Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, July 3rd

The most grotesque philosopher alive

Peter Singer, the Princeton professor who doubles as the Alfred Rosenberg of the anti-humanism movement, has been heard from again in an interview with the Independent of the UK. Singer has been lauded by the such media outlets as The New Yorker as "the most influential philosopher alive," a man of brilliant intellect, and yet he is regularly guilty of some of the most blinding moral and intellectual obtuseness. The interview in question illustrates two examples:

"You shouldn't say animals," he says in a level tone when I raise the topic, "to distinguish between humans and non-humans. We are all animals." This objection captures Singer's thoughts in a neat sound bite. He thinks there is nothing special about being human. "Every living thing has preferences, and those preferences need to be taken into account," he says. "Non-human animals can't be left out of utilitarian equation."

Though Singer contends there are no essential moral differences between humans and non-humans, how about this: humans are capable of moral choice, non-humans are not. I refuse to torture my cat because doing so is wrong. My cat tries to bite my bare feet every chance she gets just because she wants to. Is that distinction really so hard for a moral philosopher to grasp?

Ah, you say, but Singer doesn't talk about moral choices, he talks about "preferences," which all living beings have. But all that does is make a mockery of what Singer does for a living. If there are no moral choices, then why should any creature's "preferences" be privileged by any other? And if you have a preference for blue and I prefer red, why should either of those preferences be respected as anything more than an expression of personal taste? Where's the "moral" in "moral philosopher"?

Singer goes on to talk like a typical utilitarian when he says that "pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimised, regardless of the race, sex or species of the being that suffers." That's his primary basis for deciding between preferences: I may have a taste for filet mignon, but because it would run roughshod over the cow's preference to remain alive, I have to stick to asparagus. But–and here's where the accusation that Singer's just a Nazi in tweed clothing comes in–he conveniently forgets this principle whenever humans don't measure up to his standards:

He continues, "All I say about severely disabled babies is that when a life is so miserable it is not worth living, then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection. These are decisions that should be taken by parents–never the state–in consultation with their doctors." This is, he believes, already happening. "What do people think amniocentesis and the selective abortion of Down's Syndrome foetuses are? All I am saying is, why limit the killing to the womb? Nothing magical happens at birth." It is a small step, he seems to think, from abortion to infanticide. "Of course, infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare–but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion."

The reference to Down's Syndrome gives away the game. Anyone who's known Down's Syndrome kids know that they aren't in pain and aren't suffering. Most live lives that, while shorter than others, are at least as happy if not more so. Singer includes them among the poor unfortunates whose lives are "so miserable" as to not be worth living, not because they are in pain or suffering, but because they don't meet his professorial standards. So what's the IQ cut-off, Doc? At what point do we say that a person isn't smart enough to have a right to life in Singerland? For that matter, people with Down's Syndrome, if allowed to grow up, will have considerably greater intellectual capacity than any non-human. Yet they can be killed even after birth because their quality of life doesn't get the Singer Seal of Approval. What does that do to the carefully constructed arguments for animal rights?

This is the "most influential philosopher alive"? Then heaven help philosophy.
Athanasius on 07.03.04 @ 12:27 PM EST [link]

Friday, July 2nd

Let's play "spot the internal contradiction"

I hate to say it, but this vote is meaningless. It will do nothing to stop the trend toward ordaining gays in the PCUSA, the key being the nearly dead-even vote:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) legislative assembly narrowly rejected a measure Friday to allow regional governing bodies to ordain gay clergy and lay officers.

Under the 259-255 vote, the current interpretation of church law forbidding the ordination of gay clergy will remain binding on the church, including on the regional bodies, known as presbyteries.

Immediately after the vote, about 300 Presbyterians who supported allowing the ordination of gay clergy gathered in a courtyard where many wept and embraced.

"Tonight is another 'no' to us," the Rev. Jane Spahr, a lesbian minister from San Rafael, Calif., told the group. "All we wanted to do is walk beside you and serve beside you."

So, Rev. Spahr, what exactly is it that's "binding on the church"?
Athanasius on 07.02.04 @ 10:59 PM EST [">link]

Thursday, July 1st

Sweden: where the real gay brownshirts hang out

According to Ecumenical News International, the totalitarian curtain continues its slow, steady descent in Sweden:

A Swedish court has sentenced a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement in Sweden, Ake Green, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon. Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights (RFSL), said on hearing the sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people. "Therefore," he told journalists, "I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference with freedom of religion." During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society".

Mr. Andersson (who is being sought by Agent Smith even as I write) no doubt offends Pastor Green by his advocacy of the supreme goodness of homosexuality, but I would bet my kid's inheritence that no prosecutor will ever even think of prosecuting him.

Sweden: where the state will soon be jailing people who refuse to sing the glories of all things gay.
Athanasius on 07.01.04 @ 10:14 PM EST [link]

The injustice of it!

If you have a taste for such things, there's going to be a lot of grotesque irony coming out of the trial of Saddam Hussein. According to AP, one of Saddam's lawyers was in a positive lather over his client's treatment:

In Amman, Jordan, lawyers claiming to represent Saddam expressed outrage they were not at his side for the hearing.

"This is tyranny and absolute cruelty," said Ziad al-Khasawneh, who said he was hired by Saddam's wife, Sajidah. "How can this be called a fair trial if President Saddam Hussein, may God bless him, was denied his basic right to a lawyer?"

A million Kurdish, Kuwaiti, Shiite, and Iranian ghosts got a good laugh out of that. Evidently the former Iraqi information minister, "Baghdad Bob," has joined the bar.
Athanasius on 07.01.04 @ 01:25 PM EST [link]

It's all the West's fault...whatever it is

World Council of Churches General Secretary Samuel Kobia was in Germany this week, railing against...well, the usual stuff:

Calling it "an affront to the ecumenical vision of a united humanity", Kobia stated that "the process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal economic paradigm has created a global inequality and inequity" in which 20% of the world's population owns 83% of the global resources. "Our challenge today is to search for alternatives" to a world "of increasing inequality and violence" and "to nurture an economy that works in the service of life and does not contribute to its destruction," he stressed.

Kobia is an African, and I'm sure he deeply resents the way prosperity has largely passed that troubled continent by. But instead of looking for someone to blame, he ought to look inward, at the corrupt and repressive regimes and crackpot socialist schemes that have kept Africa from exploiting its people's talents and energies and its natural resources. The "process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal economic paradigm" that Kobia scorns is the process that has brought unparalleled prosperity to East Asia, not to mention Western Europe after World War II (a prosperity that is slowly slipping away from Europeans as they reject the one that brung them, as it were). Perhaps if Africans (and Arabs, since oil has been the ticket to paradise for most, but rather a continual source of loot for elites) were to rise up against their own rulers, and demand that they get in on the "process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal economic paradigm," they might find it opening up a better future for them.

The WCC general secretary also highlighted the need for "inter-religious dialogue and co-operation" in the face of "growing xenophobia", including "an evolving enemy-image that makes a caricature of our Muslim friends", and the "blatant misuse of religion in the mobilization of war". It is urgent, he said, "to nurture non-violent action for change and to work for peace and reconciliation" against the backdrop of "justification for war and even brutal torture" that harms the humanness of both the victims and the perpetrators.

Gee, I wonder who he's talking about? "Growing xenophobia": could that refer to the way Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims are vilified in the Muslim press and street demonstrations from Cairo to Jakarta? "Blatant misuse of religion in the mobilization of war": could that refer to the head-choppers of Fallujah, the Islamist rantings of bin Laden, or the racist sermons of the head of Saudi Arabia's most important mosque? "Justification for war and even brutal torture": could that refer to Saddam's wars against Iran or Kuwait, or his slaughter of his own people with chemical weapons, or possibly to Zarqawi's treatment of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.

Probably not.

Athanasius on 07.01.04 @ 01:06 PM EST [link]

Weirdness at the PCUSA assembly

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is meeting in Richmond this week. While the big issue of gay ordination has yet to reach the floor, that doesn't mean there haven't been opportunities for lunacy. Take this example from the Layman Online (sorry, no permalinks–scroll down to the story "Staying Alive"):

"I urge you, in the name of Sophia, to stay alive...Voices of Sophia is needed to raise holy hell!" Speaking on Tuesday to a crowd of some 70 Presbyterians that included the moderator and vice moderator of the General Assembly, Voices of Sophia leader Mike Smith pleaded for the rejuvenation of a dying organization.

Recent General Assembly budget cuts have severely wounded "Voices," an ostensibly independent organization that has leaned heavily on denominational staff, particularly in Presbyterian Women, to carry out its agenda. "Bless the loving god Sophia," Smith said. "Bless Sophia with your wallet."

The crowd responded with its "Sophia Blessing," whose debut at the 1993 Re-Imagining god conference traumatized Presbyterians, resulting in huge budget deficits at national headquarters and job losses in key executive positions:

Bless Sophia
Dream the Vision
Share the Wisdom
Dwelling deep within

Participants raised their arms heavenward as they voiced the name of their goddess, and touched their eyes and heads when chanting "wisdom." Then they rested their hands upon their hearts.

Despite the dirge-like flavor to the chant, it is clear that "Voices" has no intention of going away. Energized by the election of a General Assembly moderator whom they say identifies with "the marginalized," Mieke Vandersall urged the group to action. Vandersall, a recent graduate of Union Theological Seminary who was employed by "Voices" and a New York gay and lesbian organization during her seminary years, said: "We need to vote. We need to get out the vote. We need to get out there and make the changes that need to happen in the fall!"...

"Voices" received a special greeting from Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase and Vice Moderator Jean Marie Peacock. In presenting Peacock to the group, Ufford-Chase recalled work that they had shared among refugees on the Southwest border.

The vice moderator got a round of applause for her opening line, "God is good, isn't she!" Peacock told "Voices" that she had been deeply involved in the Sanctuary Movement, an attempt to transport illegal aliens into communities in the United States. Picking up on Machado's Samaritan theology theme, she compared the Sanctuary Movement's efforts with that of the Samaritan who transported a wounded Jew to a place of refuge.

The moderator and vice-moderator are the newly elected leaders of the denomination. They are essentially figureheads (the stated clerk is the CEO), but they are a very public face of mainline Presbyterianism. Apparently, "God is good, isn't she!" is the face the PCUSA wants to show the world. As for the rest...it speaks for itself.

(Thanks to Mark at WannabeAnglican for the link.)

Athanasius on 07.01.04 @ 10:10 AM EST [link]

Wednesday, June 30th

Bible "translator" speaks

John Henson, the English Baptist minister who recently offered the world the Good as New "translation" of the Bible was interviewed by Martin Reynolds for the monthly Lesbian and Gay News. This excerpt comes from Thinking Anglicans:

MR–You say this is an inclusive translation–how do you understand that?

JH–Passages that have been used with a homophobic slant have been widened to include all forms of abuse–here the homophobic glasses have been taken off. Some people want a Bible to hit homosexuals on the head, while at the same time taking a relaxed view of say,...the allied abuses in Iraq, they will find no comfort here.

Translation: I didn't like what Paul had to say on this subject, so I changed it. (I'm not aware of any biblical texts, no matter what the translation, that would allow for a "relaxed" view of the Abu Ghraib abuses, but perhaps Rev. Henson will make that clear in his next edition.)

MR–Rowan Williams has come in for some criticism for his foreword.

JH–Well I did see the Times article, atrocious piece, using the book to attack Dr Williams–I am responsible, if anyone should be criticised it should be me. It is a fair translation of the Greek, the idea put about that it advocates more sex is not true. All the early work on Romans was done by a Calvinistic Fundamentalist scholar.

As to the foreword, that was originally written for my book "The Other Temptation of Jesus"–that book used this translation for its Biblical passages. The publisher asked if he could use the same foreword and that was approved.

As the texts have been circulating for 12 years I’m not sure how much Dr Williams has read or used them. They have constantly been refined so I am not sure even if he saw the final work.

This is a piece of work aimed at primary evangelism, it is hardly surprising a bishop should approve it.

As to the omission of seven books and the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas, that was my editorial choice. There were good reasons for that, even Luther wrote a "health warning" for Revelation, but this is not a completed work, its in progress, maybe it will come later. Those for whom the Canon of Scripture is a sacred cow will perhaps have had problems with the serialisation of the separate books, it is not an issue for me. This is a work for a 1st time reader, it has already moved people and changed their lives, it is achieving its goal. We can all be happy with that.

Rev. Henson doesn't explain why including the Gospel of Thomas, which teaches another religion entirely from the gospel presented in the New Testament, makes sense in a work aimed at "primary evangelism," especially since he wants it to be understandable by those who have little or no acquaintance with the Bible. As for the canon being a "sacred cow," well, I think it's taking the Baptist idea of soul liberty a bit far to say you can create your own Chinese menu version of Scripture–a bit of orthodoxy, a bit of Gnosticism, maybe a little Manichaeism on the side. (Yeah, yeah, I know all about the Apocrypha issue, but there's absolutely no disagreement among Christians about the New Testament, or at least I thought there wasn't.) All in all, it sounds very much like a version that only a Spong could love.
Athanasius on 06.30.04 @ 08:56 PM EST [">link]

Tuesday, June 29th

**Trivializing abortion and democracy**

The Jewish newspaper Forward undertakes to castigate Catholic bishops for telling Catholic politicians that they are violating Catholic moral teaching by publically advocating unfettered abortion. The presumption in that is astounding, but so is the editors' view of democracy:

We've long held the view that the campaign to ban abortion, resting as it does on a particular view of when human life begins, violates the rights of others whose view of life differs. Civil law does not and should not require Catholics to undergo abortion if their conscience forbids it. But those whose faith–or lack of one–tells them that life begins at some other point should equally be free to follow their consciences. The law should not bar citizens from access to a medical procedure they consider ethical and essential, simply because it violates the religious principles of another group of citizens.

Imagine what that first sentence would look like with just a couple of tweaks:

"We've long held the view that the campaign to ban slavery, resting as it does on a particular view of human dignity, violates the rights of others whose view of dignity differs."

"We've long held the view that the campaign to ban infanticide, resting as it does on a particular view of when human life begins, violates the rights of others whose view of life differs."

"We've long held the view that the campaign to ban polygamy, resting as it does on a particular view of marriage, violates the rights of others whose view of marriage differs."

But it gets worse combined with this:

To be sure, every individual is free to advocate his or her opinions in a democracy, including the opinion that abortion is wrong. That's democracy.

Translation: you have every right to advocate any opinion you want, even on the most serious of moral issues–but you have no right to gather together a majority of citizens to try to enact that opinion into law. That's not democracy–it's the Oxford Union debating society. And that's not even remotely a serious view of free speech or moral advocacy.

(Thanks to Mark Shea for the link.)
Athanasius on 06.29.04 @ 10:11 PM EST [link]

Sunday, June 27th

Michael Moore: font of wisdom

Via David Brooks of the New York Times comes the following pearls of wisdom from America's newest philosopher-king, Michael Moore:

To the British newspaper The Mirror:

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet...in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

To a crowd of admirers in Munich:

"That's why we're smiling all the time. You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

At Cambridge:

"You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe."

At Liverpool:

"It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton." (He apparently hasn't heard the old joke about God giving the Jews the only place in the Middle East the only place without any oil.)

In the German newspaper Die Zeit:

"Should such an ignorant people lead the world?...Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

To a Japanese newspaper:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow–and they will win."

Michael Moore: proof that one doesn't have to appreciate America's virtues (or people) in order to take advantage of them.
Athanasius on 06.27.04 @ 06:38 PM EST [link]