And now, well, the pro-life side has, in a word, won. No, Roe hasn’t been overturned. But can anyone find a law professor who actually defends Roe as good jurisprudence? Even the Supreme Court—in its Casey decision upholding Roe, after two decades of attempted rationalizations—couldn’t bring itself to declare Roe right on the merits. And you’d be hard-pressed to find a serious moral philosopher who cogently defends abortion without also justifying infanticide.
In the largely insular world of the secular academy, there is virtually no attempt to try to understand the beliefs of religious conservatives on their own terms. Although that certainly harms religious conservatives, it harms secular progressives and their students even more. For it denies them the sort of full-orbed appreciation of differences that secular universities incessantly preach, but rarely practice.
The argument for removing the laws was simple: the state has no business legislating morality. But every legislature legislates morality. Every code of laws is a codex of morality. The law is itself inherently and inescapably moral, even irreducibly moral. The law can’t be anything other than a moral statement. Every system of laws, whether primitive or sophisticated, old or new, whatever the cultural or ethnic or legal context, is a moral statement. The removal of morals legislation and the celebration of that removal is itself a profound moral statement.
We in the West cannot pretend to know anything of this, but for our brothers and sisters across the Middle East the wheel has come full circle. The empire is not Roman, but Islamist. The emperor is not Nero or Trajan, but the idolisation of Mohammed as the perfect man of the highest moral excellence, and his life as the "goodly model" which all must follow - literally, step by step. We must let them know that they are not alone.
The Christian will not go out of his way to be annoying or cause a nuisance. But Jesus is "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient" (1Pt 2:8). To preach Christ is to cause offence to those who are being lost. To cause offence is to annoy.
I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because "they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey." Most often I hear, "Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts---about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren't you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?"