Ecumenical Insanity

Friday, July 9th

International judges rewrite law to suit selves

I'm no lawyer, but even I can see a case of twisting the law to arrive at a pre-ordained decision when I see one. Such is the decision of the International Court of Justice (a creature of the UN) that Israel's security fence is illegal under international law. Here's one significant reason why the court ruled against Israel:

139. Under the terms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self?defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.

The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self?defence.

Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case. (emphasis added)

The emphasized passage gives away the game. Here's Article 51 in its entirety:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

As you can see, there's no reference there to an attack by one state on another. In fact, if you read the whole of Chapter VII of the Charter, you'll only find one irrelevant reference in Article 50 to any state other than the one attacked and its defenders. The ICJ effectively amends the Charter in order to reach the result it wanted. As a side note, under their decision neither the US nor any other state has a right to self-defence against al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the IRA or any other terrorist group, even if, like the Palestinian terror groups, they are supported by states like Iran or Syria. (The reference to the attacks coming from within occupied territory, and so not falling under Security Council resolutions 1368 and 1373, is another instance of judicial rewrite, as neither resolution makes any reference to the place of origin of terrorist attacks when declaring that states have a right to defend themselves against them. The relevant resolutions are here.) This isn't the only problem with this decision by any means, but it was the first one to jump out at me.

I've said before that Israel would have been smarter to have built the fence on the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line), rather than intruding into the West Bank to include settlements that never should have been built there, and that should be dismantled posthaste. But that doesn't in any way justify the ICJ disposing of a legitimate national claim of self-defence by re-writing basic international law to suit itself.
Athanasius on 07.09.04 @ 05:21 PM EST [link]

Thursday, July 8th

At least they're consistent

One of the most popular slogans among leftists opposed to US policy in Iraq is "No blood for oil." According to the BBC, France has again demonstrated its disagreement with that slogan, as long as the blood is supplied by others:

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said.

Best estimates at this point are that over 10,000 people have been killed and over a million made refugees as Arab gunmen have swept through village after village in Darfur, often with government connivance. But as long as the black gold keeps flowing, France will not stoop to the level of those concerned about black African Muslim lives, any more than they stooped to caring about Iraqi lives. Or Bosnian lives. Or Rwandan lives. Or...

(Thanks to LGF for the link.)
Athanasius on 07.08.04 @ 10:07 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, July 7th

Not just your average church group

I only got interested in this because it appeared in the news summary at Christianity Today's Weblog, as well as at Yahoo news. This AP story illustrates the hazards of relying on the mainstream press for religion-oriented stories. There are certainly two sides to the Cuban embargo issue–personally, I think we're more likely to effect genuine change in Cuba by lifting the embargo and flooding the country with the benefits of freedom. The group mentioned in this story, however, have something completely different in mind:

Church Groups Lead Annual Relief to Cuba

By LYNN BREZOSKY, Associated Press Writer

HIDALGO, Texas - School buses and other vehicles loaded with medical and office equipment crossed the border into Mexico on Wednesday on a relief trip to Cuba that violates the U.S. embargo.

It was the 14th straight year that Pastors for Peace, an American humanitarian aid group, has sought to bring supplies to the impoverished Communist nation despite the embargo.

"It's a policy that has no redeeming value," said the Rev. Lucias [sic] Walker, a New Jersey [sic–it's New York] pastor who founded Pastors for Peace. "What we're doing is an act of civil obedience to a higher power that says you should love your neighbor."

Sounds innocuous, doesn't it? "Church groups," "Pastors for Peace." In fact, P4P (and its parent, the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization) is one of the founding coalition partners of International ANSWER, the far-left umbrella organization dominated by the Stalinist Workers World Party. Pastors for Peace maintains that Cuba is more democratic than the US, and that Fidel Castro is one of the world's great statesmen. Lucius Walker has been stooging for various Communist regimes, especially Cuba, for years (he also spent a stint as an Associate General Secretary of the National Council of Churches back in the 70s). Here's an example of Walker's perspective on the world:

Addressing the May Day crowd, the Rev. Lucius Walker Jr., an American pastor who has long backed Castro's government, said that Cuba is "loved, respected, appreciated and supported by millions of U.S. citizens."

But he also called on Cuba to abolish the death penalty. "Cuba: you are a world leader in human rights and respect for human life," said Walker, pastor of Salvation Baptist Church in Brooklyn and executive director of New York-based Pastors for Peace. "The death penalty demeans that. You are better than that."

Walker exhorted the U.S. government to "cease its hypocritical lies and distortion about Cuba's human rights record because the United States itself is the worst violator of human rights in this hemisphere." (From the May 1, 2003 Washington Post via blog Travelling Shoes.)

But one would never know any of this from the AP article. Now you know at least some of the rest of the story.
Athanasius on 07.07.04 @ 08:12 PM EST [link]

Get down, get goofy

Some things are simply beyond comment. Like this from the Episcopal News Service:

"Go forth and tell it like it is": Roskam raps at Hip Hop Mass

By Matthew Davies

[ENS, New York, July 6, 2004] Picture this: an altar; an earth-shattering sound system; people of all ages "jamming to the groove"; and an Episcopal bishop rapping and feeling the beat. It’s the revolutionary liturgical outreach unfolding in the Bronx and it’s taking religion to the streets in the language of today–Hip Hop!

"My sistas and brothas, all my homies and peeps, stay up–keep your head up, holla back, and go forth and tell like it is." With this proclamation, Bishop Suffragan Cathy Roskam of New York sent people on their way at the Bronx's third Hip Hop Mass, held Friday, July 2 at Trinity Church of Morrisania.

And here's the aforementioned bishop gettin' jiggy wit' it:

(Thanks to Chris Johnson for the link.)
Athanasius on 07.07.04 @ 07:04 PM EST [link]

Trying to be more tolerant than thou

This, from Ecumenical News International, has to be a late April Fool's joke:

Worried that the reputation of the Netherlands as Europe's most open-minded society is diminishing after the government in recent months has taken tough positions on immigration, the country's council of churches has launched an initiative to promote tolerance. "Tolerance is not the same as indifferent living alongside one another or striving for uniformity," the Council of Churches in the Netherlands said in a statement announcing the publication of a book on tolerance as a resource for church congregations.

Because the government takes a dim view of terrorists coming into the country, the CoC is worried that drug-legalizing, euthanasia-practicing, same-sex-marrying Holland will soon be a pariah among open-minded Europeans. "What, the Dutch haven't legalized bestiality yet? Sacré bleu! Expel them from the EU, the scoundrels, the crypto-fascists!"
Athanasius on 07.07.04 @ 05:08 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, July 6th

Defining the culture wars

If you've ever wondered what the expression "culture wars" means, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, provides a textbook example:

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.

Please take note: the gravest danger facing the West is not terrorism, but religious faith. The people he describes aren't fundamentalists, they aren't fanatics, they are simply ordinary believers (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.). Some of his contrasts are simply ridiculous (since when do "those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority" refuse to utilize science, reason, or logic?), but in any case they indicate a mindset that essentially says that any set of beliefs that doesn't bow before the god of secularism is a threat to our way of life.

Now that's the rant of a religious fanatic.

(Thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru on NRO for the quote. The entire Reich article is at The American Prospect.)
Athanasius on 07.06.04 @ 08:52 PM EST [link]

Kerry and abortion: the search for wiggle room continues

The last couple of days saw more twists and turns in the on-going saga of John Kerry, abortion absolutist, trying to reposition himself for the election. According to the Washington Post:

But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

The locution "I believe life does begin at conception" is either short-hand for something else or a fraud. There's no controversy over whether life begins at conception. The question is whether human life begins then. The latter is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If Kerry's statement is supposed to break new ground, I wonder when the senator will declare his full confidence in the heliocentric theory of the solar system.

Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.

I'm not sure on what basis we can believe that Sen. Kerry thinks that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." He has never, ever voted for any measure that would place any limit whatsoever on abortion, even to the point of opposing the partial birth ban, parental notification, etc. This is just a throwaway line for the sake of calming the yahoos.

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

This is more of the same gibberish that's standard from pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Questions come unbidden:

1) Does this mean that Sen. Kerry does not consult his Catholic-formed conscience when deciding political questions that have moral implications? Or that his conscience hasn't been effected by his life as a Catholic?

2) Does Sen. Kerry separate out his Catholic convictions on issues such as poverty, racial equality, capital punishment, etc.?

3) Can Sen. Kerry, who "opposes abortion, personally," think of any reason to restrict abortion that doesn't involve parroting the Vatican line? Is there no rationale, based in secular reasoning, that might justify abortion restrictions?

4) Since "church-state separation" means Sen. Kerry can't "legislate his belief" on those of other faith traditions, how does he justify supporting embryonic stem cell research, when there are millions of evangelical and Catholic voters who oppose it? How can he ever support the use of American military force, when there are Quakers and other pacifist denominations unalterably opposed? How can he support same-sex marriage when there are dozens of denominations that have come out in opposition? How could he oppose polygamy, if American Muslims decided to lobby for it as a matter of "religious freedom"?

(Hat tip: Brian P.)

UPDATE: Christianity Today's Weblog raises a number of the same points about Kerry that I do. It also includes this quote from Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara that suggests that even some pro-abortion folks are beginning to wonder what's going on with the candidate:

[She explains that] mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church....Now, I don't know what to think. I cannot respectfully disagree with him as I do with an abortion opponent whose conscience prompts her to work to unseat lawmakers like Kerry. I understand her. She is acting on principle, lobbying to change laws antithetical to her conscience. I don't understand him, voting consistently in opposition to what he now tells us is one of his core beliefs.
Athanasius on 07.06.04 @ 05:25 PM EST [link]

Interview with the Bob

Left-wing UCC seminarian Chuck Currie tosses softball questions to fellow left-winger Bob Edgar, National Council of Churches president, in an interview that touches on Iraq:

You recently discussed the situation in Iraq with United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. Do you see any hope that the Bush administration will reverse course and truly involve the international community in rebuilding Iraq? Or is there a chance the situation will continue to worsen?

I don’t want to speculate on what the Bush Administration will or will not do in Iraq in the weeks and months ahead, but the emerging details of the so-called handover of sovereignty to Iraqis are extremely disappointing. The ever-expanding U.S. role in Iraq and the fact that U.S. troops and contractors remain above Iraqi law make a mockery of Iraq’s sovereignty. Things will surely get worse if we as a nation continue on a unilateral course of action. When Iraqis realize how much of the "handover" is window dressing, their dashed expectations will only increase the levels of frustration and anger directed against the United States.

I'm not sure what country Bob's talking about, but it doesn't sound like the Iraq we're all hearing about. In that Iraq, the vast majority of population supports recent US actions to turn over sovereignty. The new government is handling the task of trying a murderous dictator. Dozens of countries are participating in the work of bringing security and rebuilding infrastructure. Of course, this interview was posted just two days after the handover, so Bob may have jumped the gun a little in pronouncing the actions doomed practically before they happened.

Faith leaders in the U.S. have a far different vision of how America should act in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. The leadership of the National Council of Churches and its member communions, along with other faith partners, continue to press toward the day when the United States will take its place among the nations in a cooperative, multilateral and sustainable way.

By "faith leaders," of course, Bob means "me and the boys and girls on Riverside Drive." I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance that allows guys like Bob to speak of "faith leaders" as though religious leaders are of one political stripe only.

As you said, I led an international ecumenical delegation in May to meet with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to express our conviction that lasting peace and security will only come to Iraq when the international community is involved. We said at that time that we hoped President Bush would not just repackage the occupation, but rather welcome significant involvement by the United Nations, and allow the U.N. to function in an independent role. We continue to call for a change in our government’s direction that would make such a course of action possible.

I've got to wonder, what exactly does it mean for the "UN to function in an independent role"? What does Bob want them to do? This is just a collection of boilerplate expressions without substance. All we ever get out of NCC-types is, "bring in the UN," though there are lots of good reasons for being hesitant to do so (see here, here, here, here, and here). One might add that Bob apparently missed the unanimous vote of the UN Security Council endorsing recent US actions in Iraq, as well as Jacques Chirac's churlish statement that France would never be caught dead doing something so boorish as helping to bring freedom and security to Iraq.

We also are working so that people in our congregations might gain a deeper understanding of the events that are unfolding day by day and that have such a powerful impact on our world. The National Council of Churches has developed and tested a faith-based curriculum on multilateralism that can be used by congregations and other groups. Study groups that use the curriculum will come away with a better understanding of why America cannot afford to "go it alone." We hope to market the study widely.

I can't wait.
Athanasius on 07.06.04 @ 04:54 PM EST [link]

Sunday, July 4th

This is why euthanasia is wrong

EI reader Baillie offered the following story in response to the previous post.Though it's in the comments section, I was so impressed by it that I wanted those who don't look at the comments to see it as well. Thank you, Baillie, for your courage in facing down the doctors, and standing up for your brother, and what's right and true.

My brother went into acute respiratory failure last September at forty-five years old. By the time I got the phone call, he was on a respirator in the ICU of a small hospital several hours from my home. Think SARS without the contagious aspect and you’ll get some idea of what condition he was in: as the Merck site puts it, “the survival rate for patients with severe ARDS who receive appropriate treatment is about 60%; if the severe hypoxemia of ARDS is not recognized and treated, cardiopulmonary arrest occurs in 90% of patients.

There was the usual story: long drives, long nights, phone ringing at any old hour - “You’d better come and do you want us to resuscitate if his heart stops before you get here?” - that sort of thing, but he kept reviving despite every expectation to the contrary. There began to be a little hope, if only the ICU staff could get him off the sedatives long enough to wean him off the respirator. But you can’t wean someone on a respirator off sedatives if he’s in the full grip of an ICU psychosis. Every time they tried, he’d wake up just enough that it took most of the staff to keep him in the bed. Whatever world he was in wasn’t a nice one, and the exertion of having a knock-down-drag-out with the nurses would then send his oxygen levels plummeting and I’d get another phone call.

But he kept living and by the time a month had passed, they’d figured out the right combination of anti-psychotics and he had begun to respond a little – the right way, I mean. So we began to think he might make it. That’s when I made a major mistake and had him transferred to the ICU of a hospital only 45 minutes away instead of three hours. A TEACHING hospital, mind you.

To trim an extremely long tale, something somewhere got dropped, anti-psychotic-wise, and by the end of that first week in the new hospital a doctor ambushed me and informed me my brother was going to die anyway, so I should let him 'die with dignity'. There were other things factoring into her opinions, but the main thing was that they couldn't get him off the paralytic they had him on because as soon as he'd start to wake up, he'd go into a psychotic episode and that would start him crashing again. So they needed my permission to bring him off the paralytic long enough for him to be able to breath on his own, then they’d pull the life-support. Otherwise, it would be legally murder.

What 'dignity' had to do with somebody suffocating to death, I failed to see, but the ambush took me utterly by surprise. I tried to tell them what the other hospital had done and how he had been improving when this hospital got him, but it was to no avail - he had blood clots now and probably had brain-damage from all the crashing and he was probably having seizures, and blah, blah, blah. I, being of a somewhat timid nature, meekly left the ICU intending to come back the next day to see him taken off life-support and we came home and started calling relatives.

It took a while, but finally by late that night, my brain had kicked in along with a lot of pent-up rage over recent events in the news*, until I was practically glowing in the dark, I was so furious, and I expressed that fury in a blunt letter to the lot of them, which my husband dutifully delivered by hand early the next morning. ("If you can make him comfortable enough to die, why can't you make him comfortable enough to live?" "We can always kill him later; we can't resurrect him.") This was not enough to sate the newly savage Baillie, however, and so the nurses got an earful when I got to the hospital, which resulted in a long discussion in the meeting room.

So they put him on the anti-psychotics he should have been on all along, in a week or so he was transferred out of the ICU to Intermediate. This, of course, meant a whole new string of doctors, and the “What will his QUALITY of life be?” business to endure, but it was just tough cookies. One or the other of us showed up there every day, right on through Christmas, and he got off oxygen and then he had his trach-tube removed and started eating again and went to physical therapy and one January day, lo and behold, he went home. Wobbly, frail, confused, forgetful, but home.

Two months later he was buying books and shopping at Walmart. He’ll be on a lot of medicine for the rest of his life, but that’s a minor detail. Last time I visited him, he took me out to show me the garden he’d started – and when he started telling me how Bush was a harmless ninny and it was all Cheney’s fault, well, then I knew the cure was complete.

And the reference to the news*? If I hadn't been seething for weeks over the attempted murder of Terry Schiavo, my brother would now be ashes.

I’ve been rather fierce ever since.
Athanasius on 07.04.04 @ 09:42 PM EST [link]