Month: March 2006

It takes a lot to get a Brit really upset. But Islamist poisoning of beer cans at soccer games will do the trick.

A reader writes:

I’m an atheist, and I really appreciated you linking to the U of Minn study on "distrusted minorities". I agreed 100% with your statement that "religious freedom must emphatically include the right to believe in nothing at all." I’m sorry that angry atheists have been filling your inbox; clearly you meant "no religion at all". The overused phrase "taken out of context" is apt in this case.
Secondly, I particularly appreciated your support for atheists because I know that you are deeply religious. Acknowledging the dignity and moral beliefs of atheism is not only quite welcome, but I think (dare I say?) the Christian thing to do. In the same way, we atheists should respect believers; too often, many of us are hostile to people of faith.
I was touched on Sept. 11 when Tony Blair described that day as an "an attack on those on every religion and those of no religion." It was completely unexpected, and made me realize that for years in the U.S. I’d been hearing the sound of the dog that didn’t bark. Nowadays in the U.S., politicians recognize Yom Kippur, Easter, Eid and Diwali; but I’ve never heard of political support for atheism in the public square.

The worst offender, oddly enough, was the first president Bush. My point is that religious freedom does not simply mean the freedom to believe in God. It also means the freedom to deny his existence, if that is what your conscience and reason tell you. In this, atheists and believers should be completely united. We’re fighting for the same freedon: to decide for ourselves what the meaning of the universe is. To quote Sandra Day O’Connor – more of a real conservative, in my mind, than Antonin Scalia:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

A government that screws with the rights of atheists is screwing with the rights of believers as well.

Well, they’ve run out of Jews. Here’s some disturbing evidence that the pathologically homophobic Islamists and Iranian-backed militias are targeting gay men for murder in Iraq.

"As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I’ve had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I’ve also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.
The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech’s detractors are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone," – Michelle Malkin, not for the first time, criticizing her fellow conservatives.

In another signing statement, president George W. Bush declares he doesn’t have to abide by the Patriot Act’s legal requirement that he inform Congress about the FBI’s use of expanded police powers. Upon what Constitution doth this our Caesar feed?

There sure were links. But what was the point of those links? A reader counters:

Saddam was very conscious of the rise of Jihadist groups and was very keen to avoid being an al Qaeda target. Al Qaeda rhetoric throughout the 90’s was very harsh and anti-Saddam, and it’s clear that they saw in his weakened regime a real opportunity to gain a foothold in the Arab world proper. Moreover, Iraq had an enormous ideological plus to them, since it had Baghdad, the historical seat of the caliphate. To this end, Saddam consciously adopted a policy of Islamification – including aspects of Koranic justice in the judicial system, e.g., putting the invocation on the flag – all outward manifestations designed to help dodge the label of "secular." Saddam was also extremely keen to penetrate al Qaeda and learn what they were up to – and that’s the basis for the relations that arose.

But what he did in this regard isn’t much different from what any smart intelligence service might have done (and notably, ours didn’t).  The prospect of Saddam trying to penetrate al Qaeda and turn it to his purposes is tantalizing, but the evidence for it isn’t there, or at least not yet. I think Pillar had pretty much the same analysis. I give certain quarters credit for trying, but I’m not convinced. You have the fundamental problems that Saddam’s Baathism is totally at odds with what al Qaeda wants, and that Saddam is the showcase example for them of what a bad secular Arab ruler does.

The issue is: given our lack of certainty as to the real reason for the connections, how did we judge the risk, especially after 9/11? We may in retrospect have judged wrongly. But it is only by having invaded Iraq that we now know for sure. In that sense, the war’s objective has indeed been achieved: we have indeed disarmed Saddam. What we have unleashed is another matter.

Theocon-in-chief, Richard John Neuhaus, just wrote the following paragraph about gay adoption – with reference to Catholic Charities in Boston – on his blog:

"The Church says it has ‘rules’ that preclude the gay placements. What has not appeared anywhere is a reasoned case that such placements are bad for the children, and it is the interest of the children that must come first. (For a critical survey of the studies and arguments relative to placing children with homosexual couples, see cosmos-liturgy-sex.) The claim that 50 or 60 percent of children reared by male homosexuals turn out to be homosexual or bisexual doesn’t cut any ice in some quarters. So what’s wrong with being homosexual or bisexual? And, if the incidence of sexual abuse of children in such settings is many times the norm, well, isn’t it time we reconsider the legitimacy of intergenerational love?"

There are two empirical claims here: that 50 – 60 percent children reared by gay male couples end up gay; and that children brought up by gay parents are many times more likely to be sexually abused. These charges are extremely serious ones. There have been many studies of gay parenting and I summarize and present some of them in my own anthology on same-sex marriage. Many suffer from small sample sizes and woolly, subjective judgments of children’s functioning. My own conclusion is that, while none show any harm to children of any kind, the methodologies do not allow for firm conclusions either way.

So where does Neuhaus get his inflammatory claims? The only link Neuhaus provides is to a far-right Catholic website which in turn relies on a separate review published by Pat Robertson’s "Regent University" of 36 studies of gay parenting. 35 of the 36 "concluded that children from same-sex parents were not adversely affected," which is what the consensus largely is. One study alone provided the statistics Neuhaus relies on. That study is by our old friend, Paul Cameron, who has a long history of studies designed to perpetuate anti-gay bigotry, and who has not been a member in good standing of the American Psychological Association since 1983. To give you an idea of Cameron’s work, read this piece by Mark Pietryzk. It will make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. The Regent University review Neuhaus relies on concludes that even in the Cameron study, "as with the rest, the sample size was not sufficiently large" to permit any solid conclusions. Let’s be specific here: the sample that Neuhaus relies upon comprises seventeen children raised by one or two gay parents.

Neuhaus is a highly intelligent person. He knows that his slurs against gay parents cannot be substantiated, which is why he tosses these claims out there to see if they can stick. He also knows that he is perpetuating some of the vilest slanders against gay people: that we "recruit" children and molest them. It is the same blood-libel once used against Jews. This is the man who has advised George W. Bush on gay issues and helped craft his gay policies. Now you begin to understand why they are what they have become.

If I get another outraged email from an atheist claiming defamation because I wrote that atheists believe in "nothing at all," I’ll, well, … I’ll just read another email. Only 643 piled up since yesterday. But, no, I didn’t mean to imply that atheists believe in nothing. My atheist ex-boyfriend, for example, very much believed in beer and cognitive neuroscience. Then there are all the touchy anti-war types who are hyperventilating over my highlighting a document allegedly linking Saddam with al Qaeda. "We already knew there might be links!" "It doesn’t prove a working relationship." Sure. It doesn’t. But for me, one central pre-war worry was the possibility that a proven WMD-maker had links with Osama. Hence, my understanding of the security threat against the West changed. That was one part of my calculation in supporting the war. It’s one part of my calculation in still supporting it, and hoping for its success.

I have to say I’m struck by the modesty of the veep’s requirements for travel. Say what you like about him: he’s no diva. But the requirement for Fox News, while maybe an inside joke for the Cheney brigade, is still something of a compliment to CNN and MSNBC and others, don’t you think? Cheney surely can’t be watching Fox for information. What else is Addington for, apart from ordering the dog collars for Gitmo? Cheney’s watching it because the others irritate him so much. Way to go, Anderson! Mazel tov, Chris.

These new documents seem to me to blow a big hole through the arguments of those who believe that "secular" Saddam would never cooperate with Osama bin Laden’s Jihadists:

"A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein’s government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam’s presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio."

I never bought the idea that Saddam could never ally with al Qaeda. It’s about as plausible as the idea that Stalin could never have allied with Hitler. But now we see some actual evidence for the possibility. Interesting.