Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, April 24th

The United Nations: leadership incarnate

AFP reports that the UN Commission on Human Rights stood up for truth, justice, and peace in Sudan–sometime in the next few years:

Sudan escaped heavy criticism at the United Nations' top human rights forum as countries adopted a softly worded text on atrocities allegedly committed in the western Darfur region.

As a UN team travelled to Darfur to probe what is described as the world's worst ongoing humanitarian disaster and the warring sides began delayed peace talks in the neighbouring capital of Chad, 50 countries approved the mildly-worded decision on the last day of the Commission's six-week session.

Since erupting in February 2003, the Darfur war has displaced about one million people within Sudan and forced more than 100,000 others to flee to neighbouring Chad, according to UN estimates.

The decision requests the appointment of a special human rights envoy to Sudan who will report to the commission in one year and it encouraged the government to promote human rights protection under international law.

A draft resolution originally introduced by the European Union and co-sponsored by the United States, however, gave the Khartoum government a long list of challenges to stop the attacks against civilians which have led to "the forced depopulation" of entire areas.

"We do not believe the... text of the current decision is in any way adequate to reflect the seriousness of this situation," said Peter Heyward, the head of the Australian delegation, which abstained from voting.

Lest you think the EU was displaying much backbone here, the story also notes that the resolution that passed was "drawn up as a compromise between the European Union and a bloc of African nations."

But Congo's top diplomat, Roger Julien Menga, speaking on behalf of the African group, said the text provided the only chance to monitor the situation.

Its approval would "allow us today to leave this room with our conscience eased knowing that we have done what we could as a Commission," he said.

And what, pray tell, could possibly be more important for a bunch of UN diplomats than to leave the room with their consciences eased? As for the poor Sudanese who will be dead a week from now, much less a year, victims of Arab genocide–well, if they have a problem with the decision, they can just get themselves to Turtle Bay and lodge a strongly worded protest.
Athanasius on 04.24.04 @ 04:45 PM EST [link]

Yasser Arafat, messiah

With Ariel Sharon making noises about how he won't guarantee the personal safety of Yasser Arafat any more, some of Arafat's aides have descended into ludicrous analogy, according to the Jerusalem Post:

Jibril Rajoub, Arafat's national security advisor, warned that "the blood of Arafat will chase the Jews forever, the same as Christ's blood."

Leave aside the fact that Rajoub has obviously not gotten the memo that 1) Muslims don't believe Christ was crucified, and 2) we're supposed to all be over that "Jews as Christ-killers" thing that usually marks a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite. What I find delicious is the parallel:

Jesus Christ: Messiah, Savior, Lord, sinless man, God incarnate.
Yasser Arafat: terrorist, murderer, Jew-baiter, billionaire kleptomaniac.

Yup, I can see the resemblance.
Athanasius on 04.24.04 @ 04:24 PM EST [link]

Friday, April 23rd

Kinda defines solipsism, doesn't it?

Gene Robinson got together with a genuine anomaly–a gay Orthodox Jewish rabbi–to teach a Bible study in LA yesterday. According to the Los Angeles Times:

Convened jointly by the Board of Rabbis of Southern California and the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, the seminar was led by the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal priest to become a bishop in his church; and Rabbi Steven Greenberg, the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi, who is with the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership in New York.

Although both Greenberg and Robinson said they believed most rabbis and Episcopal priests present were sympathetic toward their liberal views of homosexuality and faith, clergy who took issue were also present. The important thing, the two gay clergymen said, was to encourage dialogue.

"In many scenarios, the text is used either to silence conversation or it's abused by not being actually taken terribly seriously," Greenberg told reporters after the seminar, which was closed to all but clergy.

Robinson added, "The question is not what does the Bible say, but what do you believe the Bible is saying."

Gene Robinson: center of the spiritual universe.

(Hat tip: Uncle Dino.)
Athanasius on 04.23.04 @ 09:09 PM EST [link]

Cover up for killing

The Sacramento Bee has a story about the use of language in abortion litigation that contains some truly Orwellian examples. To wit:

Much of the abortion debate involves "the politics of euphemisms," said Alison Renteln, a University of Southern California political science professor.

"It all depends on how you conceptualize the life that is at stake," said Renteln, whose book "The Cultural Defense" analyzes how courts deal with defendants' cultural backgrounds. "That the government and their witnesses use the word 'abortion' openly in court and the other side is sometimes reluctant to do so says a lot."

In the courtroom, Justice Department lawyers and government witnesses freely talk about "abortion" and "aborting"; the abortion-rights side generally speaks of "the procedure" or "evacuating a pregnancy."

The government's side speaks of "the baby." The other side sometimes uses the term "fetus," but often refers to it as "the pregnancy."

During the banned procedure, the anti-abortion side says, the baby is "partially delivered"; the other side says the fetus undergoes "intact dilation and extraction."

On the stand in San Francisco, Dr. Maureen Paul, the chief medical officer of Northern California's Planned Parenthood chapter, described how in a conventional abortion not barred by the new law, doctors "disarticulate" the fetus. The other side often uses the term "dismember."

"Disarticulate." That may be the most deliberately dishonest, morally grotesque misuse of language I've ever heard.

(Thanks to Mark Shea for the link.)
Athanasius on 04.23.04 @ 08:08 PM EST [link]

More on pro-abortion Catholic politicians

Cardinal Francis Arinze of the Vatican's Congregation on Worship and the Sacraments, was asked Friday whether priests should deny the Eucharist to politicians who support abortion. His answer, essentially, was yes. According to AP, the pro-abortion Catholic left then went on the attack:

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, USA, said statements such as Arinze's "debase the political campaign" and would isolate the church from its Americans members, most of whom she said support abortion rights.

They don't, but Kissling doesn't know any who don't, so they must.

"Do they really want to tell Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Leahy and 70 other members of the U.S. Congress that they can't receive Communion?" Kissling asked. "Because they can't just tell this to Senator Kerry."

Uh, yeah, I think that's exactly what he said.

Kissling said the statement could have a negative impact on Kerry's campaign. "It has the effect of making Senator Kerry's task of describing himself to the American public very difficult because it places him on the defensive. He should not be having to explain to the American public his relationship to the Roman Catholic Church," she said.

Then I guess that means the secular left should stop talking about Bush's relationship to the "religious right," right, Frances?

Kerry has said he would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support his position.

It's a good thing Kerry doesn't have a litmus test for judicial appointments like those nasty, evil pro-life Republicans, because that would be un-American, un-presidential, and subversive of the Constitution, according to his fellow Senator Chuck Schumer.
Athanasius on 04.23.04 @ 04:29 PM EST [link]

The bill: $69 million

Well, the final totals are in, and it turns out the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Ohio, the Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana Synod, and two of that synod's former officials, Bishop Mark B. Herbener and his assistant, Earl Eliason, are on the hook for a total of $69 million. The denomination and seminary settled for $8 million, which will all be paid by insurance. As for the rest, we'll see how much the plaintiffs–14 children abused by pastor Gerald Thomas–actually wind up getting. According to AP reports quoted by Kairos News,

An attorney representing the victims said the jury award and settlement combined represent the largest per capita award per victim in any previous clergy sexual abuse case in the United States.

Jurors said Herbener and Eliason were responsible for damages to the nine boys in the case because they did not disclose information they had about Thomas' prior misconduct with minor boys. They jury said the synod could have prevented Thomas from being recommended to the Marshall [Texas] community as the church's pastor.

The West Texas Wilson congregation is where Thomas was serving as intern pastor when he was first accused of misconduct. According to testimony, among the information the synod did not disclose was that Thomas had given tequila shots to two teenage boys and that the boys had found a homosexual pornographic video in the parsonage when Thomas served as a ministry intern in Wilson during the 1996-1997 academic year.

One other interesting facet of this case, one that is suggestive of the enforcement of standards for sexual conduct in the ELCA, is that Eliason had pled no-contest three times–in 1987, 1996, and 2003–to indecent exposure charges, yet continued to serve as a clergyman in the ELCA, and even as a bishop's assistant.
Athanasius on 04.23.04 @ 03:36 PM EST [link]

Thursday, April 22nd

A different perspective on "Jewish outreach"

The Jewish Week of New York has an interesting article about a young woman who's converting to Judaism. She was raised Presbyterian, and says she was "once born-again," but actually displays little understanding of what Christian faith is about. Like many if not most converts, she's doing it mostly because she's marrying someone Jewish. You can read more of her story at the link. By far the most interesting part of the story for me was this paragraph:

In the Reform movement, which recently eclipsed Conservative as the largest American Jewish stream and since 1978 has had a stated policy of outreach to non-Jews, no formal research has been done on "Jews by choice." However, there is a perception in the movement that conversion has been on the rise in recent years, so much so that in 1998 the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now known as the Union for Reform Jews) created an "outreach fellows" program to train lay people to help rabbis prepare potential Jews for their conversion and welcome them into the synagogue community. So far, 150 Reform congregants have trained in the program.

Please understand: I find nothing wrong in this, and think it's fine and dandy for Reform Judaism to reach out to non-Jews. I assume this is done in a non-coercive, non-threatening fashion that respects individual freedom and simply presents the potential convert with an opportunity to consider another possible way of relating to God and His creation. Terrific.

But if it's OK for Reform Judaism to conduct "outreach to non-Jews" (most of whom, in the US, will have at least some background in Christianity), it has to be OK for Christians to conduct outreach to non-Christians, at least some of whom will be Jews. I'm well aware of the history of forced conversions, and any Christian outreach to Jews had better keep it in mind, too. But let's face it–Southern Baptists asking if you know where you'll spend eternity if you die tonight are hardly chomping at the bit to revive the Spanish Inquisition. There's no need for some Jewish leaders to bewail every evangelism campaign that seeks Jewish converts to Christianity as a renewal of the Holocaust, as long as Christians play fair and respectfully, and remember the rules of the game–they are allowed to try to convert you, too.
Athanasius on 04.22.04 @ 10:50 PM EST [">link]

Get the doc-Ralph's off his meds again

Theologian and presidential candidate Ralph Nader has weighed in on the stunning revelation in Bob Woodward's new book on Iraq that George Bush, Christian, has prayed "for the strength to do the Lord's will." According to the Christian Science Monitor, Nader is appalled at the outburst of presidential religiosity:

We are dealing here with a basically unstable president...a messianic militarist. A messianic militarist, under our constitutional structure, is an unstable office-holder. Talk about separation of church and state: It is not separated at all in Bush's brain, and this is extremely disturbing.

Sooooooo...anyone who seeks to know and do the will of God is unstable and has messianic pretensions. And Ralph Nader is so completely able to compartmentalize his thinking that his theological, spiritual, and moral convictions (whatever those might be) never, ever influence his thinking on public policy. And he has doubts about Bush's stability?
Athanasius on 04.22.04 @ 09:31 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, April 21st

What's the difference between an anti-Semite and Pat Buchanan?

Patrick Buchanan, a former major party presidential candidate, is the Ramsey Clark of the right, a friend of Middle Eastern terrorists and as virulently anti-Israel as any anti-Semite (which he denies being). This from a column run by the left-wing site Antiwar.com:

"Speaking of the Palestinians, they were dealt a lethal blow," exulted a jubilant Ariel Sharon, "It will bring their dreams to an end."

Sharon was bragging about his trip to Washington where he bullied Bush into selling out the Palestinians as thoroughly as Neville Chamberlain sold out the Czechs at Munich.

So, according to Buchanan, Ariel Sharon is now Hitler. Gee, who does that sound like? What he was "exulting" over was the end of the fantasy of the right to return, the demographic nuke that Palestinians dream of using to destroy the Jewish state.

And Raging Bull celebrated his diplomatic victory by ordering up a Saturday night hit on Abdel Rantisi, the Hamas leader who replaced Sheik Yassin, whom Sharon had assassinated by Apache gunship in March as the crippled sheik was being wheeled out of a mosque after dawn prayers.

Lighten up on the crocodile tears, Pat. Rantisi and Yassin were the leaders of a terrorist gang that is at war with Israel for the express purpose of destroying it. You think Sharon should have invited them to lunch and negotiated over Israel's right to exist? Oh, of course you do.

As he surely intended, Sharon left the Arab world with the clear impression that the Americans had given a green light to his "extrajudicial" killings. Sharon seeks to make his war on the Palestinians America's war. If Bush lets him succeed, we are finished in the Middle East.

"Extrajudicial"? You'd better put that in quotes, Pat. Rantisi and Yassin were enemy combatants, leaders of a military operation aimed at killing civilians. If they aren't fair game for killing, I can't imagine who would be in time of war. And Pat, if Sharon were really at war with "the Palestinians" rather than their terrorists, don't you think he'd have cleared out the whole West Bank by now, rather than leaving 3 million inconvenient squatters in place?

Gaza was captured from Egypt in 1967. Though almost all Israelis wish to be rid of it, 7,500 Jewish squatters have moved into the enclave that is home to 1.2 million Palestinians. Israelis now occupy 20 percent of Gaza, though they are but one-half of 1 percent of the population.

I don't think those settlers belong in Gaza, so I'm not going to argue that. But think about this: those 1.2 million people, what were they before 1967? If they were Palestinians, why was it all right for them to be ruled by Egypt? If they were Egyptians, when did they become Palestinians?

What did Bush give up? None of the Palestinians driven out of their homes by the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin and during the 1948 war will ever be allowed to return. Palestinian rights in that 78 percent of Palestine that is already Israel, and in the sectors of the remaining 22 percent Sharon plans to annex, are forfeit forever. At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered Arafat a more generous peace than Bush, under Sharon's direction, is willing to give the Palestinians.

"78 percent of Palestine that is already Israel"? So I guess Pat buys into the idea that of all the world's people, it is only Jews who have no right to a homeland. They must be reduced to dhimmis living at the sufferance of Muslim rulers, who are free to kick them out whenever they wish. Yeah, Pat, that's right–more Jews were forcefully expelled from Arab nations following World War II than Palestinians who left Israel, and most of them left voluntarily because their Arab brethren assured them that the land would again be their's after the Jews were pushed into the sea. Over a million Arabs who didn't leave still live in Israel, Pat. How many Jews still live in Syria, or Iraq, or Lebanon? And did you ever utter a single word of disapproval of those expulsions?

Can anyone in the White House believe that Bush's capitulation is anything but a formula for endless war and enduring hatred of an America that cannot say no to Ariel Sharon?

Yessir, those Palestinians who danced in the streets on September 11 sure loved the good 'ol USA.

ANSWER TO THE TITLE QUESTION: Not enough to matter.
Athanasius on 04.21.04 @ 11:12 PM EST [link]

What's good for children?

One can expect the people Mark Shea calls "gay brownshirts" to descend at any moment on the HQ of the American College of Pediatricians. These medical practitioners have committed grave heresy by declaring that gay parents are not as good for children as heterosexual parents:

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted. Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

This one paragraph carries with it 27 footnotes making reference to a wide variety of studies. Not that science should be expected to change many ideologically bent minds, but it's still a powerful incentive to the rest of us to see if the headlong rush to place homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality can be slowed or stopped.
Athanasius on 04.21.04 @ 02:48 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, April 20th

It's ok if I feel it's ok

An Episcopal priest is on trial in a church court in Lexington, Kentucky for stealing from the diocese and a campus ministry. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader:

On the trial's first day, the church made its case against [Rev. Chris] Platt. Diocesan administrator Maggie Hall testified that Platt misused three separate church accounts: the bishop's discretionary fund and two accounts belonging to St. Augustine's Chapel, the Episcopal Church's student ministry at the University of Kentucky.

Platt allegedly wrote himself 19 checks worth $13,020. He wrote an additional 53 "for cash," checks totalling $13,930, Hall said. Another church check, for $250, was mailed to American Express, apparently to pay for Platt's private account, Hall said. In addition, Platt apparently used church money to make payments on a personal loan from BankOne, she said.

It's unclear what many of the checks were used for since Platt kept poor records and little documentation, Hall said. Some of the expenses that are documented are unusual for an Episcopal priest. Platt paid his National Rifle Association dues and purchased a book called Erotique with church money.

Yesterday afternoon, Platt told the Herald-Leader that the purchases were appropriate. Platt said the NRA membership helped him be a better spiritual adviser for UK police officers. The book, Platt said, was for a class at the chapel on art development and stained glass.

So far, so ordinary. One hates to ever hear of this kind of thing happening, but it does. According to the story, Platt was bankrupt, divorced, and "struggling to get by on an annual compensation package of $79,000." Kind of sad, really. But what caught my attention in this story was the unusual rationalization Platt's attorney offered to try to spring him:

Platt's attorney, Lee Van Horn, said his client committed no crimes and did nothing immoral. "If Father Platt had the good-faith belief that it was OK for him to write the checks that he did, that's not theft," Van Horn said. "It's our belief that, if this proceeding is fair and everyone does their job, he will be acquitted of the charges against him."

So if someone is enough of a sociopath to convince himself that his crime is OK, then there's no crime? "I feel for Mr. Dahmer's victims, Your Honor, but he was hungry, and had a good-faith belief that it was OK for him to eat those young men. So that's not murder." This is the ultimate expression of the psychobabble generation, not to mention a formula for anarchy. That said, I'd say he was a cinch for ecclesiastical acquittal, except that his crime was stealing money from an Episcopal bishop. That is a crime that can't be forgiven, at least not in this world.
Athanasius on 04.20.04 @ 08:20 PM EST [link]

Presbyterian choices, sort of

The Rev. Susan Andrews, moderator of the Presbyterian Church USA, has a curious way of characterizing the choices that lay before her denomination regarding homosexuality. She told the Houston Chronicle:

"We have three choices we can mandate: that gays and lesbians be ordained and (then the church) can split. We can say gays and lesbians can never be ordained and continue to fight this battle for decades. Or we can agree to disagree by figuring out a way that those (church councils) that want to ordain gays and lesbians can do so but people who feel it is a sin don't have to and will never be forced to have a gay or lesbian elder, deacon or minister of word and sacrament."

Translation: We can ordain gays and lesbians and have conservatives leave; or we can refuse to ordain gays and lesbians and continue to deal with it year after year (because of the persistence of the people who aren't obsessed by sexuality issues); or we can ordain gays and lesbians and ghettoize conservatives. Is that really three choices?
Athanasius on 04.20.04 @ 07:52 PM EST [link]

Change coming to UMC?

There are rumblings out of the Pacific Northwest that may herald changes for the United Methodist Church. According to KIMA-TV, some 70 churches are questioning whether they want to remain part of the annual conference that acquitted [sic] lesbian pastor Karen Dammann of violating the Book of Discipline provision barring active gays from the pastorate:

An internal war between church factions is brewing between some 70 individual Northwest congregations and the United Methodist Church's regional conference headquarters, in Seattle.

To some disgruntled ministers and churchgoers, it's a matter of who should the Church be following: the liberals changing society or the word of God.

When the congregation of the Westpark United Methodist Church sings in praise of the Lord, they call for spiritual obedience.

That's why the support of Reverend Karen Dammann in Ellensburg–who's in open gay relationship–has caused a furor.

"It grieves me," said Rev. Colleen Sheahan, who runs the Westpark United Methodist Church Academy.

Over the weekend Sheahan wrote a letter in behalf of other Pacific Northwest church leaders to the United Methodist Church's international headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee.

They call for observance of a Book of Discipline ruling, which prohibits openly gay ministers from serving on the pulpit.

Some 70 northwest churches say the regional conference erred, and that now there's a break in their covenant, according to Westpark United Methodist senior pastor Gary Starkty.

For various reasons having to do with UM polity, this kind of move could bring about chaos in the denomination. Of course, the prospect of losing thousands of ~~paying customers~~ members could also scare the annual conference into doing something to mollify the ~~Neanderthals~~ conservatives. The UMC General Conference starts one week from today, and it will be interesting to see what moves to strengthen the Discipline's homsexuality provisions might be attempted by evangelicals.
Athanasius on 04.20.04 @ 07:21 PM EST [link]

Monday, April 19th

Polymorphous perversity

The Institute on Religion and Democracy has a story about a bizarre feminist conference at the Boston University School of Theology this past weekend. Here are a few excerpts:

A major barrier to justice is a "binary society" that insists on "gender constructs" and "exaggerated differences between men and women," [theologian Virginia Ramey] Mollenkott complained. To confront this, she is pushing for an "omnigender society to correct gender assumptions.

"Binary gender constructs are wrong on every count. It doesn't account for cross dressers.They are compelled to do it. They must do it. Their creator must have made them that way.

"Let people be who they feel they are," Mollenkott implored, calling this new gender understanding "polymorphism."...

"Religion must stop making sexuality a focus point," Mollenkott declared. "Jesus didn't do it. Moses didn't do it. Muhammad didn't do it." She called for sex education for children that focuses on sexual orientation and "safe sex."

Gee, it's a good thing Mollenkott doesn't make sexuality her focal point. Otherwise I'd have thought she was obsessed with it.

Feminist theologian Mary Hunt, a Roman Catholic lesbian activist, hailed the many female clergy present, and announced with a smile, "My ordination day is pending!"

Hunt lamented an "erosion of reproductive choices," citing proposed bans on partial-birth abortion. And she bemoaned the "demeaning debate" on same-sex "marriage," which she described as a "right" for everybody.

Calling Gene Robinson: your canon theologian is looking forward to her ordination. Don't keep her waiting.

Joining Hunt in urging greater sexual and theological freedom was United Church of Christ minister Susan Davies, who is at Bangor Theological Seminary in Maine. Davies described herself as a "reflective crone," incest survivor, divorced woman, and out of the closet lesbian.

Davies underwent her croning ceremony, which is a wiccan-related rite of passage ritual for middle aged women, at age 60.

No comment necessary.

[Korean-American] Presbyterian minister Unzu Lee warned, "We are not doing a good enough job in fighting those who are corrupting the language." Specifically she was concerned about conservative church women who are using the language of "diversity" to expect inclusion of a pro-life perspective in the women's caucus of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

This is my favorite. Rev. Lee obviously had her theological training under Kim Jung Il. Her Orwellian concern about the "corruption of language" comes directly out of the Stalinst lexicon. I'd love to ask the article's author, Mark Tooley, "did she really say this with a straight face?"

Read the whole thing. It's a laughfest–or at least it would be if we could be sure that denominational leadership didn't take people like this seriously.
Athanasius on 04.19.04 @ 10:02 PM EST [link]

It's the end of the church as we know it

Not really. But it does call into question whether some Christians understand what the word "church" even means. Check out the "Church of Fools" here, and see just how virtual church can get.

(Thanks to Mark Shea for the link.)
Athanasius on 04.19.04 @ 08:05 PM EST [link]

Sauce for the goose...

Muslims in Cordoba, Spain, want permission to conduct Islamic prayers in the city's Roman Catholic cathedral. According to London's Guardian:

Muslims across Spain are lobbying the Roman Catholic church in the southern city of Córdoba to make a symbolic gesture of reconciliation between faiths by allowing them to pray in the city's cathedral.

Córdoba's renaissance cathedral sits in the centre of an ancient mosque complex, and local Muslims want to be allowed to pray there again. They have appealed to the Vatican to intercede on their behalf.

Zakarias Maza, the director of the Taqwa mosque in neighbouring Granada, said yesterday: "We hope the Vatican will give a signal that it has a vision of openness and dialogue.

"It would be good if there were a gesture of tolerance on their part.

"Córdoba has been a symbol of the union of three cultures for centuries. Even now, Jews and Muslims live together with Christians in the neighbourhood around the mosque."

But he added: "The church council doesn't seem to be open to dialogue."

The local Catholic authorities, and the Vatican should approve this request–just as soon as Christians are allowed to celebrate Mass in the mosques of Alexandria, Damascus, and Istanbul, three of the centers of early Christianity.
Athanasius on 04.19.04 @ 04:34 PM EST [link]

Let's get real

Suggesting the World Council of Churches get real about anything is probably a forlorn hope, but this is an instance when they need to stop beating themselves up over nothing. This is from a WCC press release in which the International Affairs director wrings his hands over the 1994 genocide in Rwanda:

"A lot of efforts were made after the tragedy, but we did not do enough in time," said Peter Weiderud about the role of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the ecumenical movement in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

Weiderud, director of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International affairs (CCIA), was addressing a 16-18 April 2004 ecumenical workshop on "Lasting peace in Africa" that gathered participants from all over Africa in the Rwandan capital Kigali.

Attempting a realistic assessment of the WCC's role as well as that of the local churches, he said that "although it is clear that the WCC could have done more before and during the Rwandan genocide, that does not mean that such actions could have prevented the genocide."

Peter, stop the self-flaggellation. There was nothing the WCC could have done to stop or even mitigate the Rwandan genocide. I know you have this almost superstitious belief in the power of words, but all the harsh language in the world was not going to get the Hutus to stop, at least not without a credible threat of force to back it up. Last time I checked, the WCC didn't have any divisions. Bill Clinton, John Major, Francois Mitterand–people like that could have stopped the mass murder. Heck, even UN Sec-Gen Boutros Boutros-Ghali might have been able to stop it if he'd cared. But Geneva, no. Time to get over your extraordinarily exaggerated view of your influence in the world, Pete. Face it–no one really cares what the WCC thinks about much of anything.

Athanasius on 04.19.04 @ 01:55 PM EST [link]

Sunday, April 18th

Send in the clown

Some people are so willing to humiliate themselves in public that it almost seems unfair to take advantage of them, but I will anyway. This is from an interview at Slate with Oliver Stone, the director of classic movies like JFK and Natural Born Killers (just kidding), who presents himself as an absolute muttonhead when it comes to Fidel Castro. The interviewer is Ann Louise Bardach, a commentator for National Public Radio's Marketplace program, and the author of two books on Cuba:

ALB: Let me ask you about the part [in the film] where Castro's in front of eight prisoners charged with attempting to hijack a plane [to Miami]. He says to them, "I want you all to speak frankly and freely." What do you make of that whole scene, where you have these prisoners who happened to be wearing perfectly starched, nice blue shirts?

OS: Let me give you the background. He obviously set it up overnight. It was in that spirit that he said, "Ask whatever you want. I'm sitting here. I want to hear it too. I want to hear what they're thinking." He let me run the tribunal, so to speak.

ALB: But Cuba's leader for life is sitting in front of these guys who are facing life in prison, and you're asking them, "Are you well treated in prison?" Did you think they could honestly answer that question?

OS: If they were being horribly mistreated, then I don't know that they could be worse mistreated [afterward].

ALB: So in other words, you think they thought this was their best shot to air grievances? Rather than that if they did speak candidly, there'd be hell to pay when they got back to prison?

OS: I must say, you're really picturing a Stalinist state. It doesn't feel that way. You can always find horrible prisons if you go to any country in Central America.

ALB: Did you go to the prisons in Cuba?

OS: No, I didn't.

ALB: So you don't know if they're any different than, say, the prisons in Honduras then?

OS: I think that those prisoners are being honest.

ALB: What about when you ask them what they think is a fair sentence for their crimes, and one of them starts to talk about how he'd like to have 30 years in prison?

OS: I was shocked at that. But Bush would have shot these people, is what Castro said. … I don't know what the parole system is.

ALB: There is none unless Fidel Castro decides to give you clemency. They seemed very willing to bring up sound bites that Castro is partial to—that they wanted to leave Cuba only for economic reasons, not political ones, etc.

OS: You're going to the theory that they were trying to get good time in front of the camera to get lighter sentences.

ALB: I'm going even further than that. I'm suggesting that they had no choice but to appear there, and that in some ways it was a bit of a mini-show-trial, sort of "Look how well we treat our prisoners."

OS: It does have that aura, absolutely. But I do maintain that if it were a Stalinist state...they certainly do a great job of concealing it.

Oliver Stone–film maker, comedian, dupe.

(Thanks to Kathy Shaidle for the link.)
Athanasius on 04.18.04 @ 05:55 PM EST [link]