Neuhaus on Gay Adoption

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.Anthology2 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.

Touchy, Touchy

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.

Cheney and FNC

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.

Saddam and al Qaeda

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.

Religion of Peace Watch

Christian0323

The case of Abdul Rahman is a fascinating one because it exposes the heart of a large segment of Islam. The notion of religious freedom is simply not there for many Muslims, and this is allied, in some of the more backward parts of the world, with a pathological attraction to violence. Here’s an AP story that illustrates the chasm:

"Senior Muslim clerics said Thursday that Rahman must be executed and if the government caves into Western pressure and frees him they will incite people to "pull him into pieces." Four senior clerics interviewed by The Associated Press in their mosques in Kabul agreed Rahman deserved to be killed for his conversion. "He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.
"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."
"He is not mad. The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled," said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. "This is humiliating for Islam … Cut off his head."

I know there are moderate Muslims. I know that in Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia and India, for example, these kinds of views are not common. I also know that it wasn’t that long ago that Christians held similar views about heretics or Jews, and that today’s fundamentalist Christianity is often supportive of the death penalty and torture. But that a religious faith contains this kind of fanatical intolerance and violence anywhere is disturbing. It’s barbaric. And it is in the Middle East that this kind of theocratic fascism is ascendant.

(Photo: Veronique de Viguerie/WPN.)

Giuliani and McCain

Chuck Todd suspects that they have completely different bases of support. Rudy is getting support from the Bush base, Todd argues, but he thinks most Giuliani supporters haven’t yet got a clue that Rudy is pro-choice, socially tolerant of gays, and in favor of some gun control. Rudy’s a Bush proxy – but a very fragile one. McCain’s supporters, on the other hand, know exactly what they think about him, and his current support is solid. That leaves a potential pool of Bush groupies up for grabs. McCain’s pandering to Bush makes even more sense now, doesn’t it?

The War Against Atheism

According to this study, atheists are the most distrusted minority in American society. They’re lower down the totem poll than Muslims, gays or recent immigrants. (Gee, I’m two out of three.) I’m not an atheist but my last boyfriend was; and he was and is a great and moral guy. If you were to listen to O’Reilly, you’d think atheists run this country and Christians are persecuted. The opposite is closer to the truth. Religious freedom must emphatically include the right to believe in nothing at all. I wish our president said that more often.

Isaac Hayes May Return

The latest development in the South Park-Scientology battle is the revelation that Chef may never have actually said the words about South Park’s "bigotry" attributed to him. Those words allegedly came from Scientologist, Christina "Kumi" Kimball, a fashion executive for designer Craig Taylor, according to Fox News’ Roger Friedman. Friedman adds:

The only good news in this story is that Isaac, according to friends, is doing very well. He’s attending to business and getting back on his feet. Hopefully, he’ll be dishing up Chef like a gourmet again in no time.

Here’s hoping. Down with the Super Adventure Club!

Quote for the Day

"So hard at best is the lot of man, and so great is the beauty he can apprehend, that only a religious conception of things can take in the extremes and meet the case. Our lifetimes have seen the opening of abysses before which the mind quails. But it seems to me there are a few things everyone can humbly try to hold onto: love and mercy (and humor) in day-to-day living; the quest for exact truth in language and affairs of the intellect; self-recollection or prayer; and the peace, the composed energy of art," – Robert Fitzgerald, Harvard poet and classics translator, from "The Third Kind of Knowledge, Memoirs & Selected Writings."