Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

The Hypocrisy of Christopher Hitchens’s Question for Pope Benedict

Sunday, April 13th, 2008

This post appeared in the Washington Post blog today. He is referring to Cardinal Bernard Law who resigned as archbishop of Boston in 2002 and was involved in a series of sex scandals involving underage youth. Mr Hitchens wrote the important and provocative work, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The pope is scheduled to visit the United States between April 15 and April 20 and will celebrate Mass and visit inter-faith religious leaders in Washington, D. C. and New York.

Christopher Hitchens

What I’d Ask the Pope

If [Ed: Pope Benedict XVI] Ratzinger is not asked at every stop he makes, and in level yet firm tones, why he and the Vatican continue to shelter Cardinal Law, our profession will have shamed and disgraced itself. We already know that the Pope is a Roman Catholic. What we need to hear is his reason for giving sinecure and asylum to the man who organized and excused the rape and torture of tens of thousands of American children. And then, when he has given his first answer, we need to hear how he answers all the supplementary questions. [Ed:  I believe the figure of 600 is closer to the numbers possibly defiled by pedophilic priests in the Boston archdiocese. Cardinal Law was appointed to the position of archpriest of St Mary Major Basilica in Rome.]

What I would ask Christopher Hitchens?

Are you a hypocrite to raise the issue of pedofilia and sex crimes within the Roman Catholic church but dismiss your support of mass murder in Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and over 4,000 American troops? Are you comfortable with your apparent disregard for the lack of proportionality and discrimination in this unjust war?

Why did you support a war of mass murder in Iraq? Were you blinded by an ultranationalistic, ethnocentric Zionism which frankly created a monolithic RELIGIOUS entity in the middle of the Arab world which has led to sixty years of mass misery and apartheid for the Palestinians?

Why do you harbour such puerile notions that violence against Muslim peoples and in particular Saddam Hussein’s secularist, Baathist government was in the national interest and an example of appropriate realism?

While your question for the pope is important and worthy of discussion, only in militarised, sociopathic America would such a person as yourself  apparently  escape  a sustained  challenge of hypocrisy in your putative concern of protecting American children but insouciant in your support of a war in which so many Iraqi children have perished. Remember sir Haditha and the genocide at Falluja!! 

Additional comment on Washington Post blog:

Are you a hypocrite to raise the issue of pedofilia and sex crimes within the Roman Catholic church but dismiss your support of mass murder in Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including children have died and over 4,000 American troops? Are you comfortable with your apparent disregard for the lack of proportionality and discrimination in this unjust war?

Karl Marx on Religion and Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Friday, February 1st, 2008

 

Dr Karl Marx and quotation from The Communist Manifesto (1848).

In the only issue of the Paris-based Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, appeared a monumental series of articles by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This 1844 momentous publication included Marx’s Letters to Feuerbach, On the Jewish Question, Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Introduction, Engels’s, Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy and a review of Thomas Carlyle’s, Past and Present. An extraordinary single issue that combined original writings and “critique” of others works, it revealed a proto-Marxism in which the young Marx (25) was evolving from his Young Hegelian days at the University of Berlin into a more systematic ethical world view that would shape much of the modern temper of the world and endure for the ages.

He rather explicitly for the first time calls for the proletariat to recognise its historic mission as a class and develops a general theoretical assessment of the workers. Religion was, of course, a component of the derivative superstructure which contained the non-materialist and frankly non-decisive forces of society. This superstructure rested upon the base or substructure which contained the materialist forces of society: namely economic variables from raw materials, level of technology, interplay between manufacture (originally meant hand produced) and indeed labour intensive work, organisation of labour, prevailing demonic corporate structure and the social classes that derived from the mode of production. These were the productive forces that determine the class structure and the DNA of the current order.

To Marx, economic variables were paramount in determining all aspects of a society’s culture and contained the glorious contradictions that would lead to revolution and the displacement of the exisitng ruling class: under capitalism that would include the bourgeoisie, the factory owners, the organisers of the economic system of capitalism. Religion to Marx was not an independent entity but a manifestation of bourgeois dominance which reinforced among the proletariat (factory workers) submission and enervating passivity.

In the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right appears one of Karl Marx’s most popular phrases: “Religion is the opium of the people” but that is rather simplistic. More significant to Marx was the dehumanising nature of religion in which humans were self-alienated from themselves in the construct of a Supreme Being. Alienation or entfremdung was a life-long preoccupation of Marx. It resulted from the monotony, exhaustion and rigours of the proletarian mode of production and was viciously reinforced by religion’s capacity to obscure, frighten and diminish the ability of the workers to recognise their humanity and liberate themselves as “appendages of the machine.” [Non-religious alienation is further developed in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and perdures in the immortal Das Kapital].

In the Critique of the dialectical idealist Hegel, Marx wrote:

Man makes religion; religion does not make man…Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering…The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions. The criticsm of religion is, therefore, the embryonic criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo.” [All emphases from original.]

Religion was a human-made component of culture that was not determined or molded by desperate, impoverished and dying workers. The absurdity of religion is its not being grounded in materialism or reality according to Marx. Humankind, or more precisely suffering humankind, is force fed religion by capital as a palliative to create obedience and non-resistance. Religion is also counterintuitive because, and Marx was greatly influenced by Feuerbach, in the process of creating an all wondrous, and perfect God, humanity is diminished in the process. Taking the architecture but not the substance of Hegelian idealism, Marx demands the abolition of God in order to reclaim the unwarranted projection of humanity’s own virtues; ending the god delusion would restore a sense of virtue that humanity surrendered, and recapture a materialist view that will lead to revolution and the destruction of the evil monstrosity of capitalism.

Marx’s theories were grounded in the belief that culture, including religion, was not independent of economic, materialist forces and for social change to occur, the cobwebs needed to be removed and the clear light of economic suffering as the result of bourgeois oppression revealed. Religion to Marx did not inspire greatness or motives of liberation, which it frequently has, but the gatekeeper’s lock and the capitalist’s chain of dependency, pauperisation  and immiseration.

Religion is not sacred beyond its human origins. It is not divine because it emanates from the human mind and whether it is a liberating or regressive force depends on its particular adherents and their commitment to social justice and international peace and security. It is used for both progressive and regressive purposes.  It gave us the Iraq War in large measure, the destruction of Gaza and we are paying a terrible price. It also gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Selma and derivatively the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Professor Kirstein’s Additional Commentary and The New York Times Joining Muslim World Call for Papal Apology

Saturday, September 16th, 2006

While I commented in the post below on the pope's apparent lack of ecumenism and frankly knowledge of Islam, it is important not to take his provocative quotation out of context. This is a greater contextual illustration of Pope Benedict XVI address in Germany on September 12 at the University of Regensburg:

ON HOLY WAR
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read… of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

In the seventh conversation…the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats."

The pope did not choose to use additional examples of Christian or Jewish inspired wars of conquest, wars of wanton destruction, wars against an indigenous population and wars against Islam. Certainly, a more balanced and intelligent approach to the important topic of religion and violence would have added credibility and power to the pope's speech. Defenders say it was an academic speech. Well as an academic, I can attest that academic speech should present as complete a picture as possible of a topic such as religion and violence. Had the pope given even one example other than Islam, then it would be a simple issue of free speech and perhaps academic freedom given the venue of a university. Yet he seemed to gratuitously blame Islam and alas, its prophet Muhammad, for the world's current despicable religious wars of preemption and near genocide from southern Beirut to Falluja to southern Afghanistan.

I defend the papal prerogative to say what he wishes, but concur totally with Muslim rage and the editorial below that the pope should carefully examine his remarks and offer some type of direct, personal statement of contrition.

The Crusades

New York Times Editorial, September 16, 2006

The Pope's Words

There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”

In the most provocative part of a speech this week on “faith and reason,” the pontiff recounted a conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism.

The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.

In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”

A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.

The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

Pope Criticised for Quoting Anti-Muslim Remarks

Friday, September 15th, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting his native Germany for six days, gave a speech on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensburg, entitled "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections." He appeared to target Islam as a violent faith and quoted an obscure medieval ruler to hammer home this point. The pope quoted a 14th century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, for allegedly saying the following: 

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Indian Muslims protested against the pope's quotation about Muhammad.

It would be interesting to know why the pope quoted this comment despite his efforts to clarify authorship, "I am quoting.": Was he attempting to explore the consequences of faith and violence? Was he attempting to criticise such outcomes? If so, then why present Islam ALONE as an alleged example and not reflect on the evils of Christianity when religion was the guiding force behind wars and empire? It would appear that Islam was singled out for criticism without significant relational analysis of other faiths. If so, that would seem to justify criticism of the pontiff as engaging in selective, non-reflective and non-ecumenical criticism. Many prominent Muslim groups, both private and governmental, from Europe to Asia have requested either clarification or an apology. I question whether John Paul II would have arrived at a similar imbroglio due to his tolerance of and courage in supporting the Islamic faith.

This quotation would seem to link Islam with violence and Jihad with vengeance. Of course Christianity has led to rivers of blood from the crusades under the popes and under American presidents. None of the great religions could be considered restrained whether pursuing an aggressive Zionism, abusive missionary expansionism and opting for war in the name of righteousness, biblical dictates and as God's chosen flock.

I have noted a very belated coverage of this international controversy in the American press after days of coverage in Europe and Asia. I am sure if the pope's remarks had offended American jewry, that this would be given much more immediate journalistic reportage.

Two sources on this controversy: The Guardian and Al Jazeera.

p.s. In 2004, when then Cardinal Ratzinger was the leader of the inquisition's progeny, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict opposed Turkey's entrance into the European Union. He said Turkey, a secular Muslim state and a member of N.A.T.O., should join a confederation of Islamic states instead. This would seem to reveal a bias against Islam and a rather dramatic assertion that a country's entrance into a regional grouping of nations should be predicated on religious considerations and that if non-Christian, a Muslim state should be excluded. I think the pope could use some sensitivity training and perhaps read the works of Thomas Merton, perhaps the 20th Century's greatest Roman Catholic writer, who had a keen interest in Asian religions and in expanding the realm of ecumenism.

Was there a Pope Joan Disguised as a Man? Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

Friday, December 30th, 2005

Some believe there was a 9th century German pope who was a woman. According to Ms Mary Malone, a former nun, there were 12-year old popes and 5-year old archbishops at one time so read this ABC News account and remember: intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and exploration of the past if done with honest intent is ennobling and liberating regardless of the conclusions.

Soldiers Don’t Want to Fight: It is their Governments. They wanted peace on Christmas Eve/Day December 24-25, 1914.

Sunday, December 25th, 2005

How soldiers dared to be human and their commanders wanted them to kill and not love each other.

The extraordinary Christmas Day Truce 1914 when soldiers reached out and celebrated Christmas together even though German and English.

The Truce of Christmas, 1914

By THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
Published: December 25, 2005

New York Times

When Europe marched to war in the summer of 1914, both sides thought the fighting would be over in a few weeks. Instead, by the close of December, World War I had already claimed close to a million lives, and it was clear the fighting would go on for a long time.

Yet on Dec. 24, much of the Western Front fell silent as ordinary soldiers made temporary peace with the enemy. This was the remarkable Christmas Truce of 1914.

It’s estimated that about 100,000 men, mainly British and Germans, took part. In fact, the sheer magnitude of the event led many to doubt that it ever happened. As late as 1983, one veteran called the truce a “latrine rumor.”

Today, however, it is often seen as one of the few bright moments amid the slaughter of the Great War, in which 14 million people were killed.

The last survivor of the truce, Sgt. Alfred Anderson of Scotland’s Fifth Battalion Black Watch, died last month at the age of 109. Here are excerpts from letters, journals and memoirs of some of the other participants.

The truce broke out spontaneously in many places. Pvt. Albert Moren of the Second Queens Regiment recalled the scene on Christmas Eve near the French village of La Chapelle d’Armentières:

It was a beautiful moonlit night, frost on the ground, white almost everywhere; and about 7 or 8 in the evening there was a lot of commotion in the German trenches and there were these lights -I don’t know what they were. And then they sang “Silent Night” – “Stille Nacht.” I shall never forget it, it was one of the highlights of my life. I thought, what a beautiful tune.

Rifleman Graham Williams of the Fifth London Rifle Brigade recalled how the mood spread:

Then suddenly lights began to appear along the German parapet, which were evidently make-shift Christmas trees, adorned with lighted candles, which burnt steadily in the still, frosty air! … First the Germans would sing one of their carols and then we would sing one of ours, until when we started up “O Come, All Ye Faithful” the Germans immediately joined in singing the same hymn to the Latin words Adeste Fideles. And I thought, well, this is really a most extraordinary thing – two nations both singing the same carol in the middle of a war.

The shared carols inspired Capt. Josef Sewald of Germany’s 17th Bavarian Regiment to make a bold gesture:

I shouted to our enemies that we didn’t wish to shoot and that we make a Christmas truce. I said I would come from my side and we could speak with each other. First there was silence, then I shouted once more, invited them, and the British shouted “No shooting!” Then a man came out of the trenches and I on my side did the same and so we came together and we shook hands – a bit cautiously!

The enemies quickly became friends, as Cpl. John Ferguson of the Second Seaforth Highlanders recalled:

We shook hands, wished each other a Merry Xmas, and were soon conversing as if we had known each other for years. We were in front of their wire entanglements and surrounded by Germans – Fritz and I in the center talking, and Fritz occasionally translating to his friends what I was saying. We stood inside the circle like street corner orators. … What a sight – little groups of Germans and British extending almost the length of our front! Out of the darkness we could hear laughter and see lighted matches, a German lighting a Scotchman’s cigarette and vice versa, exchanging cigarettes and souvenirs.

On Christmas Day, some Germans and British held a joint service to bury their dead. Second Lt. Arthur Pelham Burn of the Sixth Gordon Highlanders was there:

Our Padre … arranged the prayers and psalms, etc., and an interpreter wrote them out in German. They were read first in English by our Padre and then in German by a boy who was studying for the ministry. It was an extraordinary and most wonderful sight. The Germans formed up on one side, the English on the other, the officers standing in front, every head bared.

According to several accounts, soccer games were played in no man’s land with makeshift balls that Christmas. Lt. Kurt Zehmisch of Germany’s 134th Saxons Infantry Regiment witnessed a match:

Eventually the English brought a soccer ball from their trenches, and pretty soon a lively game ensued. How marvelously wonderful, yet how strange it was. The English officers felt the same way about it. Thus Christmas, the celebration of Love, managed to bring mortal enemies together as our friends for a time.

Second Lt. Bruce Bairnsfather of the First Warwickshires saw an even more unusual fraternization:

The last I saw of this little affair was a vision of one of my machine gunners, who was a bit of an amateur hairdresser in civilian life, cutting the unnaturally long hair of a docile Boche, who was patiently kneeling on the ground while the automatic clippers crept up the back of his neck.

Not everyone was so charitable. Cpl. Adolf Hitler of the 16th Bavarians lambasted his comrades for their unmilitary conduct:

Such things should not happen in wartime. Have you Germans no sense of honor left at all?

When Gen. Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, commander of the British II Corps, learned of the consorting, he was irate:

I have issued the strictest orders that on no account is intercourse to be allowed between the opposing troops. To finish this war quickly, we must keep up the fighting spirit and do all we can to discourage friendly intercourse.

Inevitably, both sides were soon ordered back to their trenches. Capt. Charles “Buffalo Bill” Stockwell of the Second Royal Welch Fusiliers recalled how the peace ended early on Dec. 26:

At 8:30, I fired three shots into the air and put up a flag with “Merry Christmas” on it on the parapet. He [a German] put up a sheet with “Thank You” on it, and the German captain appeared on the parapet. We both bowed and saluted and got down into our respective trenches, and he fired two shots into the air, and the war was on again.

The Meaning of Christmas

Sunday, December 25th, 2005

Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:54:19 -0500 (EST)

From: Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State

AN OPEN LETTER TO JERRY FALWELL

Dear Jerry:

Here’s some news: There is no “war on Christmas!”

I’ve seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isn’t. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your “Friend or Foe” campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every American’s right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays,” and it’s really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a “Christmas tree” or a “holiday tree,” and that’s our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know what’s really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it won’t work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot,
and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids’ TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You can’t rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said “You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists.”

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channel’s “O’Reilly Factor,” I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, “Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas.”

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are
stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!!Have you no decency?

You’ve dubbed your latest round of antics a “Friend or Foe” campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

Barry W. Lynn

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the expression that you used on Fox News Channel’s “The Big Story with John Gibson” is that I am “about as reverend as an oak tree” and that I never “preached in” a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and I’ll send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, I’d be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

Academic Freedom and Evolution

Tuesday, December 13th, 2005

The effort to purge the teaching of evolution in biology classes is a kind of American Wahhabism: An effort to sneak religious instruction, in the dress of secular reasoning, into science courses. The threat to academic freedom is that professors and other teachers should determine their course content. On the university level, supposedly free from state-wide curriculum requirements, academic freedom, if it means anything, is the autonomy to define one’s teaching in front of a classroom. While peer revue is useful in assessing teaching competence, academic freedom must not be tethered to external constituencies that have not earned the right to be in that professor’s classroom.

Evolution states that life shares common ancestry and that survival and development are the product of random mutation and natural selection. Humans are not descendants of apes but apes and humans share some kind of common ancestral link.

Intelligent design is a form of creationism that was outlawed by the Surpreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that forbade the teaching of a god as creator of the universe in the public schools. The Scopes monkey trial in Dayton, Tenn. in the 1920s resolved nothing in the growing battle between secularism and clericalism in the U.S. Intelligent design proffers the notion that evolution is too limited in explaining patterns or complexities that can only result from an intelligent designer: namely a monotheistic god who designed the world and created its outcomes. While I.D. does not mention God, that is its essential guiding principle.

Academic freedom is a bulwark in preventing any ideology or faith from intruding and subverting the very notion of liberal education and the pursuit of truth.

For the record:

I would not prohibit a science teacher from discussing Intelligent Design. It may very well be an interesting topic when evolution is taught.

I would not require a teacher or a student to accept evolution. Yet evolution should be taught by a competent biology teacher as the prevailing theory of “creation” in the scientific community. It should not be taught as mere theory; it is not a hunch or a guess but almost unassailable, in its core posits, as Darwin’s gift to the world.

Eliminating the teaching of evolution in a biology course would raise issues of teacher competence. Mandated excision of biology would raise issues of external publics destroying the academic enterprise due to religious fanaticism. Voluntarily refusing to teach evolution would be a form of student abuse in that a core concept of a teacher’s discipline is abandoned due to ideology. Again, a teacher may not accept evolution but to simply avoid teaching it would raise questions of competence and capacity to educate adequately one’s students.

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (I.D.E.A.) Centers are sprouting up at universities such as Cornell and the University of Illinois. They are pushing for I.D. Students have a right to demand courses and course content but they do not have the authority to dictate outcomes. Academic freedom gives students a voice that should not be silenced; yet it gives professors the final judgment on course content. Or at least it better.

A Roman Catholic Supreme Court Majority

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005

There have been twelve Roman Catholics that have served on the Supreme Court. If President Barack  Hussein Obama’s designated replacement for retiring Mr Justice David Souter, Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Second Circuit, is confirmed by a Senate majority, that number will increase to thirteen. The fifty-four year old New York native would become the first Latina to serve on the court and is Puerto Rican by heritage. The first Latino justice on the high court was arguably Benjamin N. Cardozo (1932-1938) a Jew whose parents were from Portugal.

While Republican party leader, radio host Rush Limbaugh, has called Judge Sotomayor and the president a “racist,” one can anticipate near certain confirmation by the Democratic controlled upper chamber. Then six out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court will be of the Roman Catholic faith. The other three consist of two Jews and only one  Protestant. The Supreme Court will have one member of a non-Catholic religious denomination which to put it mildly is interesting.

One of the Roman Catholic justices was one of the great jurists in American history and probably, besides Chief Justice Earl Warren, the conscience of the twentieth-century Supreme Court. This was Justice William J. Brennan Jr. who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight David Eisenhower in 1956. One of his finest moments was his majority opinion in Texas v Johnson (1989) which ruled that burning the American flag was protected speech. Hypocrites and unprincipled Americans such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, wish to criminalise desecration of a flag which they claim represents American liberties such as the right to protest.

One of them was the worst jurist of the 19th Century and brought disgrace and dishonour to the nation and the judicial branch. This monster validated slavery, denied African Americans citizenship and considered them inferior. This was Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney who wrote the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision. He was nominated in 1835 as Chief Justice to the Supreme Court by the genocidal, slave owning, sociopathic war criminal President Andrew Jackson. He served unfortunately as Chief Justice from 1836-1864. The racist president had appointed Mr Tawney as Treasury Secretary prior to his accession to Chief Justice.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr: Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006. He became the fifth Roman Catholic on the nine-member Supreme Court.

The other four Roman Catholic justices are:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: Appointed by George W. Bush in 2005.

Justice Clarence Thomas: Appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991. He is an enemy of Civil Rights and an advocate of inequality under law. A disgraceful justice who is contemptuous of the African American struggle for equality and liberation from the vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow. Mr Thomas had been director of the E.E.O.C, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that enforces workplace non-discrimination laws including sexual harassment. Justice Thomas during his Supreme Court Senate confirmation hearings was accused in 1991 by Dr Anita Hill, who was a law professor at the University of Oklahoma and currently is on the faculty at Brandeis University, of sexual harassment when they both worked at the E.E.O.C. I believed her testimony was credible and Mr Thomas, an enemy of African American advancement, used his race cynically to invoke the image of a “high-tech lynching.” Professor Hill and Justice Thomas are African American.

Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy: Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988. A conservative with vision, nuance and honour.

Justice Antonin Scalia: Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. An arrogant, unprofessional justice without conscience or dedication to the principle of equal justice under the law. A jurist who decided not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy policy development, despite their personal relationship. The erratic hunter and racist, evil  former vice president, took the justice in 2004 on a private duck-hunting expedition to slaughter, for sport, innocent, non-threatening animals in Louisiana.

One should recognise the nativism Roman Catholics have had to endure in a predominately Protestant nation: Irish need not apply, the racist Know-Nothing party in the 1850s and the Ku Klan Klan’s virulent strand of anti-Catholicism in the 1920s. A Supreme Court majority is indicative of social upward mobility for Roman Catholics and is a rather stunning achievement. It is also perhaps a logical outcome due to the sheer numbers of the single largest religious denomination in the United States. There are many more Protestants but they are scattered ideologically, creedally and politically into disparate sects and denominations.

Religion will play a role in juridical outcomes. It always has and always will. To suggest individuals can or should excise their f religious beliefs and ideology from one’s weltanschauung is not realistic. I recognise that justices are influenced by life experiences and a cultural ethos impacts their judicial temperament and constitutional interpretation. May the Supreme Court not veer, regardless of its composition, into an area where women’s rights, including abortion rights, the separation of church and state, civil rights, equal marriage and civil liberties are eviscerated as we struggle, as a nation, to contain the impulses toward militarism, greed and intolerance.

Will Judge Sotomayor reverse or enshrine Roe v. Wade? I hope the latter because women must not be forced to give childbirth.

updated: May 30, 2009

Just War: Iraq #7 “Discrimination” Part Two or why US Army General Barry McCaffrey {ret} is a War Criminal

Saturday, October 22nd, 2005

A significant component of this jus in bello categorisation of Just War Doctrine concentrates on strategy and tactics.

Those who do not make war should not have war made upon them. The military and its acolytes in Vietnam and during the current Judeo-Christian-Neocon-Evangelical crusade in Iraq have argued the fog of war obscures foe from innocent. The lines are blurred and, therefore, non-combatant immunity is difficult to maintain in the absence of non-conventional military engagements between organized well-equipped forces. In guerilla war, there is no set-piece battlefield and the resistance fighters use the populace for sleep, sustenance and strategy: in this case in and around the Sunni Triangle of cities in central Iraq.

While non-combatant and foe are not always clearly identified, the responsibility of the invader, the nation that launched the war, IS TO PROTECT NON-COMBATANT IMMUNITY. The aggressor must alter and affect the rules of engagement and must restrain offensive operations to insure the innocent are not slaughtered and forced to die for Halliburton. In the absence of a capacity or will to avoid needless non-combatant suffering, American soldiers should be ordered off the battlefield and withdrawn from the conflict. Waging asymmetrical warfare in a manner that discriminates between foe and innocent must be the objective and must be incorporated in the calculus of strategy and tactics.

Destroying Falluja was not the result of the fog of war. It was a war crime punishable by death or life in prison although I oppose the killing of humans as an ultimate sentence to demonstrate killing is wrong. Killing President Hussein’s young grandson in Mosul in July 2003 was not an act dictated by military necessity but near infanticide as the stormtroopers surrounded the trapped and defenceless sons of the former Iraqi leader. That was a war crime. The killings of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram was a war crime and certainly a violation of the Geneva Convention; the burning of Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan, the tossing of non-resistant Iraqis off bridges into the Tigris River is a war crime. The platoon Sgt. who ordered this murder, got six months in jail and not even a discharge; (remember support the troops!); the arbitrary use of lethal force at roadblocks where trigger happy killers wearing OUR uniform unload upon civilians is a war crime. Little fog of war is evident in these examples, but purposeful killings in the name of the ephemeral and cynical war against “terrorism.”

The cowardly and ruthless killings of a retreating, non-resistant devastated army at Basra in the Gulf War (1991) was a war crime; the perpetrator of this lack of discrimination, the TV pundit US Army General Barry McCaffrey, is a war criminal and a murderer who should be in prison in The Hague or deliciously at Nuremberg. He commanded the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), based at Ft Stewart, Georgia, and over a period of many hours on March 2, 2003, after a ceasefire had been declared, he used Apaches and Bradleys and other accoutrements of war to destroy a five-mile long convoy as it was desperately attempting to reach Baghdad. Also many civilian adults and children were killed as well. The army may call it collateral damage, I call it a violation of the Just War Doctrine of discrimination which sullies the reputation of the army and the military. This was an army that was leaving a battlefield after a ceasefire. Innocent civilians were butchered in violation of the lack of Discrimination as required in Just War Doctrine.

Would not you know it, President Clinton appoints this thug as director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy: the drug czar. Bill Bennett served in that capacity too. What is this problem with drug czars? Some are either ruthless war criminals or racists. I wonder if they ever smoked even one joint or had a sip of alcohol when underage??

Gen McCaffrey was no different that a Mr Dahmer, a Dr Bundy, a Son of Sam or a Dennis Rader–BTK killer in Kansas. Yet there is great disparity between him and a General Eisenhower or General Marshall who never would have initiated such gratuitous slaughter, although the evils of World War II will be addresssed at the appropriate time. I regret Gen McCaffrey wore the uniform of the U.S. Oh sure he testified how his troops were responding to alleged incoming and how he minimised U.S. casualties by this methodical destruction of an army after a ceasefire. Did he testify that Iraqi tanks had their cannon reversed in travel-lock mode? (according to Seymour Hersh) He should be a gentleperson and an officer that respects the troops that are killed and engaged in combat and not annihilate a helpless army like a coward as these children of mothers and fathers tried to escape with their precious lives. Compare General McCaffrey to General Grant at Appomattox Court House and you can appreciate the stark difference.

THESE EXAMPLES ARE EXPLICIT AND PRIMA FACIE VIOLATIONS OF JUST WAR DOCTRINE’S REQUIREMENT OF DISCRIMINATION.

Just War: Iraq #6 “Discrimination” Part One

Friday, October 21st, 2005

The other half or main category of the Just War Doctrine as initially posited by St Augustine is jus in bello. This refers to conduct in war. In order for just war doctrine to pass the test of morality and ethics, according to its theological argumentation, warrior states must satisfy a series of requirements prior to war, see below, AND appropriate conduct in war. If either of these categories or subcategories are violated, then that state or party has violated Just War doctrine.

It is true Just War Doctrine is to put it mildly softlaw. It is theology but it has attained a certain critical mass in international discussions and ruminations on war. Also since the Roman Catholic Church is its progenitor, it is certainly going to have a certain resonance among large segments of the international community.

The term “discrimination”, is usally an abhorrent one. It is the opposite of justice and is frequently associated with prejudice, de jure segregation and racialism. In this case, it is positive. It refers to avoiding civilian damage and establishing rules of engagement in which militaries wage war against other militaries and not civilians. It prohibits the destruction or burning or leveling of civilian-inhabited communities. It prohibits arbitrary rules of engagement, many are very arbitrary, in which force protection strategy is an excuse to shoot and kill any moving object. It prohibits the use of indiscriminate weaponry or even “smart” weaponry ruthlessly and carelessly applied. It prohibits the invasion of homes and apartments not directly related to military necessity. It proscribes the use of napalm, cluster bombs or high altitude bombing in which the protection of non-combatants is ignored. It is basically an effort to protect and defend non-combatant immunity.

I will develop this component further in additional posts.

Just War: Iraq #5 “Right Intentions”

Monday, October 17th, 2005

This component of Just War doctrine, as initially developed in the 4th Century, After the Common Era, is similar to Just Cause as articulated in the series of Jus Ad Bellum requirements as enunciated below.

During the conflict, there must be a pursuit of peace and reconciliation. Instead we have scorched earth policies where a city, yes a city, like Falluja is destroyed. If we respected life; if we respected the religion of Islam; if we respected the Sunni variant of Islam, we never would have done that. The ongoing campaigns which have now crossed into Syria, suggest an approach to peace and reconciliation that is contemptuous. Despite the Vietnam template, American imperialist forces are attempting to defeat a growing, confident insurgency through military means. Only withdrawal of imperialist forces, the arrest and trial of Mr Bush and the sentencing to life in prison of his fellow perpetrators, the removal of all imperialist bases, the gutting of the provocative “Green Zone” and a U.N. trusteeship or direct peacekeeping involvement can begin the process of disengagement and the “Right Intention” of ending this imperialist crusade.

Right Intentions also includes the avoidance of imposing unreasonable conditions on the “enemy.” These must be avoided. I do not know what conditions the Americans are articulating as an exit strategy. It appears to be unconditional surrender in which breaking the back of the Sunni and foreign fighter insurgency is the rule of engagement.

The U.S. sham elections in Iraq which we orchestrated; the constitution which the U.S. wrote and approved; the series of endless elections–the next one in December to elect a new government under the Constitution–are not Right Intentions but a colonialist attempt to dictate the political processes of a fiefdom. They are figleafs of American imperialism in which we will continue to dictate Iraqi affairs.

The country will split in three parts. The U.S. should not attempt to prevent that. A Kurdistan in the North; a Shi’a area under its various militias in the South; and possibly a barren desert dominant Sunni center without natural raw materials such as petrol seems to be its destiny. The only Right Intention of the U.S. should be withdrawal and empowering the Iraqi people to engage in real self-determination.

Just War: Iraq #4 “Just Cause” (Military Personnel Reflections)

Saturday, October 15th, 2005

Just War Doctrine requires that war must be aimed at confronting a “real and certain injury.” Iraq was no threat to the U.S. It had not been able in the No-Fly-Zone-War to interdict even one British or American warplane. Not one fighter or bomber, if any of the latter were deployed, was shot down as the cowardly United States slaughtered and butchered 1000s of Iraqis in this pretext of protecting the Kurds in the North and the Shi’a in the South. The U.S. was not interested in these groups. The real reason for this secret war was to weaken Iraqi air defenses and maintain military pressure as a prelude to a possible full-scale invasion. For the last two years of President Clinton’s incumbency, America bombed Iraq on an almost daily basis and the supine press ignored it. I am not maintaining that Mr Clinton was planning preemption but this gratuitous multi-year bombing of Iraq was intensified during the current administration and again was rarely reported by the press.

The war-criminal United States could not satisfy the just cause prerequisite by initiating a preventive war against the Baathist regime in Iraq. Innocent life was not protected but devastated by this invasion. The war did not “preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence” but plunged the Iraqi people into darkness: no electricity thanks to the U.S.; no oil or heating gas thanks to the U.S.; unrestrained Hobbesian anarchy in which innocents are killed thanks to the U.S.

The Bush administration did not advocate war to free Iraqis from President Saddam Hussein or to bring democracy to that widowed land. Not one Senator and probably no Congresspersons would have voted for an authorisation to use force had Mr Bush used democracy and freedom as the rationale for the war. This war aim emerged only after W.M.D. were not found and the conventional attack morphed into a Vietnam guerilla war: a war without battlefields, without direct military engagements, fought in and among the people, fought by a weaker foe with asymmetrical and highly effective tactics against the invaders from across the sea. The U.S. only loses wars or the results are a stalemate without positive consequences: Korean War stalemated; Vietnam War lost; Afghan War stalemated; Iraq War lost; Philippines wars lost [I am referring to the Filipino heroic resistance under Aguinaldo in the Spanish-American War and the current unsuccessful campaign to destroy the Muslim insurgency on Mindanao]. Oh I forgot, we liberated a slab of concrete in Grenada and used rock music to intimidate President Manuel Noriega in Panama. As I recall they played Bobby Goldsboro’s, “I Fought the Law and the Law Won ” as the president was trying to sleep. Tune up for Abu Ghraib?? They should have played Dylan’s, “Masters of War” as a depiction of themselves.

Those in the military should ask themselves. Are we fighting in a just war? Is the invasion, INVASION of another country, indicative of the alleged superiority and moral benevolence of the United States Armed Forces? Should a military person think about the moral obligations not only to country but also to others? Does that uniform you wear remove from you the right to question and think for yourselves? Does the uniform represent blind obedience to civilian rule or the right as an individual to question the morality of civilian rule? Well if you wear the uniform and are an American, you should be able to think, ponder and question the morality of what you do. Should this country be invading other countries who are no threat to us? Should we allow thousands of KIA bound for Dover and the tragic return of thousands of wounded WIA proceed without protest, without an uprising? How could they be sacrificed for neo-conservative evil? Can those in the military question this country’s lust for war, for blood, for power, for empire? Well I can and I will because evil imperialism must be challenged even in a country such as ours where democracy is seriously deficient and truncated in many areas.

Remember: President George H. W. Bush initiated the Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion of its alleged “nineteenth province” was not justified and unworthy of an Arab state. The Bush I rationale for war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation; that was the sole war aim, the casus belli, for engaging Iraqi forces from the air and subsequently in the desert. So how does Mr Bush, the current president, justify invading a nation that had been attacked by the United States for invading the Persian Gulf state of Kuwait? The logic is absent; the crime is immanent and the disgrace that this war and this president has brought to our nation is palpable.

Just War: Iraq #3 “Proportionality”

Friday, October 14th, 2005

Just War Doctrine requires in Jus Ad Bellum, or the legitimacy of going to war, that warrior nations consider the consequences of their actions. Specifically, will the violence and death that will result from war–the means–justify the alleged positive ends that will accrue from war?

One would not argue that it would be appropriate to destroy or raze an eleven-story apartment building with the knowledge that a serial killer had rushed into it and is hiding on one of its floors. One could not justify the killing of 100s of people in a building in order to eliminate the alleged perpetrator of serial killings. That would violate the proportionality in weighing the means-ends relationship in determining whether the use of force is justified.

The criminal Bush administration–and I am not even referring to their cowardly and treasonous outing of Valerie Plame, C.I.A. covert agent–went to war for reasons that could have been resolved non-violently. The deaths of 100,000s of Iraqis, 2,000 Americans, tens of thousands of wounded, the destruction of cities not required by military necessity, cannot justify the supposed benefits to be attained through war. What makes this shameful war more illegitimate is the rationale for going to war: namely that President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a near-nuclear weapons’ state and in possession of both chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to deliver them against American interests. None of this was accurate. Also the Bush administration’s lies in attempting to educe emotional hatred for President Hussein’s involvement in the September 11 attacks on N.Y.C. and Washington, D.C. were simply Goebbels’s like indulgence in the big lie. So any rationale for this war was either non-existent or beneath the level of proportionality in which war could be rationally construed as appropriate means for stated war goals or ends.

So why all this death? How can one argue that the destruction wrought by this Nazi-type blitzkrieg war (phase one that is: recognising it was preannounced unlike Operation Fall Weiss or Barbarossa) of invading a weak and non-threatening nation is worth the ends sought by war? In any event, this Democratic party-supported war fails its third test of Just War’s requirement that certain standards of justice and propriety be satisfied prior to the initiation of hostilities. This is jus ad bellum: justice prior to war.

Just War: Iraq #2 “Competent Authority”

Thursday, October 13th, 2005

This has always been one of the more ambiguous areas of Roman Catholic Just War doctrine that began with the magisterial writings of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. Basically it refers to war being the product of constitutional or legitimate authority processes. Yes in recent years it was altered to allow non-governmental liberation struggles against the forces of repression. Just War doctrine today allows presumably war to be waged against “legitimate” authority that is deemed “illegitimate.”

The Bush administration war in Iraq by any measure violated this component of Just War Doctrine. [I don't believe in just war but am merely applying this concept to the Iraq quagmire.]

1) The Bush administration neither sought nor was granted a Declaration of War as required in the slave constitution as ratified by the requisite number of states in 1788. Article 1, Section 8 states only Congress can “declare war.” Those who desire a literalist, strict construction of the Constitution are nowhere to be seen when this vital passage is ignored.

2) Cowardly Democrats who vote for “authorisation to use force” are simply giving a president a permission slip to commit mass murder. A Declaration of War is a proclamation that war exists. I do not accept the equivalence of authorisation with the Constitutional requirements to have a formal declaration of war. This development was due to the Cold War, which like all war, takes a toll on the freedoms and constitutional mandates of our nation. The Imperial presidency has vitiated the document; yet it bemoans its alleged undermining by liberal justices as it appoints right-wing bigots, enemies of democracy and puritanical hypocrites to the Supreme Court.

3) Unless the United Nations, through its Security Council, signs off on war, I think a nation that goes to war in the absence of such approval is a terrorist state acting in an immoral manner. It violates Just War doctrine. I recognise the argumentation that nations may go to war to avert national destruction, to ward off an invasion, to respond to a clear and unmistakable imminent attack. Yet the Iraq war could not even remotely satisfy those criteria and was waged against the wishes of the U.N. and in the explicit absence of an enabling Security Council resolution.

I do not believe the Just War doctrine’s requirement of “legitimate authority” was satisfied either according to internal constitutional processes or external international obligations to conduct oneself according to the wishes of the international community.

Mr Bush and the Democratic party leadership are in my estimation war criminals and should be denounced for violating the laws of war.

Just War: Iraq #1 “War As A Last Resort”

Wednesday, October 12th, 2005

One of the requisites of Just War is that war should eventuate only as a last resort. In the case of Iraq, Hans Blix’s inspectors were still doing their work. They were encountering little resistance. While certainly inspectors could not have proven beyond doubt that WMD did not exist in Iraq, they were clearly able for example to determine if there were nuclear reactors, if there were uranium enrichment, if plutonium reprocessing was taking place, if there were gaseous diffusion or centrifuge technology that had reached an operational status in Iraq.

The Bush administration seemed impatient to have this war. It appeared to directly reflect neoconservative unilateralism in which war is America’s option and there should be little or no regard to international law, international comity and the rules of war. The United Nations should have been required to sanction U.S. permission to invade Iraq through its Security Council prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Such was not the case and with a preventive war, not requiring an immediate response in what was basically an elective war, the absence of approval should have precluded hostilities.

I believe the US must not act in such a unilateralist manner. It brings shame and disgrace to this nation, the institution of the military that wages an immoral war and lessens this nation’s capacity to look beyond military might as a means of interacting with the international community.

Is There a God? What About Creation? Part II

Wednesday, September 21st, 2005

Probably not in terms of a direct capacity to communicate with or verify the presence of. Probably not even in terms of an omnipotent being that is transmogrified from human to deity and observes all things simultaneously. Probably not in terms of spatial identification or an entity with humanoid or any sentient characteristics.

More probably creation had little to do with an architect’s design although it may follow patterns unrelated to a plan but more related to patterns of development in the universe. Creation was separate from current religious explanations and happened without order or “predestined” outcomes. It is likely that non-scientific explanations of planetary creation are speculative and culturally derived from attempting to establish some order of understanding or to impose some order on others. More probably a god is pure faith and not predicated on reason. More probably god is an entity that derives from cultural heritage or adopted cultural heritage. A deity is an attribute of culture in my opinion and results from human imagination and transmission. I do know that biology should emphasise Darwinian evolution and religions may postulate their views in the appropriate venue: like church or a Mosque, in theological discourse, but not a classroom in which science is the primary discipline under analysis.

This is somewhat consistent with earlier posts on humankind creating God. I do not believe that would diminish or denigrate the notion of a God if in reality it were a human construct. Humans can do important and beautiful things and if religion and god are derivative from that, I do not see that as apostasy. Yes apostasy if one is committed to a sequence of God, creation, religion. Not apostasy if one is willing to accept a sequence of non-metaphysical creation, religion, god as a need for large segments of humankind.

Is God important? Obviously. Does god exist? I do not believe so but I am too limited to declare or attempt to influence others. If God exists for you, based upon faith, then that is your understanding. If god does not exist for a person, that may be equally as virtuous. I like to believe in things that are less tangential and more easily transparent. Others find comfort in the unknown or in the ethereal grandeur of the incomprehensible, the phantasmagorical, I am not being pejorative, of deities and saints that mere mortals like myself find too complex to grasp much less dedicate a life to worshipping.

Does a belief in God represent a lack of sophistication or a lack of clarity in seeing the limits of such a view? No. God exists for believers on an individualised or congregational or group basis but not for those who reject the concept.

I have been associated with Catholic universities in graduate school and in my teaching assignments, and while I do not share their commitment to religious faith, I share some of their values and respect their right to believe or not to believe. I am most interested in religion, have studied it and practiced it at various times. Currently, I am more focused on what humans can do to improve their world and am less confident that there is an invisible hand, economic or ecclesial, that watches or guides our actions.

Should a professor who teaches at a Catholic university make these statements? Of course if he or she chooses to do so. All universities should promote the free exchange of ideas, academic freedom and the pursuit of truth. I do not know what “truth” is and that is the truth. My job is to question, to reexamine the canon, to raise issues that provoke and hopefully stimulate, to be honest and explore values of social concern. A Catholic university is not a church and its social contract with its non-Catholic, or non-believer Catholic personnel is to respect their rights and traditions and vice versa.

Motherhood is Optional: Getting an Abortion in Arkansas

Sunday, September 18th, 2005

September 18, 2005
Under Din of Abortion Debate, an Experience Shared Quietly
By JOHN LELAND

New York Times

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – At Little Rock Family Planning Services, the women filed in without making eye contact, a demographic that remains unrecognized.

Leah works in a clothing boutique. Alicia is in high school. Tammy pulls espresso. Regina is a sergeant in the Army, recently home from Iraq.

Far from Washington and the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge John G. Roberts Jr., here in Little Rock on an August weekend, 26 women from as far away as Oklahoma joined the more than one million American women who will probably have abortions this year.

Their experiences, at one of only two clinics in the state, offer a ground-level view of abortion in 2005, a landscape altered by shifts in technology, law, demographics and the political climate.

Brittany, 17, brought her mother for support. Linda, 39, brought her daughter.

Alexia, who wore a cross pendant, prayed all through the two-and-a-half-hour drive from Delta State University in Mississippi. At 23, she was having her third abortion. “My religion is against it,” she said, adding that she is a Baptist. “In a way I feel I’m doing wrong, but you can be forgiven. I blame myself. I feel I shouldn’t have sex at all.”

Venetia Grunder, 21, viewed an ultrasound image of the fetus in her womb. She was 12 weeks pregnant, though she had taken birth control pills as directed. “I feel pretty messed up,” she said after seeing the image. “It’s different, just knowing. My husband told me not to look. This changes my feelings, but I’m sticking by it. Damn it, $650, I’m sticking by it.”

More than 25 million Americans have had abortions since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973. Often kept secret, even from close friends or family members, the experience cuts across all income levels, religions, races, lifestyles, political parties and marital circumstances. Though abortion rates have been falling since 1990, to their lowest level since the mid-1970’s, abortion remains one of the most common surgical procedures for women in America. More than one in five pregnancies end in abortion.

In the squat, nondescript brick building here, the lofty rhetoric that has billowed through public debate for the last 32 years gave way to the mundane realities of the armed security guard and the metal detector, the surgical table and the settling of the bill before the procedure – $525 to $1,800, cash or credit card only.

While public conversation about abortion is dominated by advocates with all-or-nothing positions – treating the fetus as a complete person, with full rights, or as a nonentity, with none – most patients at the clinic, like most Americans, found themselves on rockier ground, weighing religious, ethical, practical, sentimental and financial imperatives that were often in conflict.

Regina cried on the operating table.

Kori, 26, who was having her third abortion, asked to watch the procedure on the ultrasound monitor. “I wanted to see what it was like,” she said. “It was O.K. to watch. Once you had your mind made up to do it, you just suck it up and go with it.”

The solitary protester outside , Jim Dawson, 74, stood a court-mandated distance from the clinic with a video camera, taping women as they entered, and promising them hellfire if they went through with it – as he has for a decade. Mr. Dawson drives 40 miles from Vilonia, Ark., bringing cardboard signs that say “Abortion Kills,” and usually departs by midmorning. On days when the clinic is closed, he pickets the Clinton presidential library. “I don’t stop many of them,” he said, “but a little bit goes a long way.”

The Women

At the clinic, patients allowed a reporter to attend their consultations and even operations, but most spoke only if they could use just their first names. “It’s not something I would talk about,” said “M,” a high school teacher who agreed to be identified only by her middle initial. She wore a miniskirt and T-shirt, her blond hair pulled back from her forehead. She said she had never discussed abortion with relatives or colleagues. Only two friends knew she was here.

“I’d lose my job,” she said. “My family’s reputation would be ruined. It makes me nervous even being in the waiting room. You don’t want to know who’s here, you don’t want to be recognized, and you don’t want to see them ever again. Because in society’s eyes, you share the same dirty secret.”

Even most staff members at the clinic insisted on using only their first names – “to protect my identity from the antichoice people,” said Lori, a nurse practitioner. Several said they had not told family members what they did for a living, or were ostracized if they had.

“My oldest son won’t let me see my grandchildren,” said Sherry Steele, 57, a surgical assistant who started working at the clinic after her daughter had two abortions. The New York Times agreed to anonymity to encourage candor and to get a representative sample of women. (Those who volunteer their full names are by nature an unrepresentative minority.) On this August weekend, the women entering the Little Rock clinic resembled those who have abortions nationwide. They were mainly in their 20’s, more likely to be poor and African-American than the area population. Most were already mothers, many single. They arrived as a result of failure of one sort or another: a poor sexual decision, a broken relationship, a birth control method that just did not work. More than half of all women who have abortions say they used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

While abortion rates have been falling generally since 1990, the decline has been steepest among teenagers, and rates are lowest among educated, financially secure women. Researchers attribute the drop in teenage abortion to reduced rates of pregnancy, as a result of better access to contraception – including the three-month Depo-Provera injections – and abstinence.

Conversely, for poor and low-income women, rates increased during the 1990’s, possibly in response to the 1996 welfare overhaul, which reduced support systems for women who carry their fetuses to term. At every income level studied by the Guttmacher Institute, African-American women were more likely to terminate their pregnancies than white women.

Leah, 26, said money was a factor in her decision to have an abortion. A former college track athlete, she works in a clothing boutique, a job that she said did not pay enough to support a child.

Like many women at the clinic, Leah had conflicted feelings about what she was doing. “I always said I would never, ever have an abortion,” she said. “I probably will regret it. I’m pro-choice for cases of incest or rape, but if it’s your own fault, you should accept responsibility. And it’s my own fault.”

In Arkansas, as in many states, abortion providers are required to offer women their ultrasound images before an abortion. Because Leah was just five weeks pregnant, her image showed a formless mass. “If I saw an actual fetal baby on the ultrasound, I wouldn’t have been able to go through with it,” she said. She said she felt selfish, “but hopefully this will set me on a straighter path.”

The procedure took only minutes. Afterward, in a recovery area, she said she was less shaken than she had expected. “I thought I’d be crying,” she said. “I feel goofy now, but not in a bad way. I feel relieved more than anything. I know I’ll never forget it, but I’d rather do that than have a child I can’t take care of.”

Karen, 29, who arrived at the clinic 20 weeks pregnant, expressed no qualms about ending her pregnancy. Like nearly half of all women who have abortions, she had had one before, when she was 18. She did not look on abortion as shameful, she said, adding, “All of your past goes into making you who you are.”

She has a 9-year-old son, and she said she felt she could not start again with a newborn child. This, too, is common. More than half of all women having abortions have had children, a percentage that rose in the 1980’s but has not changed since 1990, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Karen and her boyfriend have an unstable relationship plagued by money problems, and they lived with a relative after being evicted from their home. She did not come in earlier in the pregnancy, she said, because she did not have the money. In the end, because she was so far along, her abortion took two days and cost $1,375, nearly three times what it would have cost if she had come in at 12 weeks.

“People tell you you can put your child up for adoption,” she said. “But if your kid has medical problems, no one wants to adopt him. And you never know.”

For many women at the clinic, their desire to end their pregnancy clashed with their religious beliefs. Tammy, a Muslim, had her first abortion a year ago, after having three children. She is married and works in a coffee shop in Tennessee. She became pregnant this time after erratically taking her birth control pills.

“I know it’s against God,” she said of her abortion. “But you have three kids, you want to raise them good. My friends and sister-in-law say, ‘You care about money problems but don’t care about what God will do.’

“I believe it’s wrong. I pray to God to forgive me. This will be the last one. Never, never again.”

The Law

Since 1992, when the Supreme Court recognized states’ authority to restrict abortion as long as they did not create an “undue burden,” states have enacted 487 laws restricting patients or providers, in many cases calling for mandatory counseling, waiting periods and parental consent for minors, according to Naral Pro-Choice America. The result is a patchwork of laws and regulations that vary from state to state, some of which may come before the United States Supreme Court. In surveys, Americans largely support these restrictions, even if they say abortion should be legal. This fall, the court will consider whether New Hampshire’s parental notification statute creates an undue burden because it does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman.

Arkansas, which before Roe v. Wade had one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws, now has one of the most restrictive, requiring state-scripted counseling at least a day before the procedure and, since mid-August, parental consent for minors. At 20 weeks, doctors are required to tell patients that the fetus feels pain, though this is medically disputed.

At the clinic in Little Rock, patients and staff members said the restrictions were more inconveniences than roadblocks. Patients nodded dutifully as the staff members asked questions like, “Do you understand that the father of the child must provide financial assistance if you deliver the pregnancy?” Like the protester outside, the regulations seemed simply part of the drill.

In a pre-operation holding room, Alicia, 17, awaited an abortion for which her parents were not asked permission. Under Arkansas law, as in 33 of the 34 states that require parental consent or notification, juveniles can bypass their parents if they persuade a judge that they are mature enough to make the decision themselves, or that it might be in their best interest.

Alicia, who was 17 or 18 weeks pregnant, said she did not have the abortion earlier because she was afraid to confront her parents. When she finally told her parents she was pregnant, she said, her mother threw a stool at her and kicked her out of the house.

“But I can’t give a baby a life it should have financially,” she said. “My boyfriend didn’t want me to go through with it, but he realized he couldn’t support a baby either.” Her parents ultimately gave her $1,700 for the abortion, but she arrived from Oklahoma without their formal consent.

Getting a judicial bypass was not difficult, she said. The clinic scheduled her appointment early in the morning, and after taking a pregnancy test, for which she paid $200, she met with a judge briefly in his chambers.

If you go to the judge and say, ‘I’m afraid to tell my parents because they might harm me,’ that’s all you need to say,” said Dr. Tom Tvedten, who has been performing abortions in Arkansas for 20 years, and now works part time at the Little Rock clinic. “It doesn’t have to be true, because how would anybody know?”

He added, “But every time a restriction is placed on us, it increases our costs, and that cost is passed on to the consumer.”

The Practice

For the clinic, the regulations add paperwork and require extra staff members, said Dr. Jerry Edwards, the chief physician, who owns the clinic with his wife, Ann F. Osborne, the director. Penalties can include lawsuits or criminal prosecution.

“Normally, if someone’s a flagrant violator of medical regulations, they get disciplined by the profession,” Dr. Edwards said. “But these guys go for the pocketbook or put you in jail. It’s much more punitive than the doctor who commits Medicare fraud.”

New licensing laws, enacted in 28 states, require providers to comply with state codes for equipment, record-keeping, building grounds and other areas, which small businesses can find onerous. In Arkansas, these laws – which clinics call TRAP laws, for targeted regulation of abortion providers – do not apply to existing clinics, but they make it expensive for anyone who wants to open one, Dr. Edwards said. “We look at TRAP laws as a major barrier for people who want to become providers,” said Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive of the National Abortion Federation, a trade group of providers.

Dr. Tvedten likened the regulations to “death by a thousand scratches.”

In part because of the legal, financial and emotional pressures, the number of doctors in Arkansas who perform more than occasional abortions has fallen to three, down from six in the late 1990’s. The youngest, Dr. Tvedten, is 59.

This reduction mirrors a national trend. Nationally, 1,819 facilities provided abortions in 2000, down from a high of 2,908 in 1982, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Dr. Edwards, 63, said he felt an obligation to stay in business. “If we retired, I’m not sure anybody else would come to Arkansas and practice,” he said. “We can’t get residents from the hospital to come over and see what an abortion is like.”

Threats against abortion clinics are on the decline, in part because of sterner laws to protect clinics. But picketing has remained steady, at 80 percent of clinics.

Dr. Edwards and Ms. Osborne said they felt isolated from the local medical community and the community at large. Even the patients often have a negative view of abortion. “I very often hear, ‘I don’t believe in this, but my situation is different,’ ” Ms. Osborne said.

Though the clinic has developed an equilibrium with its lone demonstrator, Ms. Osborne is wary of any opposition to abortion rights. In 1994, when she was executive director of Preterm Health Services in Brookline, Mass., an abortion opponent named John C. Salvi III came into the clinic and started shooting, killing the receptionist.

The Technology

As laws become more restrictive, technology has gone the other way, making abortions possible both earlier and later in pregnancy, and by pill or surgery. Doctors can perform abortions as early as eight days after conception, and 59 percent of women having abortions do so within eight weeks, according to 2001 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Fewer than 1 percent have abortions after 20 weeks. A late-term procedure called intact dilation and extraction, sometimes known as partial-birth abortion, accounted for less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all abortions in 2000, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Fewer than one in 50 providers performed those.

Since September 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug mifepristone, sometimes called RU-486, for early abortion, more than 460,000 women have chosen this option, according to the manufacturer’s data. Mifepristone is given in conjunction with a second pill, misoprostol, usually over two or three days, and requires a follow-up exam with a doctor.

At the Little Rock clinic, few patients chose the pills over surgery. “With medical termination, the discomfort is significant because they have to go through mini-labor,” Dr. Tvedten said. “There’s a lot of hard cramps and usually significant bleeding. It’s cheaper, safer and less painful to have a surgical termination.”

Each technological advance has led to new legislative and legal wrangling, which may ultimately reach the Supreme Court. On Aug. 31, the director of the women’s health office at the Food and Drug Administration resigned in protest over delays in approving over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill known as Plan B, which has emerged as a front in the abortion battles.

The Procedure

Regina, 28, blamed a faulty contraceptive Depo-Provera shot from an Army nurse in Iraq for her pregnancy. In Arkansas, she receives the injection in her hip, where it is most effective, but in Iraq she got it in the arm – she remembered by the soreness she felt slinging her rifle. “I was in Iraq 13 months,” she said. “I guess I got a little happy when I got home.”

She arrived at the clinic with a cut on her nose and bruises on her forehead and lip, which she sustained after telling her boyfriend she was pregnant. “He flipped out because he wasn’t ready,” she said. She had thought, upon learning of the pregnancy, that she “was about to get married,” she said. She came in with two fellow sergeants, who wore their uniforms. Her boyfriend was in jail, she said.

“I’ve done this once and swore I wouldn’t do it again,” Regina said. “Every woman has second thoughts, especially because I’m Catholic.” She went to confession and met with her priest, she added. “The priest didn’t hound me. He said, ‘People make mistakes.’ ”

In the operating room, a team of nurses gave her injections to relieve anxiety and pain. Dr. Edwards inserted a speculum and maneuvered a plastic suction device around her uterus. “Don’t leave,” she entreated Ms. Osborne. The procedure lasted about five minutes.

As she lay on the table, Regina wept and put an arm around Ms. Osborne, asking how things looked “in there.”

“I’m not a baby, that’s what’s so sad,” Regina said. “Thank you, ladies, for being here for me. I’m too old to make these mistakes.”

She said the experience was emotional because she had expected more of the father.

She spoke to Dr. Edwards. “Thank you, sir,” she said.

Ebony, 28, an operating room supervisor, rinsed the blood off the aborted tissues for Dr. Edwards to examine. Ebony, too, had a story. When she was 15, her aunt and grandmother had made her carry her pregnancy to term. Later, she had an abortion. As a Baptist, she still considered abortion a sin – but so are a lot of things we all do, she said. She squeezed Regina’s hand.

“No problem, sweetie,” Ebony said. “We’ve all been there.”

Turn Turn Turn

Friday, September 9th, 2005

Words-adapted from the bible, Ecclesiastes
Music-Pete Seeger

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time to build up,a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time of love, a time of hate
A time of war, a time of peace
A time you may embrace, a time to refrain from embracing

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time for peace, I swear it’s not too late

For my mom.

Karl Marx: Is there a God?

Saturday, August 20th, 2005

In classical Marxism, the notion of a god is dismissed as a human-made invention. Greatly influenced by the transformational criticism of Ludwig von Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, Marxists believed that humans created god and not the reverse. The only intelligent design was in the mind of the human; god does not exist independently from human projection of this entity.

According to classical Marxism: In the process of creating god, humans became self-alienated and projected their virtues onto this abstraction of perfection. They created a God-centered universe where the alleged sinfulness and evil of humanity would be contrasted to and lay prostrate before this wondrous entity. To end the alienation, to free humankind from the shackles of guilt and self-degradation, God must be destroyed in order to reclaim the virtues that humankind innocently surrendered to the notion of a supreme being. There must be a “human-centered” world. Perhaps a Ptolemaic revolution in reverse!! Camille Paglia once said that God is the greatest invention in the history of humankind.

I asked a class last semester what they thought about this notion of god being created by humans. Some felt that was not accurate: God created humanity. Some did not believe in a god; others thought, and I was so impressed by their originality, that God created humans but humans created religion!! I told them that was one of the more original and provocative ideas I had ever heard from a class. The course was on “Capitalism and Socialism” and most were Roman Catholic students with a variety of opinions!!

I also believe that gods, there are many differences between monotheistic religions and those that are pantheistic, are invented by humans. Yet it seems to be an instinctual cultural trait that is part of being human. The European invaders of America encountered religions among the native discoverers. Religion appears in almost every human culture ever chronicled. So clearly the belief in some higher order has immanent application. I have never understood what god means and have found the concept beyond my range of understanding and belief.

What is astonishing is the gravity of believing in God and its motive power on this planet: Wars, enormous expenditure of human and natural resources, masses of people deeply moved and organized around the concept of a deity. I do not underestimate its significance. I find it difficult to believe that the world was created by a spirit or that a god, independent of humanity, is present in our lives. Humans must guide and direct their own destinies. However, for those who sense or deeply believe in a Supreme Being, then for them that belief and presence is real and significant.

Finally, one can be “religious” and a monster and war criminal. One can be a non-believer and committed to virtuous works and societal uplift. It is not relevant whether one believes in a god(s) or not in terms of assessing one’s morality or virtue. It is how one lives and interacts with other persons, and how one behaves as a citizen. Presidents Jefferson and George W. Bush were quite different in their beliefs in a god or a heavenly engineer and yet their contributions are vastly different as well.

Karl Marx: Religion “is the opium of the people”

Wednesday, August 17th, 2005

Marx wrote in the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right that religion “is the opium of the people.” By this he meant it was a tool of ideology used by capital to enslave and narcotise the proletariat. It was part of the superstructure, the cultural components of a society that were part of the armamentarium of oppression that capital used to pursue profit and commodity fetishim.

During American chattel slavery, religion was used as a means to insure slave compliance. Slaves were promised their heavenly reward if they would accept and obey current rules and conditions of the peculiar institution. It is hardly surprising that religion like all other major institutions of a society is controlled by the ruling elites. Tithing, established churches, crusades, etc. were methods of class control fueled by religious activism.

Look at it from Marx’s perspective: He sees in Western Europe, primarily in Britain, an almost indescribable world of proletarian misery and dysfunction. Therefore, all institutions, law, religion, art, letters, press, medicine etc. are seen as tools of class domination. These are components of the superstructure that rests on a base or substructure of economic forces that determine the fate and eventual revolutionary direction of a given order. To Marx, religion was not central but merely an appurtenance, a tool, in which dominant economic classes ruled over their subalterns.

Certainly one can identify in American history, the use of religion as a progressive force as well. The clergypersons who ended American apartheid in the 1950s and 1960s were motivated by Christian love and a religious inspiration to end Jim Crow and American racism. So Marx’s ideas, while arresting and certainly significant, can be used in a comparative sense to either confirm or to contest his conclusions.

Ex Corde Ecclesiae and Mandatum

Monday, August 15th, 2005

While the American bishops have not enforced the mandatum, it is basically a licensing to teach theology. Only Roman Catholic theologians who teach at a Roman Catholic university are required to receive one from the local ordinary.

The purpose of this was to reign in United States Catholic universities that were seen as too liberal and too revisionist. Many theologians construe the mandatum as a violation of their academic freedom and as a means to insure doctrinal orthodoxy within the classroom and derviatively in scholarship.

A former university president said to me once that he supported the Mandatum and said that Roman Catholic theology was “copyrighted” and those who teach it are obligated to teach it in a manner that is consistent with the church’s requirements. He stated that he would “talk” to any faculty member required to have a mandatum who chose not to seek one from the local bishop. While the president said he supported “academic freedom,” I was concerned about the implications of these remarks.

I don’t believe any discipline is “copyrighted.” I don’t believe that external publics should replace peer review and institutional autonomy in determining fitness. A Roman Catholic theologian has the right to be an atheist and opposed to the major teachings of the church. She or he has the obligation to teach accurately the position of the church but not to agree with it. Otherwise, these theologians will be subject to a standard of assessment that is at variance with traditional standards of academic freedom.

It is evident with the declining numbers of clergy, that theologians today are mostly laypersons; they are not seminarians and, therefore, are more independent by nature and training. When theologians were seminarians, then the issue of doctrinal orthodoxy was less of a challenge or concern.

I think any church is strengthened with debate and the testing of ideas. I think without hesitation, that Roman Catholic theologians teaching at a Roman Catholic college or university should not be required to have a mandatum and they should be afforded all the rights that other academicians have.

The American Association of University Professors censured the administration of Catholic University in 1990 for removing Father Charles E. Curran from the classroom. He differentiated between fallible and infallible teachings of the Church in the areas of choice and sexuality and was deemed unacceptable as a teacher of Roman Catholic theology.

Universities can live with freedom; I think a democracy is better served when professors are not silenced, suspended, fired, or intimidated for their utterances either outside or inside the classroom.