Rudy Lies

Well, that's not news. But this time we mean he lies about something besides "forsaking all others."

Per ABC News, the Nasty Man is running a radio spot in New Hampshire in which he claims that his odds of surviving prostate cancer in the American health-care system were 84 percent, and while in England they would have been 44 percent.

Wow! That English commie-symp socialized medicine sucks! Too bad Lady Thatcher couldn't have stayed in office a thousand years longer so that she could have done away with it.

Or at least that's what he is hoping we'll think. In fact, the five-year survival rate for Englishmen with prostate cancer is 74.4% and rising. Not as good as the the US, where we have more aggressive screening protocols, but still vastly better than Giuliani claims.

So he's lying. Well, technically, he's not lying. That would involve creative thinking. Giuliani is in fact quoting numbers bandied about by David Gratzer, a physician and conservative think-tank employee. Giuliani found them in an article by Gratzer with the coldly scientific title "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care." When pressed by reporters, Gratzer cited a 2000 report by the Commonwealth Fund. When Giuliani was asked why he cited the bogus numberts, a staffer answered that "the campaign did not attempt to independently verify the statistics."

Ahhh. We get it. You can't say somebody is lying when they spread false information, as long as somebody else spread it first.

In other words, Giuliani isn't to blame. He was just relying on faulty intelligence reports.

Huckabee's Math ... Err, Myth

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were "brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen." So said the Rev. Mike Huckabee, campaigning (on a Sunday) on Orlando.

Now, we like Mike. We really, really, like him. Of all the candidates thus far, he is the only one we'd want to sit down for the proverbial beer with. And it would have to be a proverbial beer, because as a good Southern Baptist (and diet nut), he probably doesn't drink the other kind.

But he's wrong on this. Of the 56 signers, one was a clergyman, and three were former clergymen. Math wasn't our best subject, just as it wasn't Mike's, but we're pretty sure that "most" of 56 woud require 29 or more, and 1<29. Maybe one of you Einsteins can check this for us.

Here's the point. The Huckster is probably repeating, without research or reflection, one of those myths about American history circulated by the Christianist head-cases. You know, the ones who pull off the Internet every instance in which a Founding Father used the words "God," "providence" or Heaven," and put them together on a page to "prove that America is a Christian nation."

This is bogus history. We at the Egg could go through the works of Lincoln pulling out words like "equality" and "society" and "wealth," to prove that Honest Abe was a Socialist. But nobody with even a modest grasp on reality would believe us.

As every schoolboy knows (except in states that buy the Christianist textbooks), the Founders had a wide range of beliefs and disbeliefs, covering the ground from traditional Calvinism, to Deism, to flagrant atheism (if we include Paine as a Founder). Close examination will actually reveal yet more diversity. Franklin, for example, treated religion respectfuly as a public good, but made no real secret of his skepticism regarding its truth-claims. Washington, in his time the most prominent American, attended the Episcopal church faithfully, but made a show of rising to leave before communion, publicly demonstrating his contempt for the sacrament. Hamilton, regarded in his time as a teligious conservative, was denied communion on his deathbed because he had never been baptized and didn't go to church.

In this regard, the Founders were like Americans today: independent, ornery, hard to lump into categories. The decades-old effort to recast them as faithful Christians founding a nation that reflected their common faith is a fool's errand. They did share a common faith -- in liberty, in justice, in democracy.

Wouldn't it be nice if present-day politicians shared that faith as well?

We Told Them So

In the early years of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, one of the big arguments concerned ecumenical relationships. A small but vocal high-church group objected to full-communion relations with the Reformed churches. A much larger and far more vocal group, which eventually coalesced into the WordAlone Network, objected to full communion with the Episcopal Church.

Ecumenism was what we fought bitterly about just before we began fighting bitterly about gay people. The agreement with the Episcopalians was savagely contested, failed once by a few votes, and passed two years later. Curiously enough, once the whole thing blew over, WordAlone had to justify its continued existence, and started picking on the gays. Although they are reluctant to say so, that's their current raison d'etre. But they started out by pissing on the Anglicans (and some of them don't see much difference).

Anyhoo, one of the elements of the ELCA's agreement with PECUSA was that our bishops, and not pastors delegated by bishops, would ordain new pastors. But after signing on the dotted line, we reneged, and as a sop to WordAlone have given bishops the freedom to delegate ministers of ordination in situations of "special need." The idea was that seminarians with a strong theological objection to the rule could seek an exemption.

At the time, we pointed out that there was some foolishness here. First off, it was a blatant abrogation of our commitment to the Episcopalians. (They felt betrayed, and who can blame them?) Secondly, the Lutheran Confessions express a strong preference for the traditional church structures of the Middle Ages, endorsing exceptions only when the old structures are corrupted and no longer permit the Gospel to be proclaimed purely (as was indeed the case in Reformation Germany). So, despite the variety of ordination practices that Lutherans have historically used, there is one to which we have an a priori commitment. And when a prospective pastor seeks an exception to that practice, the burden is upon that prospective pastor to demonstrate that the usual practice would somehow restrain the Gospel.

In other words, you have to write a letter to your bishop saying "You are a heretic." And your bishop has to be sufficiently swayed by your logic as to permit an exception to the rule for the sake of the Gospel. That's our interpretation, anyway.

Needless to say, few such letters have been written. And yet, mirabile dictu, "special need" exemptions have been granted quite freely in some parts of the ELCA. How so?

Outgoing ELCA Secretary Lowell Almen shed some light on the matter earlier this month, with his valedictory presentation to the Confernce of Bishops. As reported, well after the fact, in an official press release, "Almen expressed concern about how a bylaw that provided for 'ordination in unusual circumstances' has been practiced, arguing that neither the bylaw requirements nor the related policy 'are being observed conscientiously.' He was especially critical of last-minute requests for exceptions after ordinations had been scheduled, saying 'that the whistle needs to be sounded loudly on that game of last-minute requests and written statements that do not meet the criteria listed in the policy.' "

Hmm. So apparently, there has been a loose (we really can't call it liberal) interpretation of the bylaw, according to which prospective pastors feel free to ask for exceptions to the church's ordination practice, and bishops feel free to grant it, pretty much for whatever reason they want. Almen's objection is that ordination is a "rite" belonging to the whole church -- meaning, we have decided upon certain forms by which it is to be done -- and not a "right" belonging to the individual bishops. A bit tortured and susceptible to misapprehension, but still well enough said to be worth remembering.

And our point? We told them so. When the ELCA bishops caved under pressure from WordAlone and the other pietistic whiners, we said that the new policy was a betrayal of both our ecumenical commitments and of our church's confession of faith. We also said that it set the bar for "unusual circumstances" very high, and that we doubted the bishops would have the intestinal fortitude to keep it there. After all, they want to be re-elected, and that is much easier when you appease your special interests.

Apparently, we were right. And Lowell Almen, virtually the only ranking official to have held his office throughout the ELCA's history, just told the bishops that they had become spineless wretches. Like a faithful church diplomat, he did it carefully, judiciously, so gently that the dimmer ones may not quite have heard what he was saying. But he said it.

We salute you, sir.

Steeplejacking

That's what John Dornhauer and Sheldon Culver call it. We wish they had chosen another word, but we are still awfully glad that they wrote their book by that name, about which you can learn more by clicking the link.

Bottom line: A cluster of "renewal groups" have sprung up in mainline Protestantism these past 25 years, accusing their various denominations of straying from the path of orthodoxy and calling them to return to a theological orthodoxy that looks and sounds remarkably like Republicanism. They want you to believe it is a coincidence, but it isn't.

They're all funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, through the Institute for Religion and Democracy. Scaife foundation money has planted the seeds of the Presbyterian Layman, the WordAlone Network, and God knows hoiw many other mean-spirited purveyors of minority discontent. In other words, one cranky right-wing bazillionaire has created the schisms and discontent that have eaten away at Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopal communitiers for decades, and essentially destroyed the ability of those bodies to speak with any unanimity on moral matters.

This is not really a secret. Recent writing about the "theocons" has touched on it.

But it isn't well-known, either, for the good reason that Scaife is a secretive, paranoid freak, and the IRD is a slick operation with competent PR people. Like the one who responded to the book by pointing out, correctly, that a "steeplejack" is the guy who repairs your damaged church building. Sigh. Quite true, which is why we wish the book had a better title. Maybe "Those Rich Bastards Stole Your Church."

Oh, @#$%, the Klingons Are Coming

But that's okay. Rudy's got a plan to protect Planet Earth from extraterrestrial terrorists.

That's what he told a New Hampshire boy, who asked about it recently. Apparently, this was the first time Giuliani had been questioned about his ability to save the world from intergalactic assault. His chuckle suggests either that he wasn't taking the question seriously, or that he's actually thought about it already ... a lot. Good for him.

For our money, Al Gore still has the best earth-protection plan.

Even Bush Thinks Texas Shouldn't Kill This Guy

The President is apparently getting soft. He thinks Texas shouldn't execute a foreign citizen for crimes committed on US soil.

Hmm. Could this have anything to do with Blackwater?

Priest Goes to Jail; Nation Rejoices

And this time, he's not a child molester.

But close enough. Argentinean Father Christian von Wernich was convicted by a court in La Plata on Tuesday, of crimes committed during the "Dirty War" of the 1970s and 80s. The crimes in question are especially disturbing, as reported in The Independent:

"He was found guilty, not only of being present at sessions of torture, but something more shocking. He would extract confessions from those detained, sometimes in the presence of police officers, and pass on the information – often including the names of fellow leftists – to interrogators. What should have been private conversations with God became intelligence that was used for more arrests, more torture and more killings."

I don't know what seminary this guy went to, but most of the rest of us take that whole "seal of the confessional" thing pretty seriously. Von Wernich sounds like a real peach, though -- click the link for a description of his cold hard eyes and supercilious sneer. (Or maybe I was just reading between the lines).

Because Daimler/Chrysler Worked So Well ...

MIller and Coors are going to combine their brewing operations. So now instead of two thin, bitter, rice-based beers that give American brewing a bad name, there will be one thin, bitter, rice-based beer with two labels.

Mormons vs. Christians, Again

According to the AP, Gordon B. Hinckley, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "defended" the Mormon faith Sunday, saying the beliefs and practices differ from every other church. Specifically, he said, "It is fundamentally different from every other body of religious doctrine of which I know."

Well, no argument there, Gordo. The rest of us have been saying that pretty much since Joseph Smith had his revelation. Your faith is fundamentally different from Christianity.

And yet somehow, in the strange reversible world of Mormonism, Hinkley's argument is intended to support the persistent Mormon claim that they are not fundamentally different -- that they are, somehow, part of the Christian Church.

It's a sort of tired argument, and there is a nice, short piece on it in this week's Christian Century by my seminary classmate Janna Riess, herself a Mormon. Sadly, the Century didn't post the article online. Cutting to the chase, Janna says (more or less) that "If by 'Christian' you mean believing that Jesus is the way to salvation, then we're Christian. If you mean believing that God is the Holy Trinity, then we're not."

This is pretty good, as far as it goes. It is certainly the core of what we traditional Christians have always used as our argument that Mormonism is in fact a different religion: that it offers a dramatically different vision of who God is.

She might have gone a bit further. For example, although there are disagreements among Christians over precisely which ancient texts constitute the rule and norm of faith, we are in universal agreement that the Book of Mormon is a modern forgery, and cannot conceivably be counted among the authentic Scriptures. Likewise, although there are certainly arguments among Christians about eschatology, we are in universal agreement (so far as I know) that Zion will not be rebuilt on the American continent. Neither of these is decisive, however; you can disagree about the canon and the end times and still be a Christian. But you really can't disagree about the Incarnation and the Trinity.

It all boils down to this: the Mormons say -- over and over, especially with one of their own running for president -- that that Christianity can be defined as they define it. The rest of Christianity says that it can't. This isn't an argument that can ever be won, except in the believer's heart.

But look. I can wake up one morning believing that I am a member of the Augusta National Golf Club. Okay, granted, membership is by invitation, and I wasn't invited. And granted, membership fees are a quarter-to-half of a million dollars, more money than I will earn in a lifetime of parish priesting. Still, I believe in my bones that I am a member, because I think the real membership rules -- the secret ones declared by Bobby Jones in 1933, and never written down -- said that all short guys with big mouths were automatically members.

Now, as long as I stay home, the caddies and waiters and so forth may not be able to prove that I'm wrong. But if I show up at the club, they aren't going to let me play, either.

Sigh. It's late at night, and I should probably avoid sports metaphors. But do you see what I'm getting at?

Atheists Pollute

According to a Wisconsin paper, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is sponsoring some anti-religious billboards.

They're actually kind of snappy looking -- faux stained-glass, reading "Beware of Dogma." Frankly, the message has some appeal even for religious people. As the Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson pointed out years ago, a lot of doctrine gets passed off as dogma. That is to say, a lot of religious groups (and religious leaders) want you to belive that their specific teachings are statements of ultimate truth according to a broad religious tradition. For example, the "dogma" of the Immaculate Conception is a local Roman doctrine, pretty much laughed off by every other Christian community in the world. Lutherans may be especially sensitive on this topic, since their Reformation was largely a technical argument about whether certain doctrines -- especially regarding penance -- could legitimately claim dogmatic standing.

So we would approve heartily of these antidogmatic billboards, if only we weren't so committed to the wonders of nature. When we drive, we like to see fields, and trees. Barns, maybe. The occasional stop sign or mile marker.

But FFRF spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says that they want "to place freethought billboards around the country, wherever an irreverent billboard is needed -- which is practically everywhere!" And we have to object, not because we oppose freethought, but because we oppose littering the roadside and polluting the viewshed.

As a wise man once said, "I think that I shall never see / a billboard lovely as a tree. /Indeed, unless the [FFRF] billboards fall / I may never see a tree at all."

This Just In

Cribbed from The Australian:

Bishops of Norway's Lutheran church voted by a close majority to allow gay pastors, a church official told a press conference.

The Bishops Conference, a seven-man and four-woman panel of 11 Norwegian bishops, voted six to five for the measure, said their official representative, Olav Skjevesland. The panel is a consultative body.

Theological doctrine currently followed in the Norwegian church officially excludes people living in the a homosexual union from officiating at services.

Another Norwegian theological consultative body, the 20-member Laerenemnd, met in January 2006, but could not agree a course of action.

At least two openly gay men currently serve as ministers after they were hired by liberal bishops.

The question must now be defined at the Lutheran church's next general Synod, the highest decision-making representative body, which will meet from November 12-17.

It Sounds Prettier in French

Or at least less ugly.

The headline in le Monde reads: "George W. Bush s'oppose à une extension de l'assurance-santé à des millions d'enfants."

The gliding vowels, the nasal twang, the resistance to consonants -- we love the sound of the French language. Too bad the paper is reporting President Bush's opposition to health insurance for millions of children. Here's the lede:

"Average age: 7 or 8 years old. One has rarely seen so young a protest in front of the White House. The children came, Monday October 1, with toy wagons full of petitions for President Bush: Please! Sign the law!"

It's a good idea, health insurance. Saves lives -- in this case, the lives of poor children. Signing it would be "compassionate conservatism" at its best -- a cheap way to support families without, say, guaranteeing that Mom or Dad earn a decent wage. It would reduce ER admissions, thus taking stress off the health-care system that he's desperate not to overhaul. And the tens of millions spent on helping poor American children just might take attention away from the hundreds of billions wasted killing Iraqis.

Of course, Radio Flyers notwithstanding, he won't sign. And why? Because the other team likes it. Because Unca Dick would slap him upside the head if he signed. And above all, because he's the Decider, and he decided against this.

We Couldn't Agree More

"Today, a mega-yacht is indispensable," says Dutch financier Olivier Milliex. "It's not like 15 years ago, when a yacht was a luxury item."

Blackwater Comes Out Okay

We always knew thaey would.

The Pentagon's favorite mercenary army -- I'm sorry, consulting group -- got some bad press lately, what with shooting noncombatant civilians and all. For just a brief monent, it looked like somebody in the Army (the official one, that is) was going to re-think the policy of outsourcing military service.

That would have been bad for Blackwater and its shareholders; worse yet, there might have been a spillover effect that could have affected Halliburton -- and ITS shareholders. That would be a bad thing. After all, if Cheney's pockets started to empty out, he might decide to stay in public service a little longer, just to fill them back up.

But never fear. The Pentagon just issued a $92 million contract to a Blackwater affiliate, the aptly-named Presidential Airlines, to "supply specialized airplanes, crews and equipment for flight operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan."

Whew. What a relief. Looks like we're gonna make a profit off this war after all. (And by "we," I mean "they.")

Giuliani An Offensive Hypocrite

Okay, it isn't exactly news. But click the link for the most recent evidence. Here's a recap:

Thrice-divorced (and at least thrice-adulterous) Giuliani gets a lot of scrutiny from religious types. So in an interview with the Christian Boradcasting Network, he goes (surprise!) on the offensive. He protests that "there are a lot of people who are very judgmental," and says "I'm guided, very often, by 'judge not lest you be judged.'"

Okay, now, this is just weird. As New Yorkers know, Giuliani is the most judgmental human being on the face of the planet earth, saving only -- maybe -- a couple of extremist mullahs. This is the guy who tried to evict one of America's most prestigious art museums because he didn't like one of their paintings. His governing style was to war on everybody from the squeegee-wielding homeless guys to welfare mothers. His former politcal ally, and predecessor as mayor, wrote a book called simply "Giuliani: Nasty Man."

So, umm, at least he knows what he's talking about when he says that there are judgmental people in the world.

Giuliani then goes on to talk about his theological study in college, and how "it's an area I know really, really well academically." Hmn. We at the Egg have a pretty fair book-reading knowledge of military strategy, but doubt it would do us much good in a firefight. For that mater, we've read all the Jack Reacher novels, but they haven't made us taller, stronger or more cunning.

See, Rudy, the deal with theology -- and specifically with moral theology -- is that you can't just read about it. You have to live it. "Justification by faith" isn't about cheap grace, old pal. Or didn't they teach Bonhoeffer at your college?

GOP Candidates to Black Americans: "Drop Dead."

All four leading Republican candidates had somewhere else to be, rather than take part in a forum on African-American issues hosted by PBS's Tavis Smiley.

This is despicable, of course. It is bad for the Republicans. It would be worse, of course, if they had any realistic chance of winning over any any black voters except Alan Keyes. Maybe. It would be a lot worse if they hadn't already worked out a gentelemen's agreement with Diebold, to make sure that no black votes get counted in 2008. Also no Muslim votes, no Hispanic votes except in Florida, no Jewish votes over 60, and no northeastern votes except the Romney clan.

Episcopalians Cave; Nigerians Spit in Their Face

Well, friends, we blew it.

The Egg predicted, with great solemnity, that neither side in the Anglican standoff would budge in regard to the Global South ultimatum, and that as September ended, the Anglican Commnunion would cease to exist.

We were so sure of ourselves! After all, we reasoned, for the Americans it was a matter of survival. They have so many gay priests and lay members, as well as so many priests and members committed to the full participation of gay people in the church, that if they were suddenly to change course, there would be an open revolt. At the same time, we reasoned, the Africans won't back down -- their bishops are suddenly leaders on the world scene, exercising power (both persuasive and judicatory) in the mighty United States. The rush must be awesome.

But got it wrong. The Americans caved, and agreed, at least for now, to cease ordaining gay bishops. (Tough news for the Diocese of Chicago). They also agreed not to authorize same-sex union ceremoines, although it is widely anticipated that unauthorized services will continue.

This was a tough call by the Episcopalians. The Presiding Bishop called the actions "sacrificial," and it must certainly feel that way. In order to preserve the unity of the Communion, they sacrificed some of their deeply-held and strongly-defended convictions. Some will argue that they sacrificed the commitments they had made to a generation of churchgoers.

So how do their sisters and brothers worldwide react? Well, there's no doubt a sigh of relief in Canterbury. And you might expect a series a politely-worded communiques from Africa, saying things like "we honor our beloved brothers and sisters in America for having the courage to make a difficult decision, and for having chosen unity." Or something like that.

But you'd be as wrong as we were, friends. Because Archbishop-elect Kwashi of Jos province, in Nigeria, not even ordained himself as yet, could not wait to hold a p[ress conference and declare that "The statement by the US Episcopal bishops should be taken with extreme caution."

How gentlemanly. Not to say how ... Christian.

The slap in the face extends beyond media grandstanding. Archbishop Akinola still intends to consecrate missionary bishops for America, despite the strong objection of Americans that this is an incursion into their territory. Kwashi defends this, saying, "We do not need anybody's permission to preach the gospel . . . When the missionaries came to Africa, they did not get our permission before they arrived. Today, we (Africans) only need visas to get to US, to preach God's word."

Spare us, your grace. Yes, we know that the history of missions is closely linked to the history of colonialism, and that you can play on the heartstrings of affronted Africans and guilty Western liberals alike by allunding to it. But the situations are radically different. There were no Anglicans in Nigeria when the missionaries arrived. And whether you like it or not -- whether in your heart you believe it or not -- there are Anglicans in America right now. So the African missionary bishops are doing something that the English ones did not do: attempting to usurp the dioceses of fellow-Anglicans.

Not bloody sporting, is it?

Iran is Paradise

... for the Republicans. You know why? They don't have any homosexuals there.

We know this because President Ahmadinejad said so in a speech at Columbia, provoking gales of laughter from cynical college students. And what made the laughter cynical? The fact that he said this in response to a question about the recent execution of two gay Iranians.

For more on how the Islamic Republic treats its nonexistent gay people -- including pictures of a torture victim -- cut and paste this link into your browser window:

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/01/kidnapped_anoth.html

Anglican Communion: RIP?

It may be over at the end of the month. Click the link for a modestly-worded MSM description, or paste this link into your browser for a triumphalist shout from the Anglican right: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6749

In this case, we think the triumphalists have probably got it, err, right. A formal schism has been coming for years, courtesy of the global south primates, led by Peter Akinola, a friend of freedom everywhere -- if by friend you mean "enemy." Rightly or wrongly (and we think wrongly), the PECUSA was given a deadline to formally abjure a set of convictions and practices to which it is clearly committed. The deadline will expire shortly, and there is no realistic hope of a change on either side of the table. Frankly, both parties have too much at stake.

An Episcopal Church that suddenly drew a hard line on gay issues would shrivel and die within months. People would leave in droves, an exodus compared to which the mild present schism would look irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the bishops of the developing world have simply never exercised the sort of power that this debate gives them. They are prominent as never before, their names in the news and their words attended closely by arrogant northern-hemishere types who never took them seriously.

Nobody will budge, and so, late next week, the worldwide Anglican Communion wil probably be a thing of the past.

Bush Gives Evil a Bad Name

That is a delightful rhetorical jibe in Carlin Romano's piece on the language that political leaders have come to use when talking about terrorism (Chronicle of Higher Education).

Romano's complaint is that "official rhetoric after terrorist acts has become ethically neutral, merely strategic in tone and content." He offers some interesting speculation as to why this might be the case, but mainly he's expressing his irritation. He'd like to see more remarks on the order of Sarkozy's famous reference to French rioters as "scum." He believes -- probably correctly, to judge from Sarkozy's subsequent electoral victory -- that people would like to see more "stern moral judgment" from their elected leaders.

Er, um ... maybe. Gay people in the US already get an awful lot of stern moral judgment from politicos, especially during election cycles, for the precise reason that this is the rhetoric that wins elections. But does that make it wise?

In fact, as more and more anti-gay politicians are forced out of the closet (Craig, Foley ... can Santorum be far behind?), their use of this rhetoric to claim a supposed moral high ground looks both hypocritical and desperate. In the same way, for American leaders to call their opponents "monsters" even as they adopt certain monstrous practices of their own might set them up for an ugly rhetorical comeuppance.

Let's put it very simply. We all know that OBL, AQM, the Taliban and so forth are monsters, by any rational definition. But unless our government is willing (and able) to guarantee that there will be no more secret prisons, Abu Ghraibs, Gitmos, Hadithas, Mahmudiyas -- not to mention Plamegates -- then they really shouldn't be too aggressive about moralistic finger-wagging.

More simply still: glass houses.