Farm the whales?

Save the Whales! Environmentalists for decades have been closely associated with this particular campaign and are directly responsible for the worldwide ban on commercial whaling in 1986. As a result of this ban, whale numbers around the globe have increased - though they are still a small fraction of the amount that existed in the 19th century and before.

Now, however, there is a proposal to allow Japan to have limited commercial whaling as a way to try to control and regulate the practice. Japan has, of course, been openly flouting international law by continuing to allow whaling for "scientific purposes", though it is clear that such practices are simply a front for commercial whaling - as proved by the presence of whale meat in Japanese restaurants and dinner tables.

Naturally such a proposal will result in an outcry - no! Whales are noble creatures! To use them for food and other commercial reasons is immoral! Allowing commercial whaling will cause the extinction of another of earth's animals! We cannot condone murder!

But the only way for people to adhere to such an argument is for them to be vegetarians, specifically vegetarians who believe that killing animals is murder. The vast majority of us - myself included - are happily omnivorous. Yet it is one thing to eat whale meat - it is another thing to do it and cause the death of a species. Chickens, cows and pigs have all died so that I and millions can enjoy our KFC bucket, our medium rare steak or our bacon and egg breakfast.

The problem is, though, that mainstream society is not vegetarian and is not likely to become vegetarian by choice. Poorer people around the world are vegetarian not by choice but by circumstance - but for us in rich, industrialised countries, we are happy to eat meat. The problem is that the environmental movement contains more than its fair share of vegetarians who morally oppose eating animals so that, if they get their way, no one would eat them. For carnivorous greenies like myself, that is a problem.

I've written previously about our coming vegetarian future, yet this situation will come about simply by necessity rather than choice: the limited space available for farmers to meet future demand will be dedicated to grains and legumes rather than livestock as the food energy output of the former is greater than the latter. Cows, pigs, sheep and chickens will still be used for food in the future - but they will be much more expensive than they are today.

Whales, of course, are no different to any other animal when it comes to consumption. If we can happily eat cows and pigs and fish, we can also happily eat whale. The difference, though, is that whales are endangered while cows and pigs are not. From this we can come to some sort of ethical conclusion which allows mankind to consume animals so long as we do not cause them inordinate suffering or wipe them out completely.

Such a conclusion is not outside the bounds of Christian teaching either. Christian blogger Byron Smith pointed out that Reformation hero John Calvin could be classed as a "greenie" for this teaching:

The earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation... The custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition that, being content with the frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence, but let him endeavor to hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated. Let him so feed on its fruits, that he neither dissipates it by luxury, nor permits it to be marred or ruined by neglect. Moreover, that this economy, and this diligence, with respect to those good things which God has given us to enjoy, may flourish among us; let everyone regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved.

So the idea is then that even carnivores like yours truly (and you too most likely) have a responsibility to care for the earth that God has provided so that we can live, and that those who degrade the earth and make it worse for future generations are committing a very serious sin.

But let's get back to whales. For centuries mankind has sent fleets of ships into the oceans to hunt and kill whales to provide consumers with food and whale oil. Of course there's nothing wrong with utilising these resources - but what happened ended up bringing whales to the brink of extinction. Thanks to the 1986 ban (and to Star Trek IV), commercial whaling has been outlawed - excepting the Japanese and a few others - and whale numbers have begun to grow again. One notable example of this is the Blue Whale, which had dropped to maybe 650 individuals during the 1960s, but has increased to over 5000 today after a whaling ban in the 1960s (though still a fraction of the 275,000 Blue Whales estimated to have been alive before commercial whaling began). Population increases among other whale species has also been noted.

So with all this good news, why consider going back to whaling? The logic behind such a return is similar to that employed by advocates of drug legalisation - harm minimisation is more effective than criminalisation. In the case of whaling, the argument is that a heavily regulated return to commercial whaling is more likely to preserve whale numbers than the current ban. This is because the ban has created a demand for illegal whaling. Allowing a return to commercial whaling - which would be heavily limited by quotas - would reduce this demand and legitimise it. Moreover, quotas could increase as whale numbers increase, or decrease if numbers decrease, so long as the amount of whales killed by commercial whaling is much lower than the amount of whales that are born - preferably by a large percentage (eg 1 whale killed by commercial whaling for every 10 whales born). Linking quotas with whale population will ensure that commercial whaling companies have a financial interest in increasing the amount of whales in the ocean, thus giving them incentive to not hunt illegally (lest a complete ban be reinstated) and self-regulate.

The question is, though, have whale numbers increased to the point where even commercial whaling can be reinstated? While the 1986 ban has led to growing whale numbers, whale populations worldwide will still take centuries to recover from mankind's plunder. Depending upon the species of whale, a return to whaling - even heavily regulated by quotas - may still be unsustainable. While I certainly support a careful return to commercial whaling, my support is heavily qualified.

But all of this may be irrelevant anyway - experts are, after all, predicting an ocean die off once global warming goes too far. Maybe all I'm supporting is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Time will tell.

Scorpions and Simpsons - child porn?

Two interesting internet events have happened in the past couple of days - both of which are a result of an unrestricted format butting up against national child pornography laws.

The first is in the UK, where some Wikipedia images have been censored - specifically the original 1976 album cover of a German Heavy Metal band called Scorpions. The album cover was the image of a naked pre-teen girl with her private parts obscured but her chest still visible. The album was called "Virgin Killer". The Wikipedia page, where you can see the image, is here. The image was recently censored in the UK because it was considered "child porn".

The second case occurred in Australia where a man who had images of naked Simpsons characters - including the children - found on his hard drive. Many of these images were of a deliberately sexual nature.

Now I'm not a defender of child porn at all. I've actually known three paedophiles who kept their sexual dysfunction secret from the people around them, only for the police to eventually arrest and charge them. I support international efforts to close down and expose child porn rings - even more so after knowing these three paedophiles.

Yet I have to say that there are some rather important issues that have been raised as a result of these two recent cases.

Consider the poor Scorpions, that German Heavy Metal band with the tasteless album cover. Even back in 1976 the cover was controversial and they were forced to change it (to the one shown above). In hindsight I'm sure that some of the band members are probably regretting their decision. Yet even so, images of the original cover can be found throughout the internet, not just at Wikipedia. Moreover, the album image is also shown in books that can be legally purchased. If the UK has decided to censor that particular image then they should be consistent and prevent access to the album cover from all websites. They should also ban the sale of books that contain that image as well.

The case of the naked Simpsons images is no less problematic. The fact is that the characters depicted in the images are cartoon characters and are not just fictional but have no bearing to real life. Yet at the same time there are images of Bart, Lisa and even Maggie engaged in sexual acts.

But this issue gets even worse when you consider the fact that the characters of both Bart and Maggie have appeared naked in official Simpsons animation, not just in the sick minds of internet artists. Anyone who has seen the latest Simpsons movie knows that one of the more humourous moments involves Bart skateboarding in the nude, the highlight of which occurs when objects just "happen" to pass in front of his genitalia as he skateboards along that prevents us from seeing them... only for his entire body to disappear behind a hedge with only his penis visible (see bottom image).

So while a judge may rule the sick fan-drawings of naked Simpsons characters to be child porn, the fact remains that naked Simpsons characters are broadcast on a regular basis on Network TV and, in the case of Bart and his exposed penis, available to buy from the nearest K-Mart store.


In both of these cases (Scorpions and Simpsons) a decision has been made by someone in power that determines that something is "child porn", while at the same time opening up a whole new area of censorship on legally available images (whether in books or on TV/DVD). This is not necessarily a problem (I'm not a huge supporter of the anti-censorship brigade) but the law needs to be enforced consistently - and if it can't then what is the point of having the law?

Back in 1978, actress Brooke Shields, then 12 years old, appeared nude in a film called Pretty Baby, where she played an underage prostitute. This was certainly controversial at the time yet the film itself has not been banned nor have Shields' nude images in the film been deemed underage porn by authorities. Nor have the authorities banned the Led Zeppelin album Houses of the Holy or the film The Song Remains the Same, which also contain images of nude children.

By the way, this is not some attempt to defend images of child porn - all I'm trying to point out is that authorities have been inconsistent in their application of censorship.

What if Bristol were black?

From the department of It's okay if you're a Republican?

Christian-right leaders and conservative stalwarts have praised the decision of Bristol Palin, the daughter of Governor Sarah Palin, to carry her child to term. She is 17 and conceived this child out of wedlock. Now imagine she wasn't the daughter of a prominent Republican politician but an average person. Now imagine she was black.

What do you think conservatives would have to say about her? "Typical, urban youth with no sense of responsibility raised with loose morals who plans to depend on the state to take care of her child." You know it. It's not within dispute. That's exactly what they would say.

Barack Obama has told everyone to lay off this because it is a personal, family matter. Yes, but it also has public policy ramifications. Governor Palin is for abstinence only education. Well, that obviously didn't work.

Has she learned her lesson? Will she now amend her policy position on this matter given her personal record of failure in implementing this ridiculous stance?

Notice I am not blaming Bristol. Quite the opposite. People like me are the ones that defend the Bristols of the world. It is conservatives like James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and yes, Governor Palin who usually attack people who find themselves in Bristol's situation. They demand a dogmatic adherence to moral strictures and chastise and belittle women who have children out of wedlock. Especially if they are women of color.

Which brings us back to Obama. Do you think the Republicans would lay off of Obama if his 17 year-old daughter had gotten pregnant out of wedlock? You know the answer to that question. Everyone does.

"This is what the permissive liberal attitude gets you. If you allow your children to think everything is acceptable, they have no boundaries. They wind up getting themselves in trouble like this. It's a predictable result of the liberal lifestyle."

And that's before the subtle and not so subtle racial implications are brought into this. There is a constant double-standard of how black and white people and politicians are covered in this country. When a young black girl gets pregnant, she's looking to get money from welfare. When a young white woman gets pregnant, she made an unfortunate mistake and her family is being supportive in trying to help the make the best of it.

Cindy McCain was addicted to drugs and stole from her own charity to feed her addiction. Now what do you think the Republicans would have done if Michelle Obama had done that? How do you think the press would have covered it? You think they would have called it a simple mistake and moved on?

When presented with these examples, no matter who you are, you know in your heart that this double standard exists. All of this is not said to condemn Bristol Palin or Cindy McCain. This is to get you to think twice about your own assumptions about the next time you hear a story of a young African-American woman who got pregnant in the inner city or a minority who got addicted to drugs and committed a crime to feed that addiction.

There but for the grace of God go Bristol Palin and Cindy McCain.

Here's Bill O'Reilly in December 2007:

On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet.

Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves.

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the family, said in January this year:

...the number of working mothers who think a full-time job is the ideal arrangement for them has dropped more than 10 percent in the last decade — a reflection, one must assume, of a renewed realization that nothing is more important than being there for your kids.

James Dobson, in "The New Dare To Discipline", blames the supposed crumbling of “moral values” and “anarchy that is now rumbling through the midsection of democracy” on working mothers and “permissiveness.”

More on Sarah Palin

Hmmm. I've been doing some more research into Sarah Palin, John McCain's surprise pick as Vice President.

Of huge interest is the fact that she has revealed that her teenage daughter is pregnant. Apparently this information was released as a way of countering all that news on the internet about her recent birth of Trig, who has Down's syndrome, actually being a cover-up of Trig actually being her daughter's baby.

As a result, I have spent a bit of time "muck-raking". I've been searching the internet like a sewer rat trying to find evidence of any cover-up. While some may say that this is nothing but a way to smear her, my response is simply that I will try to present facts and then see where they go. My aim is always to be objective, of course. I have no personal beef against Palin.

If it is true that Sarah Palin was not actually pregnant and that it was actually her daughter Bristol who gave birth, then these points are interesting:

• Such a cover up would have been difficult to keep quiet. The entire Palin family would have to have agreed not to let anyone know that Bristol was pregnant. Not only that, but her personal staff and extended family would have some idea of what is going on.
  
• Sarah Palin's motive in covering up her daughter's pregnancy is important here. This motive would be so important to her that she created an elaborate scam and made people believe that she was pregnant. This would be a very politically risky action, since any political fallout resulting from her daughter's pregnancy would be nothing compared to any political fallout resulting from her scam being exposed.
  
• Having said that, there is some concern about her actions immediately preceding Trig's birth. She began "leaking" prior to making a speech in Texas, yet managed to make the speech, jump on a flight to Seattle, wait around for a connecting flight to Anchorage, fly to Anchorage, then, ignoring the Anchorage hospitals, drive 42 miles to a hospital in Palmer. There she is induced and gives birth some eight hours later, with her family doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, present at the birth. This sequence of events did not pass unnoticed by the press at the time, but the questions asked were not about whether she was "faking it", but whether they were wise, considering her health.
  
• Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, the Palin family doctor, has commented publicy about the being present at the birth. If a cover-up has occurred, then Baldwin-Johnson was part of it. Baldwin-Johnson, from everything I have read so far on the internet, is a highly skilled and respected physician and is considered one of Alaska's top doctors. Moreover, she was "named the 2002 Family Physician of the Year by the American Academy of Family Physicians". Examples of her competence and skill can be found here, and here (with photo). Of course it is possible for such a respected figure to involve herself in such an elaborate cover-up, but the risks in doing so would be huge.
  
• There are no photos I have seen yet which show Palin in an advanced state of pregnancy prior to the birth of Trig. Then again, Alaska is a small state and its media would hardly have the same sort of image resources that bigger states would have. By way of contrast, the Hunter Valley, where I live, has about 90% the population of Alaska and I can't even remember who our mayor is, let alone find large amounts of images of him/her.
• Interestingly, there is no online record of Trig's birth at the hospital. Trig was born on April 22, but the hospital's online records do not show this. Of course, there may be all sorts of reasons for this, not least the decision to keep such an event private. The fact that the hospital doesn't have an online record of the birth does not mean that the hospital didn't record it. Moreover, if you look at the actual pages, there are pictures of happy families and babies all over the place. I can imagine that the governor of the state requested that no photos be taken of Trig. I can also imagine other "regular" parents doing the same thing.
• Moreover, if Trig was not Sarah's child but Bristol's, what would be the point of dragging the poor kid a few hundred miles north, past the Arctic Circle, to be present at some whaling festival? Politicans will always drag their family along with them for photo shoots, but I think that dragging along your grandson and passing it off as your own in front of a bunch of voters would be too much. It's possible, but very, very cynical.
• In short, it is much easier to believe that Trig is Sarah Palin's fifth child than it is to believe that it is Bristol's. Providing photos of the birth and Trig's birth certificate may be able to quell some of the speculation, but, as it stands, the idea that Trig is Bristol's son is something that just doesn't work out. Why the elaborate cover-up? Why involve one of Alaska's most prominent physicians in the cover-up? It just doesn't add up.
• Hanlon's Razor is important here: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  

Having said all those things, however, I would like to point out one more thing that conservative "family-values" voters should take into consideration - is Sarah Palin being a responsible mother? She has a infant son with a serious disability that will need more and more looking after as he gets older. More than that, she now has a pregnant teenage daughter who is going to marry her boyfriend. Her daughter will need her help and support. Regardless of her political pedigree, is it really wise for her to embark upon a Vice-Presidential campaign? Is it really wise for her to have these family stresses while working as America's second most powerful person? Would her commitment to her son and daughter be compromised by her role as Vice President or even President?

One thing is for sure - there are plenty of people out there who are qualified to be Vice President. But is there anyone else out there better qualified to be Bristol and Trig's mom?

Update 08:00GMT

Finally saw a picture of Palin pregnant. You can see it here. It's a link to a Right wing site but there's no reason to think the photo was doctored in any way.

Unfortunately for Palin, it seems that the Myspace sites of Bristol and her friends were not taken down fast enough. One lot of photos is here and while it shows some nice family shots of a newborn Trig it also shows quite a lot of underage drinking and partying down. I can't be certain but some of the shots I think involve Bristol. Another set of photos is here. The New York Daily News also has some shots of Bristol's boyfriend Levi.

In short, the "next big thing" in the news is going to be Palin's moral conservative political stance being contrasted with the underage drinking and premarital sex going on in her family. Again, let me state that I am not absolutely certain that any of the photos show Bristol since I (and many others) cannot identify these people accurately. It doesn't look good, though.

A retarded film?

Ben Stiller is not my favourite actor. With the notable exception of Mystery Men and that stupid Return of the King Easter Egg, I own no DVD in which Ben Stiller is present. And I'm proud.

To me, Ben Stiller represents all that despise about Hollywood. He appears in films that I find turgid, desperate and mechanical - typical 21st century Hollywood cookie cutter comedies that are big on simplicity and small on sophistication. Call me an elitist if you wish, but I am certainly thankful that I don't have to look forward to the next instalment of Ben Stiller's terrible acting career.

Stiller's latest movie, Tropic Thunder, is one that I will probably never see. Any film with Stiller's presence automatically means that I won't view it (other actors whose presence means danger are Tom Cruise, Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas).

Tropic Thunder, however, is not looking like just another Ben Stiller picture. The film seems to be upsetting all sorts of people at the moment. Is this a good thing? Are people finally saying "no more" to Ben Stiller? No. They're annoyed at how the film treats people with intellectual disabilites and the usage of the "r" word - retarded.

In order to understand where these people come from, I have had to actually read some of the film's script and have even viewed a segment of the film that was deemed to be problematic. To be honest, watching Ben Stiller and listening to his dialogue was a more disturbing experience than, say, looking at actual war footage from the current conflict in Georgia. Nevertheless, I pressed on and this is what I found.

Tropic Thunder is about 3 method actors (Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr) in a war film. For whatever reason, the film's director decides to give them real guns and places them in a real conflict in some tropical area of the world where they are left to fend for themselves. All three actors are Prima Donnas - exactly the sort of actor everyone loves to hate. They are self obsessed, oblivious to the real world and demand all sorts of attention. Stiller's character, Tugg Speedman, had just played an intellectually disabled person in a previous film called Simple Jack. While walking along in the jungle, Stiller's character speaks to Downey Jr's character about the difficulties in playing "retards" on film.

It is that scene that has made people angry. In the Washington Post, Patricia Bauer argues that such a scene has done untold damage to intellectually disabled people in America. Bauer and others seem to believe that this dialogue will increase the proliferation of negative stereotypes and lead to difficulty in getting intellectually disabled people accepted into society.

The problem with Bauer and others is that they are aiming at the wrong target. Tropic Thunder, for starters, is hardly going to change community attitudes on anything (except reinforce the market for bad films and the career of Ben Stiller).

The use of the word "Retard" by Stiller and Downey Jr in the film is designed to be confrontational. It is a situation in which two people are using a negative word quite freely - a word that is not used much in today's conversations. The conversation is supposed to make the audience unsettled. Why? Because it highlights the vapid and closeted nature of the characters. In other words, the use of the word "retard" actually makes the Stiller and Downey Jr characters less likeable in the audience's mind. The joke is on them.

Imagine, if you will, a film in which racist behaviour in America's Southern states is a main theme. Imagine that we see a bunch of white men talking about "niggers". Of course, in a film like this we should naturally hear racial epithets being used as the characters depicted are trying to be faithfully recreated. The fact that racist attitudes and racial epithets are present in a film in which racism is a major theme should not surprise us.

In Tropic Thunder, Tugg Speedman and Kirk Lazarus (Stiller and Downey Jr) are two Prima Donna actors who have no idea that modern societal attitudes are different to theirs. They are blinded by their selfishness and by their self absorbtion. It is in that context that they refer to intellectually disabled people as "retards". The joke is upon them - they, not intellectually disabled people - are the ones being laughed at by the audience. Moreover, by these two being the butt of the joke, societal acceptance of intellectually disabled people is actually reinforced.

Tropic Thunder does not depict Moses or Jesus or George Washington referring to intellectually disabled people as "retards" - it depicts two obviously selfish, self absorbed individuals describing intellectually disabled people as "retards". Therein lies the difference - the usage of the epithet in the text is by characters that are depicted in a negative way. Thus, if there is any message from this part of the film, it is that only stupid and vacuous people call others "retards" - and that has to be a good thing.

(Note: I have worked with intellectually disabled people - I used to be a workplace trainer for a non-profit disability services organisation called House With No Steps)

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Stem cells from skin

From the department of yes-you-know-all-about- it-but-you're-dying-to-hear-my- opinion-anyway:

Human skin cells have been reprogrammed by two groups of scientists to mimic embryonic stem cells with the potential to become any tissue in the body.

The breakthrough promises a plentiful new source of cells for use in research into new treatments for many diseases.

Crucially, it could mean that such research is no longer dependent on using cells from human embryos, which has proved highly controversial.

The US and Japanese studies feature in the journals Science and Cell.

As other Christians have commented (like Craig) this discovery is wonderful and can help defuse much of the ethical problems with stem cell research. The fact that cells can now be created via skin, and not through human embryos, means that any potential "production line" of embryos being farmed is now looking less and less unlikely.

A good reason why I'm opposed to the Death Penalty

From the department of criminal-incompetence:

Prosecutors had linked the weapon to Kulbicki through forensic science. Maryland's top firearms expert said that the gun had been cleaned and that its bullets were consistent in size with the one that killed the victim. The state expert could not match the markings on the bullets to Kulbicki's gun. But an FBI expert took the stand to say that a science that matches bullets by their lead content had linked the fatal bullet to Kulbicki.

The jurors were convinced, and in 1995 Kulbicki was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his 22-year-old girlfriend. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

For a dozen years, Kulbicki sat in state prison, saddled with the image of the calculating killer portrayed in the 1996 made-for-TV movie "Double Jeopardy."

Then the scientific evidence unraveled.

Earlier this year, the state expert committed suicide, leaving a trail of false credentials, inaccurate testimony and lab notes that conflicted with what he had told jurors. Two years before, the FBI crime lab had discarded the bullet-matching science that it had used to link Kulbicki to the crime.

Now a judge in Baltimore County is weighing whether to overturn Kulbicki's conviction in a legal challenge that could have ripple effects across Maryland. The case symbolizes growing national concerns about just how far forensic experts are willing to go to help prosecutors secure a conviction.

To be honest, there's every chance that the guy who was charged with this crime actually did it. Fortunately he was not executed, but the same could not be said for other instances of incompetence within the law-enforcement community.

In this particular case, the prosecution hinged upon the man's use of a .38 calibre handgun to kill his girlfriend. An expert witness, an engineer and scientist, concluded before the court that the bullet used to kill the woman was fired from the man's handgun. Many years later, the credentials of the expert were found to be false and the "expert" committed suicide as a result. When the forensic evidence of this particular case was then re-examined, it seems that the bullet could not have been fired from the man's handgun.

Bungling police officers, unqualified experts, drunk defence lawyers and corrupt juries bedevil too many criminal cases around the world, especially in the US. No system of justice is perfect, though it is in the interests of everyone that professionalism and objectivity be paramount in any criminal trial.

The main reason I oppose the death penalty is that, too often, convicted murderers have ended up being executed and then posthumously exonerated by evidence of unprofessionalism, incompetence and bias in the trial process. The advantage of throwing a murdered in jail for the rest of his life is that, if he is eventually found to be innocent, then the means exists for recompense.

Having not worked in professional law enforcement, I am not aware of the pressure that policemen, judges, lawyers and experts may have upon them. History shows us, however, that even in a modern society innocent people can end up being jailed because of unprofessional and subjective. The imprisonment of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the death of Jean Charles de Menezes are examples of conduct unbecoming law enforcement officials in the face of public and political pressure.

Mistakes will always be made when people are charged with criminal offenses, and those whose job it is to enforce the law try very hard to ensure that they do the right thing. It is the interests of society to have professional, unimpeachable, transparent and accountable law enforcement. Yet when mistakes are made, there should be a way of ensuring that those who suffer are compensated. This can't occur when the person has been executed.

There are many reasons why the death penalty should not be practised in a modern nation. The fact that innocent people have been executed is one of the most important reasons for its abolishment. Sending murderers to jail for life - without possibility of parole - is a far better solution.

Bad Egg?

When Anna and I go out shopping, we always purchase either barn-laid eggs or free range. We know they cost more than eggs from battery hens, but we feel that we cannot condone the suffering that battery hens go through to give us eggs.

It's not that we're PETA-loving vegetarians. On the contrary, we are both omnivorous and love eating meat. This means, of course, that we're fine about animals being bred for consumption. I don't want animals to suffer, however, in the lead-up to being slaughtered.

In the ACT, the RSPCA is lobbying territory ministers to ban battery hens and Tasmania is also considering it. There's no doubt that this would result in higher egg prices, lower egg production and less money to egg farmers, but, along with some level of government compensation to producers, any changes should be easily accepted by the population at large.

I would also like it if other forms of animal suffering could be lessened through legislation. Again, I'm a meat-eater but I'm happy to pay more for and/or eat less of meat and dairy products if it means that the animals that God gave us stewardship over can live happy lives before being killed and eaten by us.

Abortion and The Australian

Craig linked to this article in today's Australian. This is the offending paragraph:

The US state of South Dakota voted in February 2006 to ban all abortions, followed by the African nation of Kenya. Isolated instances, sure, but in many places, for the first time since the turbulence of the 1960s and '70s, clear majorities have indicated a deep unease about abortion.

Two points to make:

1. South Dakota repealed the law in November 2006 after massive public outcry led to a referendum that was 56%-44% against the new law.


2. A majority of Americans have supported abortion for a long time.

The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News. Fixing facts around conservative politics is their speciality.

Check my FAQ for my view on abortion.

Wade Burlson, the Pill and Abortion

Wade Burlson is a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention who is part of a movement to reform and renew the church. His latest posting was about the control of the SBC over its members but has ended up becoming a heated discussion about abortion. This is the offending illustration that Wade uses in his post:

SBC Interviewer: "Do you use contraception?"
SBC Interviewee (female): "Yes."
SBC Interviewer: "What kind of contraceptive method do you practice?"
SBC Interviewee: "The pill."
SBC Interviewer: "Are you aware that the pill changes the lining of the wall of the uterus so that if ovulation happens to occur the fertilized egg cannot implant itself in the uterus?
SBC Interviewee: "No, I was unaware of that fact."
SBC Interviewer: "Do you believe life begins at conception?"
SBC Interviewee: "Yes."
SBC Interviewer: "So, if you carry life in your body via a fertilized egg, but refuse to allow that life to be implanted in your uterus by means of a pill, are you taking that life into your own hands, playing God, and committing an abortion of choice?"

The illustration goes on. The point of Wade's use of this illustration is to show just how personal the SBC could become in its control over people. Yet the use of such a touchy subject as abortion has got some readers heated up and claiming that Wade supports abortion by supporting the pill.

Let me just summarise the particular problem:
1) A woman who uses the Pill as a contraceptive will prevent conception in 99% of cases. This is because the Pill prevents ovulation.
2) In 1% of cases, the woman will ovulate and there is a chance that conception will occur.
3) The Pill causes changes in the woman's uterus that prevents the fertilised egg from being implanted, which results in the loss of the fertilised egg.
4) A Fertilised egg is considered a human being created by God.
5) Therefore, if a woman used the Pill, then she may be causing the death of a human being.
6) Therefore, Christians should not use the Pill for contraception.

It's an interesting argument. Let me point out that I am reasonably conservative at this point. I believe that a fertilised egg is a human being and this new information that I have learned today has disturbed me and forced me to delve into the issue more deeply. My wife and I used the Pill early on in our marriage for a couple of years, and it has shocked me that we may have caused the death of an unborn child.

Fortunately, I have found the answer. The answer lies in the natural prevalence of miscarriages.

Medical science has determined that a full 25% of conceptions result in miscarriage - most of them occurred within the first few weeks and went totally unnoticed by the woman.

We need to remember that, while sad, such a high death rate has been recognised by God. It is he who has chosen such a high number of miscarriages.

So if a woman takes the Pill, she actually prevents conception - which results in less miscarriages. Yes, a fetus may die because it does not implant in the wall of the uterus - but overall, there are less deaths.

To reiterate - using the Pill results in far less miscarriages than normal.

To illustrate - imagine a woman who is super fertile and will conceive whenever the chance occurs. If she takes the pill, then, statistically, one child will die for every 100 times she, um, well... you know. But if she does not take the pill, then, statistically, 25 children will die. (She will also have 75 kids, which shows how limited this illustration is)

Evangelicals fighting to allow death by stupidity

It's hard being an evangelical. Every time I read the news and see what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are doing, it makes me weep.

The latest issue? The fact that Evangelicals are now fighting to allow a Christian teenager the chance to die by parental stupidity.

The individual in question is Starchild Abraham Cherrix, a 16-year old kid from Virginia. Yes, you read that right, his first name is Starchild. That in itself should indicate a problem. Personally I think it would have been better to name him Adolf or Elvis... but these are not people who can be reasoned with.

Starchild Abe has Hodgkin's Lymphoma. After being diagnosed in 2005, he was put onto a regime of chemotherapy. According to the Wikipedia article, Hodgkin's has an 85% cure rate if treated in this way.

But after his first round of treatment, Starchild Abe and his parents decided that they would ditch the chemo. Instead, they would go for alternative treatment - the discredited Hoxsey Therapy that is only available in Mexico.

Hoxsey Therapy is about as useless and as superstitous as you can get in the modern world of alternative medicine. The reason why it is not approved as an alternative therapy in the USA is because no extensive medical testing has shown it to be effective. Indeed, many tests have proved that it has absolutely no effect whatsoever upon cancer sufferers. The American Cancer Society has publically repudiated the treatment:

After study of the literature and other available information, the American Cancer Society has found no evidence that the Hoxsey Method results in objective benefit in the treatment of cancer in human beings. Lacking such evidence, the American Cancer Society strongly urges individuals with cancer not to seek treatment with the Hoxsey Method.

Nevertheless, a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico offers the Hoxsey therapy to rich and stupid Americans who wish to spend money in the last few years of life believing that drinking a mixture of "licorice, red clover, burdock root, Stillingia root, barberry, Cascara, prickly ash bark, buckthorn bark, and potassium iodide" and having a paste of "antimony, zinc and bloodroot, arsenic, sulfur, and talc" covered over their skin (quotes from Wikipedia).

Now I may be wrong at this point, but one of the rights that patients have in America is the choice to refuse treament. Doctors cannot force treatment onto unwilling patients, who can opt to refuse treatment and instead die horrible deaths from preventable diseases if they so desire.

But Starchild Abe is a different case altogether. Being 16 years old he does not yet have the legal right to refuse treatment. Starchild Abe's parents, who obviously don't trust modern medicine, decided for their child to stop having Chemo and to start the Hoxsey therapy. They obviously told their doctor. Wrong move.

After the first round of treatment, their doctor prescibed another round of chemo. He did so probably because he believed that chemotherapy was the best chance that Starchild Abe had to live. When presented with the parents arguing that they would prefer to smear arsenic paste on his skin and get him to munch on cactus, he decided that enough was enough. He approached a social worker with the case, who was then able to get a court order to prevent Starchild Abe from crossing the Virginia border - the idea being that they were being prevented to cross into Mexico. The court also ordered that Starchild Abe undergo a second round of Chemotherapy.

In a case like this, the state has essentially determined that the parents of Starchild Abe were being grossly negligent in refusing their child medical care. If Starchild Abe was not a minor, his choice to eat cactus and smear aresenic on himself in the mistaken hope that it would cure his cancer would not be acted upon by the court. Since he is still only 16, and because the doctor obviously thought the parents were unreasonable and negligent, the court acted.

The result? Evangelical leaders are falling over themselves in fighting for the right to allow death by stupidity.

Al Mohler has even weighed in on this issue. Comparing the situation with "totalitarian regimes like China and the former Soviet Union", Mohler sees this issue as being one in which the rights of parents to choose the right medical treatment are being eroded by the evil of state interference.

Mind you, this is from a guy who thinks that drinking alcohol is sinful and that torture under strictly defined guidelines is good intelligence practice.

Mohler and others are angry at the idea that the state could interfere with the rights of parents in the way they bring up their children, and that this is an ominous sign of things to come. In other words, communism and Democrats and bogeymen.

Yet, if Starchild Abe's parents decided that the best solution to his condition was to hit him over the head with a specially blessed hammer until the demons of cancer were belted out of the kid, what would Mohler and the others think? Would they defend the right of parents to choose a treatment that would kill him?

And that's the real issue here. There is a reason God gave us brains, and over the years medical researchers have been able to verify through extensive testing that the Hoxsey therapy is a load of hooey. It's snake oil. Putting garlic around Starchild Abe's neck would be a better therapy. By forgetting basic facts and instead running with their political ideology, evangelical leaders who are supporting Starchild Abe's cactus diet are essentially supporting the right to allow a person to die by stupidity.

Of course, there are many contradictions here amongst evangelicals. On the one hand, they don't want the state to interfere with a parent's right to kill their son through stupidity, but they are more than willing to use the apparatus of the state to stop abortion on the basis that it results in the death of human life.

When we look at the bible - especially the Old Testament - we see that society needs to be ordered, and that laws are put into place to prevent people from gross sin. Parents are given responsibility over their children - but society also has a responsibility to ensure that parents don't abuse this situation.

In this case, with chemotherapy offering an 85% success rate, the choice of Starchild Abe's parents to cover him with arsenic paste and have him eat cactus is clearly and unambigiously WRONG. It's high time that courts of law put a stop to deadbeat parents abusing their kids, and this is one of those times.

But by taking the parent's side, Mohler and other evangelicals are arguing for death. Is the right of parents to ultimately determine their child's treatment more important than preventing the unnecessary and painful death of a teenager?


© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Abortion - the war American Evangelicals can't win

Being an Evangelical Christian means, amongst many other things, that I find abortion to be morally wrong. Based on a number of fairly clear passages in the Bible, Evangelical Christians believe quite strongly that human life begins at conception. For a more detailed summary, go to the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Of course, this tends to conflict with my politically liberal side - or at least with the pro-choice narrative that many liberals have. But I will admit without shame that I see myself as an Evangelical Christian first.

Nevertheless, I feel that many American Evangelicals have got it all wrong when it comes to abortion - specifically when they approach the issue of Roe v. Wade. It cannot be doubted that a very clear majority of Americans support abortion. Polls taken throughout three decades not only indicate this clear majority, it also shows that the numbers in support of abortion are actually increasing.

A USA Today / CNN Gallop poll asked just over a thousand adults recently about various questions regarding current events. They also compared these results to previous polls to discern trend lines.

When asked whether the Supreme Court should completely overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, 66% of people said no, while 29% said yes. Polls from 1989 to 2002 show a fairly steady 60/35 relationship between those who wish to keep the ruling (the majority) and those who wish the court to overturn it (the minority). In recent polls, the numbers in support of Roe vs Wade have increased from 60% to around 65% today, while numbers who wish to overturn have declined from 35% down to 30%.

Now being an evangelical, I can still believe that abortion is wrong since God's truth is not determined by popular opinion but by God himself. In practice, this means that I see the Bible as divinely inspired. The fact that the majority of Americans support abortion does not make it right.

But even though most evangelicals would say a hearty "Amen" to those previous three sentences, the fact is that these statistics should worry American evangelicals greatly. What these polls indicate is that America is becoming increasingly secular.

US Census figures over the years have shown that "No Religion" has grown from 8.4% in 1991 to 15.0% in 2001 - that is a massive increase and is clearly indicative of a nation that is no longer seeing itself as linked to historical Christianity At the same time, Baptists (a traditionally evangelical grouping) have declined from 19.8% to 17.2%. Newer evangelical movements like the Pentecostals and Charismatics have continued to grow, but are actually quite small in comparison to the rest of America. I don't see any reason why these census figures should change much by the next census.

Essentially my argument is this - America is getting increasingly secular and the churches are still emptying... and as a result of this, more and more people are accepting abortion as being a fact of life.

So what should evangelicals do?

What they should NOT do is what they're doing at the moment. Evangelicals are ripping their garments in woe and anger at the recent anniversary of Roe vs Wade and reaffirming themselves to direct political action to ban abortion in the United States. Money and time is spent in political tooing and froing, lobbying, letter writing and harsh words on radio. Some Christians decide to picket clinics and voice their opposition.

But while it is vitally important that Christians involve themselves in the running of worldly governments, trying to set up a law based entirely on Christian morals and beliefs in a society that has by and large rejected them is, to put it bluntly, incredibly stupid. While I concur with my fellow Evangelicals that abortion is a grevious sin, I cannot see any positive outcome with the direction my brethren are headed at the moment.

The reason is simple - the majority of American people support abortion and are not Evangelical Christians. If this simple fact were not true then maybe, just maybe, Evangelical political action may actually work.

In this article I've used two statistical pieces of evidence. The first is the USA Today / CNN Gallop poll that has been following societal trends towards abortion and which shows an increasing support for it amongst ordinary Americans. The second is the US Census figures which show an ever increasing secularity amongst American society and a marked decline in church membership, even amongst evangelicals. Do I really need to quote any more primary sources to convince anyone that American Evangelicals are declining in both number and influence?

It is obvious that Evangelicals are fighting the wrong battles: The pomposity of Justice Sunday; the naked hate of Westboro Baptist Church; the dirty politics of James Dobson; the sheer hypocrisy of Ralph Reed; the increasingly bizarre Pat Robertson; I have to admit that I am thoroughly embarrassed by all of these public expressions of Evangelical Christianity. The only reason why I remain an Evangelical, and not turn to atheism, is my solid belief that God himself shares my frustrations.

What should evangelicals do? For starters, they should, in the words of Bill O'Reilly, JUST SHUT UP. Words are cheap, and morally outraged Evangelicals are doing no one a favour when they start complaining about how un-Christian America is. What? America isn't Christian? Well duh!

The second thing evangelicals should do is get back to the basics - knowing and living the gospel of Christ and the Word of God. It's amazing, but ironically the Bible is the least read document in American churches. Instead of preaching from the Bible, most evangelicals preach a spiritualized self-help philosophy based more on Anthony Robbins than the Spirit-inspired word of God. Some even preach the "health and wealth" heresy that will ruin the lives of many once the next recession hits. Hey, fellow Evangelicals, the answer is simple - just teach what the Bible says, not what you want it to say. And preach Christ crucified, died and risen again.

The third thing evangelicals should do is interact with the world lovingly. This does not mean compromise or airy-fairly relativism, but it does mean letting your actions match your words. It also means shutting up (again) and listening to people.

And who knows, some of these people you deal with may end up becoming your friends. More than that - shock horror! - they may even choose to not have an abortion because of your influence! Chances are that this will work much better than bombing clinics or paying corrupt lobbyists to push a Roe-hating federal judge through congress...

From the Theosalient Department

© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Do Evangelicals have blood on their hands?

God does not take death lightly. The Bible is full of instances which show that human life is precious, and that when this life is deliberately taken, a great evil is being perpetrated.

American Evangelicals, strangely enough, do not understand this. They are willing to jump upon Abortion as a moral outrage - which they should - but are unwilling to apply the same piece of Biblical truth to other spheres of life.

The best example of this is the Iraq war. Evangelicals in America were the war's most ardent supporters. In 2002, an open letter written by a number of Evangelical leaders was published that gave their explicit support for the war. The signatories included Bill Bright, James Kennedy, Charles Colson and Richard Land. It is known as the "Land letter" since Richard Land was its original writer. The text of the Land letter can be found at Wikisource.

The Land letter was an attempt to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. It outlined what it thought was the biblical basis for a "Just war", and attempted to justify an American attack on Iraq from a Christian point of view.

The Land letter was a watershed in American Evangelicalism, and it will go down in history as one of the movement's greatest and most damaging mistakes.

Obviously there will be many evangelicals out there who maintain that the 2003 invasion was justified, and that American forces must continue to occupy the country. I suppose that is fair enough if you have been convinced of that, but we must remember that the current reasons for "staying the course" are vastly different to the reasons that were initially touted - and the ones that form the basis of the Land letter.

The Land letter is breathtakingly naive in both its assumptions and in its statements. So much of the letter is based upon the rock-solid belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - a belief that formed the basis of the letter's call to action. Now that it has been proved that Iraq posed no threat at all to America and to the rest of the world, the foundation for the letter's argument collapses.

A clear and present danger
The assumption that Saddam and Iraq posed a clear and present danger because of Weapons of Mass destruction can be found in the second paragraph:

We believe that your policies concerning the ongoing international terrorist campaign against America are both right and just. Specifically, we believe that your stated policies concerning Saddam Hussein and his headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction are prudent and fall well within the time-honored criteria of just war theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.

All this sounds fine if in fact Saddam was developing such weapons. But he wasn't. Even if he was planning to, all the evidence shows that nothing had been done. Saddam's WMDs had been destroyed during the first Gulf war, or due to the UN sanctions that followed.

At this point I would like to address the evangelical supporter of the war directly who may be reading this. Listen, my friend, THERE WERE NO WMDS. Saddam Hussein did not have anything that was dangerous to the world. No evidence whatsoever has emerged that contradicts this fact. If you believed before the invasion that Saddam had such weapons, you were wrong.

The letter goes on to discuss seven points that justify the invasion of Iraq.

A defensive war
The first thing that the Land letter addresses concerns whether the imminent war is considered "just". This is what the letter says:

First, your stated policy concerning using military force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction is a just cause. In just war theory only defensive war is defensible; and if military force is used against Saddam Hussein it will be because he has attacked his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and harbored terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001. As you stated in your address to the U.N. September 12th:

“We can harbor no illusions. . . . Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He’s fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and forty Iraqi villages.”

Disarming and neutralizing Saddam Hussein is to defend freedom and freedom-loving people from state-sponsored terror and death.

But, of course, Saddam did not have any WMDs. He used them against the Kurds so many years ago, but in 2003 he did not have any at all to play with.

The other thing, of course, is the statement that a link existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. This link has proved to be spurious - no link has been proven or even discovered. In the lead up to the war, the President and his aides spoke about such clear links, but analysis proved otherwise.

I'll say it again for the Evangelical reading this: There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. This means that 9/11 had no link whatsoever to Saddam Hussein. Attacking Iraq based on 9/11 was completely false.

Some Evangelical Christians maintain a belief that there was some spiritual link between Saddam and Osama - via the devil or something like that. Of course, Satan acts in every evil act, but to somehow think that there was some hidden conspiracy is ridiculous. These people need to stop reading their Left Behind books and start using their brains instead.

The intent of the war is just and noble
The second thing the land letter addresses is the intent of such a war:

Second, just war must have just intent. Our nation does not intend to destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq. As you declared forthrightly in your speech to the U.N. General Assembly:

“The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. . . . Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.”

This is clearly a just and noble intent.

The fact that President Bush said that his intentions were noble does not mean that the war was noble. The land letter says that the US does not intend to "destroy, conquer or exploit Iraq", yet it is obvious that Iraq has been destroyed, conquered and exploited.

Notice also a developing theme in the letter - an assertion of support followed by a quote from the President himself. This shows that the writers themselves are willingly submitting themselves to the directions of the President. They are, essentially, "evangelical yes-men".

A last resort
The third thing the letter points out is that such a war is only justifiable as a "last resort". It states:

Third, just war may only be commenced as a last resort. As you so clearly enumerated before the U.N., Saddam Hussein has for more than a decade ignored Security Council resolutions or defied them while breaking virtually every agreement Into which he has entered. He stands convicted by his own record as a brutal dictator who cannot be trusted to abide by any agreement he makes. And while he prevaricates and obfuscates, he continues to obtain and develop the weapons of mass destruction which he will use to terrorize the world community of nations.

The world has been waiting for more than a decade for the Iraqi regime to fulfill its agreement to destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction, to cease producing them or the long-range missiles to deliver them in the future, and to allow thorough and rigorous inspections to verify their compliance. They have not, and will not, do so and any further delay in forcing the regime’s compliance would be reckless irresponsibility in the face of grave and growing danger.

This argument, of course, completely falls over if there were no WMDs. There was no point in invading Iraq if there was no danger.

It's at this point that the blindness of the writers comes to the fore. The assumption that Iraq has WMDs is totally unquestioned. Despite all the work done by UN weapons inspectors - which proved beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq did not have WMDs - the writers continue to trust blindly in the president's assurances and pronouncements.

The war has legitimate authority
The writers then turn to the war being waged by a legitimate earthly authority. They state:

Fourth, just war requires authorization by legitimate authority. We believe it was wise and prudent for you to go before the U.N. General Assembly and ask the U.N. Security Council to enforce its own resolutions. However, as American citizens we believe that, however helpful a U.N. Security Council vote might be, the legitimate authority to authorize the use of U.S. military force is the government of the United States and that the authorizing vehicle is a declaration of war or a joint resolution of the Congress.

When the threat of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba presented a grave threat to America’s security, President Kennedy asked for the support of the U.N. and the Organization of American States, but made it clear, with or without their support, those missiles would either be removed by the Soviets, or we would neutralize them ourselves. The American people expected no less from their president and their government.

Notice the not-so-subtle distrust of the United Nations here? The UN had experienced and trustworthy weapons inspectors in place who were scouring the Iraqi countryside for Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons. They found none. Nevertheless this didn't convince these evangelical writers, who trusted in George Bush to be telling the truth - no matter how wrong it was.

The writers then bring up the Cuban Missile Crisis to back up their argument. But time has shown that Iraq's threat to the US was negligible compared to the 1962 crisis. Was Cuba in1962 a crisis? It sure was. Can the same be said about Iraq in 2003? Absolutely not.

Limited Goals
The next point the writers raise is that of limited goals:

Fifth, just war requires limited goals and the resort to armed force must have a reasonable expectation of success. In other words, “total war” is unacceptable and the war’s goals must be achievable. We believe your stated policies for disarming the murderous Iraqi dictator and destroying his weapons of mass destruction, while liberating the Iraqi people for his cruel and barbarous grip, more than meet those criteria.

How limited is a limited war? At this present moment in time, Iraq is in the grip of anarchy, and has been since the 2003 invasion. Civil society has broken down. Saddam's brutal regime has not been replaced by anything resembling a civil society in the two years since America invaded.

The fact is that many Americans are now convinced that the Iraqi invasion was a massive mistake. Recent polls show that supporters of the war are now significantly outnumbered by those who oppose it. America has changed its mind on the war. Why? Because Iraq is in anarchy and the presence of US troops has not changed that fact.

The fact that "total war" was not declared or waged is immaterial. The fact is that America's invasion of Iraq has completely devastated the country and brought its people to suffering and ruin. I'd hate to see what "total war" would have done to the nation.

The immunity of non combatants
The writers also point out that the suffering of innocents must be minimised:

Sixth, just war theory requires noncombatant immunity. We are confident that our government, unlike Hussein, will not target civilians and will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties.

Confident that the government will do all it can to avoid the deaths of civilians? Such a statement is naive in the extreme, especially considering everything that has gone on since the 2003 invasion.

The fact is that tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since America invaded. The bulk of these have been non-combatants, such as women, children and families. Plenty of news reports since the invasion have proved that American forces did target civilians.

Proportionality
The writers state:

Seventh, just war theory requires the question of proportionality be addressed. Will the human cost of the armed conflict to both sides be proportionate to the stated objectives and goals? Does the good gained by resort to armed conflict justify the cost of lives lost and bodies maimed? We believe that the cost of not dealing with this threat now will only succeed in greatly increasing the cost in human lives and suffering when an even more heavily armed and dangerous Saddam Hussein must be confronted at some date in the not too distant future. We believe that every day of delay significantly increases the risk of far greater human suffering in the future than acting now would entail.

How different and how much safer would the history of the twentieth century have been had the allies confronted Hitler when he illegally reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936 in clear violation of Germany’s treaty agreements? It is at least possible that tens of millions of the lives lost in World War II might not have been lost if the Allies had enforced treaty compliance then instead of appeasing a murderous dictator.

In hindsight, the argument of proportionality is obscene. There was no security at all to be gained by the 2003 invasion, which means that the tens of thousands who have subsequently died have died for no reason whatsoever.

Notice that irrational fear is what is driving these writers. They assume, despite the sterling efforts of the UN weapons inspectors to prove otherwise, that another disastrous terrorist attack involving WMDs from Iraq was a distinct possibility.

Also notice that they make the cardinal error of Godwin's Law by invoking Adolf Hitler. Saddam Hussein was no doubt a brutal dictator, but to compare him to Hitler is an insult to everyone who suffered and died under the Fuehrer's rule. Hitler engineering the deaths of millions. Saddam was simply a brutal idiot.

Learning from the Bible.
What is noticeable in the land letter is the total absence of any biblical references. In fact, for a letter from America's most religious people, God is not mentioned anywhere at all. This oversight was obviously not deliberate, but it does speak volumes about the terrible error that these evangelical leaders have fallen into. Had they chosen to read the Bible, the writers may have discovered the following verses:

Deuteronomy 17:6
On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.

There are no real passages that deal with the issue of "Just war", but a verse like this should help us to understand God's mind. In its context, this verse is all about making sure that people who are to suffer the death penalty get a fair trial. This involves the corroboration of evidence to make sure that malicious accusations can be minimised.

What this verse teaches us is that the God who wishes justice is not one who ignores evidence. God will judge justly because, as God, he has all the information available to him as judge. For us as Evangelical Christians, we should fight for a society that promotes dispassionate justice, based upon evidence, not heresay.

But this was ignored by the writers of the Land letter. Their assumption was that Saddam had WMDs. Despite all the evidence to the contrary they supported a pre-emptive war. Even at the time there were grave doubts expressed by others in the international community. Rather than use their positions in Christian leadership to counsel restraint and objectivity, they became cheer-leaders for a war effort that was not justified based on the evidence.

Psalm 146:3
Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

One of the most thoroughly embarrassing features of the Land letter is the enthusiastic and uncritical support the writers give to George W. Bush. Their attitude is almost worshipful. They quote sections of his speeches as though they were inspired by The Holy Spirit himself.

The Bible is clear when it comes to human sinfulness - all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our trust should not be in man - and certainly not in princes or presidents. The bible is full of examples of leadership gone very wrong, and also full of rebuke for such leadership. George W. Bush was treated in an overly reverential way by the writers of the Land letter - at no point did they say anything to warn the president of making the wrong decision. The assumption was that the president was right and just and should not be questioned. This is not a biblical attitude.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Evangelicals are supposedly people of the book - the word of God found in the Bible. Yet the complete absence of biblical backup for the Land letter, not to mention the lack of reference to God, shows that many evangelical leaders view their own pronouncements as being almost on par with the bible.

The events in Iraq have shown these Evangelical leaders to be men who trust in their own words, rather than in the word of God. They chose to ignore the ample evidence that had been given to them, and instead gave into the thinking and beliefs of the time. Their pronouncements seemed so wise, so sure - but they had spoken from their own authority. As a result, God has rebuked them and proven that they speak falsehood.

Public Repentance
There is only one option open to the authors of the Land letter and to all who took it as their own - they must publically repent of their sin.

I need to remind the evangelical reader that tens of thousands of Iraqis, including women and children, have died as a result of this war. Millions more are suffering from the anarchy that exists in Iraq because of America's invasion. The Land letter explicitly supported George Bush's war on Iraq based upon the understanding that the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction was imminent. It was not. There was no threat whatsoever. Moreover, the American effort in keeping the peace in Iraq is totally inadequate. These people, who according to Jesus are our neighbours and who should be the recipients of our love, are undergoing terrible suffering because of the current situation.

It is for this reason that I submit that many American evangelicals - especially those who signed the Land letter - are complicit in the deaths of thousands of people. I am not aiming this at the person in the street who supported the war, but rather those evangelical leaders who stood up and publically supported the invasion.

Charles Colson, one of the Land letter signatories, wrote an article in the December 9 issue of Christianity today that defended his position on "Just war." He defends the position based on the idea that we should love our neighbour, and that sometimes war may be the best way to help them. Despite the wisdom that this appears to have, Colson then makes the most breath-taking of statements:

Of course, all of this presupposes solid intelligence and the goodwill of U.S. and Western leaders. I find it hard to believe that any President, aware of the awesome consequences of his decision and of the swiftness of second-guessing in a liberal democracy, would act recklessly.

This is one of Richard Nixon's former advisors speaking here. Of all people who could know the utter stupidity that a president can fall into, Colson should know. But it seems he has not learned anything from Watergate. The fact is that Bush acted recklessly and without any thought to the consequences of his actions when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. Like other evangelical leaders, including those who wrote the Land letter, Colson has shot himself in the foot by presuming to trust in the judgement of a sinful man.

Consequences
Along with many other evangelicals, I believe that the modern evangelical movement is in complete disarray. The gospel of Christ crucified is not the message that is being preached in the pulpits of American Evangelical churches. The word of God - the Bible - is being either ignored or butchered by preachers who aim to please men, not God, in their preaching.

As I stated earlier, the Land letter will go down in history as one of the greatest mistakes made by American Evangelicals. There is no knowing how much damage to the Gospel of Christ has been done by this present generation of evangelical leaders and teachers. As the years pass and the invasion of Iraq is seen in a more objective light, many will lose their trust in the evangelical movement. Future evangelicals will have to fight hard to distance themselves from the actions of present-day believers in order to present the gospel in a world that has turned against God.


From the One Salient Overlord Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

Australian Evangelicals show their Independence

I heard a news report this morning on the radio that confirmed to me yet again the relative independence of Australian Evangelicals from Conservative politics.

Because of the close relationship between Evangelicals and Conservative politics in the US, many Australians are fearful that similar Christian groups in Australia will simply become "tools of the right" as it were. I saw John Doyle ("Roy Slavin") on The ABC the other day giving the Andrew Ollie lecture, making very close comparisons between Christians in the US and Australian Christian groups who are pushing the prosperity gospel.

But this morning it was reported on ABC radio that Peter Jensen, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney and one of Australia's most influential evangelical heavyweights, has come out against the Conservative government's Industrial Relations changes, arguing that the changes are not good for families.

Family First, the Australian Christian political party that surprised everyone during the last Federal Election, has also recently come out against these changes for exactly the same reason. Family First are more aligned with the Assemblies of God and Pentecostalism rather than the Calvinist Jensen.

I'll be honest here - I haven't examined the legislation personally so I don't know how good or bad it is. Nevertheless, what is important is that two leading Evangelical sources have refused to endorse a very important piece of right-wing economic legislation. They have not been browbeaten or brainwashed by conservative politics to support it.

It's not that Jensen or Family First are "watered-down" in their faith. Both would argue strongly against Abortion and Homosexuality like any other moral conservative.

However, what this shows is that Evangelicals in Australia are less likely to be influenced by Conservative political agendas, especially those that promote right-wing economics. Praise God.



From the One Salient Overlord Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

The Price of Loyalty

When any president has to worry whether the deputy director of the FBI is sneaking around in dark corridors peddling information in the middle of the night, he's in trouble. There were times when I should have blown the whistle, so I understand his feelings. But I cannot approve of his methods.
- Charles W. Colson

William Mark Felt was a traitor to Nixon and America! What he did caused 53,000 American soldiers to die for nothing in Vietnam!
- Pat Buchanan (MSNBC, 31 May 2005)

One of the more interesting news items in the last month or two has been the revelation that W. Mark Felt, the former deputy head of the FBI, was "Deep Throat" - Bob Woodward's secret source for the Watergate investigation. Without Felt's contribution, Richard Nixon may never have resigned.

With the secret finally out after 30 years or so, it was obvious that Felt's decision to leak information about the case to Bob Woodward (reporting for The Washington Post), wasn't exactly altruistic. Nixon had passed him over as head of the FBI in favour of his own person, and Felt was part of the dark machine that J. Edgar Hoover had created in the previous decades. He was ambitious and probably wanted the FBI to remain the same organisation that Hoover had created - free from political interference but unaccoutable to any outside body as well. Felt was gaoled in 1980 in his role investigating the left-wing terrorist organisation, the "Weather Underground" - he had authorised break-ins and "Black bag jobs" against suspects that were later deemed to be illegal and unconstitutional. Felt was another corrupt government official, ambitious for power and willing to do anything to keep his beloved FBI the way Hoover wanted it.

Felt's actions as Deep Throat were therefore not exactly innocent. There was no doubt that leaking the information to Bob Woodward was a payback for Nixon's so called "interference" with the FBI, as well as personal revenge for failing to apoint him its official "head".

But at the same time it was obvious that Nixon's Watergate activities were a serious crime. Felt may have had poor motives, but, in the end, he was simply reporting the facts as he knew them - facts that proved beyond doubt that the President of the United States was engaged in illegal activity against political opponents. Felt's own illegal activities against the Weather Underground were based on "pure motives", if you could call them that - he was trying to eliminate a radical left-wing terrorist group. Nixon's illegal activities were simply an abuse of power to ensure that his political opponents were seriously damaged.

Felt did the right thing in being "Deep Throat". He exposed criminal activity in The White House and helped remove Nixon from the presidency. Felt was an evil man doing a good deed.

Charles Colson, Nixon's chief counsel from 1969-1973, was one of the Watergate-affiliated people gaoled at the time for his illegal activities. He is well known amongst Evangelical Christians for his pre-trial conversion to Christianity, his "Born Again" biography, and his subsequent founding of "Prison Fellowship". He is regarded highly amongst Christians, and is one of America's best known Evangelical leaders.

So when it was revealed that Mark Felt was Deep Throat, Charles Colson was genuinely shocked. Like Nixon, he had trusted Felt. Moreover, if you look at what Colson said about Felt during the interview, it is obvious that Colson was more concerned about the man's "lack of loyalty" than anything else. He should have been loyal to his commander-in-chief. He should have resigned instead of having secret meetings with reporters.

I find such an attitude appalling - Colson's attitude that is. When has Loyalty been more important than Truth? Colson intimates that Nixon's presidency may have been saved had Felt not blabbed - but that is the problem. Nixon had already committed crimes that deserved impeachment before Felt started his "cloak and dagger" relationship with Bob Woodward. If Felt had confronted Nixon, he would have been threatened or bribed enough to remain silent.

The fact is that Felt was acting out of loyalty to something higher than the President - he was being loyal to the rule of law. Hypocritical, selfish, law-breaking fascist though he may have been, Felt knew that Nixon's activities were highly illegal and needed to be exposed. Colson talks about loyalty to a person, to a position, while Felt acted upon his loyalty to the law.

Colson's attitude is even more remarkable considering the fact that the Bible speaks of an event where an individual, motivated by his loyalty to God's law, confronted a hypocritical and corrupt king. We all know the story, it is the story of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12). The individual who confonted David was the prophet Nathan.

David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and had gotten her pregnant. In order to cover up his crime, he ordered her husband, Uriah (a soldier fighting in his army) to come home and spend time with his wife. The Bible doesn't record if Uriah was suspicious or not, but he certainly refused to spend time with Bathsheba because he was a loyal soldier who wanted to serve his king as best he could. David, faced with the prospect of his adultery being made public, then instructs his military commanders to place Uriah in a deadly battlefield situation in the hope that he would perish. This plan works, and only David (and possibly Bathsheba) knows the full extent of his sin - adultery and murder.

But someone else knew - God. And God sent his prophet, Nathan, to confront the errant king. Rather than resign his position or keep things quiet, Nathan speaks truth to power. David could have had Nathan killed for being insubordinate. He could have had him banished or imprisoned. Instead, David repented. He knew he could not hide his sin from God. Psalm 51 outlines his public repentance.

David had broken God's law, but God forgave him and graciously allowed him to continue in his position of Israel's king.

As Christians we have loyalty to God and to God alone. While we are to respect and pray for those whom he sets in authority over us (such as rulers, but also pastors and elders) that does not mean we ignore their sin.

I know of one church here in Newcastle (not the one I have written about extensively below) where the pastor used church funds to buy himself an expensive new car - a BMW I think. He was able to quell any dissention for his purchase by arguing (successfully) that because he was God's chosen leader in the church, then the congregation should not question his actions. Those who could have complained or questioned would have been rebuked for failing to be godly and follow God's chosen leader.

The very fact that Paul laid down specific instructions on the possibility of bringing charges against elders (1 Timothy 5.19-21) indicates that such an unquestioning attitude - such blind loyalty - to those who rule was foreign to Paul and the other Apostles.

The price of loyalty isn't always anonymity and notoriety (that enjoyed by Mark Felt) or even praise (that enjoyed by Nathan). Oftentimes loyalty to God and his word will result in suffering - especially if you are confronting someone with power over you, who demands that you remain loyal to them. It is especially difficult if that person is well known or powerful.

What would you do if you knew that a well-known Christian leader was committing adultery? What if the Christian organisation you are working for is deliberately and illegally covering up earnings in order to dodge taxation regulation? What if you found out that an elder in your church had been sexually abusing children, but had been protected by powerful church members to protect his reputation?

I'm not suggesting that you should email Bob Woodward, but the fact is that sin needs to be dealt with in the church. Elders and Christian leaders who are guilty of serious sin should be permanently removed from their positions. High profile Christians who are guilty of committing criminal offenses should be handed over to the authorities and face trial. Investors and stakeholders in Christian organisations should be notified of any irregularities in finances. And, of course, through all this the rules set down by our Lord in Matthew 18 apply.

But many who attempt to do this - those who attempt to confront and reveal such sin - are often put through great suffering by those in power to cover up their sin. In order to cover up sin, the perpetrators commit even more sin to silence their critics. If I was to mangle the 2 Samuel text and commit eisegesis, I would say that in order for us to be Nathans, we may have to be prepared to be Uriahs. (Of course with this butchered allegory we would have to ask "Who is Bathsheba?", so the charge of eisegesis obviously still stands!).

Our loyalty is to God and God only. Are we willing to speak the truth and confont sin in the church - and maybe even pay the price that our loyalty brings?

From the Theosalient Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.