Distractions?

Christopher Johnson has a worthy blog, Saturday, on the attempt by leftist heretical liberal progressive Anglican prelates to distract from the world-wide uprising among Anglicans over the issue of homosexuality. He quotes the Anglican Primate of Southern Africa, Njongonkulu Ndungane:

I fully agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury that we dare not become preoccupied with the sexuality issue. We must focus on mission. We are faced with matters of life and death. Seventy-five percent of the world’s people who are living with HIV or AIDS are in sub-Saharan Africa. People are constantly dying and being infected and there are severe cases of poverty, many people go hungry every day and there are instances of children taking turns to have breakfast. We have a divine mandate to save lives and evangelise every generation.

I don't suppose it would be too cruel of me to point out to the South African prelate that if Christian leaders of all kinds were more "preoccupied" with the "sexuality issue", then we might not have millions of people being infected and killed by... a sexually transmitted disease. And that nobody living a sexually moral life will become infected with HIV/AIDS, barring tragedies such as a tainted blood transfusion. I suppose it would, indeed, be too cruel to point out to Andrew Sullivan that he must have missed that memo.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 06/30/03 12:36:32 PM
Categorized as Religious.

"Practical Atheism"

S. M. Hutchens writes a brutally honest editorial in the June issue of Touchstone:

.... The April 2003 Touchstone was, to be sure, out of the ordinary, as James Kushiner indicated in the introductory material. It is true that we normally "don’t do politics," at least not directly. But the senior editors agree that the Democratic party has in the last generation undergone changes that make it impossible for a knowledgeable Christian to support it in good conscience, just as it was once impossible for a knowledgeable Christian in Germany to vote in good conscience for the Nazi party, whatever good that party may have done, and however many religious allies it might have had. (Remember the smiling bishops of Deutsche Gemeinde and the grim joke about making the trains run on time.) As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Jerzy Popieluszko, Corrie Ten Boom, Maximilian Kolbe, and a host of other witnesses remind us, there are "political matters" about which Christians sin if they remain silent and passive. It is true that the Church and the State are two distinct sovereignties; it is not true, nor has it ever been, that the churches are obliged to remain silent when the state or its organs, such as its political parties, devote themselves to evil purposes.

When one says what we did in the United States, with our two-party system, the more conservative party gains by default. We assure our readers that we have our doubts about the Republicans as well, as the April editorial indicated. We would turn against it just as quickly and vehemently if it took the same line on moral issues that the Democrats have. Touchstone is not partisan in the sense of intentionally for any party–but it is against what the Democratic party presently espouses. There is a difference, and the difference is the Democrats’ choice and the Democrats’ fault. We did not force them to become what they are, and would have had nothing to write about them if they had not made themselves into the party of abortion, anti-family feminism, and homosexuality. In these matters we are only reporting what we see, and would appreciate it if those who disagree with our observations would stick to the facts instead of bloviating on our nasty and unspiritual disposition.

I believe we are encountering in angry letters to the editor stung consciences, attempting to return the blame–a very heavy blame–that we have placed on them by condemning their support, usually in the name of charity, for the party of child-murder and moral license. One of the most effective ways to do this is to accuse us of partisanship, to allege that we are merely conservative Republicans attacking Democrats with a religious bludgeon. That is not true. We are Christians, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, denouncing the Democratic party as constitutionally anti-Christian. "Equal treatment" will not be accorded the Republican party for its sins because in our judgment that party has not become godless in the same way the Democratic party has, yet. While liable to criticism on a number of issues, not least the ambivalence of its practical support for the pro-life cause, the Republican party has not crossed the line that would make a similar attack necessary.

One of the most common defenses for Democratic loyalties is to assert the moral equivalence of the two parties, to claim that their respective errors leave the Christian to vote for the one he thinks most Christian, or least unchristian. If the Democrats endorse abortion, sodomy, and the like, Republicans cut social programs for the poor. This is a plausible and attractive argument except for one thing. We know with certainty that abortion and sodomy are evil, but we do not know with any certainty whether any particular disbursement of funds for the poor is good or bad or mixed. Our faith directs us to give alms, quietly and generously, and to bless and care for the widows and the fatherless, but it also tells us that those who will not work shall not eat. Distinctions, often difficult ones, must be made in our policies between who should be marked as poor and who should not, and on how collective monies should be spent or not spent for their relief, the kind of distinctions that have historically marked differing party philosophies, and upon which Christians have historically had differences of opinion. A Christian may think the Democrats’ social, economic, or environmental programs are superior to the Republicans’, but he knows that the Democrats’ moral policies are aggressively ungodly.

In the United States one doesn’t attack God by declaring himself an atheist and establishing a party on the principle. God is, after all, like the eagle, one of our national emblems. If one wishes to make a political point of unbelief, he will doubtless be happier in France. The way to do away with God here, in a country with a consensual history, even among its non-Christians, of Christian principle, is incrementally to make Christianity immoral. Lift up A Woman’s Right to Choose or Every Child’s Right to Be Wanted as unexceptionable points of public piety, so making Christians’ historical opposition to infanticide mean-spirited and un-American. Represent their conviction that homosexuality is sinful as hatred for the homosexual and an attempt to deprive him of his civil rights. Make Christian belief that fornication is sin and illegitimacy is an evil society should make every effort to discourage into a perverse, bigoted desire to assert moral superiority and grind the face of the poor. Make attempts to bring natural law or universally accepted moral principles to bear on public discourse a covert attempt to establish religion. Enlist dim and compromised Christians by representing to them that the party standing for all these things is the party of Christian charity because the public resources it uses to assist in killing some children are used to feed others. Do these effectively, and one can talk as much about God and be as religious and true-blue American as one pleases. The threat of the real God has been effectively removed, while the party that has accomplished this feat can claim both civic and religious virtue, enlisting any number of liberal ministers for its barkers....

Here is the April editorial, by Leon J. Podles:

.... Although the Democrats sometimes use libertarian language and claim they want to make abortion simply a matter between a women and her doctor, this is a lie. They want the government to fund abortion, to force insurers to cover abortion, to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, to prevent pro-life people from protesting abortion. The libertarian language cloaks a determination to use the government to forcibly "liberate" people from "oppressive and discriminatory" traditions, such as protecting the life of the unborn....

Marriage and religion are closely connected; procreation and a belief and trust in a Creator are closely allied. Those who reject the meaning that marriage, family, and traditional religion give to life suffer a void, which they try to fill by seeking meaning in politics. This was the curse of Europe in the twentieth century, as the false religions of Nazism and Communism captured state after state. The new religion of liberation has its totalitarian aspect: It seeks to free man from his inherited prejudices (marriage, family, Christianity) through an activist state. This state, having created the void, then makes everyone dependent upon itself for meaning, at least for the only meaning it sees that life can hold: a perpetual liberation, a society that transgresses all boundaries....

A vote for a Democrat today is almost always a vote for abortion and a vote to violate the consciences of those of us who oppose abortion. The effect of various fiscal polices on the poor are uncertain; the effect of abortion on human life is certain. Whatever can be said for or against Democratic economic policies from a Christian point of view, nothing can be said in favor of their abortion policy. They have favored abortion at every stage and at every opportunity; they see no problem with forcing Christians to pay for abortion through taxes and compulsory insurance coverage; they will force Christian institutions to accept abortion; they will silence those who protest abortion. When Democrats do not do these things, it is only because they are weak. When they are strong, what will restrain them?

Is it a sin to vote Democratic? Usually yes, because a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a supporter of abortion or a vote that strengthens a party whose only sacred tenet is the right to unrestricted abortion. A vote for a pro-abortion Republican is usually also wrong, because a vote for any pro-abortion candidate is counted by politicians as support for abortion....

See "The Godless Party: Media Bias & Blindness — And the Big Story They Missed" and "Political Orphans: How the Democratic Party Left Traditional Believers Behind".

(Thanks, Amy.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 06/30/03 11:57:15 AM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

"10 Things to Celebrate"

An inspiring column by Dinesh D'Souza in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle:

America is under attack as never before -- not only from terrorists but also from people who provide a justification for terrorism. Islamic fundamentalists declare America the Great Satan. Europeans rail against American capitalism and American culture. South American activists denounce the United States for "neocolonialism" and oppression.

Anti-Americanism from abroad would not be such a problem if Americans were united in standing up for their own country. But in this country itself, there are those who blame America for most of the evils in the world. On the political left, many fault the United States for a history of slavery, and for continuing inequality and racism. Even on the right, traditionally the home of patriotism, we hear influential figures say that America has become so decadent that we are "slouching towards Gomorrah."

If these critics are right, then America should be destroyed. And who can dispute some of their particulars? This country did have a history of slavery and racism continues to exist. There is much in our culture that is vulgar and decadent. But the critics are wrong about America, because they are missing the big picture. In their indignation over the sins of America, they ignore what is unique and good about American civilization.

As an immigrant who has chosen to become an American citizen, I feel especially qualified to say what is special about America. Having grown up in a different society -- in my case, Bombay, India -- I am not only able to identify aspects of America that are invisible to the natives, but I am acutely conscious of the daily blessings that I enjoy in America. Here, then, is my list of the 10 great things about America....

-- America has gone further than any other society in establishing equality of rights. There is nothing distinctively American about slavery or bigotry. Slavery has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination are worldwide phenomena. Western civilization is the only civilization to mount a principled campaign against slavery; no country expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United States. While racism remains a problem, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs, and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place. And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say, Ethiopia or Somalia....

(Thanks, Charles.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 06/30/03 11:22:59 AM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

"College Rulings Add Insult to Injury"

A fine column by Abigail Thernstrom in The Los Angeles Times*, yesterday:

.... Of course many non-Asian minority students do not need racial preferences to get into selective schools. But those preferences are necessary, the court said, to create a "critical mass" of blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.

What is a critical mass? Critical mass, the director of admissions helpfully explained, means "meaningful numbers" or "meaningful representation." Other administrators came up with slightly more illuminating answers. The law school dean was concerned that "underrepresented" minority students not feel "isolated." Translation: We need to make sure the number of black students is sufficient to allow black student organizations, black study groups and so forth. And in many colleges, that critical mass also allows separate dorms, freshman orientations and graduation celebrations. In other words, a school's commitment to "diversity" is essential to the self-segregation so prevalent in institutions of higher education.

The court (ignoring the self-segregation apparent on almost every campus) talks about the "educational benefits" that "diversity" brings. "Being a racial minority" is a "unique experience." The statement comes awfully close to saying that all Latinos think alike and whites need to hear the "Latino" point of view. In any case, O'Connor offers no evidence of any actual "educational benefits," and Justice Clarence Thomas is surely right to say that the law school's primary interest is "aesthetic." The school, he wrote, "wants to have a certain appearance, from the shape of the desks and tables in its classrooms to the color of the students sitting at them."

Race has been called the "American dilemma." It is, in fact, the American undoing — the ground on which we lose our footing, the problem that plays havoc with bedrock American values. Racial classifications in the United States have a long and ugly history; racial subordination was all about double standards, with different entitlements depending on your racial identity. Nevertheless, the highest court in the land has now embraced them. It is a bleak day in American constitutional law.

The majority opinion in Grutter reads like a panic attack that triggers desperate and unconvincing arguments. Without racial preferences, we'll sink, it implies. Black, Latino and Native American students just can't meet white and Asian standards, O'Connor seems to presume. American educators constantly and rightly bemoan the low academic expectations schools have for non-Asian minority kids. But O'Connor, in effect, sanctions those low expectations — indeed she writes them into 14th Amendment law....

(Thanks, Peter.)

* By a typo, that originally read "The Lost Angeles Times". :-)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 06/30/03 10:27:29 AM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

Olson Contra Chick

Carl Olson calls attention, yesterday, to the latest screed from Jack Chick:

A reader recently requested my comments on one of the newest Jack Chick tracts, titled "Who’s Missing?", which proclaims the "truth" of the coming pretribulation Rapture, the subsequent Tribulation, and the brainwashed hysteria of Catholics. Any Catholic familiar with the infamous Chick comics (now nearly four decades in existence) might wonder, "Why bother?"

One reason is that far too many Catholics are naïve about the harsh, even virulent, nature of Fundamentalist beliefs about Catholics and the Catholic Church. That naivete is destroyed when a family member or friend becomes a Fundamentalist (aka, "non-denominational Bible Christian"), swayed by emotional, seemingly "biblical" arguments about the apostate and corrupt nature of Catholic doctrines and practices....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 06/30/03 09:29:31 AM
Categorized as Religious.

Religion of Peace?

"Christians Besieged in Pakistan"

So reports WaTi, June 28:

.... The All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, representing Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Balmeek, Bheel, Maingwal, Zoarastrian, Bahai and Kelash communities, has compiled a "catalogue of terror" on attacks against female Christians, beginning with the May 3, 2000, gang rape of eight Christian girls by militant Muslims near Lahore.

A series of either gang rapes or acid-in-the-face attacks happened in July 2000, twice in 2001, twice in 2002 and three times so far in 2003.

On March 31, Natasha Emmanuel, 10, from a town near Rawalpindi, was raped by a Muslim neighbor linked with extremist Islamic organizations. The girl ended up in a hospital intensive-care unit for three days, the ICC says.

"Christians in Pakistan are increasingly vulnerable to religiously motivated hate crimes, and Christian girls and women seem to be specially targeted," said Stuart Windsor, director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide in London. "We are outraged by the unwillingness of the police to investigate the complaints as this only emboldens extremists to continue to victimize Christians and other non-Muslims." ....

Are there violent Christians? Sure. Do they commit violence against members of other religious groups? Sure. Does the American public defend them for having done so? No way. Do the American authorities look the other way? Certainly not.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 06/30/03 08:15:30 AM
Categorized as International.