Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, June 5th

RIP Ronald Reagan

During his presidency, I was not a Reagan fan. Never voted for him. Thought of him as an "amiable dunce," as someone once called him. I remember being genuinely worried about the future of the world when he was elected in 1980. He was no Carteresque policy wonk, but as I look back on it now, I'm thankful that Reagan was president in the 1980s. His economic policies brought short-term misery to millions, but laid the foundation for over twenty years of unparalleled prosperity, not only in the United States, but in many other places around the world. He stood for optimism about the future, and about America, when many doubted that our way of life had much if any future.

Above all, he understood freedom, and he understood tyranny, and he understood what was necessary for the former to triumph and the latter to be taken down. As the grandson of Polish and Lithuanian immigrants, I will always be grateful that Reagan, more than any other president since 1917, stood up to Soviet totalitarianism, called it what it truly was (the "evil empire"), and took steps to bring about its demise. With Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan helped the people of Eastern Europe bring about a velvet revolution that brought down an empire without a shot being fired. I can think of no greater legacy than that.

Requiescat in pace.
Athanasius on 06.05.04 @ 11:31 PM EST [link]

Assisted suicide and the religious straw man

Writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, attorney Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Institute demonstrates why people should be careful when choosing a lawyer:

I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will soon revisit its erroneous 1997 decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, which held that individuals have no constitutionally protected right of suicide, and hence no right to obtain assistance in that act. There is no rational, secular basis on which the government can prevent anyone from choosing to end his own life. Rather, it is religious mysticism that energizes Ashcroft and the Bush administration into intimidating doctors.

Conservative outrage at the Oregon law stems from the belief that human life is a gift from the Lord, who puts us here on Earth to carry out His will. When one "plays God" by causing his own death, or assisting in the death of another, he insults his Maker and invites eternal damnation, not to mention divine retribution against the society that permits such sin.

When religious conservatives use secular laws to enforce their beliefs, they threaten the principles on which America was founded: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The constitutional basis for assisted suicide is presumably found in the right to privacy, which, however, is not in the Constitution. (I also love the idea that one is pursuing life and happiness when one commits suicide, but I doubt that the writer saw the irony.) No matter. Bowden insists that it's nothing more than hidebound fundamentalism that causes the state to not help people kill themselves. He can think of no "rational, secular basis" for such a policy. How about these:

1) The value of human life, determined, in part by the web of relationships possessed by virtually every individual, so that doing harm to oneself inevitably harms those around one (even if they don't see that harm).

2) The value that citizens have to the community of which they are a part.

3) The possibility of abuse, amply demonstrated by the way assisted suicide has played out in the Netherlands.

I could go on, but that's enough for now. Let's just say that when you hear "arguments" like this from a lawyer, you've gotten exactly what you paid for.
Athanasius on 06.05.04 @ 05:15 PM EST [link]

This is compromise?

I love the take on the events at the Canadian Anglican synod by Stephen Bates, religion reporter for the UK's Guardian:

An attempt by Canadian Anglicans to maintain the fragile unity of the worldwide communion by postponing a decision on authorising gay blessings was shattered within hours yesterday when evangelical church leaders warned of "devastating consequences" of a positive message sent to gay and lesbian couples.

An attempt to maintain fragile unity? What the synod did was insult every intelligent evangelical and Anglo-Catholic in the Communion. By pulling the measure that would have formally approved same-sex blessings, liberals thought conservatives would say, "oh, we don't have to worry about this for another three years." They thought conservatives stupid enough not to recognize that diocesan option on said blessings, combined with pronouncing such relationships holy, was essentially the same thing. If that's an effort to maintain unity, it was pathetic. No one was fooled, of course:

[T]his was followed by a statement from Drexel Gomez, the Archbishop of the West Indies, who has led developing world opinion in the Anglican communion against any accommodation of gays and lesbians.

The archbishop said: "It is completely unacceptable to orthodox Christians that same-sex unions are described as 'holy'. Such language is reserved for marriage alone. The attempt to give 'committed adult same-sex relationships' the same theological stature as marriage...will reap devastating consequences."

[N]ine Canadian bishops, about a third of the total, took the synod by surprise when they announced the amendment was "in error and contrary to the teaching of scripture and the tradition of the undivided church".

Duh. That came as a surprise only to Steve Bates and some folks at the Synod who thought their "compromise" would make the whole thing go away.

The criticisms also took Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, the newly elected primate of the Canadian church, by surprise. He had submerged his previous support for gay blessings in favour of a delay in order to preserve international solidarity.

He said he was "obviously very disappointed to hear that kind of statement because it speaks of division", making it clear the bishops had not let him know what they were planning.

The bishops' statement (found here) "speaks of division"? The Anglican Church in Canada just spit in the face of most of the Anglican Communion, and the bishops' statement "speaks of division"?

In the synod delegates had argued in favour of a delay so as to preserve the unity of the 77 million-strong worldwide Anglican communion.

The amendment was taken up to affirm that the church still welcomed gays-although, with both liberals and traditionalists jockeying for position, there may have been ulterior motives in presenting it as a compromise.

Ya think?
Athanasius on 06.05.04 @ 11:20 AM EST [link]

Friday, June 4th

Tell us how you really feel

I have no problem with opposition to the war in Iraq, which has had all kinds of problems in its execution. But this from Peter Oborne of Britain's Spectator magazine is so over the top that one begins to think that a degree of madness has crept into some of the opposition:

All my life, till this month, I have felt more proud than I could say to be British. I felt there were special and irreducible things that we stood for and would, if necessary, fight for: freedom, decency, fairness, humanity, the rule of law. Of course there have been blots—the Amritsar massacre, Bloody Sunday. But on the whole the conduct of British troops during the 30 years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, or our record during the second world war, has been outstanding. We have been a force for good in the world.

Today there is no pleasure in being British. We are almost a pariah nation. Ordinary British citizens are now starting to learn about the terrible things that have been done in our name. We have been collaborators with the Americans in something so gross, murderous, barbaric and obscene that it defies belief. It is no excuse that US troops have been responsible for the most bestial of the atrocities. We are part of a joint command in Iraq, and thus share the joint shame. Tony Blair went to great lengths to share the credit with President Bush during their triumphalist, flag-draped victory summit 12 months ago. Now he must stomach the disgrace....

This power worship has led the government, again and again, to betray British values and traditions. Take the routine hooding of prisoners, one of the breaches of the Geneva Convention set out in the Red Cross report which ministers claim not to have seen. Hooding of prisoners was banned by Edward Heath in the early 1970s when it came to light in Northern Ireland. So why has it been reintroduced? Did government ministers insist on it? Or is the grim truth that the Americans were doing it, so we felt duty-bound to follow suit?

For those too young to remember, Amritsar is the city in India where, in April of 1919, British troops opened fire on unarmed Sikhs protesting British rule. Over 1200 were wounded, and 379 killed. In the bizarre morality of Oborne, that constitutes a "blot" on the record of the British military, whereas the hooding and other mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is "something so gross, murderous, barbaric and obscene that it defies belief." It in no way justifies what Americans have done in the Iraqi prison to point out that Oborne, and the many who think as he does, needs to get a grip on his anti-Americanism.
Athanasius on 06.04.04 @ 02:46 PM EST [link]

Time to go

Canadian Anglican Rev. Dave Ponting of the Diocese of Niagara offers these reflections on the last couple of days of synod action, which tend to confirm my suspicions about what was actually going on:

In a hallway conversation early this morning I overheard a conservative bishop indicate that conservatives may walk out of the Synod this morning if the word “sanctity” is included in a successful motion. It is obvious that many people had a problem with this word in the motion and I understand that. It is a powerful word. The fear of some is that use of the word “sanctity” will be a declaration that same sex unions are holy. Many in the Synod are not willing to go there without further doctrinal study and dialogue....

Following last night’s proceedings and the deferral of a final decision on the blessing of same sex unions, some gays suggested that again the church hid behind words when action was called for. Today’s acceptance of this amendment feels very much like action.

Although I make no claims to being a theological wiz kid I can’t help but feel the inclusion of the word “sanctity” in this amendment is huge. The word is packed with deep theological meaning around one’s understanding of the concept of holiness. Many will argue the amended motion clears the way for proponents to act locally with the directional blessing of General Synod. I am not sure if that is a good interpretation. With the motions of last night and this morning taken together this General Synod has sent very mixed messages to the church and wider community. The amendment may very well be pre-emptive of the doctrinal debate over the next three years. I suspect several Canadian dioceses will accelerate the dialogue without waiting for the 2007 General Synod.

He's right. Once you've used a word like "sanctity" in connection with gay behavior, what's to study? The only substantive question will be whether the Anglican Church of Canada can go along with secular law and marry gays, as opposed to merely "blessing" them, and what real difference, from the standpoint of the church's teaching and ministry, is there in that? At that point, you might just as well go with the cultural flow. He's also right that passage of the amended resolution is "action." Once a majority of dioceses are performing same-sex blessings, any meaningful fight in 2007 is over.

Evangelical and Anglo-Catholics, it's decision time.

Athanasius on 06.04.04 @ 08:56 AM EST [link]

Thursday, June 3rd

You're not fooling anyone, you know

In the last 24 hours, the Anglican Church of Canada has:

1) Postponed for three years taking any final action on approving same-sex union blessings. This was supposed to mollify the Neanderthals who think the church has no business blessing sinful behavior. That was yesterday. This was followed today by the passage of a resolution that:

2) Affirmed "the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions;" and

3) Affirmed "the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."

"Sanctity" is another way of saying "holy." Though the Canadian synod majority may be fooling itself into thinking it has postponed a crisis with the Global South, I doubt that anyone else will be taken in. This puts a stamp of approval on the same-sex blessings being done by the Diocese on New Westminster, with which most of the Anglican world is no longer in communion. It offers an open invitation to any other Canadian diocese to go and do likewise, which could easily mean that by three years from now most of the country's Anglicans would be doing what this year's synod officially refused to endorse on a national level. And finally, it says that what Scripture calls wrong is right, a declaration that will go over like a ton of bricks in Lagos or Kampala, places where the Anglican Church is growing and takes fidelity to Scripture as central to its mission.

Look for statements out of the Global South primates shortly that will declare impaired or broken relationships with the Canadian church, as North American Anglicanism continues to render itself more and more irrelevant to a world in need of redemption.

(Thanks to CaNN for the information.)
Athanasius on 06.03.04 @ 03:35 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, June 2nd

Sorry, you don't count

Personal experience is the card that trumps everything else these days. Evidence, logic, arguments-whatever one says, if someone else comes back with, "well, that's not my experience," that ends the debate. Unless, of course, one is no longer actively gay. Commenting on the discussion of same-sex blessings at the Canadian Anglican synod yesterday, the Rev. Dave Ponting of the Diocese of Niagara made clear that such people are an embarrassment, most devoutly to be ignored:

In the most surreal moment of the discussion, a speaker read a letter purportedly signed by a group of “cured” gays and lesbians who have seen the error of their ways and were now straight. He worried these people have no voice in this debate. I sighed and shook my head, aware this was being web-cast to the world and silently weeping for another slap in the face by the church to gays and lesbians who one more time have had ignorant church leaders belittle the way God made them.

In folks like Ponting, the faith-claim that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore unalterable, and therefore must be approved by the Church, is as impervious to contrary evidence, and as intolerant of contrary views or even experiences, as flat-earthism. The fact that he had standing before him living, breathing examples of people who were no longer practicing homosexuality, some of whom are now happily married, was of no consequence. They are outside his theory so, presto, they can be dismissed. As a way of relating to the real world, it bears a striking resemblance to (whisper it) fundamentalism.
Athanasius on 06.02.04 @ 04:06 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, June 1st

Feelings, nothing more than feelings

The state of civil rights law in the year of our Lord, 2004, according to Newsday:

A lawyer for a Queens landlord that was sued for alleged discrimination against transgendered people who used the wrong bathroom argued Wednesday that city and state laws did not apply at the time.

"The issue that caused a problem here was whether an anatomical male who feels more comfortable as a woman should be able to use the ladies' room," Emanuel Gold, the attorney for the owners of the Bruson Building in Jackson Heights, told a five-member panel of the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division. "The only thing we're saying ... is that, in the year 2000, the statute did not apply to gender identity."

But Edward Hernstadt, a lawyer for the plaintiff, the Hispanic AIDS Forum, said New York courts have consistently held that state anti-discrimination laws protect transgendered people.

The Hispanic AIDS Forum sued its former landlord in 2001, charging that its lease was not renewed because some of its transgendered clients were deemed to be using the wrong bathrooms and other tenants complained.

Hernstadt, who is working with the American Civil Liberties Union, responded, "A transgendered woman walking into the rest room belongs there. She is a woman."

A little question of definition here. An person who is anatomically (not to mention genetically-but there's nothing that can be done about that condition) male is not a woman. He may prefer to be one, he may want to be one, he may think he is one, but he is no more a woman than I'm a woodpecker, no matter how much I want to be one. Once he's had the surgery, and become at least somewhat anatomically female, we can talk about it. Until then, he should just deal with it, out of respect for the actually female half of the species.

Gold said the case should be dismissed because city and state anti-discrimination laws did not protect transgendered people in 2000. He noted that the New York City Council added gender identity to the city's anti-discrimination law in 2002 and the state Legislature has yet to do so.

So this is what the courtroom argument was over-what was the state of the law, circa 2000. Not, why exactly should anatomically male individuals have the right to use woman's restrooms, regardless of whether they "feel more comfortable as a woman." Not, shouldn't women have the right to use a restroom without having to wonder whether an physically (as opposed to psychologically) male person is sharing the facilities.

And not, what has become of common sense in some quarters.
Athanasius on 06.01.04 @ 10:32 PM EST [link]

Monday, May 31st

**Only Frank Rich could connect these dots**

Frank Rich has long been an inexplicable presence on the New York Times op-ed page: a former movie reviewer who overnight developed the skills of a political analyst. He frequently reverts to his former work, and then the lunacy really takes over. Commenting on the abuses at Abu Ghraib, his fevered imagination managed to connect those disgusting events to Mel Gibson (!):

Some of our self-appointed moral leaders are defending the morally indefensible by annexing Abu Ghraib as another front in America's election-year culture war. Charles Colson, the Watergate felon turned celebrity preacher, told a group of pastors convened by the Family Research Council that the prison guards had been corrupted by "a steady diet of MTV and pornography." The Concerned Women for America site posted a screed by Robert Knight, of the Culture and Family Institute, calling the Abu Ghraib scandal the "'Perfect Storm' of American cultural depravity," in which porn, especially gay porn, gave soldiers "the idea to engage in sadomasochistic activity and to videotape it in voyeuristic fashion." (His chosen prophylactics to avert future Abu Ghraibs include abolishing sex education, outlawing same-sex marriage and banishing Howard Stern.) The vice president of the Heritage Foundation, Rebecca Hagelin, found a link between the prison scandal and how "our country permits Hollywood to put almost anything in a movie and still call it PG-13."

This time the point of these scolds' political strategy—and it is a political strategy, despite some of its adherents' quasireligiosity—is clear enough. It is not merely to demonize gays and the usual rogue's gallery of secularist bogeymen for any American ill but to clear the Bush administration of any culpability for Abu Ghraib, the disaster that may have destroyed its mission in Iraq. If porn or MTV or Howard Stern can be said to have induced a "few bad apples" in one prison to misbehave, then everyone else in the chain of command, from the commander-in-chief down, is off the hook. If the culture war can be cross-wired with the actual war, then the buck will stop not at the Pentagon or the White House but at the Paris Hilton video, or "Mean Girls," or maybe "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

The hypocrisy of those pushing this line knows few bounds. They choose to ignore the reality that the most popular images of sadomasochism in American pop culture this year have been those in "The Passion of the Christ," an R-rated "religious" movie that many Americans took their children to see, at times with clerical blessings. Mel Gibson's relentlessly violent, distinctly American take on Jesus' martyrdom is a more exact fit for what's been acted out in Abu Ghraib than the flouncings of any cheesy porn-video dominatrix.

Rich's ignorance of the evangelical community is legendary, so I wouldn't expect him to recognize the stupidity of calling Chuck Colson a "celebrity preacher," or referring to his or Rebecca Hagelin's "quasireligiosity." And one can certainly disagree with either the diagnoses or the prescriptions offered by the folks quoted with regard to the prisoner abuse.

But the idea that The Passion is a "more exact fit" for what happened at the prison than the porn that the soldiers there were consuming suggests the workings of an unhinged thought process, or, more likely, a process in which thought was not involved at all. As Kathy Shaidle rightly asks, "Does Frank Rich even have an editor?"

Athanasius on 05.31.04 @ 11:41 AM EST [link]