Ecumenical Insanity

Friday, June 11th

Science politicized

With the death of Ronald Reagan this week, we've been treated to a renewal of the call for wholesale embryonic stem cell research, which is held up as the magic bullet that can end Alzheimer's Disease. The trouble is, according to Wesley Smith, that it just isn't true, and a lot of the scientists handing out this line knows it isn't:

Here's the story: Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a "whole brain disease," rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news. But now, Washington Post correspondent Rick Weiss, has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, "stem cell experts confess...that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit."

But people like Nancy Reagan have been allowed to believe otherwise, "a distortion," Weiss writes, that "is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." Why? The false story line helps generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, "It [Nancy Reagan's statement in support of ESCR] is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum."

This is a scandal. Misrepresentation by omission corrupts one of the primary purposes of science, which is to provide society objective information about the state of scientific knowledge without regard to the political consequences. Such data then serves as a foundation for crucial moral analysis about whether and how controversial fields of scientific inquiry should be regulated, a debate in which all are entitled to participate. But we can't do so intelligently if we are not told the truth.

Some scientists have become alarmed by how politicized science has become. As Roger Pielke, Jr., Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado warned two years ago in the prestigious science journal Nature, "Many scientists [now] willingly adopt tactics of demagoguery and character assassination as well as, or even instead of, reasoned argument," in promoting their views. This politicization of science, he worried, has led some scientists, "not to mention lawyers and those with commercial interests," to "manipulate 'facts' to support" their advocacy, "undermining the scientific community's ability to advise policy makers." Consequently, he warned, science "is becoming yet another playing field for power politics, complete with the trappings of political spin and a win-at-all-costs attitude."

Read the whole piece.
Athanasius on 06.11.04 @ 05:45 PM EST [link]

Anti-Semitism: the new "in" thing on campus

Michael Totten of TechCentralStation offers an excellent commentary based on a chilling article from the East Bay Express entitled "The Berkeley Intifada. The Express article begins this way:

On the day after September 11, Micki Weinberg walked to the UC Berkeley campus still in shock. At the entrance to campus, facing Telegraph Avenue, huge sheets of blank paper were spread out as an impromptu memorial on which students, faculty, and other passersby were invited to write comments. Glad to have found such a forum, Weinberg scanned the inscriptions. Then he saw one, large and clear, that stopped him dead in his tracks:

"It's the Jews, stupid."

Totten's article included this quote from a San Francisco State student:

"I cannot fully express what it feels like to have to walk across campus daily, past maps of the Middle East that do not include Israel, past posters of cans of soup with labels on them of drops of blood and dead babies, labeled "canned Palestinian children meat, slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license," past poster after poster calling out "Zionism=Racism" and "Jews=Nazis"...This is the Weimar Republic with brown shirts it cannot control. This is the casual introduction of the medieval blood libel and virulent hatred smeared around our campus in a manner so ordinary that it hardly excites concern..."

Totten comments:

Skinheads, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Klansman aren't behind this, as would have been expected before Al Qaeda crashed airplanes into our buildings. Palestinian nationalism is the hot new cause for the cool kids, and the new (or is it old?) anti-Semitism is the handiwork of the far-left and their radical campus friends from the Middle East.

Most of the students who promote a free Palestine don't hate Jews, whatever they think of Israeli counter-terrorism. But they put up with hate in the ranks all the same. Even the more radical and racist Palestinian activists are "allies" in the campus cause du jour.

Meanwhile, Daniel Pipes, an articulate opponent of radical Islam and its armed terrorist factions actually was called a racist and worse at his campus speech in Berkeley, as the East Bay Express article reports. Mr. Pipes, who wisely said "militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution," is hardly an Islamophobe or a racist. It's just a back-alley libel against a historian of the Middle East because he doesn't toe the radical leftist line.

This is what Political Correctness has become. Mere opponents are falsely denounced as "racists" while virulently racist allies are given a pass by the very same people.

Scary times on campus. Read the Express article especially, and feel the hair stand up on the back of your neck.
Athanasius on 06.11.04 @ 05:13 PM EST [">link]

Thursday, June 10th

Hangin' out with all the boys

It's not sporting to take advantage of someone when they're down. But it's hard to resist when there are guys like this, who walk around with a sign on their back that says "kick me":

BUFFALO, NY–The Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral [ECUSA], the Very Rev. Allen Farabee was terminated by the vestry this week, ending a six-year reign which saw the parish plummet from a high of 754 communicants in 1998, to a low of 305 in 2002.

Dean Farabee submitted his resignation after he learned that a task force set up to review his performance decided not to renew his contract. After a five month examination of Farabee's performance they reported their findings to the vestry who voted unanimously to terminate him. A source told Virtuosity that when the parish leaders were solicited to provide written comments for the Dean's evaluation they ran 100% in support of termination.

In a letter to the people of St. Paul's, Farabee noted, "that you wish to go in a different direction than I can lead you."

"For some time I have felt encumbered by the administrative and pastoral responsibilities of the cathedral and have been unable to commit myself to those things for which I am best suited."

On Easter Sunday 2002 Farabee preached a sermon in which he bemoaned the closure of the only gay bathhouse in Buffalo, saying it was "an alcove of safety in a hostile and threatening world. More than 3000 members paid annual dues and visitors came from all over the world. The information network of safe places alerted men who might be coming to Buffalo: go to 653 Main Street and you will find a place of hospitality and welcome, a place you can be yourself, a resting place for body and soul."

The closing hymn that morning was "YMCA," wasn't it, Dean?
Athanasius on 06.10.04 @ 04:03 PM EST [link]

Libs flap gums, wring hands

Religious folks advocating a politically liberal agenda met in Washington yesterday to see if they can resucitate a corpse. According to the Washington Post:

Speakers celebrated the role of religious liberals in the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, the nuclear freeze campaign and sanctions against South Africa's former apartheid system. They called for a stronger, more clearly religious voice against the Bush administration's foreign policy and for environmental stewardship, universal health insurance, and efforts to fight poverty at home and abroad.

Yet even as the conference at times took on the enthusiasm of a pep rally, there were sobering reflections on why the religious left lost its prominence after the 1970s and how hard it may be to regain it. At the core of those concerns was a simple set of statistics, reinforced by numerous polls: People who say they are frequent churchgoers vote Republican by a ratio of about 2 to 1.

It couldn't be because the Democratic Party is perceived by many Christians as having a social agenda that runs counter to traditional Christian ethics, could it? Or that the left in America is perceived by many to have an anti-religious, and more specifically anti-Christian bias, could it?

"Church attendance is not the only indicator of living out your faith," said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, a group devoted to "leadership change" in Washington. "The vast majority of people of faith in this country are center to left, politically. But if you only measure religious commitment by butts in the pews, that's what you get."

What Perterson seems to be saying (aside from the absurd claim that "the vast majority of people of faith in this country are center to left," which has been refuted by every poll taken in the last five years) is that religious people who have nothing to do with religious congregations tend to be liberal. Another way to say that is that people who make up their religion as they go along tend to be liberal. But those folks vote, too.

"It really bothers me that whenever the media and others talk about people of faith, they talk only about the religious right and don't seem to realize there are people like me, who grew up Baptist and believe in God and have strong religious values, but who want different policy outcomes," said Melody Barnes, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former chief counsel to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

I agree with Ms. Barnes about the media's "religious right" fixation (not to mention the media's tendency to demonize same). But the giveaway in her statement is when she says she "grew up Baptist." People don't talk that way unless what they mean is that they are no longer active in a religious community. Hence, they are no longer part of a movement that can have an effect on public policy by voting strongly in one direction. And that goes to the crux of the problem that religious liberals have–they may be dominant in the leadership of mainline denominations and groups like the National Council of Churches, but politicians instinctively recognize that they speak for no one but themselves, whereas when conservatives like James Dobson speak to an issue, they can mobilize lots of supporters. But that's not what some liberals see as the problem:

"Part of it is our fault. We should take back the Bible, take back the theological principles and not just cede them to the religious right," said the Rev. Susan B. Thistlethwaite, a minister in the United Church of Christ and president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. "It's not good enough to talk in vague terms about values. We can do better than that. We can make the theological arguments."

Take back the Bible and do what with it, exactly? Once you've said that it's out-of-date and irrelevant on one set of issues (sexual ethics), it's hard to then come back and use it to make a case for abortion rights or expanded welfare, isn't it? And making those theological arguments will not get you in solid with your political allies:

But some of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims at the conference also said they have felt excluded or even disdained by the secular left.

Natch. Because lots of secular liberals think religion is for weak, woolly-minded, hidebound morons who, even if they vote the right way, are too stupid to be useful in politics. And you know what? When religious liberals hold up the "nuclear freeze campaign" (you know, the one that didn't lead to the demise of the Soviet empire) as one of their shining moments, you begin to wonder if the seculars don't have a point.

(Hat tip: Hampton)
Athanasius on 06.10.04 @ 03:51 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, June 8th

NCC Board meets, does usual thing

According to John Lomperis of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, the Executive Board of the National Council of Churches got together recently and had a high ol' time:

In delivering the report of the Interfaith Relations Committee, Rothang Chhangte of the American Baptist Churches went so far as to claim that current American foreign policy "is being fueled by the evangelical, or the right-wing" as she called on her fellow board members to help present "a multi-lateral alternative." When one board member protested that some Christians from "evangelical" traditions believed their faith compelled them to oppose the Bush administration's foreign policy, Chhangte attempted to clarify by denouncing the "exclusivism" of those evangelicals who believe that "Jesus is the only way" and want to see "all the world …come to Christ." No one in the room expressed disagreement with Chhangte’s comments.

These are the same folks who are pushing with all their might for evangelical participation in their new hobby horse entitled Christian Churches Together. Why? So they can get evangelicals and "right-wingers" in one room for more effective beratement?

A booklet from the NCC’s Justice for Women Working Group was distributed to the board members. According to this document, "[t]here are no right or wrong answers" to such true-or-false questions as "Two-parent families are better for children," "Fathers need to be more involved in the lives of their children," and "Faith formation in the family can be a source of strength." A short list of organizations listed as "Family Resources" includes a pro-homosexuality activist group called Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). A list of websites readers are encouraged to visit "for a range of perspectives" includes the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Alternatives to Marriage Project, along with relatively more conservative organizations. The Alternatives to Marriage group is dedicated to ending marriage’s status as a moral and cultural norm and promoting such “alternatives” as cohabitation, homosexuality, bisexuality, and "polyamory."

What can you say to stuff this like, except to hope your money isn't going to fund it?
Athanasius on 06.08.04 @ 06:02 PM EST [link]

Please let the UN run Iraq! (Part 5)

According to the New York Post, the UN isn't happy with some of its employees:

Three United Nations fieldworkers are publishing details of sex, drugs and corruption inside U.N. missions–despite an attempt by the world body to block their book.

Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth chronicles the experiences of a doctor, a human-rights official and a secretary in U.N. operations in Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia and Bosnia.

The controversial volume, due out next week, charges that some U.N. officials demanded that 15 percent of their local staff's salaries go directly to them instead; that Bulgaria sent freed criminals to serve as peacekeepers; and that incompetent U.N. security has cost lives.

The U.N. hierarchy tried to block the book using a rule requiring that U.N. staff get approval before writing about their work. Permission was denied.

No doubt.
Athanasius on 06.08.04 @ 09:14 AM EST [link]

Party's over

Those in the Anglican Church of Canada who thought that Global South conservatives would simply ignore the conferring of "sanctity" upon gay relationships turned out to be sadly mistaken:

"The use of the word 'sanctify' means that the whole issue has already been decided and that is devastating. It’s saying that God has agreed to bless same-sex unions as the word carries the implication that this isn't just right, but that this is God's will and he has set it apart for the human race. It's rewriting the Christian faith. There’s nothing in the Bible about the sanctity of same-sex relationships. Canada's action merely confirms the sad reality of the fragmentation of the Anglican family. We would like to see them expelled. This is going against Christian teaching and they should either repent or shut the door behind themselves…."

It probably didn't help that Bishop Michael Ingham, who helped ignite the current firestorm in world Anglicanism by approving same sex blessings after the Primates called for a moratorium on further actions on the issue, was elected to the governing council of the national church (can you say, "thumb in the eye"?).

In the meantime, ~~Nero fiddles while Rome burns~~ the Archbishop of Canterbury has said nothing since the end of the synod.
Athanasius on 06.08.04 @ 09:05 AM EST [link]

Monday, June 7th

God turns up in the oddest places

Last week, a bill was introduced in Congress aimed at forcing the International Monetary Fund to follow the lead of many Western nations, including the U.S., and cancel the debt owed to it by poor nations. According to Jubilee USA Network:

Representatives Waters (D-CA), Leach (R-IA), Frank (D-MA), Bachus (R-AL) and Lee (D-CA) introduced the JUBILEE Act today into the House of Representatives. The JUBILEE Act is groundbreaking legislation that would require the U.S. Treasury to work in appropriate multilateral settings to achieve 100 percent cancellation of the debts of 50 nations by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF would be required to finance the cancellation from their own resources without harmful conditionality.

Now, this may be a perfectly wonderful thing to do. I know the effort to get debt relief from the United States was supported by many Christians, not just mainliners but Catholics and evangelicals as well. Terrific. But when Rep. Maxine Waters made a public statement in April announcing that she was going to introduce this bill, her language was the kind that normally makes Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State reach for his defibrillator:

"In the year 1999, the worldwide Jubilee movement reminded us that the Lord instructed the people of Ancient Israel to celebrate a Jubilee–or a Year of the Lord–every 50 years. During a Jubilee Year, debts were forgiven. The Jubilee movement brought this simple Biblical concept of debt forgiveness into the complicated worlds of politics and finance.

"Countless clergy, members of religious orders, dedicated church members and other activists explained to Members of Congress how debt payments took food from the mouths of the poor and caused 19,000 children to die every day in the world's poorest countries. The Jubilee movement opened our eyes to the fact that countries such as Zambia, Tanzania and Nicaragua spent more on debt service payments than they spent on health and education combined. Groups such as Catholic Relief Services, the Episcopal Church, the Africa Faith and Justice Network and the American Friends Service Committee brought a moral authority to political debates and helped us to understand that canceling the debts of the world's poorest countries was the right thing to do."

Just imagine if someone were to talk this way when introducing a measure to restrict abortion or prevent gay marriage or ban doctor-assisted suicide. The bill in question would be automatically assumed, without any necessity to read it, to be unconstitutional, simply because of the motives of the sponsor. I don't have any problems with what Rep. Waters' says. I just wish that people like Lynn and the ACLU and the People for the American Way would put a cork in their church-state hysteria when someone other than liberals talks this way.
Athanasius on 06.07.04 @ 09:28 PM EST [link]