect created by involving the government as an intermediary. When others help directly there is a sense of reciprocality. Not necessarily that one has to do the exactly the same as others, rather that one should do his duty in response to others.

I believe that when antiretrovirals have been scarce or expensive, the choice to medicate one patient funded by other patients who were not receiving treatment meant that the survivor would likely care for the non-survivors' kin. So an expectation is on the treated person to comply so that he will indeed survive.

Interestingly another article in the same edition compared health outcomes in children for user pays medicine and free health care. There was no difference in rate of illness. The authors wrote,

This lack of any effect of being randomised to free health care on health outcomes is unexpected, since there has always been an assumption that increased access as a result of free health care improves health.

Though the free care group used significantly more services!

People are capable of caring for themselves (if they have the resources). They are able to be responsible for their care and respond to reasonable community expectations.

Government intervention is mostly unnecessary—at least in illness; however it is likely the attribute of self care and responsibility extends beyond health behaviour.

(Not to mention the government cash savings by leaving the funding private. And, as usual, private investment is more efficient: in this case same outcome for probable lower cost—I am using attendance as a proxy for cost.)

Obeying the Law thru faith

I was listening to a talk recently about understanding the Law. He discussed many of the issues such as type and antitype, old covenant and new covenant and gave a helpful distinction between covenant and dispensational theology. What struck me however was a helpful comment about sacrifice.

Post crucifixion we live under grace. It is not our obedience to the Law that saves us, rather our trust in Christ. Actually it is not our trust that saves us, rather we trust in Christ's salvation that he obtained thru death.

Now Paul says that not only can the Law not save us, it was never intended to.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. (Galatians 3)

Much has been written about law and grace. What I specifically want to address is faith for those under the Law. Paul makes it quite clear that men are and always have been saved via faith. We have faith in Christ now. The ancients had faith in God then. Habakkuk mentions the righteous will live by faith (Habakkuk 2) and Paul reminds us that Abraham was justifed prior to the Law (Romans 4). I have no difficulty agreeing with what Paul is claiming, what I found difficult to marry is his claim about the Law being unable to save, and commands in the Torah suggesting otherwise.

"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

"See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. (Deuternomy 30)

Paul mentions there was nothing wrong with the Law. It wasn't unable to save us, obeying the Law could save but it is sin that is in us that prevents us obeying the Law. And the curses and cautions in the Law allude to God's knowledge that the Israelites would fail. Nevertheless, there seems to be the suggestion in passages such as Deuteronomy 30 and others that the Israelites were able to obey the Law and live by it.

The insight given by the recent talk was the issue of sacrifice. It was offering sacrifices which was the activity of faith by which the people under the Law were saved.

I think that all men at all times are saved by faith. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Queen Sheba, the Ninevites, and all the Israelites who trusted in God. So how does this work under the Law?

The term "Law" has multiple uses. It applies to the Torah as a whole: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It also applies to the specific commands contained within the last 4 books that God gave at Sinai and during the following 40 years. These laws are often divided into moral, civil, and ceremonial. Included in this, or in addition to them, are the laws surrounding sacrifice. What to offer, why to offer, and how to prepare sacrifices and participate in them.

One can consider the Law here as a set of rules, and the sacrifice as the mechanism of forgiveness for breaking the rules. We have a set of rules that God knows the Israelites cannot keep (due to sin, not due to the Law) and a mechanism for which forgiveness can be obtained.

For these ancient Hebrews it was not obedience to the rules that saved them, it was faith in the sacrifice that saved them.

This is the key point.

They had to trust God that the sacrifice that he had specified would somehow remove their offence. We understand now that the particular sacrifices in themselves did not take away their sins (Hebrews 10), rather they just were the type pointing to the true sacrifice of Christ. Whatever clarity, or lack thereof, they had at that time concerning the animal sacrifices is less important than the faith they had in the God who had appointed the sacrifices; the God who told them that this was the path of redemption.

Israelites prior to Christ knew that all men were sinners.

Enter not into judgment with your servant,/
for no one living is righteous before you. (Psalm 143)

"If they sin against you— for there is no one who does not sin..." (1 Kings 8)

Behold, you were angry, and we sinned;/
in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved?/
We have all become like one who is unclean,/
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment./
We all fade like a leaf,/
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64)

The Law was never given to save people and it was never suggested that they could fully obey it, even at the time it was given by Moses. It was understood at the time of Moses that people cannot obey the Law, that is why the sacrifices were mandated at the same time the Law was given.

Random quote

To expect to learn anything about important theological problems from Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett is like expecting to learn about medieval history from someone who had only read Robin Hood.

Rodney Stark

Portfolios for Africa

The New Zealand government has ministries in the following areas

1. Accident Compensation
2. Agriculture
3. Archives New Zealand*
4. Arts, Culture and Heritage
5. Biosecurity*
6. Broadcasting
7. Building and Construction*
8. Civil Defence*
9. Climate Change Issues
10. Commerce*
11. Communications and Information Technology
12. Community and Voluntary Sector
13. Conservation*
14. Consumer Affairs*
15. Corrections*
16. Courts*
17. Customs*
18. Defence*
19. Disability Issues
20. Disarmament and Arms Control
21. Economic Development
22. Education*
23. Education Review Office
24. Energy and Resources
25. Environment
26. Ethnic Affairs
27. Finance*
28. Fisheries
29. Food Safety*
30. Foreign Affairs*
31. Forestry
32. Health*
33. Housing
34. Immigration*
35. Infrastructure*
36. Internal Affairs*
37. Justice*
38. Labour*
39. Land Information*
40. Law Commission
41. Local Government*
42. Maori Affairs
43. National Library
44. Pacific Island Affairs
45. Police*
46. Racing
47. Regulatory Reform*
48. Research, Science and Technology
49. Revenue*
50. Rugby World Cup
51. Senior Citizens
52. Small Business
53. Social Development and Employment
54. Sport and Recreation
55. State Owned Enterprises*
56. State Services
57. Statistics*
58. Tertiary Education
59. Tourism
60. Trade*
61. Transport*
62. Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations*
63. Veterans’ Affairs
64. Women’s Affairs
65. Youth Affairs

As well as Ministers responsible for the following services

1. New Zealand Security Intelligence Service*
2. Government Communications Security Bureau*

I have placed an asterisk next to the areas that I think it reasonable for the government to assign ministry oversight. The number I have marked is large, but nearly so as the 67 there are! However I have caveats to my selections.

Several of them could be combined. Commercial disputes can be under a single umbrella; eg. Consumer Affairs, Building and Construction, Commerce. National Library and Archives. The Courts could possibly be combined with Corrections, though stay separated from Policing.

Some could be much smaller in scope. Health could be oversight of individual health funds and insurances with a review of fund managers/ insurance providers if necessary. Monitoring health workers could continue. But the provision and funding of health could be completely privatised.

Education could be privatised with government monitoring funding via a voucher system for school or home school options. Overview of education minimised to gross dereliction of duty.

Some Infrastructure and Transport may require oversight but tolling for revenue should be maximised.

Regulatory Reform is necessary to remove a lot of previous red tape!

Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is required because it is a treaty. Though finalising of restitution should be sort. I don't think a separate portfolio for Maori is probably necessary but may (or may not) be sensible while the Maori seats continue.

Overall I think the government is trying to take far too much responsibility for things that it need not and often times should not concern itself with.

Which of the above areas do you think the government should or should not concern itself with? Are there some areas it should that are not currently being covered?

Charity police

Jugulum makes an interesting observation. I have noticed this but I wonder if it is predominantly confined to Christian blogs. Blogmasters vary in what they expect of commenters; some blogs are freer in the range of tone, though curt language tends to be less tolerated from newbies and will likely result in a response in kind. Others expect more courtesy and will remove offence or ban offenders. What is amusing are commenters whose sensitivity buttons are grossly oversized. They expect kind language but are harsh in enforcing it. Jugulum notes,

If you read many blogs on the internet, you will find people who speak very uncharitably–they’re constantly unnecessarily harsh in tone and unreasonable in how they interpret others. You will also find people who are obsessed with accusing others of being uncharitable. You can call them charity police. And those guys can be some of the least charitable people around–accusing others of uncharity at the drop of a hat or the slightest hint of language that isn’t excessively polite. Majorly unreasonable & oversensitive.

This often true. Most of the problem with charity police resides in their own personalities.

I will add that exacerbating the problem is that text communication is intrinsically blunt. Thus one finds his comments less blunt due to the fact he is writing what he is thinking and others' comments more blunt because he is reading what they are writing. One should reread what he has written to get an idea of tone. Always assume the tone is slightly harsher than it reads. If you think someone will find your comment a little blunt and you don't know how to tone in down, consider using (as much as I am not particular fan of them) emoticons.

Does the Bible reflect modern science?

I was hoping to discuss some ideas about ancient cosmology at some stage. In the meantime Greg has raised the more fundamental issue of presuppositions and modern evangelicals. My initial response is below though some items may need clarification.

Greg: ...you seem to be concerned with the idea that the Bible has to reflect our current understanding of the world in order for it's inerrency and infallibility to be upheld.

Well actually my view of Scripture means that I reject a lot of current popular theory. While I accept the world is spherical, I reject Darwinism which is by far the most popular understanding in modern science concerning the origin and development of the biosphere.

Your bias is constrained to a specific view of inerrency. He may prefer another, but each one tips either of you in a particular direction and to a particular interpretation that satisfies the requirements of that inerrency.

I presume "he" in this sentence refers to Gier. I am aware of different views. See here for inerrancy and infallibility. I also have a pastor who is neither a inerrantist nor a creationist whom I sit under quite happily. While I think that some passages appear difficult with an inerrant approach, I think that their resolution leads to deeper understanding of the way of God. This has occurred enough for me that initially contradictory passages do not send me reeling each time I come across one. I tend to look deeper into the context and some inferences turn out to not exist. We can read more into a passage than is often there.

More importantly, I think Scripture points to an inerrantist approach. See my comments on Jesus' interaction with the Sadducees.

An aside, be careful how you use the term inerrancy, it has a meaning. If you propose another meaning preferably use a different word. Even the word "infallibility" seems to imply inerrancy however it has a theological definition that specifies inerrant doctrine which potentially allows for error of fact.

This concerns me because I see an initiative to interpret passages in a certain way that conforms it to modern science,

The idea that anyone before Bacon really understood science quite the way we do is questionable. I think you are better to talk about the worldviews of then and now. Even Gier uses the term pre-scientific which is better though can still be misleading. I am more concerned about having a biblical worldview than a Western one. While the current Western worldview gets much wrong, it is important to realise that the Western worldview developed from Christianity—likely with some added Greek philosophy (to its detriment I think). Because of this the Western worldview is very Christian unlike many other cultures including pre-Christian Europe and Briton.

You will need to give examples of specific passages.

when an interpretation that draws from the science of their day explains it much better.

Except is the interpretation drawing from their day? Much of what I see is a later construct of what the ancients supposedly thought based on a hyperliteralist interpretation of ancient literature.

I see this a lot in the church, and once again, if I am wrong about you, I apologize.

You may be correct about me, though I give my views considered thought.

A modern person who wishes to explain scripture in light of modern science has the burden of proof upon them first.

Why? If Scripture is consistent with modern science why insist on a different interpretation just to make it inconsistent?

They need to show how an ancient person could have known what we know,

This assumes an anti-supernatural bias. If God created the universe he is more knowledgeable about its intricacies than every scientist combined. God can reveal material that happens to be factually correct, even if simplified. I am not stating that this has to be the case, rather pointing out the bias which insists on human authorship sans divine authorship. Scripture suggests both human and divine. Peter adds that prophets did not always understand everything about their message (1 Peter 1). I am not suggesting that the message of the prophets was differential mathematics and quantum physics, just the importance of divine authorship.

what benefit it provided the ancients,

It may not offer a benefit, it may just be an accurate report.

why God would only make it truly relevant to moderns in the West,

Examples such as?

and why the church missed these interpretations all this time and had to wait until the 20th century before science could shed light on things.

The church didn't. My previous post on the flat earth mentioned that theologians in general did not teach a flat earth. Several appealed to Scripture to "prove" geocentricism. The fact they could only do so by appealing to poetical passages should have been a concern. Both hyperliteralism (including the Jews) and over-allegorising have been practised in interpretation, but that does not deny that Scripture can be understood. Moderns possibly do this less than some previous generations. Though there is a trend to turn historical narrative into symbolic language.

This comment also seems to contradict your earlier comment,

Going forward we as Christians must always be willing to follow where God's Word leads us and not be afraid to discard tradition if a new understanding can fit the picture better. Many doctrines, or the expression and depth of understanding concerning them, have developed, been lost and found again numerous times throughout our history. There is always the possibility old understandings will crumble in the face of new discoveries.

While I agree with discarding tradition, I am cautious about new interpretations. They may exist but one would want very good evidence.

On a slightly tangential but important note—and this does not apply to the shape of the earth—part of my concern is how little people understand the types of science. Operational and historical science are quite different and a reasonable argument can be made that the latter is not strictly science. Historical science is a claim about history. It is a claim that can be refuted by eyewitness testimony.

For example scientific examination of Jericho cannot "prove" Joshua did not raze it. Both are claims in the same realm: historical truth. One is just playing a contemporary witness off against a non-contemporary interpreter. Either the first is a liar or the latter is mistaken in his interpretation of his findings.

Presuppositions are important. I think there is good reason to hold to inerrancy based on how Jesus and the apostles viewed Scripture. I think the Bible is historical and that it is correct when it makes historical claims. I think it important to understand what the author intended and the cultural situation into which he spoke. I disagree (in general) with hyperliteralism, but I think the bigger problem in this age is the priority of secular theory and hence unwarranted claims of symbolism, the explosion of interpretations, the invention of hermeneutic principles, the cherry picking of Scripture, the holding of contradictory ideas and anything else that lets us hold on to our favourite ideas; be that psychological, biological, sociological, political or any other theory which we cherish.

Random quote

Trying to thwart powerful interests by creating more power elsewhere has a very unfortunate history.

Carl V Phillips

What standards should the government concern itself with?

In a previous post I identified 3 principles from Amos that merchants should take note of when trading. They were:

1. Accurate labelling
2. Clear agreed price
3. Not passing off refuse for merchandise

One could argue that the third is a variation on the first.

How can we apply this to our current culture? Let's consider how salesmen may abuse these principles in the West.

Inaccurate labelling

This is difficult to do because of current law but examples could include:

• Jimmied scales
• Misquoting house or land area

Unclear agreed price

This is also difficult to do because our money does not have intrinsic value. Ignoring the prudence, or lack thereof, of this policy, this means that the value of cash in a single transaction is not usually disputed. There are however several actions which I think abuse the principle of agreed price. These are when there is an added cost that is not immediately apparent such as:

• Additional transaction costs
• Excluding sales tax
• Postage and packaging, especially when the item cannot be purchased without paying this and when the amount does not correspond to the true cost

Refuse for merchandise

I think there are several examples of these that currently occur

• Cars involved in previous undisclosed accidents
• Functionless fuel additives
• Liquid in food
• Air in food
• Sick livestock

Including these principles in law

Many of these issues can be avoided thru enforced labelling. This gives people relevant information on a product. It is hard for an individual to consider every product. This is why a Ministry of Standards is useful, they can research such things. The important thing is that people get what is agreed to. These are my introductory thoughts.

Foodstuffs

All food should be sold subject to weight or volume. Foods that are solid at room temperature should have weight included. Liquids at room temperature should be volumes. One could consider the addition of weight or volume based on the temperature sold at, so for some items both weight and volume would be required, i.e. frozen liquids.

All food labels should include a moisture content and air content (if relevant). If water is added it should be listed as an ingredient. Note that there may be nothing wrong with including water and air in food. Air makes for texture in ice cream and other desserts. Adequate labelling, such as selling ice cream by weight in preference to volume discourages abuse of this process.

Energy and macroingredients (fat, protein, carbohydrates, moisture) should be included on all labels. I am not certain if ingredient lists should be mandatory by law but as a consumer this is my personal preference.

Machinery and electronics

Objects should be assessed for relevant function. The attributes that contribute significantly to this function should be mandatory for labelling and an independent definitions should be used.

Objects that are not fully functional without additional items or purchases need to be clearly labelled.

It seems somewhat reasonable to specify expected lifetime of the equipment under normal use. It would be difficult for this to be enforced for individual items but appropriate for state prosecution if the majority of items fail prior to the specified lifetime.

Medications

Strength and range of strengths for individual doses should be noted. Example 50 mg (48–54 mg). Non-existent accuracy should not be implied by several significant figures for dosing. Side effects (absolute greater than placebo) should be documented to a set frequency, eg. 1%. Though serious events may need to be documented to a lower frequency.

Claims of benefit with no comparative studies can be made but mention of this should be required. Example: May aid sleep, no controlled studies comparing to placebo available.

What constitutes a medication versus a supplement and who should be allowed to prescribe presents a much larger question and probably fits the domain of a broad Medicine Act rather than a Standards Act.

Second hand items

This will depend on the item but a list of relevant disclosures could be mandatory. This is currently the case in this country with vehicles, probably because of their cost and previous abuses.

Pricing

All costs must be disclosed on saleable item. Quoting price with a disclaimer mentioning exclusions of unspecified costs should be forbidden. Granted sales tax goes to government and not to the business, but the customer still has to pay this figure. Quoting full price with the disclaimer "includes a sales tax of $x" is acceptable.

Exceptions may exist for international transactions where sales tax and postage will depend on the customers destination, though this could be easily addressed.

Caution

As mentioned in previous posts, this is about information the consumer needs to make an appropriate decision, it is not about setting what the minimum standard should be. One can insist that paper is labelled by the density (mass per square meter) without specifying what density paper should be sold at.

I also think that in general enforcement should be at the level of government rather than individual. Individuals fighting corporations in the courts are usually at a disadvantage. Individuals can choose to argue their case thru the courts if they wish, but bringing the matter to a regulatory body should be sufficient. It is too time consuming for an individual to fight over a few dollars, but worthwhile for a company. Because such episodes are unlikely to be isolated, a regulatory body would have powers to enforce appropriate action (relabelling products) and an appropriate fine if necessary.

Flat earth cosmology and other assumptions

Michael Patton posted recently that he thinks that people lose faith because of lack of discipleship and he mentioned in passing that Christians used to believe the world was flat. That Christianity didn't teach a flat earth doesn't change the thrust of his argument. Nevertheless, I offered my thoughts as this lie needs to die.

In response to this others claimed that the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Greg made this comment,

...the idea of a “flat” earth is presented in the Bible, simply because that’s how the people envisioned it back then. They’d go up onto a mountain top, look around, and see a round, disk-shaped earth. That’s all they knew, and God no where in His Word sought to obviously correct that understanding. I think any “scientific” statement in the Bible is best understood by the science of their day, not ours.

The cosmology presented in Genesis is incredibly similar to Egyptian and Babylonian cosmology. Not in its theology, just in its structure. Sometimes we like to think that the Israelites developed their culture and wrote the Bible in a vacuum, that there was no influence or sharing of ideas between others in that same era and geographical location.

I’ve noticed that Christians tend to try and explain this kind of stuff away so we can make the Bible conform to our modern understanding of science. We have this misplaced idea that to be reliable, the Bible needs to match our understanding of everything, or that if there’s some borrowed stuff from Babylon or Egypt that its any less inspired. We sometimes forget that the Bible was written for us, but not to us. God inspired in a manner that would be meaningful to ancient Israelites. He accommodated Himself to them by taking their cosmology and reinterpreting it in light of Himself.

Its really quite fascinating when you read Genesis with this in mind. You come across a whole mass of information and meaning that we moderns tend to overlook because we just don’t think that way anymore.

And he recommended the article A Common Cosmology of the Ancient World. I have only read some of this and would like to respond to it in more depth at a later stage. For now I wish to make a few comments about assumptions in Greg's quote and then a few thoughts on the flat earth question.

The phrase

any “scientific” statement in the Bible is best understood by the science of their day

poses problems. Firstly science in the modern sense dates back a few hundred years. Rather statements of this type in the Bible are factual claims. Granted they may come from inference rather than direct observation but they are not scientific in the way we understand the term. Further many modern "scientific" claims are claims of history not operational science. There is much truth in understanding the Bible on its own terms not ours, but "own terms" is about how the Bible uses language, not its objective claims. The ancient Israelite concept of what constitutes "life" may not fully correspond to ours, but Jesus either rose from the dead or he did not.

The related comment

He accommodated Himself to them by taking their cosmology and reinterpreting it in light of Himself.

is a significant claim. Agreed, God does not have to correct our misconceptions. And not doing so does not give tacit approval. But statement says that God tells us our misconceptions are correct when they are not. I disagree.

What about cultural influences?

Sometimes we like to think that the Israelites developed their culture and wrote the Bible in a vacuum, that there was no influence or sharing of ideas between others in that same era and geographical location.

I am not certain who holds to the Bible being written in a vacuum. Israel clearly interacts with the nations thru-out both Testaments. They constantly shared ideas with their neighbours, much to God's displeasure. The proposal that God hated the behaviour of the pagan nations and constantly told Israel not to emulate them and repeated told them not to worship foreign gods or adopt their practices, yet borrowed their incorrect structural cosmogony seems unlikely.

To flat-earthism. I note that the objection is a slightly different point to the one I made. I have previously posted that the sphericity of the earth was documented as least as early as 500 BC. Patton's comment was about Christianity teaching a flat earth. The history is that Christianity has, by and large, taught a spherical earth when addressing the topic. The most that can be said is that some argued against antipodean lands and/ or inhabitants for reasons unrelated to the earth's shape.

As mentioned, I hope to post later about the claim about the Bible teaching a flat earth. For now I have several general comments.

1. Because the flat-earth myth was invented by infidels in an attempt to discredit Christianity, in any discussion about earth topology Christianity should be given the benefit of the doubt.
2. Geocentricism is not the same as flat-earthism.
3. "Evolutionary thinking" is much more pervasive than we realise. For example the idea that polytheism developed into monotheism is an social evolutionary idea not a biblical one. The Bible suggests the reverse.
4. Why should every other text (and theory) be the standard to which the Bible is compared? If the Bible and any particular text disagree why is it assumed the Bible is in error?
5. Accounts recorded by Scripture and other cultures could be due to common memory. If there is borrowing going on it may be from the Bible (or possibly source texts in the case of Genesis) to other nations than vice versa. A comparison of texts is helpful.
6. We must be careful about forcing poetry. As I previously wrote:

   Poetry frequently talks about real events and uses literal wording at times. However features of poetry include the frequent use of symbolism and metaphor. When reading poetry it is important to understand the point being illustrated, not insist on the literal meaning of the underlying wording. If a poem uses a phrase that is intended to be literal or does indeed coincide with reality then it is not unreasonable to use the passage as support that the author understood this particular concept. It is not valid, however, to force literalism on a poetical passage.

Moral responsibility in combat

The second ethical issue that has become prominent during the Gaza/ Israel conflict is the death of civilians. Is there an excessive loss of civilian life in the conflict and who bears this responsibility?

Several issues have been raised that have bearing on the civilian question. These include:

1. The deliberate targeting of "enemy" civilians.
2. Combatants posing as civilians;
3. Combatants sending civilians into a known targeted sites to act as "shields";
4. Civilians choosing to go into known targeted sites to act as shields; and
5. Combatants choosing high density civilian areas and structures from whence to perform military operations and store munitions.
6. Planting explosives near civilians to maximise damage by enemy fire.
   

Similar to my previous post, a tally of numbers, while giving some information, is a simplistic way to analyse civilian casualties. It says that X number of civilians from territory A are dead. B is at war with A. Therefore B is responsible for X. This analysis lacks assessment for intention and assumes that the killer is morally responsible for the death.

Intention is important. One can argue whether or not an army deliberately targeting civilians is legitimate in war. The West generally condemns this action as morally wrong. While I am in general agreement with this, one could make an argument that it may be dependant on the choices "enemy" civilians make. But if we accept that intentional targeting of civilians is immoral then those who do so carry the guilt even if they are unsuccessful in their intent. That is, if they miss the target or strike the target but it has been evacuated such that no one is killed, the intent and attempt at civilian death is present. They should be thought of and treated similarly to any other group which accomplishes intentional civilian massacre. The lack of achievement of their goals does not remove their culpability.

Conversely, an attack that targets combatants yet also kills some civilians should be assessed based on the underlying intent. If the target is legitimate and attempts are made to minimising civilian death (while still achieving the objective) then these are unfortunate casualties of war. One can argue that minimisation was not done adequately such that civilian deaths were excessive for the particular objective, but it is difficult to argue that important targets cannot ever be targeted for risk of civilian death; if that is the case then the risk is all militarily important persons and equipment will be placed within these regions.

When the military chooses civilian infrastructure that civilians are using or are near to, such as hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, etc., then they are placing their own people at risk. If they are doing so in an attempt to minimise their enemy's response or maximise the moral outrage of allies when civilian deaths are publicised then they are making a strategic decision, but one that carries significant responsibility—the responsibility for the lives of those civilians. Whatever the guilt, or lack thereof, for the death of these civilians it lies primarily with the combatants and their commanders who have acted in this manner. There may be situations where opposing troops end up in populous regions but this is a different situation.

The moral responsibility for the death, injury or even risk when civilians are forced to act as human shields is clearly those doing the forcing. Though given that such civilians may switch allegiance in this situation it would be prudent for the opposing army to take this into consideration with regard to long term strategy.

However civilians who act as human shields voluntarily are in a different situation. One can argue how "voluntary" the action is, which is a legitimate concern; but in situations where civilians are doing this of their own volition they are actively participating in the war. They are not just choosing a side—many civilians are on the side of their own army, though not always—they are joining the battle and thus it could be argued that they have become combatants and as such are as legitimate a target as any soldier. Their blood is on their own head.

Combatants posing as civilians carry significant moral responsibility. Whereas a combatant hiding amongst civilians may be thought cowardly; one who disguises himself as a citizen such as a labourer, a merchant, a woman; or as a humanitarian worker such as an aid provider, a nurse, a doctor; while actively fighting places those people at risk. The reason for this is that they will subsequently all be seen as possible combatants. If 3 of 10 emergency food truck drivers are combatants who engage the enemy from this position, how is the enemy to know that the other 7 are not also combatants? If the real aid workers end up dead in the engagement then the blame is with the disguised combatants, not their enemies who fired the fatal bullets.

Lastly, intentionally increasing the death toll of your own citizens for propaganda purposes scarcely needs commenting on.

All this does not have significant bearing on the justice of one's cause nor the rightness of engaging in war. If your cause is wrong, even if you avoid civilian casualties, your cause is still wrong. If your cause is right, you can still make right and wrong decisions in how you seek your cause. We must be careful not to justify evil behaviour because we agree with the cause.

The principle of proportionality

Various commentators and news outlets have expressed opinions about the current conflict in Gaza. It is difficult to know all the relevant issues from a secular viewpoint with much misinformation, lies and propaganda.

On the side of the Palestinian cause are arguments about Israel blocking access along the borders of Gaza, specifically Egypt and the Mediterranean, and the involvement of Israel in creating their enemy. Arab support is also along the lines of mutual ancestry, mutual religion and mutual hatred for Israel.

On the side of the Israel cause are arguments about right of defence, right of conquest, larger concessions in negotiations. This on the background of a repeated stated desire of their enemies to completely annihilate them. There is some support from some advocates of democracy because of Israel's political structure. Several Christians are sympathetic to Israel because of their eschatological beliefs.

Without discussing the merits of these arguments nor resolving the various rights of both parties, I wish to comment on the ethics of the warfare and tactics as it relates to this conflict. I will discuss proportionality here and civilian casualties in a later post.

A lot is being made of the proportionate response theory. The idea being that the defence against an aggressor is proportional to the attack. This appears to be analogous to the principle of talion. The difficulty here is that talion limits the punishment for a crime committed by an individual. Under this principle a murderer can be put to death but a assaulter cannot be. You can force a thief to recompense his victim (and fine him) but not cut off his hand.

The number of casualties in a war is the sum of all individual deaths. However the idea that total number of deaths is comparable does not automatically follow. Each individual has died, but the addition of one individual's death to another does not seem to make sense.

Granted, mass death seems more horrible than individual death, and it is. But even with a single death, that person has still died. If a serial murderer is put to death for his crimes, he is only executed once. It doesn't matter whether he killed 3 people or 27 in terms of the degree of his punishment. We don't go and find 26 of his acquaintances to execute to even the numbers.

One could argue that victim proportionality can be applied to warfare even if it cannot be applied to serial murder because an army has a chain of command. But war is also an act of the state, not of individuals; and it is to individuals that talion applies. Suffice to say that totalling deaths to assess "proportionality" lacks any convincing principle and appears simplistic.

I am not even certain that "proportionality" by any metric is a required ethical aim for warfare, as opposed to, say, the combatant/ civilian distinction.

But assuming proportionality, as so many do, a more rational approach to proportionality is to look at intent. If soldiers from 2 countries are fighting each other, the fact that 1 side is more successful in killing the other side just reflects their better ability. Both sides are continuing to fight. Where proportionality potentially comes into play is when 1 side surrenders. Significant ongoing warfare after surrender (and agreed terms of peace) could be argued as disproportionate. So if Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel, even though Israel has killed more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis, then the response by Israel can hardly be described as disproportionate.

Interestingly Jesus makes this statement,

Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. (Luke 14)

Now it is important to note that Jesus was talking about joining the kingdom of heaven: men should consider all the implications of following Jesus. Jesus is not necessarily justifying some wars, nor is he commenting on the righteousness of the king's cause. But he is making an observation about kings that his hearers would have understood: when rulers know they cannot win they show prudence by negotiating.

The principle of proportionality also allows the aggressor disproportionate positioning. The aggressor can attack at will and the response is dependant on the attacks. This allows the aggressor to optimise his position and fight as munitions become available, knowing they will never be attacked at a greater level than they inflict. If this is disputed then why do those who hold to proportionate response not ask the aggressor to cease fire then the response to cease? Note that with individuals the wrong is with the aggressor (if it is not then they are not punished) and a proportional punishment against him acts as a limit on further activity. With warfare the aggressor may not be in the wrong and even if they are a proportional retaliation does not limit further activity.

None of this states which party is morally right or wrong in the situation. There have been cases when the righteous have won battles and wars and cases when they have been defeated.

Questioning the climate researchers

Physicist William Happer is another global warming sceptic. He has recently joined the more than 600 scientists on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee list who deny anthropomorphic global warming, although he has been a sceptic for longer. He makes an interesting comment about a time when he was managing a $3 billion energy research fund.

Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”

The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.

“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”

People are excited when you are interested in something they find fascinating. They often want to tell you about it and explain how they see it. A stand-offish attitude is an unusual response, especially if it applies to a group with a shared interest rather than a single quirky individual.

Not wanting to answer questions about climate change, or offering to find the answer you desire in advance does not disprove the theory of global warming. It does however raise suspicions about the persons involved in the research. Their integrity is questionable^*.

One could say, "It is not the theory I question, it is my trust in the theorists that is lacking."

---

^*This does not necessarily apply to every global warming insister. Several may be happy to explain the theory, offer a reasoned defence of it, and share their data. Further, deniers who do what I am condemning are just as wrong. However this is less likely for deniers in the current environment because the deniers are challenging the accepted dogma. The reigning paradigm is accepted as the default position.

Firefox features

I use Firefox as my default browser. I have tried several, shifting to Opera several years ago because of tabbed browsing, though migrating to Firefox shortly after its release. I like the idea of competition in any area and during a relative monopoly this means being prepared to support smaller parties, even if they offer a similar rather than superior product.

I am now using version 3, though I held off switching my home computers till the first revision. Despite beta testing, bugs seem to be found quickly in x.0 versions of software and it seems prudent to wait and download x.0.1 or x.1 versions.

There are 2 features I find very useful with Firefox. The first is the new address bar in version 3. For those who do not use version 3 or use some other browser this is an extremely helpful feature. Firefox searches thru your history and any word/ phrase that you type that is found anywhere in the URL address or in the title of the webpage is offered as a suggestion. If you were reading an article (or 2) on Saturn and the title of the page had the word "Saturn" in it, then type in "Saturn" in the address bar and all the pages will be offered in the suggestion box. The suggestions are sorted according to frequency of page loads and how recently the page has been visited. For frequent sites I do not frequently use clickable links or bookmarks, I type the first few letters and select the site.

The second is an add-on I use very frequently called DictionarySearch. It is so useful and small enough that it possibly could be included within the browser. The intention of the addon is to allow people to look up words in dictionaries. Just highlight a word, right click and select search for the word in an online dictionary. Now I use it for that, but it allows up to 4 dictionaries. It allows you to search any site that allows searching from the address line. So my searches are:

• The Free Dictionary
• ESV Bible via BibleGateway
• Wikipedia

The 4th search I have set to searching for web addresses that are not linked. Sometimes web addresses are given but are not anchored to their page. I highlight the link, right click and select find web address.

These searches or web address lookups occur in the background while I continue reading.

The dictionary is obvious. Wikipedia I use for basic information on topics or people I am not familiar with. The Bible search is also very useful. When verses are referenced but not quoted I highlight the reference and the page loads with the relevant verse(s). Also when reading or writing (blogging or comboxes) I can highlight a phrase (ie. not a verse reference) and search for that phrase within the Bible.

Examples

Text: Find "$"
URL: $

Text: Search dictionary for "$"
URL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=$

Text: Search ESV for "$"
URL: http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=$&qs_version=47

Try it.

Boolean values

Situations which can have 1 of 2 outcomes are considered Boolean. Here are several notations with typical correspondence in the same column.

True (T)	False (F)
1	0
yes	no
on	off
open	shut
●●	●
up	down
go	stop

Random quote

If we follow our own trail, at the end, where are we? But following Waengongi's trail, at the end we come to his place. He has made us a place where we all can live happily and in peace.

Mincaye