Hands-Free Phones as Dangerous as Driving Drunk

The Guardian is reporting on the results of a new study that shows hands-free phones are not necessarily safe.

Using a hands-free kit while at the wheel is as dangerous as drink driving, according to a study of volunteers in a driving simulator. The researchers conclude that all mobile phone use while driving should be banned.

“Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cellphone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar,” said the report’s lead author, David Strayer, a professor of psychology at the University of Utah.

(Posted by Trask)

Is a Supreme Court Retirement Likely?

There is an interesting posting at Free Republic, which discusses the possibility of a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

As the Supreme Court wraps up its session, there has been so far fairly little attention paid to the fact that this is when U.S. Supreme Court retirements are typically announced. All of the last 14 retirements were announced between May 14th and October 1st of their respective years; the last to retire outside of those dates was Charles Whittaker, whose doctor ordered him to retire on account of a worsening disability making it impossible for him to sit at his bench. Of those 14, 9 announced their retirement between June 12 and August 3rd, a space of only seven weeks.

(That includes Sandra Day O’Connor, who announced her retirement on July 1st, pending her replacement. Just as her replacement was to be named in early September, Chief Justice William Renquist died, and her replacement was instead chosen to replace him. She finally left the court on January 31st of the following year.)

Given the recent drama in replacing Sandra Day O’Connor and Chief Justice Renquist, one might expect that there will now be a lull. There is no reason to expect that there will be. Liberal John Paul Stevens is 86 years old, and while there is no reason to expect him to be true to his word, given his history of contradictory rulings, he did claim he would retire under a Republican president. He is older than any of his colleagues on the court ever were; Harry Blackmun was the oldest, about 5 months youner. On the other hand, he might want to break some records, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes’ record for oldest serving justice, or William O. Douglas’ record for longest term. He is almost 3 years, and 4 years short of those marks, respectively. If he isn’t out to meet some personal goal, history suggests he will soon retire; his longevity and age are both statistical outliers already.

The next most likely to retire is Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She has faced health struggles. God forbid anyone think I’m routing for her to fall ill; her ailments seem safely in the past. But such battles do age people, and, at 73 years old, she is in the prime years for a Supreme Court Justice to retire.

(Posted by Trask)

Supreme Court Rules Against Military Tribunals

According to the Washington Times, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the President currently lacks the power to authorize military tribunals that deny constitutional rights. 

The Supreme Court ruled today that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.

Mr. Bush said there might still be a way to work with Congress to sanction military tribunals for detainees and that the American people should know the ruling “won’t cause killers to be put out on the street.”

The court declared 5-3 that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. law and the Geneva conventions.
. . .
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, said the Bush administration lacked the authority to take the “extraordinary measure” of scheduling special military trials for inmates, in which defendants have fewer legal protections than in civilian U.S. courts.
. . .
It was a broad defeat for the government, which two years ago suffered a similar loss when the high court held that the president lacked authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberal members in most of the ruling against the administration. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., named by Mr. Bush last September to the lead the court, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Mr. Hamdan.

Today’s ruling overturned that decision.
. . .
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent from the ruling and took the unusual step of reading part of it from the bench — something he had never done before in his 15 years. He said the court’s decision would “sorely hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.”

The court’s willingness, Justice Thomas wrote in the dissent, “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.”

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also dissented.

In his own opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, “Congress has not issued the executive a ‘blank check.’

“Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary,” Justice Breyer wrote.

(Posted by Trask)

Is the Gates-Buffett Alliance Tainted by Innocent Blood?

According to Beliefnet.com (AP), some pro-life activists are condemning Buffet and Gates for their contributions to Planned Parenthood, which is a corporation that makes money by perpetuating a genocidal war against the unborn.

Warren Buffett’s new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to which Buffett has pledged the bulk of his $44 billion fortune, devotes the vast majority of its funding to combating disease and poverty in developing countries. Less than 1 percent has gone to Planned Parenthood over the years.
. . .
The foundation founded by Buffett, and now named after his late wife, Susan, came under fire from some anti-abortion groups in the 1990s after it gave $2 million to fund clinical trials of mifepristone, more commonly known as the RU-486 abortion pill. The foundation also has supported various abortion-rights and family-planning groups, and Susan Buffett was eulogized after her death in 2004 as a champion of women’s reproductive health.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, wrote a commentary this week holding the Buffetts partially responsible for the approval of RU-486 in 2000.

“Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486,” Perkins wrote. “Buffett’s billions have the potential to do damage like this on a global scale.”
. . .
Planned Parenthood, which is the leading provider of abortions in the United States, has received $34 million (euro27 million) from the Gates Foundation over the years – out of a total of $10.5 billion (euro8.4 billion) in grants worldwide, according to foundation spokeswoman Jacquelline Fuller. She said the foundation does not fund abortion services, earmarking the grants for other Planned Parenthood programs.

Joseph D’Agostino, a spokesman for the anti-abortion Population Research Institute, said the foundation position “is simply dishonest.”

“Abortion services are the primary mission of Planned Parenthood,” he said. “If you fund one side of an organization, that frees them up to transfer funds to the other things they do.”

There are a couple issues at stake here. The first issue is Buffett choosing to fund the development of RU 486 (the abortion pill) during the 1990’s. This is clearly an evil and despicable act that should be condemned. The abortion pill has made it extremely easy to get abortions, and it will forever decrease the effectiveness of any future anti-abortion laws that come into effect. The second issue is the contributions that both Buffett and Gates are currently making to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is such an evil corporation that it should not have a penny of any person’s money. However, this action may be less reprehensible than funding RU-486 directly because there does at least seem to be some effort to ensure that this money does not go to abortion. The objection is made that even if the money is earmarked to stuff other than abortion, it will increase Planned Parenthood’s resources and allow for more resources to be transferred to abortion. This is a legitimate criticism. It is difficult to know how much of an effect there would be since budgets are often not so simple, especially when an organization receives lots of earmarked funds. It is legitimate to conclude that any contribution to Planned Parenthood should be condemned including ones that are earmarked because of the risk that resources will be internally reallocated to abortion. However, there needs to be caution in the way that this objection is made because wealthy people like Gates and Buffett should be praised for making great sacrifices like this, especially since 99% of the money will do much good. Therefore, pro-life activists should praise Gates and Buffett for the 99% of their resources that are going to help the world’s poor, and they should condemn the 1% that may be helping perpetuate violence against the unborn.

(Posted by Trask)

Bono Gives Wealthy Nations Mixed Grades for Assisting Africa

According to CNN, Bono is giving the world’s richest countries mixed grades.

The world’s richest countries are falling short on pledges made to Africa a year ago on providing life-saving AIDS drugs, expanding trade and boosting aid, said activist rock star Bono.
. . .
“They started to climb an Everest but over the past year they got lost at base camp,” Bono said after the release of a progress report by his lobby group Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa group, or DATA. (Watch Bono’s plea to make good on Africa pledges — 8:32)

“I’d like to think that the DATA report is a kind of a GPS system for how to get back on track and back up the mountain,” said Bono, who formed DATA with Geldof.

The report said wealthy countries had delivered on their promise to cancel the debts of 19 poor countries, most of them in Africa, with a total of 44 countries eligible under programs of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

“Overall, there is one cheer on debt, half a cheer on AIDS and boos and wolf-whistles for what is happening on trade,” Bono said.
. . .
DATA said, however, that donors were spending half of what was needed to meet the goal of getting AIDS treatment to at least 4 million Africans by 2010.

The report commended the United States as the largest donor to HIV/AIDS programs in Africa, and Britain and France for their contributions to a Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Canada, Italy, Japan and Germany were laggards, it said.

The report castigated the G8 for the lack of promised progress to reach a world trade deal that would open markets for African products and increase aid for trade.
. . .
It said the G8 was collectively off target in 2005 on their promises to double aid to Africa by 2010. Only France was was on track for its 2010 goal, the report said.

To keep to its aid promises, the report said the wealthy countries should have increased aid by $3.6 billion last year, but only reached $1.6 billion in 2005.

Reaching the 2010 goal of doubling aid to Africa would require G8 countries to increase funding by $4 billion in 2006, the report said.

(Posted by Trask)

Episcopal Diocese Nominates Gay Priest for Bishop

BBC News is reporting that the Newark diocese has nominated a gay priest for Bishop.

A US Episcopal Church diocese has nominated a gay priest as a candidate for bishop, risking deepening a row with the global Anglican denomination.

The liberal diocese of Newark, New Jersey, named Canon Michael Barlowe as one of four candidates for the post.

A BBC correspondent says the move is a snub to the wider Anglican Church.

A week ago the Episcopal Church agreed to “exercise restraint” in consecrating gay bishops, after a furious row sparked by a previous appointment.

(Posted by Trask)

Child Poverty Increasing

According to UPI, child poverty is increasing in the U.S.

U.S. children are poorer and less healthy now than in the 1990s, a child advocacy group says.

The 17th-annual KIDS COUNT Data Book from the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that three out of 10 child “well-being indicators” have worsened since 2000.

There were more than 13 million children living in poverty in 2004 — an increase of 1 million over four years. There was also an increase in the percentage of low birth-weight babies between 2000 and 2003 and an increase in the number of children living in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment.

(Posted by Trask)

Railroad Killer Asks God for Forgiveness

According to CNN, the Railroad Killer asked God for forgiveness before being executed. 

A train-hopping serial killer linked to at least 15 murders near railroad tracks around the country said “I deserve what I am getting” before he was executed Tuesday night.

Angel Maturino Resendiz mumbled a prayer, saying “Lord, forgive me. Lord, forgive me,” and acknowledged the presence of relatives watching through a nearby window.

“I want to ask if it is in your heart to forgive me,” he said as he looked toward the relatives of victims in another room. “You don’t have to. I know I allowed the devil to rule my life.”

“I thank God for having patience for me. I don’t deserve to cause you pain. You did not deserve this. I deserve what I am getting,” he said.

(Posted by Trask)

Archbishop Williams Outlines Proposal for Church Split

According to the Daily Times, Archbishop Williams has outlined a proposal for a church split.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has outlined proposals that are expected to lead to the exclusion of The Episcopal Church of the United States from the Anglican Church as a consequence of consecrating a gay bishop.

The US branch of Anglicanism faces losing its status of full membership of the Anglican Church in the wake of its consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, an act which has propelled the worldwide church to the brink of schism.

The final straw came when The Episcopal Church failed to “repent” of its action at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio earlier this month, and failed to vote through a moratorium on any more gay consecrations.

Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, “constituent” membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to “associate” membership.

All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a “covenant” which will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members of the Anglican church can agree.

But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a document.

These churches and any others that refused to sign up could opt to cut ties to Canterbury altogether, or could choose to remain in associate status.

(Posted by Trask)

Rick Warren Invited to Speak in North Korea

Beliefnet (RNS) is reporting that the government of North Korea has invited Rick Warren to come speak.

Evangelical pastor Rick Warren has been invited to preach this summer to some 15,000 Christians in North Korea, a communist country infamous not only for its nuclear threats but also for its religious persecution.

Warren, author of the bestselling book, “The Purpose-Driven Life,” said he would make the trip as part of a nearly 40-day journey to meet with the leaders of 13 foreign countries.
“I want to ask you to pray for me,” Warren told about 5,000 worshippers at his Saddleback Church on Sunday (June 25). He said he would be embarking on a “grueling” tour, meeting with presidents, business leaders and pastors in countries such as Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Rwanda and South Korea, where he would preach at the world’s largest church.

And then, he told the crowd, “I’ve received another invitation.” Warren said North Korea would allow him to preach in a stadium seating 15,000, but that he could preach in a larger venue if he could fill the seats.

A collective gasp arose from the worshippers. Then, claps and cheers.
. . .
Since 2001, the State Department has designated North Korea a “country of particular concern” for religious freedom violations. Religious freedom essentially does not exist in the highly centralized state, where Kim Jong Il reigns as Supreme Being.

The communist regime prohibits citizens from belonging to unauthorized religious groups. And its authorized groups are largely propaganda, organized for the benefit of foreigners, according to a 2005 U.S. State Department report on International Religious Freedom.

Believers who proselytize or have ties to evangelical groups in China are arrested, tortured or executed, the report said. Still, religious leaders like Billy Graham have visited North Korea in highly choreographed trips. Warren said he had asked Graham for advice on his upcoming trip.

“I know they’re going to use me,” Warren said, responding to a question about whether he was concerned that the invitation could be a set-up, a ruse to draw out Christians so that the government could punish them.

“So I’m going to use them.”

(Posted by Trask)

Warren Buffett: Wealthy in Wisdom and Love

The New York Times is reporting that Warren Buffet is giving away 85 pecent of his wealth.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and executive, said today that he never seriously considered doing anything with his $44 billion fortune except giving it all away.

“I’m not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth, particularly when 6 billion others have much poorer hands than we do in life,” Mr. Buffett said at the New York Public Library, where he was appearing with Bill and Melinda Gates, the only Americans richer than he is.

Mr. Buffett said on Sunday that he would give away 85 percent of his fortune — about $37.4 billion worth of stock in Berkshire Hathaway, the company he runs — to five charitable foundations, with the greatest share, about $31 billion, going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is dedicated to improving health and education, especially in poor nations.

Known as the Oracle of Omaha as much for his outspoken detachment from the usual habits and pretensions of the super-rich as for his spectacular financial success and folksy, astute investing advice, Mr. Buffett joked today about the attitudes he hears expressed by some others in his income bracket.

“I love it when I’m around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society,” he said. “At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds.”

In addition to the Gates Foundation, charities run by each of Mr. Buffet’s three children and one named for his deceased wife will receive large gifts of Berkshire stock — a total of $6.4 billion — from Mr. Buffett.

He made the gifts official this morning by signing commitment letters to the five foundations. “The first three letters are easy,” he said as he did so. “I just sign, ‘Dad.’ “

Mr. Buffett, the grandson of a grocer and the son of a stockbroker, has never made any secret of his distaste for inherited wealth, and has often said that he had no intention of making mega-heirs and heiresses of his children. So it was not surprising that he said on Sunday that he would give away more than $37 billion of his fortune.

What was surprising, however, was that he outlined specifically what he would do with the bulk of his wealth while he was still very much alive. He had said previously that he would wait to do so in his will.

Apparently mindful of the place in history held by philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie and J. Paul Getty, Mr. Buffett, 75, said today that he hoped his giving would inspire other wealthy people to give generously as well, and referred several times to John D. Rockefeller Sr.

“I would hope that a few of them would pick up on this model; I think it’s a sensible model,” he said.

Not that his children will be left empty-handed. Mr. Buffett said that the assets he is not giving to charity today will be divided up later between other philanthropic causes and his family. His children, he said, were not at all disappointed not to be receiving the lion’s share of his fortune.

“They’ve known all along my views on inherited wealth, and share them,” he said in a news conference this afternoon. “They have money that most people would dream of. They’re lucky, in that respect, when they selected their parents.”

Warren Buffett is an incredibly wise and loving man. The world would be a much better place if more people followed his model. Passing down large amounts of wealth to children is harmful in two ways. First, it harms the children because inherited wealth has the greatest potential to destroy virtue. A person cannot have both a fulfilling life and a lazy life because they are mutually exclusive. People who inherit wealth face an almost irresistable temptation of laziness that produces their own downfall. This temptation is not as great for the person that earned the money because they often learn the value of productivity while earning the money. Second, inherited wealth harms other people. With so many sick and hungry people in the world, it is difficult to understand how people can give so much money to people who have no need.

(Posted by Trask)

School Censors God from Commencement Speech

Fox News is reporting that a Nevada High School censored the speech of the valedictorian. 

A Nevada high schooler who tried to use the G-word during her valedictorian speech had her microphone cut by school officials worried about what they said was possible proselytizing during a school sponsored event, reports the Associated Press.

Officials from the Clark County school district cut off Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb as soon as she began deviating from a pre-approved speech and reading from a version that mentioned God and made references to the Bible.

The local branch of the ACLU said the school did the right thing, but some of the 400 people attending the event disagreed and jeered when the ceremony went silent. McComb herself said it was a free speech issue.

"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," she said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my Lord and savior."

(Posted by Trask)

Democrats for School Choice

Clint Bolick has an article in the Wall Street Journal that discusses the increasing support among Democracts for school choice.

For Democrats who truly believe in social justice, that presents a terrible dilemma: Either forcing children to remain in schools where they have little prospect for a bright future, or enlisting private schools in a rescue mission. Democrats are increasingly unwilling to forsake the neediest children.

For children in chronically failing schools, the day of reckoning is fast approaching: Legislation to add private school options to NCLB will be introduced next month. Democrats who supported private school relief for Katrina children to alleviate a disaster will be forced to confront the reality that New Orleans schools were in crisis long before the hurricane appeared–and so are millions of other children in inner cities across the nation.

Arizona is evidence of the possible. Although she could have allowed them to become law without her signature, as she did with the corporate scholarship tax credits, Gov. Napolitano yesterday became the first Democrat to sign new voucher programs into law. For children with disabilities or in foster care, how the bill became law is of little moment; but by affixing her imprimatur, Ms. Napolitano conveyed powerful symbolic evidence that the future for school choice is bright.

(Posted by Trask)

Can One Do Anything with a Law Degree?

NO! Cameron Stracher has an article in the Wall Street Journal that attempts to demistify the idea of the magical law degree.

At $38,000 a year for law school, plus living expenses, law-school graduates certainly have a lot of debt ($60,000 on average, upon graduation). For this price, college students and their parents should be thinking harder about their choices. When I went to law school, nearly everyone tried to convince me that doing so would "keep my options open." All this really means is: "You can still be a lawyer."

If I wanted to be a screenwriter, waiting tables would have kept my options open, too. In fact, many wannabe screenwriters find themselves going to law school, misled by adults into thinking that it will help them get into the movie business. It won't. Sure, you can be a talent agent or a movie producer with a law degree, but you can be one without a degree, too. Most of the skills you learn in law school (and legal practice) won't help you make a movie, and the few that will may not be worth the cost (more than $120,000, including tuition, living expenses, as well as three years of forgone experience and salary). Rather than keeping options open, the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else.

It's time those of us inside the profession did a better job of telling others outside the profession that most of us don't earn $160,000 a year, that we can't afford expensive suits, flashy cars, sexy apartments. We don't lunch with rock stars or produce movies. Every year I'm surprised by the number of my students who think a J.D. degree is a ticket to fame, fortune and the envy of one's peers–a sure ticket to the upper middle class. Even for the select few for whom it is, not many last long enough at their law firms to really enjoy it.

There's something wrong with a system that makes a whole lot of people pay a whole lot of money for jobs that are not worth it, or that have no future. If we wanted to be honest, we would inform students that law school doesn't keep their options open. Instead, we should say that if they work hard and do well, they can become lawyers.

(Posted by Trask)

Poll Shows Ideal Marriage Age Increasing

According to Fox News, a new Gallup Poll shows that the public's ideal age for marriage has increased dramatically over time. 

The best age to get married is shifting higher in the minds of Americans, with 25 now viewed as the ideal age for women, 27 for men.

That’s up from an ideal age of 21 for women given in 1946. Americans then thought men should be 25, according to a new Gallup Poll reporting the change in attitudes.

The poll showed that America’s opinion about the best time to get married has shifted dramatically over the last 60 years.

(Posted by Trask)

Behind The Scenes in U.S. Episcopal and Anglican Churches!

In light of recent posts on Agaperevolution, I thought it might be interesting for readers to see sermon notes from ministers in the U.S. Anglican and Episcopal church!

New Study Shows Declining Social Ties in the U.S.

The Washington Post is reporting that there has been a substantial decline in close social relationships. 

Americans are far more socially isolated today than they were two decades ago, and a sharply growing number of people say they have no one in whom they can confide, according to a comprehensive new evaluation of the decline of social ties in the United States.

A quarter of Americans say they have no one with whom they can discuss personal troubles, more than double the number who were similarly isolated in 1985. Overall, the number of people Americans have in their closest circle of confidants has dropped from around three to about two.

The comprehensive new study paints a sobering picture of an increasingly fragmented America, where intimate social ties — once seen as an integral part of daily life and associated with a host of psychological and civic benefits — are shrinking or nonexistent. In bad times, far more people appear to suffer alone.
. . .
"We know these close ties are what people depend on in bad times," she said. "We're not saying people are completely isolated. They may have 600 friends on Facebook.com [a popular networking Web site] and e-mail 25 people a day, but they are not discussing matters that are personally important."
. . .
Whereas nearly three-quarters of people in 1985 reported they had a friend in whom they could confide, only half in 2004 said they could count on such support. The number of people who said they counted a neighbor as a confidant dropped by more than half, from about 19 percent to about 8 percent.
. . .
Americans go on 60 percent fewer picnics today and families eat dinner together 40 percent less often compared with 1965, he said. They are less likely to meet at clubs or go bowling in groups. Putnam has estimated that every 10-minute increase in commutes makes it 10 percent less likely that people will establish and maintain close social ties.

Television is a big part of the problem, he contends. Whereas 5 percent of U.S. households in 1950 owned television sets, 95 percent did a decade later.

But University of Toronto sociologist Barry Wellman questioned whether the study's focus on intimate ties means that social ties in general are fraying. He said people's overall ties are actually growing, compared with previous decades, thanks in part to the Internet. Wellman has calculated that the average person today has about 250 ties with friends and relatives.

(Posted by Trask)

Saddam Hussein Quits Hunger Strike After Missing One Meal

Reuters is reporting that Saddam Hussein has quit his very brief hunger strike.

Saddam Hussein ended a brief hunger strike after missing just one meal in his U.S.-run prison, a U.S. military spokesman said Friday.

The former Iraqi leader had refused lunch Thursday in protest at the killing of one of his lawyers by gunmen, but the spokesman said he ate his evening meal.

(Posted by Trask)

African Anglicans Condemn Pro-Gay Stance of U.S. Church

Reuters is reporting that Africa's Anglicans have condemned the pro-gay stance of the U.S. church. 

Africa's Anglican bishops have attacked their U.S. counterparts for failing to condemn homosexuality after they elected a liberal woman leader who supports gay rights.

In an open letter after a meeting in Kampala, they also told conservative Episcopalians that they still supported them in their opposition to the pro-gay stand of the U.S. church, which includes the first gay bishop in the Anglican Communion.

Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, head of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, said in the letter that Anglican primates from the developing world would meet in September to give a more detailed statement on the U.S. church.

Akinola, one of the Church's most outspoken voices against gay rights, said that the African bishops had carefully followed what was said at a U.S. Anglican convention this week in Ohio.

"We have observed the commitment shown by your church to the full participation of people in same gender sexual relationships in civic life, church life and leadership," he said on behalf of African bishops in a statement dated Thursday.

"Our churches cannot reconcile this with the teaching on marriage set out in the Holy Scripture and repeatedly affirmed throughout the Anglican Communion," he wrote.

The Anglican Communion, a loose union of national churches representing 77 million around the world, was plunged into crisis after the Episcopal Church ordained an openly gay bishop in 2003 and Canadian Anglicans started blessing same-sex marriages.

African bishops, who believe homosexuality is un-biblical, un-African and morally wrong, say the U.S. church is flouting centuries old Anglican teaching and must repent for its actions, raising fears of a schism within the Communion.

(Posted by Trask)

New Episcopal Leader Refers to Jesus as “Mother”

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that the new Episcopal leader referred to Jesus as mother in her first sermon. 

Conservative anger was fuelled yesterday when the newly elected head of the Episcopal Church referred to Jesus as "mother", akin to heresy among traditionalists.

In her first sermon as the Church's Presiding Bishop-elect, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told a congregation at the General Convention: "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation – and you and I are his children."

(Posted by Trask)

Evangelicals More Active in Social Justice than Mainline Denominations

Christianity Today has an interview with Stephen Monsma who had some interesting results on a recent study that he did on social justice and theology.

When Stephen V. Monsma—formerly a political scientist at Pepperdine University and now a research fellow at the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College—completed his four-year study of 500 welfare-to-work programs in four cities (Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Dallas), he concluded that "much of conventional wisdom was wrong" about religious organizations. He talked about his stereotype-defying findings with senior associate editor Agnieszka Tennant.

What fallacy does your study correct?
It's that mainline Protestants are more active in social service programs than evangelicals—and that evangelicals merely serve their own congregations and are more concerned with evangelism than with social welfare programs. I found the opposite to be true: Of the welfare-to-work programs in the four cities that I studied, there were more evangelical programs than mainline Protestant programs.

How many programs were faith-based, both mainline and evangelical?
Of the 500 programs we studied, 117 were faith-based. Of the 96 Protestant programs, 61 were evangelical and 35 were mainline.
. . .
What did you find regarding evangelical programs?
Both from the surveys and the visits, it was clear that evangelical programs tend to integrate religious aspects into their services, whereas in mainline programs, Christianity tends to be more implicit.

For example, 48 percent of the evangelical programs reported that they encourage their clients to make personal religious commitments. And an impressive 77 percent reported that they would use religious values or motivations to encourage clients to change their attitudes or values.

What did that look and sound like?
In some classes, evangelical staff would talk about how God loves persons who are out of work, who are on welfare, who are trying to become economically self-supporting. They would talk about work as a way to honor God: that Jesus himself had been a carpenter and worked with his hands, and that work is more than just a way to earn money—it's a way to honor the Creator.

Did you notice any difference in how the beneficiaries of evangelical and mainline programs spoke of them?
They both would tend to speak positively. But what impressed me about the clients of evangelical programs were their frequent references to the caring nature of the staff. One group of homeless recipients said, "This is the best program in all of Chicago."

I asked them, "Why is that?"

One of them said, "People there care about you by showing tough love. They love you, but they also set some standards that they expect us to meet." Another person said, "They are so Christ-like here."

It's not that I would never run into those kinds of comments at mainline Protestant programs, but with the evangelical programs, it seemed like I would come across them more frequently.

What percentage of evangelical programs receive government funding?
One of the surprises was that more evangelical programs were receiving government funding—51 percent, versus 40 percent of the mainline programs.

This carried through also when you looked at the amount of funding: 38 percent of the evangelical programs reported receiving more than half of their funding from the government, compared to 31 percent for mainline programs.

What's the reason for this difference?
That is a tough question. The best I can come up with is this: When you have programs on the street that are working, some of these more theoretical questions (whether religion is being brought inappropriately into the program, if hiring is based on religion, etc.) fall by the wayside. Local and state funding agencies are just asking, "Are these programs getting the job done?" Evangelical programs can compete with anyone else in terms of effectiveness.

(Posted by Trask)

Bill Gates and Philanthropy

Tibor Machan, a business ethics professor, recently authored an article in the Orange County Register, which expresses frustration over the reasons that Bill Gates has expressed for going into philanthropy.

But Gates really needs to shut up about some other things that he is confused about. Like his claim the other day, in announcing his impending departure from day-to-day activities at Microsoft and plans to turn to full-time philanthropy, that he "needs to give back to the community." Why? Did he steal something from people? Did they lend him something he hasn't returned? What on Earth was he talking about?

People who get rich ordinarily haven't stolen their wealth – they trade for it with what they have to offer – what they have invented or invested in, created or otherwise produced. When Picasso sold his paintings and made money from them, he wasn't a thief. When Shakespeare and Arthur Miller wrote their plays and made money from them, they stole nothing. And when Bill Gates invented all the things he has and then sold them to willing buyers, he didn't confiscate anyone's wealth. He earned it.
. . .
Which is not to say there is anything amiss with Gates wanting to help millions of the poor and the sick in the Third World. Indeed, his generosity is clearly evident and ought to be widely appreciated, not only by those who receive his largesse but also by others who are unable to give much and can rest easier knowing that someone else is doing so.

None of this has anything to do with "giving something back" to society, the community, the world, humanity or whatever. That idea is a relic of a perverse, reactionary theory that states when someone gains in trade, someone else must lose. It was called "exploitation" by Karl Marx and has swept the world to such an extent that not only professed enemies of capitalism but some major capitalists have bought into it. It is completely wrong.
. . .
Bill Gates did exploit the fact that millions and millions of people found what he produced very helpful to them, as they all exploited the fact that he was very interested in his work. There is absolutely nothing amiss with this. It is admirable when people seek out a market for their skills and deliver to potential purchasers what they want and get rich in the process. Nothing needs to be given back – they have already done the "giving" in the exchange that has transpired. This is no different from what happens when we trade with athletes, entertainers, doctors, etc., to mutual benefit. No one is left with obligations to do any paying back.

Another thing that's wrong with Gates' statement is that it makes it appear that generosity or philanthropy should be confined to the very wealthy. They made a lot, and now they need to give some of it back, whereas the rest of us have no business worrying about those who are in dire straits. This is entirely wrong.

Generosity is something we all should cultivate in ourselves. Bill Gates' assertion about his unique obligation to "give back" could encourage some people to form a very warped idea about the nature of generosity.

I believe that the author of this article does make two valid points. First, I think he is correct that Bill Gates did in some sense earn this money through lawful means, and as a result, this is surely the money of Bill Gates. Second, I think he is correct that good can be done through means other than philanthropy. Being innovative in the business sector by creating new products that improve people's lives is a virtuous and loving thing to do.

However, I depart from my agreement with the author at this point. Although he is correct that Bill Gates did rightfully earn this money, that does not mean that he is not obligated in some sense out of love for others to be extremely generous with this money. Jesus and Paul make it extremely clear that we should give up our rights out of love for other people. In Matthew Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42) The point that Jesus is making here is that we have certain rights as human beings to be treated with justice. However, he argues that we can and should make our love even more radical by giving up those rights that we have. We have a right to retaliation against a person who strikes us across the face, but it is sometimes good and virtuous to give up one's right of retaliation under the law. Similarly, one has a right to the property that one has earned, but it is good and virtuous to give up that right to that property out of love for others.

Paul makes clear the reason that we should be willing to give up our right to our property. "But since you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in the love we have kindled in you —see that you also excel in this grace of giving. I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich." (2 Corinthians 8:7-9) Just as Jesus Christ sacraficed his rightful position to become a servant to the world, so also we should sacrafice our resources for the good of others.

It is more virtuous to serve others through sacrificial means. Although, the author is correct that one can do good through innovation in the business sector, the good that one does in the business sector will never be as virtuous as philanthropy. The reason is that in the business sector one is always compensated for the good that one has done. As a result, although an important virtuous good has been done, the compensation that one receives makes the act less virtuous than an act of love that is done out of pure love and sacrifice.

(Posted by Trask)

Speculation in Washington about Potential Supreme Court Vacancy

Melanie Kirkpatrick is discussing the possibility of a vacancy in the Wall Street Journal's Political Diary.

Will he or won’t he? He probably won’t, but that doesn’t stop Supreme Court watchers from speculating about whether Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will retire at the end of the month. Retiring Justices typically go public at the end of the term. Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement on July 1 last year.

Those in the “will” camp point to the fact that Justice Stevens is 86 years old and has been on the High Court since 1975. They also note the unstated rule of judicial etiquette under which Justices leave with the one who brung them — which is to say they retire during the term of a President of the same political party as the President who nominated them. Justice Stevens was named by President Ford. Those in the “won’t” camp say Justice Stevens appears to love his job and to be in vigorous health. They also point out that the job of an associate justice isn’t heavy lifting. Justice Stevens lives in Florida, returning to Washington only for oral arguments.

It’s widely assumed President Bush will appoint a woman if there’s another Supreme Court vacancy. No, not Harriet Miers. Among the possibilities listed by Court watchers are: Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit, Maura Corrigan of the Michigan Supreme Court and Alice Batchelder of Sixth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit’s Edith Brown, who has been in the running for past openings, is also mentioned.

All have strong conservative credentials, but Democrats would likely be most animated in opposition to Judge Brown, who might get the Miguel Estrada treatment. Mr. Estrada withdrew after a Democratic filibuster. The last thing Democrats want is for President Bush to get credit for putting the first Hispanic or, in Judge Brown’s case, the first African-American woman on the High Court. If Justice Stevens decides it’s time to pay more attention to his golf game, election-year politics immediately get a lot more interesting. The Senate confirmation hearing for his successor would probably take place in September and, depending on the decibel level, could help galvanize both the Democratic and Republican base to turn out in force on Election Day.

(Posted by Trask)

Episcopalians Reject Moratorium on Gay Bishops

According to the Washington Post, the Episcopal church has rejected a moratorium on gay bishops.

Episcopal delegates snubbed Anglican leaders' request that they temporarily stop electing openly gay bishops, a vote that prompted the church's leader to call a special session in hopes of reaching a compromise to preserve Anglican unity.

Update 6/23/06:

The Washington Post is reporting today that a compromise resolution has been approved.

Episcopal delegates approved a last-ditch attempt by their chief pastor Wednesday to salvage worldwide Anglican unity, voting to adopt a resolution that calls on U.S. church leaders to "exercise restraint" when considering gay candidates for bishop.

The nonbinding measure stops far short of the moratorium on gay bishops that Anglican leaders demanded to calm conservative outrage over the 2003 consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner.

(Posted by Trask)

Presbyterians Vote to Allow Ordination of Gay Ministers

According to UPI, the Presbyterians have voted to allow gay ordination.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA approved a resolution Tuesday that would allow regional bodies to ordain homosexuals as ministers.

The assembly met in Birmingham, Ala.

The compromise proposal passed 298-221. It upholds the church's traditional standards for ordination, while allowing more leeway in applying them to individual candidates, the Presbyterian News Service said.

(Posted by Trask)

Catholic Cardinal Seeking Change in UK Abortion Law

According to BBC News, Cardinal O'Connor is seeking a change in UK abortion laws. 

The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has reopened the abortion debate by urging the government to change the law.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has called on ministers to lower the 24-week abortion limit at a private meeting at the Department of Health.

He wants a joint committee of both houses of parliament to review the 1967 Abortion Act.

The government said there were no plans to alter the regulations.

However, 31 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a review of the law.

The Catholic church is against abortion altogether, but would welcome a lowering of the 24-week limit as a start.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor argues that technological advances mean the abortion laws are outdated.

Modern medicine can now ensure the survival of some foetuses born before 24 weeks gestation.

(Posted by Trask)

Charitable Giving at Record High in 2005

UPI is reporting that charitable giving was at a record high in 2005. 

Catastrophes around the globe led to a record level of charitable giving totaling $260 billion last year, Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy says.

In an annual report compiled with the Giving USA Foundation, the center tells The Washington Post disasters like Hurricane Katrina pushed donations up 2.7 percent to an estimated $260.28 billion.

More than two-thirds of Americans donated money to hurricane relief efforts and one-third gave to help tsunami victims.

(Posted by Trask)

World Cup Spurs Iranian Feminist Movement

UPI is reporting on how Iranian women ignored Islamic law in order to attend the World Cup. 

Iranian women in Germany are ignoring the Islamic ban on them attending soccer matches and taking off their veils to watch the World Cup.

Even though their team lost 2-0 to Portugal in Frankfurt Saturday, The Times of London reported thousands of the women not only left their veils at home, but dyed their hair and painted their faces the red, white and green of their flag's colors.

Iran's ruling Muslim clerics decreed women cannot attend soccer games where they can see the bare legs of a man to whom they are not married.

The newspaper said while some Iranian women attended the game in conservative clothing, others sported T-shirts saying "Iran Girl" and screamed as loudly as any other fans.

Iran's final World Cup game this year is Wednesday against Angola.

(Posted by Trask)

UK School Bans Purity Rings

The Daily Telegraph is reporting on the repressive policies of a school district in the UK that is punishing students for wearing purity rings. 

A group of teenage Christians have been banned by a secondary school from wearing "purity rings" as a symbol of their religious belief in chastity until marriage.

At least one of the dozen pupils, who all attend the same girls' comprehensive in Horsham, West Sussex, is considering legal action against the Millais School for "a breach of human rights".

Although the school allows Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear headscarves or kara bracelets as a means of religious expression, the purity ring – a small band of silver engraved with a Biblical verse and worn as a declaration of abstinence from sexual relations – is not allowed because it is considered to be jewellery.

Lydia Playfoot, 15, who started wearing her purity ring to the school in June 2004, described its policy as "really unfair".

"My friends and I have had detentions and been taught in isolation for wearing the ring," she said. "I feel like I've been treated the same as someone who is caught bringing cannabis into school."
. . .
Staff at the Millais School insist, however, that the uniform dress code stipulates that no jewellery is to be worn, other than a small pair of ear studs.

Lydia said that her ring was more than a "trivial" accessory. "My ring is a symbol of my religious faith," she said. "I think, as a Christian, it says we should keep ourselves pure from sexual sinfulness and wearing the ring is a good way of making a stand.

"I stopped wearing the ring because it was being made really difficult for me. I am sitting GCSE modules this year and I missed loads of drama lessons because the teachers would teach us in isolation.

"Some of my friends are still wearing the ring but they're getting detentions and a lot of hassle.

"I think it's really unfair because in the school code of conduct, it says that you're not allowed to wear hats or scarves, but the Muslim girls get to wear their headscarves to school and they get to wear trousers in PE.

"If I'm not allowed to express my faith, it's a human rights issue."

Her mother, Heather, 47, a housewife, said that she and her husband, Phil, 49, a minister in a non-denominational church, had approached the school on their daughter's behalf.

"We were told that it was a health and safety issue and that the school has a no jewellery policy," she said. "The school's concern was that, if Lydia fell and put her hand out to stop her, it could cause injury. It is obviously discriminatory and absurd."

I cannot evaluate this issue from a legal standpoint because I am unfamiliar with the law on this issue in the UK. However, from a moral standpoint, this is a clear injustice. Schools clearly have the right to regulate student dress, and schools clearly have the right to ban jewelry, as this school did. The injustice occurs in the creation of religious exemptions. There is no problem with creating religious exemptions from general school rules if it is done fairly. If a school creates religious exemptions for one group but denies similar exemptions for another religious group, that is a clear injustice because the state is privileging the beliefs of one religion over another. However, beyond the moral issues, there is just a plain lack of reasoning going on in the enforcement of these rules. Clearly with all of the problems that exist in schools, Christians who have committed themselves to sexual purity are the real problem. We cannot judge people who engage in risky sexual behavior, who spread sexually transmitted diseases, and who get abortions, but we will be sure to punish those students who make a public commitment to not having sex.

(Posted by Trask)

Crazy and Popular

 The Guardian is reporting on the popularity of Iran's president.

The popularity of Iran's controversial leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is surging almost a year after he unexpectedly won closely contested presidential elections, Iranian officials and western diplomats said on Tuesday.

Attributing his success to his populist style and fortnightly meet-the-people tours of the country, the sources said, as matters stand, Mr Ahmadinejad was the clear favourite to win a second term in 2009. The perception that the president was standing up to the US over the nuclear issue was also boosting his standing.

"He's more popular now than a year ago. He's on the rise," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran University. "I guess he has a 70% approval rating right now. He portrays himself as a simple man doing an honest job. He's comfortable communicating with ordinary people."

While there are no reliable national opinion polls in Iran, western diplomats acknowledged that support for Mr Ahmadinejad is growing, defying widespread predictions after last June's election that he would not last more than three months.

. . . 

Professor Hadian-Jazy said Mr Ahmadinejad was initially surprised by the furore that greeted his outspoken criticism of Israel and apparent denial of the Holocaust. "Coming from his background it was not uncommon to say that stuff. He never thought that as president it would be different. But once he got the reaction, he realised it could establish him as a strong leader among Muslims. It was a calculated move."

Palestinian rights are strongly supported by Iran. But the president's anti-Israeli statements made an even bigger impact in the Arab world, said Sayed Mohammad Adeli, Iran's former ambassador to Britain and head of the Econotrend thinktank. "They see Ahmadinejad's resistance as admirable. He has become a hero of the people on the street."

(Posted by Trask)