Political Spaghetti

I really am taking a break for a bit

2007-03-12T21:40:00.000-05:00

Following on a recent post, I just want to let people know that I'll be back shortly. I have some professional things I have to attend to.

No news regarding the Nigerian resolution (this is a GOOD SIGN), but there is a new UN report on your chances of getting tortured if you're in Nigerian police custody.

Thanks to all who have let me know about emails sent and phone calls made.

If you're a conservative and you want to add your name to a growing list of "reasserting" voices objecting to the Nigerian legislation, please email me. Believe me, YOU ARE NOT ALONE!

Ruth Gledhill chimes in

2007-03-09T12:40:00.000-05:00

Read her thoughts here.

UPDATE: VOA has additional coverage, including an interview with Davis Mac-Iyalla. (h/t Jim Naughton)

Time Magazine calls for clarification from Akinola

2007-03-08T22:16:00.000-05:00

[updated below]

David Van Biema writes (Thurs, March 8) [my emphasis]:

Awkward as it may be for an outsider to intrude in the doings of a country or a church that is not his own, I nonetheless believe that the Most Rev. Archbishop Peter Akinola has some explaining to do. The Anglican Primate of Nigeria, one of the most powerful churchmen in Africa, needs to clarify his stance on a Nigerian anti-homosexuality bill he initially supported, which assigns a five-year prison term not only for practicing gays, but also for those who support them. Akinola either needs to publicly renounce, in strong terms, his early support of the bill's punitive clauses and to amplify the rather tepid concern he later expressed about them, or else he needs to explain why he's not doing so to the dozen or so churches in Virginia whose congregants were largely ignorant of the legislation when they voted to join Akinola's archdiocese in December.

Please read the whole thing.

Van Biema concludes, significantly [again, my emphasis]:

A few months ago, Nigerian religion expert Abieyuwa Ogbemudia said to my colleague Gilbert daCosta, "It is incredible for any church to even tolerate homosexuality and survive in Nigeria. Your church would be dead in the water." Akinola, however, has proven himself in the past to be a brave man. He took a strong and important stance against Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo's bid for an extraconstitutional third term. He needs to be brave again and speak out against the penalties in the Nigerian bill. If he truly has concerns about human rights, he should express them with vigor. Failure to do so ought to prompt his new Virginian congregants to give a second thought to their choice of Akinola as their shepherd.

I would go beyond the question of Archbishop Akinola's personality and beliefs and argue that even if the legislation fails to pass, his "new Virginian congregants" may soon realize that even the best intentioned men are required by the pressures of Nigerian politics and cultural mores to do things that are demonstrably wrong, especially when that man is as important to Nigerian society as the Archbishop of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).

If so, Nigeria is no safe haven from the storm. I think a great many parishes departing The Episcopal Church will soon come to this realization, if they haven't already.

UPDATE March 9, 09:22. Jim Naughton (and Simon Sarmiento of Thinking Anglicans) finds the tone of the Time piece to a bit off. I agree with him, especially on the factual matters.

However ... I don't think the Time piece is aimed so much at getting Archbishop Akinola to change his mind or offer an explanation as it is at getting the Virginian parishes to rethink their decision. He's making the Archbishop out to be "not such a bad guy after all" (while still in error), while making it perfectly clear that most Virginian parishioners didn't know what they were getting themselves into.

Jim, I think, may be stating too strongly how much these parishioners knew. I've gotten lots of emails in private, even from Virginian vestry members who are still deciding whether to leave the Episcopal Church for Nigerian oversight, wondering if what I have been saying on my blog is true. If I were a traditionalist parishioner reading only what had been written by Bishops Minns and Akinola on the subject (see here for links to their letters, etc.), and following their implicit suggestion that I ignore anything Bishop Chane had written in the Washington Post, then I would be in a pretty ignorant position, indeed!

Commenter C.B. on Jim's blog echoes this thought (just now!).

The New York Times weighs in, big time

2007-03-08T10:08:00.000-05:00

[updated below]

OK, not so fast, Matt. You're not going on vacation just yet.

The New York Times editorial page assaults the Nigerian gay marriage legislation, and drags the Anglican Communion along with it. If conservative American Anglicans think they can keep ignoring this, they're dangerously mistaken.

Time to speak up. Disassociate yourselves from this immediately, and do so clearly, explicitly, and without rationalization.

From the Times [my emphasis]:

A poisonous piece of legislation is quickly making its way through the Nigerian National Assembly. Billed as an anti-gay-marriage act, it is a far-reaching assault on basic rights of association, assembly and expression. Chillingly, the legislation — proposed last year by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo — has the full and enthusiastic support of the leader of Nigeria’s powerful Anglican church. Unless the international community speaks out quickly and forcefully against the bill, it is almost certain to become law.

It's not long. Read it all.

This all makes me wonder -- are some of the Episcopal leaders who are leaving the Episcopal Church (or who have already left) really thinking hard enough about going under Nigeria's oversight? Are their parishioners?

UPDATE March 8, 10:21. Jim Naughton caught this, too. And well before I did.

Passage still imminent

2007-03-08T07:46:00.000-05:00

Human rights workers are still fighting hard in Nigeria to defeat the "same-sex marriage legislation." The delay in a vote (it looked at one point as if the legislation would get a vote in the Nigerian Senate last Friday) is a good thing. But there has been no concrete news since before the weekend, so I have nothing to report. Further, I am disappearing for a short while to take care of some job-related issues. However, I will continue to monitor the news -- if anything comes up, I will post ASAP, if briefly.

And you conservative Anglicans out there -- I love you, but you gotta speak out! This is your last chance. Be sure to read Ephraim Radner's comment.

I expect to be blogging at full strength again on or after 18 March, but stay tuned.

News from Tanzania that interests me

2007-03-06T08:45:00.000-05:00

Seriously, this is the only thing that I've read to have come out of Tanzania in the last several months that has peaked my interest.

(Photo credit Nils Hagar, World Wildlife Fund, via the NYT)

Evolutionary "hotspots," as they are called, arise in regions that have been geographically isolated and environmentally stable for very long stretches of time. Under these conditions, populations tend to evolve characteristics that set them far apart from neighboring populations outside the "hotspot," and with diversity not found elsewhere.

The Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania comprise one of these hotspots. For example:

In 2005, for example, scientists discovered a new species of monkey, a slender, tree-dwelling primate called the Kipunji. At first it appeared to belong to a group of monkeys called mangabeys. But last year scientists studying its DNA were surprised to discover that it was not a mangabey at all; its closest kin are actually baboons.

The New York Times' Carl Zimmer has the coverage. Read it all.

Fighting HIV/AIDS through Shar'iya

2007-03-06T08:37:00.000-05:00

A fascinating and non-polemic article in This Day (Lagos) by Imam Imam on the challenges and triumphs of fighting HIV/AIDS in Zamfara State, Nigeria, a Shar'iya state.

One positive aspect of the battle against Aids in the state is how some people infected with the disease raised to ensure its spread is limited. Hajiya Asma'u Muhammed Ibrahim is HIV-positive and since last year, she has been the leading voice in the fight against discrimination. The virus infected her through her husband who "got it somewhere." Always in her Hijab (Islamic head wear), Asma'u moves from house to house in Gusau, the state capital and other towns and villages to sensitise the people.

She does not feel different from other people and expressed delight that ARVs are made available to them free of charge at designated government hospitals. She said as part of measures to alleviate the sufferings of those infected with HIV virus, the Federal Government has agreed to establish four additional anti-retroviral centres in Zamfara State so as make the drugs available to people living with the virus in the state.

Read the whole thing.

Nigerian Senate VP Mantu

2007-03-05T21:07:00.000-05:00

[updated significantly below. And I've heard word that calling or writing the Nigerian government directly is unlikely to do any good. So I've added contact info for the Church of Nigeria, and deleted the embassy numbers.]

Nigerian Deputy Senate President Ibrahim Mantu (see here) was in DC today. I have it on good authority that a letter of protest was delivered to him by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo, California, 12th District) regarding the "gay marriage" legislation. No word on the text of Lantos' letter.

Letters to Nigeria by American legislators is nothing new. Another letter was sent to Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo by Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts, 4th District) on May 2, 2006. The text can be found here. Frank's argument was that as ranking member (and now Chair, I should add) of the Financial Services Committee, he had the power to cut off aid to Nigeria should Obasanjo sign the legislation. I wonder if that threat is still intact.

Make calls of support to Congressmen Lantos and Frank, and encourage your friends to do the same:

Congressman Tom Lantos
2413 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3531

Congressman Barney Frank
2252 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5931

Email is good, but a phone call is way better. Tell them that you appreciate their concern for civil rights abroad, and their efforts to encourage Nigeria to avoid making a terrible mistake.

If you're a Republican, get over it and give these folks a call anyway. They're doing God's work with this legislation, and they're doing it right now.

Also, I should add, if and only if you're a member or incipient member of a CANA parish, contact Bishop Martyn Minns:

The Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns
mminns@trurochurch.org
703.273.1300 x140
Truro Church
10520 Main Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

If and only if you're a member of a Network parish or diocese, contact Bishop Robert Duncan:

The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
duncan@pgh.anglican.org
412-281-6131
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
900 Oliver Building
535 Smithfield Street
Pittsburgh, PA, 15222-2467

If you're an Anglican, contact Archbishop Rowan Williams and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori:

The Most Reverend Rowan Williams
The Press Office
Lambeth Palace
London SE1 7JU
Tel: 020 7898 1200
Fax: 020 7261 1765
Press Secretary's email: jonathan.jennings@lambethpalace.org.uk

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
815 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017
E-mail: pboffice@episcopalchurch.org
Phone: (800) 334-7626

If you're "nothing at all," and you don't know who to write, contact your US Representative or Senator, or the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) -- BE POLITE!:

Archbishop Peter Akinola (primate@anglican-nig.org)

Archbishop Akinola's Communications Director, Canon Akintude Popoola (communicator1@anglican-nig.org)

What to say:

Tell them all that the "same-sex marriage" legislation before the Nigerian Federal Assembly is undemocratic, it violates the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, it has been condemned by the US State Department and 16 human rights organizations, it is in violation of the Nigerian Constitution, and it is in violation of Christian and Muslim principles.

Most importantly, stress the urgency of action, and above all, be very, very polite.

From the comments: Ephraim Radner

2007-03-05T10:34:00.000-05:00

I hope he won't mind my posting his comment to the front page of my blog, but his words are significant. The Nigerian legislation -- and Archbishop Akinola's explicit endorsement of it -- are serious issues that transcend the theological and ecclesiological crises that rend the Anglican Communion. Common ground must be found. To do so, liberals must be willing to grant, at least in this one instance, that Akinola's endorsement is grave enough to overlook their distaste of their opponents' "theological and evangelical" arguments against homosexuality, and grave enough to lead conservatives to understand that this is their problem to fix and their burden to bear.

I post Ephraim's comment here in its entirety, and I look forward to your thoughts.

Dear Matt,

Unlike some, I don’t have a problem with the single-minded way you have pursued this issue. It is an important one. While I don’t agree with everything you write on the topic, I believe that the credibility of Christian witness – and that obviously includes conservative Christians as much as anybody – demands some clear articulation of our duties to protect basic human rights and our willingness to fulfill these duties. In this case, as you know, I believe that these basic human rights, included in God’s own purposes for human life and understood communally within the larger society of nations, would be subverted by major parts of this proposed legislation (especially in sections 7 and 8). It needs to be said that the essay that Andrew Goddard and I wrote on this topic – and that we forwarded to the Nigerian Church via Martyn Minns – was posted on an evangelical Anglican website (Fulcrum) and certainly represents the views of many conservative Anglicans (as you suggest it probably does). It is quite possible to admire Abp. Akinola’s spiritual and missionary leadership – and I do, greatly – without agreeing with (and by in fact publicly disagreeing with) his support of this proposed legislation. You are right: this is an area where Anglican Christians across of the board ought to be able to be of one mind, even if they continue to stand far apart on basic theological principles dealing with sexuality. It is interesting, however, that there seem to be very few persons in the gay inclusionist wing of the church who are willing to accept this common ground: to argue for the theological and evangelical unacceptability of same-sex behavior, they claim, is already to have attacked the human rights of homosexuals. I have heard this claim made many times in response to my own views. In this kind of climate, it must be admitted, it is hard to make the kinds of distinctions necessary to bring conservatives and liberals together on this fundamental ground. I appreciate your more sensible – and to my mind, truthful -- approach.

Ephraim Radner

If it interests you to take part in finding this common ground -- and especially if you are a conservative -- please email me, and we'll see where it leads. Reaching out on this issue would work wonders to engender good will for the coming months, and could even save thousands of gay and lesbian Nigerians from harassment, gratuitous violence, and other forms of persecution.

Remember, the bill could pass presently, and if it does, and you've said nothing, then it's partly your fault.

Apologies

2007-03-04T21:21:00.000-05:00

I recently posted two entries regarding comments made by Canon Kendall Harmon, the proprietor of Titusonenine, to Howard Lesser of the Voice of America. Reaction to these entries, both on his blog and on Thinking Anglicans, has disturbed me. Many engaged in the debate over homosexuality in the Anglican Communion wish to make the issue of Archbishop Akinola's endorsement of the Nigerian "gay marriage" legislation part of their own partisan polemics. This is a grave mistake, and it shows in the ugliness and personal nature of many of the comments on both sites.

The dangers associated with Archbishop Akinola's endorsement transcend the current crisis. Conservatives -- no matter how justified their position might be -- run the risk of looking like monsters, bent on jailing their opponents rather than hearing them out; gay and lesbian Nigerians lose by being put in prison for their speech. Until the implications of Akinola's endorsement are resolved, neither side can reasonably come to the table with an interest in honest discussion. Whatever we think of Peter Akinola as a person and as a spiritual leader, he was wrong to have endorsed legislation that would effectively put in prison those that disagree with him on the issue of homosexuality, and his actions must be admonished and corrected.

While the negative comments were not my own, I want to personally apologize to Canon Harmon for making him the target of vitriol from the left (such comments on Thinking Anglicans as "it's amazing how multiculti Harmon and the others can get when it furthers their plan to take over the church" were beyond the pale). He has been very gracious to me on his blog. I hope to return the favor continuously.

Clarification on the "Shar'iya" bomb

2007-03-03T14:13:00.001-05:00

Canon Kendall Harmon, proprietor of Titusonenine, has now made it quite clear to me and to his readers that "I have not been able to find the text of the legislation, but there is no way I could support it based on the way it sounds like it will be worded."

This is, of course, really, really good to hear, but I'm not at all surprised. I never for an instant thought that Canon Harmon thought this legislation was a good idea -- I feel I've gotten to know him over the last year or so that I've been lurking on his blog, and I can say with certainty that he is a good and decent man.

That said, now that he has a copy of the most recent version of the legislation (see here), I wonder if he can join me and others in explicitly declaring exactly what it is about the legislation that he doesn't like, and explicitly calling for Archbishop Akinola to withdraw his support for those sections of the bill that offend him (and which should offend the Archbishop).

Canon Harmon took some umbrage at my characterization of his position on the bill, and he has since corrected the record, as have I. But it's important that he understand what it was that I found so troubling about his statement to the Voice of America's Howard Lesser.

Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA, and rector of Truro Church, said in a public statement (March 4, 2006) that "I do NOT believe that criminalization is an appropriate response to those who understand themselves to be homosexuals. Resolution 1.10 from the Lambeth Conference in 1998 is a good summary of my convictions on this contentious issue."

Bishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Communion Network said (March 15, 2006) that "the proposed law sounds harsh to American ears."

These quotes are from statements in defense of Archbishop Akinola following a Washington Post Op-Ed (February 26, 2006) by Bishop John Bryson Chane (Diocese of Washington, DC), in which Bishop Chane quite accurately said:

... the Nigerian law has crossed the line in several important respects. Its most outrageous provision deals not with marriage but with "same-sex relationships" and prohibits essentially any public or private activity in any way related to homosexuality. It reads in part: "Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria."
Any person involved in the "sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly" is subject to five years' imprisonment.
The archbishop's support for this law violates numerous Anglican Communion documents that call for a "listening process" involving gay Christians and their leaders. But his contempt for international agreements also extends to Articles 18-20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which articulates the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, association and assembly.

As far as I can tell, Bishop Chane, Bishop Duncan, Bishop Minns, and Canon Harmon would all agree in principle with these words. If I am mistaken, I would like very much to be corrected. But my point is that there are certain principles at stake here, principles of honesty and decency, that both sides of the broader debate within the Anglican Communion on the subject of homosexuality should be able to agree upon.

If Chane's words from the above quote represent the views of all of these men, then none of them should have any difficulty stating as much in public.

Canon Harmon should have been able to say to the Voice of America's Howard Lesser (perhaps he did) that while he opposes the consecration of gay priests and bishops and the blessing of same-sex marriages, he also opposes any legislation that would put gay and lesbian Nigerians in prison for advocating on their own behalf, and he furthermore believes that Archbishop Akinola made a mistake by endorsing the legislation without qualification.

Instead, what we have heard from Bishop Minns, Bishop Duncan, Archbishop Akinola, and lately Canon Harmon amounts to quiet acquiescence to the "background" noise of Shar'iya in Nigeria. This is not a particularly brave position, and it shows a willingness to rationalize rather than clarify, and a desire to protect an ally rather than correct his error. It is also a specious position, given that there are Nigerian Muslims in both Houses who oppose the legislation. Thus, I was surprised and disturbed enough by Canon Harmon's words to blog on the fact that he appeared to have been the latest to drop the "Shar'iya" bomb.

Canon Harmon now has a copy of the latest version of the legislation. He knows it will soon pass, and he knows enough of its history to know the score. What say he?

The legislation under debate

2007-03-03T14:11:00.000-05:00

I've received a request to provide the latest version of the Nigerian "same-sex marriage" legislation under debate in the Nigerian Federal Assembly. The following was provided to me by Scott Long of Human Rights Watch. Scott tells me that it is the same version that was debated before the Nigerian Senate last week.

For the record, it is also the same version that was published as an appendix to the Andrew Goddard / Ephraim Radner article from Fulcrum, linked to on my banner above [I have made no edits other than to format it for the web]:

A BILL FOR AN ACT TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR THE PROHIBITION OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX, CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE BY THEM AND FOR OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH

BE IT ENACTED by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as follows-

1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006.

2. Interpretation

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

“Marriage” means a legally binding union between a man and a woman be it performed under the authority of the State, Islamic Law or Customary Law;

“Minister” means the Minister responsible for Internal Affairs”

“Same Sex Marriage” means the coming together of two persons of the same gender or sex in a civil union, marriage, domestic partnership or other form of same sex relationship for the purposes of cohabitation as husband and wife.

3. Validity and Recognition of Marriage.

For the avoidance of doubt only marriage entered into between a man and a woman under the marriage Act or under the Islamic and Customary Laws are valid and recognized in Nigeria.

4. Prohibition of Same Sex Marriage, etc.
Marriage between persons of the same sex and adoption of children by them in or out of a same sex marriage or relationship is prohibited in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Any marriage entered into by persons of same sex pursuant to a license issued by another state, country, foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
Marriages between persons of the same sex are invalid and shall not be recognized as entitled to the benefits of a valid marriage.
Any contractual or other rights granted to persons involved in same sex marriage or accruing to such persons by virtue of a license shall be unenforceable in any Court of law in Nigeria.
The Courts in Nigeria shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce, separation and maintenance orders with regard to such same sex marriage, consider or rule on any of their rights arising from or in connection with such marriage.
5. Non-Recognition of Same Sex Marriage
Marriage between persons of same sex entered into in any jurisdiction whether within or outside Nigeria, any other state or country or otherwise or any other location or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriage in any jurisdiction, whether within or out side Nigeria are not recognized in Nigeria.
All arms of government and agencies in the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding within or outside Nigeria, with regard to same sex marriage or relationship or a claim arising from such marriage or relationship.
6. Prohibition of celebration of same sex marriage in a place of worship
Same sex marriage shall not be celebrated in any place of worship by any recognized cleric of a Mosque, Church, denomination or body to which such place of worship belongs.
No marriage license shall be issued to parties of the same sex in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
7. Prohibition of Registration of Gay Clubs and Societies and Publicity of same sex sexual relationship.
Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations by whatever name they are called in institutions from Secondary to the tertiary level or other institutions in particular and, in Nigeria generally, by government agencies is hereby prohibited.
Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria.
Any person who is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.
8. Offences and Penalties.
Any person goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.
Any person performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.
9. Jurisdiction

The High Court in the States and the Federal Capital Territory shall have jurisdiction to entertain all matters, causes and proceedings arising from same sex marriages and relationships.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

This Act shall prohibit in the Federal Republic of Nigeria the relationship between persons of the same sex, celebration of marriage by them and other matters connected therewith.

My objections are to Sections 6(1) (but not 6(2)), 7, and 8, but I am primarily worried about Sections 7 and 8, since they would effectively, and in the context of Nigeria's police and judicial systems, abridge all speech, assembly, press, and free exercise of religion rights for gay and lesbian Nigerians speaking out on their own behalf.

I can make no principled objection to Sections 1-5, or to 6(2), since these are provisions that are under debate in many states here in the US and it would be the weakest of arguments (if not rank hypocrisy) for me to call for gay marriage to be recognized by the Nigerian Federal Government if it is not so recognized in my own country.

Thus, I have only ever called for Archbishop Akinola to qualify his endorsement by explicitly denouncing Sections 6(1), 7, and 8. In addition, I believe that is only these changes to the legislation that Bishop Minns of CANA and Bishop Duncan of The Anglican Communion Network are morally obligated to pressure Archbishop Akinola to demand. Many will argue that failure to do so would be tantamount to organized and church-sponsored persecution of Nigeria's homosexual minority.

Canon Harmon drops the "Shar'iya" bomb

2007-03-02T11:06:00.000-05:00

[updated below]

Canon Kendall Harmon, the proprietor of the right-leaning Anglican blog Titusonenine, was just interviewed by Voice of America's Howard Lesser about the meeting in Tanzania, and also about the legislation before the Nigerian Federal Assembly that would radically abridge basic civil rights (like speech, press, assembly, free exercise of religion) for gay and lesbian Nigerians.

In light of recent news developments (see here, here, and here), Canon Harmon's words, which echo the arguments made by other conservative American Anglicans, and by Archbishop Akinola himself -- that the legislation may be necessary given the threat of Shar'iya -- ring very, very hollow:

As for this week’s indications that Nigerian legislators plan to criminalize same sex relationships and all promotion of a homosexual lifestyle, Canon Harmon says he hopes the Nigerian diocese and its leaders will strike a balance that respects the region’s cultural history and the personal rights and freedoms of Nigerian citizens.

“Nigeria is closely divided between Islam and Christianity. So you have Sharia law in the minds of a lot of legislatures. From an American perspective, it looks very, very punitive relative to American legislation. So I think the hard part is the degree to which the Church can push back in a compassionate way and still try to uphold the teaching of the Church in a society where Islam and Christianity are competing strongly,” he said.

I have a great deal of respect for Kendall Harmon, and I don't want this come across as a personal attack.

But he "hopes that the Nigerian diocese and its leaders will strike a balance"? Too late! That ship has long since sailed. The very imminent passage of this legislation is rapidly turning into a serious PR disaster for anyone who continues to blame Shar'iya for this legislation, or who fails to recognize the implications this would have for potentially millions of Nigerians.

Here's an appropriate "balance" for Canon Harmon. Call for Archbishop Akinola to revise his endorsement to leave intact those parts of the legislation that state that gay marriage is not to be recognized by the Nigerian government, and strike those parts that would put a gay or lesbian Nigerian in prison for 5 years for disagreeing.

Simple.

UPDATE March 2, 2007, 12:29. Canon Harmon, via email, has indicated that he did in fact condemn the legislation, but that it did not make the tape, and that the interview with Lesser was intended to be about Tanzania. I believe him. He also said he would never support legislation like this.

However, I don't believe that I should be the one clarifying his position. One shouldn't have to take it from me.

UPDATE: I'm currently engaging Canon Harmon's readers on this subject on Titusonenine. Come by and check it out.

The blinkered "right"

2007-03-02T10:34:00.000-05:00

From an undated interview of Martin Barillas, conducted by Michael Westfall, from the conservative web page TheRealityCheck.org [my emphasis]:

Michael Westfall: On these vital matters, do governments and world authorities really care about Biblical values and faith issues relative to their behavior? Does world morality continue to slide downward in important areas and if so, what are your views on the moral decline?

Martin Barillas: Certainly, there is a perception that the observance of moral values is in decline. In the 20th Century, we saw the onset of industrialized warfare in the trenches of the Somme during the First World War, Nazi death camps and Soviet pogroms before and during the Second World War, the bombing of civilians and the use of the atomic bomb by the Allies, abortion and contraception, and then the advent of gay rights. All of these are manifestations of the culture of death. ...

... An area of hope is that Christians in Africa, Asia, and Latin America may have a great deal to tell us about the importance of clinging to the anchor of faith. It is truly significant that Anglican bishops of Africa, for example, are leading the Anglican Communion in rejecting proposals to dignify homosexual relationships with the moniker of “marriage”.

Of course, if Barillas had read the legislation, he would know that it does far more than simply ban gay marriage, and abridges the full set of what we in the US would call First Amendment rights (the right to free speech, assembly, press, and exercise of religion). But never mind -- just before this, Barillas impeached himself entirely by donning the mantel of "protector of human rights" [my emphasis]:

Michael Westfall: What do you see as the role of the Church in protecting human rights around the world, who are the major players and do you see the role of the Church increasing or decreasing? Could you explain for our readers some of the other major human rights violations, and what kind of obstacles the Church faces in addressing these issues?

Martin Barillas: Christians, of whatever stripe, are called to not only praise the Lord but to share his word. This can be in not only evangelising but also taking risks as some missionaries and others do when they challenge economic and legal systems. My thoughts run to the many Catholic nuns and priests who have given their lives in witness to the Gospel when they put the spotlight on the violence and inhuman practices of the powerful. Christians may at times be at odds with government, even if it is the government of the United States.

In Latin America, the Church has long been persecuted by governments that have cozied up to US corporations such as United Fruit, mining and railroad interests [i.e., the United States]. There have been times in places like Guatemala in the 1980s when there was a price on the head of missionaries there. In El Salvador, three US missionaries were murdered there during the Reagan administration.

The Church, broadly speaking, must address human rights violations honestly and courageously. It has to be a beacon of hope and truth to all people.

This is the same line we hear from the Institute on Religion and Democracy (a non-democratic Christianist organization) over and over again. Culture is in decline. We must abridge the rights of those who threaten our culture. At the same time, we must invoke the human rights of our co-believers to protect them from attack by those who would attack our culture.

This is a very, very cynical understanding of of human rights, and it represents the rankest hypocrisy.

I should probably have ignored this interview, but there has to be some defense against this kind of nonsense.

Thoughts from Archbishop Rowan on an impending Anglican Schism

2007-03-02T10:25:00.000-05:00

Nothing new to the Angliscenti, but it's important to put as strong a spotlight as possible on the nominal head of the Anglican Communion in the midst of an Anglican Church-sponsored campaign of discrimination in Nigeria.

From General Synod:

"Whatever happened," the Archbishop lamented, "to persuasion? To the frustrating business of conducting recognisable arguments in a shared language? It is frustrating because people are so aware of the cost of a long, argumentative process. It is intolerable that injustice and bigotry are tolerated by the Church; it is intolerable that souls are put in peril by doubtful teaching and dishonest practice. Yet one of the distinctive things about the Christian Church as biblically defined is surely the presumption (Acts 15) that the default position when faced with conflict is reasoning in council and the search for a shared discernment."

As someone who has not picked sides in this grand Anglican crisis -- but who has simply found himself disturbed into action by one side of the debate -- I find Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan William's words to ring with truth, but to be hollow with impotence due to their inconsistent application.

He has on repeated occasions spoken out against what he sees as "doubtful teaching and dishonest practice." But when a concrete example of "toleration" (if not support) of "injustice and bigotry" is right before his nose (I am, of course, referring to the situation in Nigeria), he says absolutely nothing.

Perhaps the Archbishop is being poorly advised.

Passage Imminent 11

2007-03-01T19:37:00.000-05:00

Human Rights Watch has put out another, highly informative press release that summarizes the situation in Nigeria eloquently. The release was published by Reuters AlertNet in its entirety, and in a summarized form by the BBC.

The latest news on the legislation, from the press release [my emphasis]:

The legislation was first introduced in January 2006 by Nigeria’s minister of justice, Bayo Ojo. It lay dormant for months in the National Assembly, as nationwide elections – scheduled for April 2007 – drew near. On February 12, 2007, however, a public hearing was called in the House of Representatives Women’s Affairs Committee with only two days’ notice. A coalition of Nigerian human rights organizations opposed to the bill was initially told it could not address the hearing, as it was by invitation only. Although the groups were later allowed to speak, the bill has apparently moved forward rapidly in both Nigeria’s House and Senate without further public debate. It is reportedly poised for a third reading in the Senate on March 1, after which it could become law.

In other words, still not law, but it's getting closer every day.

Here's a bit of history to add to Scott Long's account (in the HRW press release). Archbishop Akinola (Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion) pushed hard for this legislation. Twice he publicly and explicitly endorsed the legislation. The legislation was approved by the President's Executive Council a few weeks after the embarrassing (for Akinola) appearance of Changing Attitude Nigeria (a gay and lesbian Anglican organization) and its extensive coverage by the press, even by the New York Times. Since the legislation would ban Changing Attitude from operating in Nigeria, one wonders not only about the timing, but also about the rationalizations that Akinola has put forward to his American supporters that he does not endorse jailing gay people.

For God's sake, where are the conservative Anglicans? Why don't they see this for the public relations disaster that it is?

The "Christian Leaders" letter to Nigerian politicians was signed only by liberal Anglicans, but of all the members of the Anglican Communion, they are the least likely to sway the Nigerian legislature. Akinola's conservative supporters -- by failing to add their voices to the voices of their liberal co-religionists -- are betraying themselves, their followers, and all of us, but most of all the gay and lesbian Nigerians who will endure the worst of it. If conservative Anglicans (and Archbishop Rowan Williams) fail to condemn this sub-human bit of populist nonsense and if they fail to condemn Akinola's endorsement, they will bear the shame of it to their graves.

This could have been stopped a long time ago. Instead, conservative Anglicans saw it as just another cog in their battle with the liberal Episcopal Church.

Remember, it's not too late to do something about this. See here for whom to contact to speak your mind (especially if you're a conservative Anglican -- you, most of all).

Passage Imminent 10

2007-02-28T20:38:00.000-05:00

What a letter! Wiser heads than those on the Anglican Right express exactly the right sentiment, addressed to the President and Deputy President of the Nigerian Senate (a southern Christian and a northern Muslim -- Mantu is the current avatar of Nigerian Muslim tolerance):

Most importantly, this bill would strike at the equality, dignity and respect due all people in Nigeria. As faith leaders we are committed to building bridges of understanding across divides of difference. We believe all people of faith are called to work together for a world of justice, peace and equality. We urge you to resist the polarizing rhetoric of some narrow, religious ideologues and instead affirm the fundamental values of freedom reflected in the Nigerian Constitution.

We are asking that you oppose this bill and protect the equality of all Nigerians. Your assistance is necessary in order to overcome the discrimination that takes place in the world today. We are depending on you to do all you can to prevent this bill from being passed and to take a stand for the basic human rights of all people.

Read the whole thing (there are over 250 signatories -- none of them conservative -- but I am really, really looking forward to standing corrected on that point). A press release from Human Rights Watch accompanies the letter. Will this letter do any good? Here's hoping.

Andrew Sullivan linked here earlier, inspiring an old-school Episcopalian to respond on behalf of Nigerian gays and lesbians. Quote:

In the US, many parishes within ECUSA split long ago over the issue of the role of women. We have been here before. In my view, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is better for having let those voices of repression depart. I say, "Good riddance." While I would never refuse to take the Eucharist with a declared homophobe or misogynist and I continue to pray that we all become more tolerant of one another, the day of reckoning is upon us, and it is better that, as organized churches, we part company and, in the words of St Paul, work out our own salvations.

I don't take a position on "schism," except that I would rather it occur sooner rather than later, so that the cooler-headed conservatives in the Anglican Communion (yes! they exist!) can speak out without worrying about maintaining solidarity with Archbishop Akinola.

No news today ... so far

2007-02-28T06:58:00.000-05:00

A quick scan of the Nigeria press today reveals nothing so far. But the Nigerian Senate isn't expected to vote until tomorrow. Stay tuned.

If you haven't already called or written the relevant folks, see here for relevant contact info. And do it now!

Passage Imminent 9

2007-02-27T10:37:00.000-05:00

[updated below, three times]

The roman numerals were getting ridiculous (let alone the increasing size of the actual numbers).

At the risk of generating a bit of blog-circularity, Jim Naughton has important news from Nigeria. The Nigerian Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this Thursday (less than 48 hours from now). The Nigerian House is ready to vote as well.

If you belong to a parish or other organization that has supported Archbishop Akinola's spiritual leadership in the Anglican Communion, but you are disturbed (as we all should be) by his endorsement of legislation that would put gay and lesbian Nigerians in jail for organizing and that would irrevocably damage the Church of Nigeria's ministry to gay and lesbian persons not to mention their physical and mental well-being, now is the time to act.

If your parish is a member of CANA, or is considering departure to CANA, write or call:

The Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns
mminns@trurochurch.org
703.273.1300 x140
Truro Church
10520 Main Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

If you belong to a Network parish or diocese, write or call:

The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
duncan@pgh.anglican.org
412-281-6131
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
900 Oliver Building
535 Smithfield Street
Pittsburgh, PA, 15222-2467

If you are not a member of a Network or CANA (or incipient CANA) parish, please do not call or email.

Also, everyone should contact the Archbishop of Canterbury. His silence in the matter has been astonishing. His office can be reached here:

The Most Reverend Rowan Williams
The Press Office
Lambeth Palace
London SE1 7JU
Tel: 020 7898 1200
Fax: 020 7261 1765

BE POLITE!! And remember, the issue here is not whether homosexual acts should be made legal (they're already illegal in Nigeria), nor whether gay marriage should be made legal (it already is not recognized by the government), but that the basic civil rights of a minority (speech, assembly, press, free exercise of religion) must not be abridged in the name of religion!

This is not a question of "context," either. The Nigerian Constitution guarantees all these rights for its citizens, regardless of religious beliefs. And for good reason: in a nation split as evenly as Nigeria is between Christians and Muslims, tolerance is a virtue.

It is also not a question of Muslim encroachment. Muslim legislators have called for caution in implementing this legislation -- if a Muslim can speak out with impunity, why can't an Anglican?

This is your last chance to meaningfully break your silence.

UPDATE Feb 27, 12:12. From Integrity via Jim Naughton, here's even more you can do, especially if you don't belong to a Network or CANA parish:

Davis Mac-Iyalla of Changing Attitude Nigeria is asking for our help. Here are two concrete things you can do ...

1) Send an e-mail to Archbishop Peter Akinola (primate@anglican-nig.org ) asking him to use his considerable influence with the Senate to defeat the bill. Remind him that paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report states that, ''any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care."

2) Call the Nigerian Embassy (202-986-8400) in Washington, DC, to express your concerns about the bill. Remind embassy staff that Nigeria is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom from unfair discrimination and the right to privacy. Parts of the act are also inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination found in the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the Nigerian Constitution.

NOTE regarding the Nigerian Embassy -- it's better to fax a note and address it to the General Assembly. Their fax number is (202) 362-5684 (h/t one of Jim Naughton's commenters, A. MacArthur).

These can be tough phone calls to make / emails to write, but they're worth it. Don't delay.

UPDATE II Feb 27, 13:46. Sammy Morse recommends alternative contact info for those outside the US:

Nigerian High Commission in London:
9 Northumberland Avenue
LONDON
WC2N 5BX
chancery@nigeriahc.org.uk
Tel: (+44) 020 7839 1244

Nigerian Embassy in Dublin:
56 Leeson Park
Dublin 6
Tel: (+353) 1 660 4051

E-mail form on their website - https://www.nigerianembassy.ie/dublin/content/en/contacts.htm

Thanks for this.

UPDATE III March 2, 09:51. Hat tip to Susan Rusell for providing a letter template for writing to Archbishop Akinola. It's a good, polite letter. I recommend it:

Dear Archbishop Akinola,
It is urgent that you use your influence with the Senate of Nigeria to oppose the Same-sex Marriage Prohibition Act. Please remind the Senators that:
1) Paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report of the World Wide Anglican Communion states that "any demonizing of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care"; and
2) Nigeria is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which guarantee freedom from unfair discrimination, and the right to privacy; and
3) Those rights are also affirmed in the Constitution of Nigeria.

Embellish the letter how you will, but be polite!!! Akinola's email address is Primate@anglican-nig.com.

Please also CC: Archbishop Akinola's Communications Director, Canon Akintude Popoola, at communicator1@anglican-nig.org. Canon Tunde has played an active role in defending Akinola's endorsement of the legislation.

Passage Imminent VIII

2007-02-27T00:17:00.000-05:00

The Catholic Bishop Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) just announced their public support of Peter Akinola in a press conference in Abuja, condemning any group that might wish to make same-sex marriage lawful in Nigeria. As I've made clear, I don't wish to enter the debate on whether Nigeria should recognize same-sex marriage as long as we in the US are still having a democratic debate on the subject -- that is, if Nigerians decide that they don't wish to recognize same-sex marriage, there's not much I can do about it.

What's much more horrifying to me than the possibility that Nigeria should fail to enact pro-gay-marriage legislation (ha!) is that the current legislation radically abridges the right of gay and lesbian Nigerians to organize politically on their own behalf. But even worse than that has been the deafening silence of conservative American Anglicans (and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams) who are all too happy to acquiesce and rationalize Akionla's endorsement to maintain rhetorical advantage in the midst of the political fight of their lives.

Meanwhile, there's an interesting and heartening editorial in Nigeria's Vanguard (February 27) by Rotimi Fasan, that speaks to both the HIV/AIDS dimension of the legislation's purported rationale, as well as its "unAfrican" dimension [my emphasis]:

There can be no harm, I believe, in Nigerians taking a closer look at the matter. For whether we like it or not, situations around us will not permit us to remain impervious to the questions raised by the issues any longer. For whatever it was worth, let’s not forget there was a prominent, religious gay lobby, from Nigeria, at the Dar conference. As I pointed out above, that homosexuality is a closet issue is no reason to believe that the practice is totally alien in these parts. Like in South Africa where HIV positive men sleep with under-aged girls in the mistaken belief that sex with virgins cures HIV/AIDS, homosexual acts are, in certain cases, believed in our part of the world to confer mystical powers on its practitioners. In some cases, it is seen as the harbinger of great wealth.

It is a known fact that one of the reasons adduced for one of the bloodiest coups in Nigeria’s history was the alleged overwhelming presence of homosexuals in the government that was to be displaced. The April 22, 1990 coup, announced/led by Gideon Orka, was partly staged to oust the ‘homosexual’ regime of General Ibrahim Babangida. Likewise, homosexuals supposedly populate the Yan Dauda cult. Thus, from whatever angle it is viewed, there are practising homosexuals among us. The essence of bringing discussion of homosexuality to the public domain is neither an attempt to offend the prudish sensibility of anybody nor engage in the prurient game of a voyeur. Rather it is to afford Nigerians an opportunity for a rational as opposed to a prejudiced response to the issue.

As I write this, a bill is being sponsored at the National Assembly to ban same sex relations. It was, last week, referred to the judicial committee of the Senate where some senators, led by Ibrahim Mantu, are totally opposed to any discussion of the matter. For them, discussing same sex relations, amounts to giving prominence to a culturally alien subject. But even as the debate goes on majority of Nigerians are, arguably, unaware of it. People like Mantu are, probably, afraid of Nigeria going the way of South Africa that has legislated in favour of same sex relations. But the question for me, however, is whether there is the slightest possibility of opening up avenues for a better understanding of homosexuality.

I can't speak to the size of the Nigerian constituency that holds Fasan's views, but it's good to hear someone in Nigeria publicly call for caution and rational discourse.

South Africa's Mail & Guardian covers the recent Tanzania conference from the perspective of those whom the legislation would affect the most, and from the perspective of the nominal "head" of the Anglican Communion:

The archbishop [Williams], who admits he may be unable to prevent schism in the 450-year-old church, said the public perception was that "we are a Church obsessed with sex".

Yep.

Passage Imminent VII

2007-02-26T12:27:00.000-05:00

The Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) and the God's Kingdom Society (GKS) have both announced their support of the Akinola-led Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) for its spearheading and strong support of the new legislation. The PFN's and GKS's announcement is not surprising in the least -- the legislation has had broad support from Nigerian religious groups since it was first introduced in January of last year.

Says the Vanguard (Lagos):

In separate statements over the weekend, Pastor Oritsejafor and the GKS president commended the head of the Anglican Church in Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola for his strong stance against homosexuality as could be seen from the statement issued by the Anglican Church of Nigeria last year affirming the commitment of the church to the total rejection of the evil of homosexuality which is a “perversion of human dignity” and urging the National Assembly to expedite action and ratify the Bill prohibiting the legality of homosexuality.

Given the reluctance to pass the legislation by even some Muslim members of the Federal Assembly, Pastor Oritsejafor words on the subject are intriguing [my emphasis]:

Pastor Oritsejafor who was particularly piqued by what he described as "unnecessary politicking" by members of the Nigerian National Assembly on the bill argued that most of the socio-economic problems militating against the nation today are traceable to the erosion of our cherished family values.
According to him, "it does not make any sense for Nigerians to ape everything from the West because the African was created by God uniquely and for a special purpose and there is therefore no basis for us to imitate other cultures."

This brings us back to the most common argument made in defense of the legislation -- that homosexuality is unAfrican. What strikes me in Pastor Oritsejafor's words, though I'm sure he didn't mean it this way, is the implication that Africans were created separately. I fear to tread this politically dangerous ground, but this strikes me as a bridge too far. Thoughts?

I've thought quite a bit about the justifications made by important conservative Anglicans in favor of, in support of, or in acquiescence to the Nigerian anti-gay legislation. But what would its passage look like in practice?

Human Rights Watch has a new report (pdf) on the human rights outlook in Nigeria up to and after the April 2007 elections. They make no mention of the legislation in their report (there are, indeed, far greater problems faced by the Nigerian people, despite what the overheated rhetoric of my blog might suggest). Regarding the Nigerian police, they say:

Nigeria’s police and other security forces are implicated in widespread acts of torture and other ill-treatment, extrajudicial killing, and arbitrary arrest. Police officers routinely torture criminal suspects, often to extract “confessions” from them, while at the same time releasing other criminal suspects from custody in return for bribes. Police personnel routinely use the threat of violence or arrest to extort bribes from Nigerians who come into contact with them, often with the active encouragement of their commanding officers.

These are the same folks that are expected to fairly apply the new law once it's enacted. Given Changing Attitude Nigeria director Davis Mac-Iyalla's arrest and bribe-enabled release in late 2005, I'm sure that now-out gay and lesbian Nigerians have a lot to look forward to, and are filling out their asylum applications as we speak. I hope the State Department's condemnation of the new legislation will carry some weight during their subsequent asylum proceedings.

(And lest we forget, the problems faced by gay and lesbian Nigerians are not unique to Nigeria. Read this for more.)

Passage Imminent VI

2007-02-25T01:13:00.000-05:00

Muslim legislators are under pressure to back the Nigerian "gay marriage" legislation.

Why the Muslims? Perhaps, out of self-interest, they're not as comfortable giving up the concept of minority rights as their Christian coreligionists. Or perhaps they have a higher sense of the importance of pure democratic principles. Either way, where are the Anglican detractors?

We're waiting.

And ...

... making explicit what any biologist worth their salt knows, BBSNews explains (in perhaps too stark terms) that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is not as unusual as Archbishop Akinola makes it out to be.

Passage Imminent V

2007-02-24T15:31:00.000-05:00

[Updated below]

Coverage from the BBC that I had missed earlier (Feb 14), following on an earlier post [my emphasis]:

Speaking at the session, Deputy Speaker Austin Opara said he did not want Nigerians to forget their "religious and cultural backgrounds".

The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), the umbrella body for Nigerian Christians, called for speedy passage of the law, describing same sex unions as "barbaric and shameful".

The National Muslim Centre also condemned gay relations as "immoral, and runs contrary to our cultural and religious values".

The deputy chairman of the house committee on human rights Abdul Oroh [a man with a Muslim name from a predominantly Muslim state - MT] says it was hypocritical of proponents of the bill to use morality and religion as basis for their arguments.

"We should not be hypocritical here. I think we should deal with this subject dispassionately. While we are trying to protect morals and values, we must also remember to protect people's rights even if they are a minority," Mr Oreh said at the public hearing.

Wow, I don't think I possibly could have said it better than Oreh. Notice that CAN (the organization presided over by Archbishop Akinola of the Church of Nigeria) pushes hard for the bill, while a putative Muslim argues for minority rights!

With Oreh's words, we've now documented the thoughts of two Muslim legislators (MP Abdul Oreh, and Senator Ibrahim Nasir Mantu) who are reticent to pass the legislation. Where's the Anglican legislator?

Also: some coverage from The Jurist (Feb 23).

... and links to the UN Press Release I had mentioned earlier, with an accompanying article (h/t Simon Sarmiento).

UPDATE Feb 24 20:15. It occurs to me that Mr. Oreh's and Senator Mantu's words in the Nigerian Legislature would be made illegal by the new legislation as they could be liberally construed as providing "indirect" "sustenance" to "same-sex amorous relationship[s]" under Section 7(3). Hmmm.

The irony!

2007-02-24T10:45:00.000-05:00

The Washington chapter of the Anglican American Council (from whom we've heard before, rather embarrasingly), has written a letter to the Diocese of Washington requesting that Jim Naughton at the Daily Episcopalian tone down his rhetoric (you tell me, after reading a few of his posts, whether you think his rhetoric is "divisive").

Aside from a series of rather hilarious logical flaws, the letter's most salient characteristic is that it has been published online, as far as I can tell, only by David Virtue, one of the least civil voices from the Anglican right, and the man from whom I first learned the term "homofecalerotic."

Does the AAC in Atlanta support this letter? If so, why didn't they publish it on their own website? If not, are they happy with their branch in Washington publishing on Virtue's site?

Please, AAC-Washington, stop embarrassing yourselves.

Passage Imminent IV

2007-02-23T14:07:00.000-05:00

The UN weighs in today: (via Monsters & Critics)

Four UN special rapporteurs on racism, violence against women, xenophobia and related intolerance said in a statement that the draft bill is 'an absolutely unjustified intrusion of individuals' right to privacy' and goes against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

'We are apprehensive that, if adopted, the proposed law will make persons engaging in, or perceived engaging in, same-sex relationships in Nigeria more susceptible to arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and ill-treatment, and expose them even more to violence and attacks on their dignity,' the statement said.

And from Reuters:

The independent experts, most of whom report to the Human Rights Council, the U.N. watchdog on fundamental freedoms, said the legislation amounted to an 'absolutely unjustified intrusion' into an individual's right to privacy.

'(It would) contravene ... the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that 'all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights',' they said in a statement.

... 'The bill contains provisions that infringe freedoms of assembly and association and imply serious consequences for the excerise of the freedom of expression and opinion,' the envoys' statement said.

Sadly, such rights are viewed as unimportant in the face of the threat of Nigerian homosexuality (This Day, Lagos, February 20, 2007):

The only right the Nigerian homosexuals and lesbians have is their right to be taken to the hospitals (or Babalawos or Dibias for those of them who are professed atheists) for treatment. Those who are sick should not be going about advertising their sickness.

If you want to feel sick, read the rest of the Sonnie Ekwowusi's disheartening op-ed, an op-ed mercifully ignorant of the Nigerian Constitution. Nigerian democracy is in bad shape.

I had always hoped that conservative American Anglicans, especially highly placed ones like Bishop Minns, could have gently nudged the Church of Nigeria in the right direction. Instead, these Americans have shown themselves to be either complicit in the CofN's plans by their acquiescence or support, or utterly impotent in their objections.

Passage Imminent III

2007-02-23T05:49:00.000-05:00

[UPDATE -- this legislation is up for a vote in the Nigerian Senate tomorrow, March 1. For more on what you can do to speak out against it -- it's almost too late -- see here.]

For far too long, the Anglican church in Nigeria has used the "shari'ya" canard to justify their advocacy of the anti-gay bill currently before the Nigerian Senate.

On December 19 of last year, in an open letter to the Virginia parishes leaving the Episcopal Church for Nigerian oversight, Archbishop Peter Akinola was given the opportunity to rationalize his unequivocal endorsement of the legislation:

We recognize that there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation. I am glad to inform you that while the Honorable Speaker of the House, a Moslem, wanted the immediate and outright passage of the bill, the Deputy Speaker, an Anglican, persuaded his colleagues to allow full public debate on it.

The subtext here -- as emphasized innumerable times by conservative Anglicans supportive of Akinola's actions -- is that the efforts of the Nigerian Church in civil affairs are subject to extreme pressures from Nigerian Muslims, many of whom apparently believe that their Anglican brethren are light in the loafers.

The "pressure from Islam" thread has been repeated elsewhere. Here's Bishop Robert Duncan (Pittsburgh), the Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, on March 15, 2006:

... it should be noted that while the proposed law sounds harsh to American ears, the penalty for homosexual activities in those parts of Africa under Islamic Sharia law (such as the Sudan and portions of Northern Nigeria for that matter) is death. It is precisely the imposition of these much harsher Sharia laws that Archbishop Akinola and other Anglican leaders in Africa have resisted so strongly for many years with little publicity or support from the West.

Here's (now) Bishop Martyn Minns, Rector of Truro Parish, Virginia, on March 4, 2006:

The situation in Nigeria is even more complex. There is a precarious balancing act between those regions that are under Muslim influence – where Sharia law calls for the stoning of homosexuals – and those that have a majority Christian population. The situation is volatile as demonstrated by the repercussions from the Danish cartoon saga that have already led to hundreds of Christian and Muslim deaths. Keeping the lid on this situation is a formidable task. In recent months homosexual activism sponsored in part by organizations from the UK and South Africa has threatened to add further instability. In response the President of Nigeria has proposed legislation that would restrict such activities.

Minns is now a bishop under Archbishop Akinola's oversight.

We are led to believe that a primary impetus for Akinola's unequivocal endorsement of the legislation is the threat of Islamic extremism.

Until we read this, from This Day (Lagos, Nigeria), February 22, 2007 [my emphasis]:

The Deputy Senate President, Senator Ibrahim Nasir Mantu (Plateau State) [a Muslim name] who spoke after the Senate Leader said that he would have thought that the government would devote more time to "do things more important to the lives of our country than for it to propose this Bill."

"What the government is now doing is creating awareness to this thing and for us to create this kind of awareness, people may now want to start exploring it. Mr. President we have more serious things to do than to be working on this bill, I therefore urge that members should help me to kill this bill." Senate Chief Whip, Senator Udoma Udo Udoma supported Mantu and argued that, "when you pass a law, it is meant to deal with a problem. My view is that the marriage act that we operate in Nigeria defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As the deputy Senate President [Mantu] said, I think we should set this aside so that we can concentrate on the more important things we have to do."

What!??! A northern Nigerian Muslim doesn't think this legislation is important enough to warrant the attention it's getting? Hmm, that doesn't fit with Akinola's, Minns', and Duncan's argument. I'll have to give this logical puzzle some thought.

But notice what I think is the key phrase from Senator Udoma: "My view is that the marriage act that we operate in Nigeria defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman." That is, there is already a marriage law on the books that unequivocally defines marriage as between a man and a woman. This was new to me, and it makes it quite clear that even the nominally important aspect of the new legislation (a ban on gay marriage) is legally unnecessary. Homosexuality is already illegal in Nigeria; marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman.

All the new legislation does is ban activism and in a nakedly political fashion. Those who have endorsed this bill, and the allies of Akinola who have failed to actively criticize his endorsement of this legislation, have a lot to answer for.

Passage Imminent II

2007-02-22T21:21:00.000-05:00

Continues previous post.

Different country, different province, different Primate, same logical gap. From The New Vision (Uganda):

Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi refused Holy Communion while at the Anglican Communion Primates Summit in Tanzania over the issue of homosexuality.

He also reiterated his stance that the Church of Uganda cannot accept homosexuality because it contravenes the Bible and African culture.

Here, what I am particularly worried by is the idea that homosexuality is in contravention to African culture. There are a great many things that are African, and a great many things that aren't. But if there are, in fact, homosexual persons living in Africa who are African, can one really say that homosexuality is alien to the continent? Perhaps more importantly, can one really rule out the presence of homosexual behavior in Africa in the pre-colonial/imperial era?

The "unAfrican" argument is made ad nauseum in Nigeria in support of their anti-gay-civil-rights legislation. But if there are Nigerians (who last I checked are African) who disagree, and believe that homosexuality is not alien to African culture, shouldn't their voices be heard, even if they are in the minority?

The problem with the proposed legislation is not that it draws a line in the sand against gay marriage (hey! we're having that debate here in the US) but that it forces silence with prison sentences on those who quietly and peacefully disagree.

UPDATE February 23, 4:02 AM. Orombi's actions at the Primate's meeting in Tanzania run the risk of setting a counterproductive and bad example for how those who hold homosexuality to be sinful should behave in the face of disagreement. His refusal to take Communion -- while understandable in the context of a protest on his part -- signals to his flock that bread is not to be broken with one's spiritual enemies.

I am reminded of Matthew 9:

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Does Jesus approve of the behavior of these tax collectors and "sinners"? No. But does he refuse to eat with them, even though many might not be in repentance? Also no.

Orombi is setting himself up in the position of the Pharisees, providing those in the Province of Uganda who are antagonistic to homosexuality a rationale to refuse far more basic human kindnesses than the shared sacrament of Communion to their gay and lesbian Ugandan brothers and sisters.

Passage Imminent I

2007-02-22T12:04:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted on the Nigerian legislation much lately due to pressing professional matters. I still won't be able to blog like I had been early on, but I'll introduce a series of posts covering news of the Nigerian Anti-Gay bill that's facing imminent passage by Nigeria's populist legislature prior to the upcoming Presidential elections:

This is the first of many posts. These are aimed at the conservative Anglicans in the US who are not aware (or avoid being aware) of what their allies in the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) have advocated. I am not trying to convince anyone here that gay marriage is a good idea, or that Nigeria should make it part of their civil code. Rather, I wish to make as many people as possible aware of this legislation's gross violations of the most basic of civil rights (in ways that have nothing to do with whether Nigeria should recognize civil relationships between gay people), and also that the legislation carries the strong strong endorsement of Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, the head of the Church of Nigeria.

I find all of the claims and reports made in the links to be entirely credible (some news sources stretch the truth -- I have not included them).

First, check on the IGLHRC's documentation of the practical impacts of the legislation on the lives of gay and lesbian Nigerians, Voices from Nigeria (pdf), November, 2006. Quote (from Davis MacIyalla):

In October 2005, after my organization’s first publication criticizing an archbishop of the church for his stance on homosexuality, eight of our members were apprehended by police while we were on our way back from a meeting. We were locked in a police station without food and water for three days. Eventually we were released. I am sure that we were apprehended because of my organization’s publication.

Read the whole thing.

Second, this article from Znet, on the "World's Worst Anti-Gay Law," February 22. Quote:

Even mere socializing by two or more gay people, like having dinner together, is likely to be interpreted as illegal.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals would be targeted not only for specific acts but also for simply existing under this proposed law, and even heterosexual people who "promote" the lifestyle of homosexuals, for example by selling them a house, would be criminalized.

Third, from the Gay City News, on "The Nightmare of Being Gay in Nigeria," February 19. Quote:

Public hearings on the bill were held last week by a committee of Nigeria’s National Assembly and it could be voted into law as early as next month.

With elections for the Presidency, Senate and House of Representatives in April, gay rights activists fear that politicians will put populism above human rights.

At the House committee hearing it emerged that over 100 petitions had been received objecting to the proposed new law, which would be one of the most draconian ever considered anywhere in the world.

More to come.

Same-sex relationships make you "retarded"

2007-02-18T13:17:00.000-05:00

... this according to Nigeria's special adviser to the president, Professor Friday Okonofua, at Friday's public hearings on the "same-sex marriage" (read "patent civil rights violations") bill before Nigeria's Federal Assembly, and now under active debate.

Same-sex relationships also apparently lead to cancer, depression, and a high rate of suicide (well, I can accept the latter two, especially in Nigeria).

The level of misunderstanding of homosexuality is so extensive in Nigeria that most lack even the basic tools to debate the subject intelligently. It's quite one thing to have firm religious convictions against homosexual practice (I have no problem with their beliefs), but it's quite another to play fast and loose with the facts when the speech, assembly, press, free expression of religion rights of "4%" of Nigeria's population are on the line. (For all you islamophobes out there who like to point to Shar'iya when justifying Akinola's support of this bill -- notice NO MENTION OF ISLAM in The Tide's coverage.)

This bill looks like it will pass before April's presidential elections. I don't think conservative Anglican supporters of Archbishop Akinola -- an ardent advocate for the bill's passage -- have any idea what they've gotten themselves into. Worse, the Anglican leadership's refusal to actively condemn Akinola's support for this legislation is a fantastic shame. May it follow them to their graves.

A lullaby from the Heritage Foundation

2007-02-07T19:48:00.000-05:00

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers is out, and it's some pretty serious stuff. Serious enough to give many a conservative think-tank the heeby-jeebies, and enough to lead them to release this balm to their adoring hand-wringers:

Just a Summary

It should be emphasized that only a short "Summary for Policymakers" has been released, not the actual report which contains the underlying scientific assessment. The final version of the full report is scheduled to come out later this year. IPCC summaries are written at the direction of political appointees representing member nations. The limitations and potential biases of such summaries give reason to withhold judgment until the scientists actually weigh in--both the IPCC scientists and especially the independent scientists who will comment on the final report. That the summary is being so aggressively marketed ahead of the science is itself reason for caution.

Read the whole thing. You'll notice a glaring omission -- no mention of the SFP's primary conclusion that there is a greater than 90% chance that current global warming is anthropogenic.

But don't think about that, Heritage's Ben Lieberman seems to say. Just focus on the independent scientists who will review the final report once it comes out to provide us all with good, bromidic arguments to avoid having to face up to reality.

Lieberman goes on to provide us with copy that could be written any and every day:

Science should play a big role in global warming policy, and the full IPCC Report should be a part of that. But economics must also play a role, lest the U.S. embark on a course that does more harm than good.

Duh.

So can we stop the denial now and get on with the hard work of deciding what to do? Where's our Stern Review? Shouldn't we in the US be commissioning dozens of them, each by different groups?

Beware the religio-politico-economic complex

2007-01-30T09:27:00.000-05:00

Evan Sparks of AEI congratulates the religious right on their "evangelical entrepreneurship":

Even evangelical churches that use “traditional” liturgies or are smaller than Saddleback organize themselves entrepreneurially. Hundreds of once-Episcopal parishes have, like The Falls Church and Truro, sought oversight from Anglican archbishops overseas, some joining formal mission dioceses set up by archbishops in Nigeria, Rwanda, Southeast Asia, South America, and Uganda. In these cases, technological innovation has aided evangelical entrepreneurship: dirt-cheap communications and relatively cheap travel have arranged previously impossible connections.

With its emphasis on innovation, experimentation, and change in the service of truth, evangelical theology has generated what one might call a favorable regulatory environment for religious innovation. Evangelical entrepreneurs say, “If you don’t like what’s around you, change! Leave! Try something new!” In this way, Protestantism has inculcated and preserved both liberalism and orthodoxy. At any rate, the evangelical entrepreneurs have ensured a wide variety of choice in religious belief and practice in the United States.

Do evangelicals really want this guy's help? "Try something new"?

Hilarious.

Debating (political) conservatives on a religious blog about climate change

2007-01-21T15:37:00.000-05:00

For the last several days, I've been engaged in what I thought to be an honest debate with a range of conservative readers of the blog Titus One Nine on the subject of climate change. The thread, and accompanying story, can be found here (I'm "Matt").

Kendall Harmon, the proprietor of the blog, for some reason allowed our comment-debate to go on for a very long time without any direct moderation. I'm grateful to him for that, as I think it proved to be a constructive debate for me, one that required I spend a bit more time reading the available literature and sharpening my understanding of areas outside my immediate knowledge, issues like economic discounting and the global economic costs of doing nothing versus doing something, etc.

One expects to learn a great deal in such debates. What one doesn't expect is the depths to which some participants will plunge when faced with the challenge of actually having to do the hard work of debate, as you'll see near the end of the thread.

What was also surprising was the extent to which the climate change denialist camp -- represented by some of my fellow commenters on that particular religious blog -- doesn't base its denialism on Christian principles (since both sides try to argue -- one side more successfully than the other, in my opinion -- that great harm could come to a great many people by taking decisive action or inaction). Nor does it base its argument on the science, since essentially no one responding to my comments ever brought up a credible scientific reason to doubt anthropogenic climate change.

Rather, the denialist camp is comprised of ideologically driven small-government optimists. And they're like proverbial (not literal) rats cornered (name-calling, etc.) when they are faced with having to substantively support their position.

This is a useful lesson for me. The denialists don't want to debate the science. They are much more interested in the implications of the fact of anthropogenic climate change: that we might have to rely on our representative government to tell us what to do.

UPDATE: Jan 21, 2007, 19:02. Again, the value of these debates is that they focus the mind. So advantaged, I want to briefly add what I now think are the critical questions that any debate about climate change must address, and address honestly:

Is climate change occurring, and, as a corollary, is it likely to damage human economic, cultural, and political systems?
If so, are we humans the cause of climate change?
If so, are we able to stop it, and when must we begin to act to do so?
If so, would it cost us more to act than it would cost to do nothing at all? (I credit BillS on the thread for making me aware of what's at stakes in this last question.)

Any debate that skirts or confuses these issues can't really be considered honest.

For those who wish to blame Islam for Nigeria's troubles ...

2007-01-10T15:15:00.000-05:00

... there's this interesting bit of analysis from the Voice of America.

Bottom line: relieve poverty, promote economic equality, tamp down corruption, and repair massive environmental damage to the Niger Delta, and there will be no religious conflict.

A new strategy?

2007-01-04T23:38:00.000-05:00

If you've read Thomas Ricks' Fiasco, you know that Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus is one of the good guys. Read Ricks' book if you want to know what I'm talking about (it's one of the few books critical of the Iraq War that leaves you feeling hopeful about the military).

I can in no way speak to whether there is anything that Petraeus can do at this late stage to improve the Iraqi disaster -- my gut tells me to be pessimistic -- but Bush could do far worse than to have appointed Petraeus to be the man in charge.

No, but seriously ...

2006-12-21T21:32:00.001-05:00

[edited twice for style early one morning]

... here's the serious post.

I am stunned by the PR corner Bishop Minns and Archbishop Akinola have put themselves in. They both know that Akinola can't back down on this legislation. It would make him look weak, and it would further his embarrassment among his Nigerian co-religionists about the consecration of Bishop Robinson (Diocese of New Hampshire).

But if they stay where they are, they have to weather the increasing hail of bad press Truro and The Falls Church have received after their votes to leave for the rather sordid "civil rights" pasture of the Church of Nigeria.

The two letters in the CANA release, while artful, avoid what's really at stake in this PR disaster: has the Archbishop, in fact, endorsed the legislation (twice), and does he now recant his endorsement or has he in any way softened his stance toward the wording of the legislation?

But it's best to proceed with their actual quotes (since I butchered Archbishop Akinola's in the last post). Here's what Bishop Minns had to say [my emphasis]:

I want to address one recurring untrue accusation concerning our attitude towards homosexual persons. Our vote was not an "anti-gay" vote. We affirm that as Christians we believe that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, is made in the image of God, and deserving of the utmost respect. ... I have attached a recent letter from Archbishop Peter Akinola that addresses this same issue from his perspective. Please notice the difference between what he actually says and believes and the dismissive tag lines that are often attributed to him.

Well, that sounds great, and I wish I could stop there, but here are Archbishop Akinola's words on the matter:

Sadly, I have also heard that some are suggesting that you are now affiliated with a Church that seeks to punish homosexual persons. That is a distortion of our true position.

This is tough to swallow. The "distortion," as Akinola calls it, began with his own press releases (he implies that his Standing Committee is responsible for these, even though he signed his name to both -- Fr. Jake has more.) The Archbishop goes on, regarding the legislation [my emphasis]:

We recognize that there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation. I am glad to inform you that while the Honorable Speaker of the House, a Moslem, wanted the immediate and outright passage of the bill, the Deputy Speaker, an Anglican, persuaded his colleagues to allow full public debate on it.

I am troubled, however, by the silence of outside commentators concerning the rights of the clergy, Christians, and particularly converts to our Church whose lives are threatened and too often destroyed because of mob violence. I see no evidence of compassion for those whose rights are trampled on because of the imposition of unjust religious laws in many parts of the world. There seems to be a strange lack of interest in this issue.

With all due respect to the stature and importance and worthiness of the Archbishop's other ministries, this is a dodge. In fact, it's two separate "dodges".

The first is to suggest that the worst provisions of this bill are the Muslims' idea. While he's not happy with those provisions, he suggests, there's just no denying Nigerian Muslims what they want. Thank goodness, we should be saying, that there's an Anglican in the House of Representatives able to stand up to these Muslims and protect us Christians from their radicalism!

Small problem: if Archbishop Akinola had had these same reservations about this bill back in February, or back in September, why didn't he say so? Why let the debate go to the House of Representatives before "recogniz[ing] that there are genuine concerns about individual human rights"? If it is truly his position, today, that the bill goes too far in its particulars, and that it would violate the human rights of Nigeria's gay and lesbian population (he never says this explicitly), then he should provide suggestions for specific changes -- perhaps the removal of Sections 6 and 7? That way, the bill would still ban gay marriage, but not speech and all those other pesky civil rights necessary to a democracy.

Second dodge: Archbishop Akinola seems to be saying that the silence of his detractors when a church or cathedral is burned or a cleric is wounded or killed at the hands of Muslim extremists (a myth) bars them from any further discussion of the Archbishop's behavior, beliefs, or ministries.

This is not credible for two reasons. First, we who have ties to western Churches like the Anglican Communion are far more capable of affecting those institutions than we are capable of changing public opinion among Nigerian Muslims. We want our church and our institutions to be immaculate and beyond reproach. Of course, we would also like Islam in northern Nigeria to operate within the confines of civil discourse. We would like Shari'ya to be pushed back and for civil law to predominate. We recognize the dangers of Shari'ya, and we have been yelling about its abuses long before 9/11 and long before Archbishop Akinola began to endorse this legislation. There is, in fact, no "lack of interest" on that issue. If the Archbishop thinks otherwise, it might be because his would-be abuses -- as close to home as they are to so many of us -- have overshadowed those of Islam in our eyes, and that he has found this to be a bit of a shock.

But in an evaluation of the place of the Church of Nigeria in this "recent unpleasantness" in northern Virginia, it really doesn't matter what Islam does, which brings us to the second reason why his statement about "mob violence" is a dodge. Regardless of the troubles in Nigeria regarding Shari'ya, there is no consistent philosophical or theological position one can take that would allow a cleric as highly placed as Akinola to state that persecuted Christians in northern Nigeria should be protected as they do missionary work among their Muslim brethren, while at the same time stating that gay and lesbian Nigerians should lose their chance to speak out on their own behalf.

From a purely PR perspective, there are only three ways through this pickle. One, ignore the bad press and push on as usual, stopping every once in a while to shift the weight of the growing burden of bad public perception that CANA carries as it moves to Nigeria. Two, have Bishop Minns publicly denounce the legislation, saying that it should never have been endorsed by Akinola in the first place. I do not believe that Minns will do this, but it's an option. Three, have Archbishop Akinola withdraw his endorsement, or modify it.

There is no middle path here, even though they seem to want it both ways. The second and third options would alleviate much if not all of the bad press, but would damage Akinola's credibility, either here or in Nigeria. The first, which is the course most likely to be chosen, would represent a path of principle. Minns and Akinola would be saying, "we believe in what we are doing, now leave us alone." It would require that they stop defending Akinola's endorsements; they would have to own them. The position that they don't support the legislation, but actually do, is no longer tenable.

But PR isn't everything. How one bishop looks relative to another is ashes in the wind compared to the real suffering of gay and lesbian Nigerians that we can all expect should this legislation pass (and it will). Let's not forget that. Apparently these two have.

And Merry Christmas!

I'm flabbergasted

2006-12-21T18:53:00.000-05:00

There's a new press release from Bishop Minns of Truro Church and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. It's basically damage control. If I could paraphrase the key bits of Akinola's letter, it would read something like this:

Thanks for your vote. I heard you guys are concerned that you're now "anti-gay". Not true. I love gay people. Many of my best friends are gay people. I also heard that you're worried about the fact that I endorsed that legislation, not once but twice. Yeah, I know. It looks bad. But we don't want to be like Massachusetts or Cape Town, do we? I mean, seriously. And besides, there was this one guy in the legislature, an Anglican, who wanted to debate the bill. The Muslim guy didn't. Did I mention that no one ever brings up the fact that there's Shari'ya in many northern Nigerian states? Anyway, thanks for your vote.

Serious commentary after these messages ...

[By the way, Jim Naughton and Fr. Jake have more.]

The Nation's Richard Kim asks the right question

2006-12-21T14:12:00.000-05:00

Quote:

Given these statements [of Archbishop Akinola's support of the "gay marriage" legislation], the attempts by Akinola's supporters to distance themselves (and him) from his previous support of this draconian legislation ring false. Is this crusade what the parishioners of Truro Church and Falls Church in Virginia, who according to World magazine include "leaders of government agencies, members of Congress, Washington journalists, and think-tank presidents," meant to endorse by siding with Akinola?

Richard Kim is not expected to "get it" when it comes to why these parishes are departing, but when will the parishes themselves "get it" why their realignment comes with this public stigma? Are they prepared to have their witness to the world be forever colored by their new Archbishop's failure to understand the basic importance of certain civil rights?

We're waiting.

No surprise -- more bad press

2006-12-19T20:44:00.000-05:00

The Economist doesn't really "get it" as to why parishes like Truro and The Falls Church have voted to leave, but the press is bad, either way. Quote [my emphasis]:

The breakaway congregations are putting themselves up for adoption by Anglican archbishoprics in the developing world. One would-be parent is a Nigerian bishop, Peter Akinola, who runs the largest province in the Anglican communion, and who has pronounced views on homosexuality: he supports legislation that would make it illegal for gays to form associations, read gay literature or even eat together. There are also suitors from Rwanda, Uganda and Bolivia.

From commentary at the Guardian (UK), which is indeed free [my emphasis]:

Now these two Virginia congregations have taken the plunge, placing themselves under the authority of Archbishop Peter Akinola, primate of the Church of Nigeria - a man who not only opposes gay bishops but enthusiastically supports a proposal by his nation's government to outlaw meetings of homosexuals. In doing so, these parishes - whose histories are wrapped up in the history of the founding of American democracy - have betrayed both their American and their Anglican roots.

This meme has stuck: Archbishop Akinola endorses legislation that would curtail basic freedoms for gay and lesbian Nigerians, most notably the right to speak out against their own oppression. The departing parishes now have the very tough task ahead of them of convincing others that they don't support jailing homosexuals, Bishop Minns words aside. A superficial PR campaign won't be enough.

UPDATE Dec 20, 9:18: From a Meyerson op-ed in the Washington Post:

... The presiding Nigerian archbishop, Peter Akinola, promotes legislation in his country that would forbid gays and lesbians to form organizations or to eat together in restaurants and that would send them to jail for indulging in same-gender sexual activity. Akinola's agenda so touched the hearts of the Northern Virginia faithful that they anointed him, rather than Jefferts Schori, as their bishop.

This time, paragraph three

2006-12-18T00:31:00.000-05:00

Reuters has coverage of the recent Virginia parish departures. Mention of the Nigerian legislation? You betcha. Third paragraph:

The Nigerian church is headed by Peter Akinola, who has supported a proposed law in Nigeria that calls for prison terms for homosexual activity.

Will the press keep covering this story, day after day? No. But when it does come up, when new parishes leave for the Church of Nigeria's oversight, this will be one of the ways by which Peter J. Akinola is known.

Not whence but whither

2006-12-16T17:54:00.000-05:00

[updated below]

Personally, the question for me has never been whether Episcopal parishes like The Falls Church or Truro in northern Virginia have the right to leave the Episcopal Church, nor do I particularly care if they fight to keep their property, or give it up to their diocese as they leave. In other words, I don't dispute the whence of their decision -- I'll grant them that they have just cause to leave the Episcopal Church, since I will challenge neither the courage nor the need for their decision.

What I will challenge is the whither. Why go to Nigeria, of all places? Well, Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times doesn't go into too much detail on the subject, and I must confess that I'm not sure I could adequately explain the historical reasons myself. But in her mention of the imminent departure of The Falls Church and Truro, she makes mention (but little more) of the primary reason one might object to Nigeria [my emphasis]:

In Virginia, the two large churches are voting on whether they want to report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant.

It is this paragraph that should give the greatest pause to those within the Episcopal Church who wish to realign with external Anglican provinces like Nigeria. Readers of the Times might well agree with the departing parishes' reasons for leaving -- i.e., the perceived non-evangelical character of much of the Episcopal Church and its countenance of homosexuality -- but would then go on to question why these parishes would wish to swing entirely to the other end of the spectrum and join the Church of Nigeria, whose highest church official has publicly called for the passage of legislation that would put gay and lesbian Nigerians in prison for just about anything.

What is obvious to some is not as obvious to others. It is possible to be against both homosexuality and jailing homosexuals. The Church of Nigeria (Anglican) has yet to discover a way to do both (for a variety of reasons detailed elsewhere).

In leaving the Episcopal Church for the Church of Nigeria, these parishes send two equally important, but distinct signals to the rest of the world and to their brothers and sisters in other denominations: first, that they are true to their principles and are no longer able to tolerate what they believe to be heresy within the Episcopal Church; and second, that their principles guide them to desire oversight from a Church that would take away the speech, assembly, press, and free exercise of religion rights of gay and lesbian Nigerians.

This NYT story reveals something very important about the emerging character of the press coverage of the conflict within the Anglican Communion. Now that the NYT has brought it to the light of day, descriptions of ecclesiastical departures from the Episcopal Church for Nigeria will henceforth always mention Archbishop Akinola's endorsement of that crap-tastic Nigerian legislation. I guarantee it.

The congregants of these parishes should know that. Sadly, few do.

[edited slightly for style, 23:39, Saturday, Dec 16]

UPDATE Dec 17, 15:33. The Falls Church and Truro have voted to leave the Episcopal Church and keep their property. All votes were in the affirmative and in the 90s%.

And, as expected, the press coverage in the Washington Post mentions the legislation [my emphasis]:

The churches voted to align themselves with a new group that hopes to eventually be home to thousands of dissident Episcopalians, the Convocation for Anglicans in North America, which is led by the Rev. Martyn Minns, the last rector at Truro. CANA is formally under the Church of Nigeria and Archbishop Peter Akinola, who supports a proposed law in Nigeria that would outlaw public and private gay activity. The American dissident churches have not been pushing to outlaw gay activity.

Good on Bill Turque and Michelle Boorstein for making it clear that leaders of these Episcopal parishes have denied support for that legislation (even if those leaders' denials have been more defensive and accusatory that one would hope), but it's going to continue to follow them around so long as it's on the verge of passing (or if it passes), and so long as Archbishop Akinola endorses it.

"There is a lot of ignorance"

2006-12-13T08:14:00.000-05:00

That notorious "same-sex marriage" bill is again up for debate in the Nigerian Federal Assembly. Davis Mac-Iyalla, of Changing Attitude Nigeria, tells me that it is under review by the House of Representatives' Human Rights Committee, and is expected to pass prior to the April 2007 presidential elections. While Nigerian politics are nearly inscrutable to me, I am willing to bet that not voting for the legislation's passage would be a difficult vote to explain to one's constituents, and it definitely wouldn't help to curry favor with various Nigerian religious organizations (especially the Anglicans), which, as far as I can tell, support this legislation unanimously.

When reading the "same-sex marriage" legislation -- which can be found as an appendix to Ephraim Radner's and Andrew Goddard's recent article in Fulcrum -- one is immediately aware that the legislation goes far beyond a statement by the Nigerian Federal Government that it will not recognize same-sex marriages; the legislation effectively abridges speech, press, assembly, and free exercise of religion rights for all homosexual advocacy, public, private, or in the media. Given the rather sorry state of Nigeria's judicial system, the vague wording of the legislation, and the potential for egregious abuse, the ramifications of such abridgement would be well beyond anything we here in the US could possible understand.

Katharine Houreld of the Associated Press recently published a surprisingly in depth outline of what those ramifications might be [my emphasis]:

Anyone attending a meeting between gay people, even two friends in a private house, could receive a sentence of five years under the act.

... "This meeting, right here, would be illegal," says activist Alimi, stabbing the air with a French fry for emphasis as he sits at a table with three gay friends and a reporter. "We could be arrested for talking about this. You could be arrested for writing about us."

... Haruna Yerima, a member of Nigeria's House of Representatives, portrays the legislation as aimed at stamping out something already well under control.

"It's not really such a big problem in Nigeria, we just want to prevent such occurrences (gay marriages) from happening here," he says.

Yerima said he approved of the limitations on films and books because they could be used to "make such practices popular." Even social contact between gays should be limited, he said, because it might encourage behavior that was "against our culture...against our religion."

Civil rights organizations and human rights lawyers have said that the bill could also be used to deny legal representation to gay people who have been arrested.

... Nigerian Anglicans split with the American Episcopal church over the ordination of a gay bishop and many in the country say they want to prevent anything similar to the South African legislation.

But Akin Marinho, a Nigerian human rights lawyer, says that bill's prohibitions are illegal under Nigeria's constitution and intenational treaty obligations. Not only does the bill affect freedoms of speech and expression, but foreign companies could face lawsuits if gay or lesbian staff are unable to take up positions in Nigeria, he says.

"It's a civil liberties issue as well as a gay rights issue," Marinho says. "Under this bill, anyone watching 'Brokeback Mountain' or even 'Will and Grace' could be prosecuted ... it could also infringe on lawyer-client relations," he says, pointing out that the vague wording of the bill could interpret a meeting between a gay client and a lawyer as a meeting designed to promote same-sex relationships.

Even some conservative religious leaders say the bill goes too far. Though Bishop Joseph Ojo, who presides over the congregation at the evangelical Calvary Kingdom Church, says gay relationships are "foreign to Africans" and should be outlawed, he adds that homosexuals should "have freedom of speech and expression."

Nigerians have been publicly flogged, exhibited before the press naked, or beaten severely in prison after being charged with homosexuality. Alimi's companions say they're wary of voicing too much opposition to the new law out of fear of arrest. Death sentences have been meted out in the north, though no one has yet been executed.

"There is a lot of ignorance, and that is why people are afraid," Alimi says. "But we are not willing to come out and say, yes, I am gay. Here I am. I am human too."

[An abridged version of this article was published by the Houston Chronicle.]

Many Nigerians believe that there are, in fact, no "real" homosexuals among them. It is difficult for those of us outside of Nigeria to understand this, and it is in part because of this lack of understanding that so few in the United States, especially those with affiliations to religious groups in Nigeria that have endorsed the legislation (like many readers of Titus One Nine or Stand Firm in Faith), can grasp the magnitude of the situation. Yet regardless of our ignorance, Nigerians themselves understand quite well that this legislation is intended to stamp out speech, prevent gay and lesbian organizations from organizing, and make second-class citizens of "suspected" homosexuals.

This is not academic. It's not the same debate as is commonly heard in the US and Europe about granting the same rights, priveleges and responsibilities to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples. It's a real threat to the lives of what could amount to millions of Nigerians. Those complicit in this legislation's passage, both within Nigeria and without, will have a lot to answer for.

For more on the American and Anglican angles on this story, read here, here and here.

Oh, Martyn

2006-12-07T11:58:00.000-05:00

A note of uncertain date by Martyn Minns of Truro Parish regarding Archbishop Akinola's attitude toward imprisoning gay and lesbian Nigerians has appeared on Truro's website. Here's an excerpt (h/t ThinkingAnglicans):

In a recent Washington Post article, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola was characterized as "an advocate of jailing gays." That is not true.

Archbishop Akinola believes that all people—whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation—are made in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect. "We are all broken and need the transforming love of God," Archbishop Akinola said to me during a recent conversation.

Archbishop Akinola may say one thing to the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns when they're in private meeting, but he does quite another in his public statements. If Akinola doesn't advocate jailing gays, then why, on at least two separate occasions (here and here), did he endorse legislation that would do so? Where were the caveats? I guess the "transforming love of God" is some pretty tough love if disagreeing with the good Archbishop could put you in a jail like this.

As Jim Naughton says [my emphasis]:

One does not support laws criminalizing certain activities unless one wants to put the people who break those laws in jail. Archbishop Akinola supports a piece of Nigerian legislation that includes the possibility of five year's imprisonment for gay people, and their advocates, should those people exercise rights to speech, assembly and religion in ways that the law proscribes. As I've pointed out numerous times, this bill has been criticized by the U. S. Department of State and numerous human rights groups.

... Leaving the Episcopal Church does not require associating with those who endorse the violation of human rights. It does not require associating with those who bear false witness against their enemies. This is a choice Bishop Minns has made freely. It is a choice that the vestries of Truro Church and the Falls Church have made freely as well. They are entitled to their choice, but we are entitled to elucidate what they have chosen.

Can't say it better than that.

UPDATE: I should add that Bishop Minns has had plenty of time to deal with the confusion and controversy surrounding this situation. He was in a position, all along, to simultaneously push Archbishop Akinola to stand down from his strong stance on this legislation and realign his parish with the Church of Nigeria.

I don't see how those two actions would have been incompatible, except that to do so would have softened the political aims of the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church.

Frankly, I'm surprised. Martyn Minns can read, and he can understand a basic civil rights issue when he sees it. He can also understand that silencing opponents is the wrong path for a Church to take. So, why on Earth has he let this get so unbelievably messy?

Archbishop Akinola DEFINITELY supports legislation in Nigeria that calls for prison sentences for homosexual activity

2006-12-07T01:19:00.000-05:00

American press coverage of all things "church" is too, too careful about offending sensitive ears.

Today's Falls Church News-Press has a story on the upcoming vote by the nearly 300-yr-old Falls Church Episcopal on whether to leave the Episcopal Dioces of Virginia for the Anglican District of Virginia, under the oversight of Primate of the Anglican Province in Nigeria, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola. At the risk of oversimplifying the situation, this vote is nominally over the issue of whether The Falls Church can any longer countenance what they consider to be the permissive position of the Episcopal Church regarding homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and Biblical orthodoxy.

Regular readers of this site are familiar with this story, and with the Nigerian question, so I most certainly won't bore you with details, but the coverage of the vote, written by News-Press staff writer Nicholas F. Benton, is skittish about some of the facts [my emphasis]:

In the Falls Church Episcopal’s case, if the congregational vote goes the way the vestry wants it to, the church will depart the Episcopal denomination in favor of an alternate configuration known as the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).

... The CANA structure the church would affiliate with, should the vote to secede pass, will be under "under the spiritual authority and protection" of Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, described as the "chairman of the Primates of the Global South," according to a letter from Yates to the congregation on Dec. 2.
Archbishop Akinola allegedly supports legislation in Nigeria that calls for prison sentences for homosexual activity. According to a comment on his popular blog this week entitled, "Slouching Toward Nigeria," conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan remarks that the Falls Church Episcopal will be aligning with a bishop "who believes that gays should be incarcerated for the crime of adult consensual sex and that free speech should be curtailed."

First, there is no question that Archbishop Akinola supports prison sentences for engaging in homosexual activity. However, that ship has already sailed -- "sodomy" laws have been on the books in Nigeria since before independence in 1960. No "allegedly" about it, but it's irrelevant.

Second, the issue is not whether Archbishop Akinola supports "sodomy" laws, but that he supports legislation, which has not yet passed, that would curtail the right of gay and lesbian Nigerians to advocate on behalf of same-sex marriage or their sexuality. It would effectively ban the press from discussing homosexuality in a positive light (not that it does now), and it would ban groups from organizing on behalf of changes to the law that would restore those civil rights.

In short, it would do more than simply ban gay marriage (which is not recognized by the state anyway) -- it would remove the basic speech, assembly, press, and free expression of religion rights of a small and vocal minority. It would make gay and lesbian Nigerians "shut up."

But most seriously, the legislation -- which has been endorsed by Archbishop Akinola not once, but twice -- would effectively outlaw a new Anglican gay and lesbian church group in Nigeria that calls for the acceptance of homosexuality within the Church. The legislation, which was introduced just after a series of public excoriations of this new group's leader by Church of Nigeria officials, would effectively silence the Church's political opposition on the issue of homosexuality. While the Church is under no obligation to recognize homosexuality as Changing Attitude would want it to, it is not in the Church's best interest to be perceived as simply gagging its opponents.

Nor is it in the best interest of the congregation of The Falls Church to vote to associate itself more closely with the Church of Nigeria without serious consideration on how Archbishop Akinola's actions will reflect on them and their parish.

To whit, do they wish to be perceived as silencing a gay and lesbian churchgoing minority, and with a prison sentence of 5 years?

Nicholas Benton does a good thing by bringing in Sullivan's short comment, but like many journalists covering this tough issue, he is both too careful, and not careful enough. On the one hand, he uses words like "allegedly" when describing attitudes and actions that are well documented. On the other hand, he follows Sullivan's lead too closely, thinking that the pitfall for The Falls Church is Akinola's opposition to gay marriage, rather than his endorsement of legislation that would put his political opponents in prison just for speaking their minds.

UPDATE: Discussion of the Falls Church story and general issues relating to the Nigerian legislation can be found here on Titus 1:9.

Apparently, the heartland loves him

2006-10-17T07:25:00.000-05:00

Last I looked, Cheney's approval ratings were in the teens (is anyone still publishing his numbers?). So, why the gushy bit about his warm reception in the Heartland? I've never seen a less realistic fluff piece, as if there's nothing else going on in the world. Here are the first two, fun-filled paragraphs:

Grace Mosier lives with her mom and dad, goes to birthday parties, takes ballet classes and is just like a lot of other 6-year-old girls. Except that she happens to be obsessed with Dick Cheney.

“I really, really like him,” says Grace, who can tell you what state the vice president was born in (Nebraska), where he went to grade school (College View, in Lincoln) and the names of his dogs (Dave and Jackson). She gets her fix of Cheney fun-facts by visiting the White House Web site for children. It says there that his favorite teacher was Miss Duffield and that he used to run a company called Halliburton.

So, his approval rating is in the teens, but his real base is among the children. That sounds about right.

Anyone else wanna barf?

Tolerance not dead in Nigeria?

2006-10-16T15:45:00.000-05:00

From the Weekly Trust out of northern Nigeria (Kaduna, October 15):

In a bid to provide an intellectual platform for ventilation of ideas on specific cultural topics, the National Institute for Cultural Orientation (NICO) recently held a roundtable conference in Jos to review the significance of tolerance in promoting cultural orientation.
Participants in the two-day conference on 'Culture, Tolerance and Nation Building' have identified lack of dialogue and proper education as some of the leading factors responsible for the culture of intolerance in Nigeria.
In a communiqué issued at the end of the conference, the conferees also noted the need for rule of law to help appreciate the tolerance of alternative views.

The NICO conference is clearly meant to address the rising tide of ethnic violence that threatens Nigeria as the April 2007 presidential elections approach. As they say, the "rule of law" is needed to help Nigerians "appreciate the tolerance of alternative views."

But according to Archbishop Akinola of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican), homosexuality is sufficiently "unAfrican" that those Nigerian homosexuals who simply speak out on their own behalf deserve 5 years in jail (pdf).

Is there a contradiction here? Is "tolerance" unAfrican, too? Or must the Church of Nigeria (along with all Nigerians) accept that, while they may oppose homosexuality, silencing the voices of gay and lesbian Nigerians with a prison term would be a gravely intolerant, uncivil, and deeply counterproductive gesture?

(For skeptics out there, the proper point of comparison here is not between homosexuality and pedophilia, both of which are "Western" values according to the Communications Director of the Church of Nigeria, but between the abrogation of civil rights and the internecine violence and intimidation that has plagued Nigeria since independence. Banning "gay" speech is just another slip along the seemingly inevitable slipperly slope of Nigerian institutional corruption, anti-democracy, and violence. Without a blanket understanding of what tolerance is and what it means for healthy civil society, the country may be doomed.)

Attaboy!

2006-10-03T10:31:00.000-05:00

From the inimitable Digby:

They can look over any given transcript of the Chris Matthews show during the Lewinsky scandal and see how the Democrats who were forced to do this handled the situation. They were required to make this disclaimer, in ever more florid terms as the scandal unfolded, each time they appeared on television.

... They will also find in those transcripts the approved Republican talking points of the period which repeatedly claimed how repulsive and nauseating it was for a middle aged man to become involved with a 22 year old who worked in his office. That might give them some clues about what's about to happen to them. This time, of course, you have the specter of multiple 16 year old victims, the perpetrator being a closeted, gay Catholic Republican and the House leadership pretty much giving the guy a thumbs up and an "attaboy" --- so there's a lot more for their opponents to work with.

Digby's on a roll.

The news cycle for at least the next two weeks

2006-09-30T21:08:00.000-05:00

House Majority Leader Boehner, Speaker of the House Hastert, and NRCC chairman Reynolds may now be in a position where they're asked to resign. From the New York Times:

Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.

This is not going away. Says Christopher Shays (R.-Conn.):

If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership.

And I should add, for those of you who say this is just politics, even if the Democrats had pushed this story to come out on Friday of all days, right at the end of this Congress, does it absolve the GOP leadership of their responsibility to have policed their own caucus? No, it doesn't.

This is where politics over ethics and policy leads us. Let's kick the bums out.

An enterprising Christianist ...

2006-09-30T13:48:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

... might use the "Mark Foley scandal" as a means of arguing, yet again, that homosexuality equals pedophilia, thus spinning the unbelievable damage this will do to the GOP in the coming weeks into some kind of Marilyn Musgrave-style victory (good luck!). While I harbor no sympathy for Congressman Foley's gross misconduct, Andrew Sullivan's recent words are particularly helpful in understanding it:

... the news about Mark Foley has a kind of grim inevitability to it. I don't know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up. What the closet does to people - the hypocrisies it fosters, the pathologies it breeds - is brutal. There are many still-closeted gay men in D.C., many of them working for a Republican party that has sadly deeply hostile to gay dignity. How they live with themselves I do not fully understand.

Although I'm not gay, I think that one only has to be a man, gay or straight, to understand the pressures, strains and breakdowns associated with suppressed sexuality. While it must always be kept under control, there is something about the male animal that makes us prone to unhealthy venting when the standard outlets are unavailable.

Mark Foley: a man undoubtedly committed to Republican ideas, destroyed by his own party's intolerance.

UPDATE: October 3, 2006, 11:36. From an email sent around by Gary Bauer of American Values, and former presidential candidate (via Digby) [my emphasis]:

This latest scandal in Washington is just further evidence that the pro-family agenda is desperately needed for the country. We are the ones who have argued that human sexuality should be channeled through marriage. We are the ones who have argued that marriage is between one man and one woman. We are the ones who have argued that schools should teach kids how to read and write and stop handing out condoms and birth control pills. We are the ones who say that all our children should be welcomed into the world under law. We are the ones who say there are reliable standards of right and wrong. And we are the ones who have led the charge against the sexualization of our children.

I told you so. Keep spinning, Gary -- you and people like you are our only hope for keeping this scandal alive until November.

Dennis Hastert: protecting pages from GOP Congressmen

2006-09-29T16:14:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

From the AP (via the NYT):

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he had asked the chairman of the House's page board, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., to investigate the page system. ''We want to make sure that all our pages are safe and the page system is safe,'' Hastert said.

Good idea.

UPDATE: Sept 30, 2006, 00:29. Want to stay up-to-date on this growing scandal? -- go to Talking Points Memo:

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.

This one isn't going away.

UPDATE II: Sept 30, 2006, 00:40. And just in case you weren't sufficiently grossed out, let me push you over the edge (from The Blotter):

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

Foley's gone, Hastert's toast (he appears to have known about this for as much as a year), Pelosi has filed for a House ethics investigation, which won on a 410-0 vote today, and with the Democrats' newly minted 50-state strategy, there's now a credible Democrat running in Florida's 14th (eat Howard Dean's shorts, Rahm Emanuel!).

A plan for the Delta?

2006-09-29T13:01:00.000-05:00

Since the Nigerian government is utterly paralyzed by internal PDP (People's Democratic Party) squabbles about who is more corrupt (i.e., President Obasanjo or Vice-President Abubakar) and by the potential chaos of next year's April elections, I think it's worthwhile to examine what recommendations outside organizations have made for Nigeria to bring the environmental / commercial / social crisis that is the Niger Delta under control.

The International Crisis Group released an executive summary yesterday that is about as comprehensive as such recommendations can get, and whose accompanying report (pdf) would serve as an excellent primer for anyone interested in getting familiar with a region that the US plans to extract as much as 25% of its oil imports by 2015.

ICG's last point:

To the Energy Companies’ Home Countries:

20. Legislate to require companies with overseas operations to publicly disclose all payments to foreign governments. This initiative should be synchronised through the Group of Eight to provide additional credibility to extractive transparency efforts in developing nations.

This is exactly right. I, for one, want to know exactly how Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron are spending their "Exploration" money in Nigeria. Is it being used to bribe government officials (not without precedent), or used to develop the economic involvement of Deltans in mineral extraction programs. And I want to be sure that my cheap oil is not cheap because of the destruction and mismanagement of someone else's backyard.

Hey, Lasky, what about China?

2006-09-29T12:39:00.000-05:00

Ed Lasky, over at the American Thinker, has discounted the threat that Iran poses to global oil markets. He argues compellingly that newly discovered and very large deep-water oil reserves have been discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, that we now have a strategic petroleum reserve to buffer changes (which we didn't have in the '70s), that there has been increased development of African off-shore deepwater fields, and that new oil fields are coming on line in Saudi Arabia. Taken together, he believes that Iran withholding oil from global markets would have little if any effect on global and US markets, and that Ahmadinejad and his disturbingly rational rants can be safely ignored.

He may be right in the short term. After all, the "risk premium" -- or the $20 per barrel we were tacking on to the price of oil to buffer potential supply shortfalls -- has largely evaporated since Bush stopped talking so tough on Iran. (Indeed, in the short- to medium-term, Bush's actions are those most directly responsible for the recent hike in our gas prices: the invasion of Iraq took a good chunk of Persian Gulf oil offline, reducing OPEC's excess production capacity to just above demand, and saber-rattling with Iran unsettled the nerves of oil traders already concerned that a major supply crash could follow.)

But what about the long-term? Lasky makes no mention of India and China, and without a recognition of their growing demand for petroleum, his analysis is almost meaningless. The bottom line is that even with big new discoveries, we are discovering new reserves at a slower rate than we are using them up. Iran may not pose a threat to oil markets today or this year or next year, but the continuing expansion of China's and India's demand for oil will narrow the supply gap until, once again, we're paying a $20, maybe $50, risk premium for the off-chance that 100,000 bpd of production is shut down in Nigeria because some guy gets kidnapped.

Incendiary? Yes

2006-09-29T06:15:00.000-05:00

Read on before you judge.

Maybe Democrats are showing life at just the right time ...

2006-09-28T18:03:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

This is exactly the voice we need to hear, but we need to hear it from entire congressional Democratic delegation. Frankly, I'm surprised to hear it first from Hillary Clinton; I would have expect this from Feingold or Leahy. Perhaps what we're seeing is the beginnings of the kind of bold move necessary to push a beleaguered Democratic party, with a poorly defined public image but every electoral advantage in the world, into a new place -- or perhaps just a place where Hillary looks good as a Presidential candidate. She's still not my first choice by a long-shot, but her spirit is most definitely in the right place.

(h/t to Andrew Sullivan.)

UPDATE Sept. 28, 2006, 19:20: Sorry, Feingold did speak first, in fact.

Well said

2006-09-27T11:46:00.000-05:00

From the New York Times, regarding the declassified summary (pdf) of the April, 2006, National Intelligence Estimate [my emphasis]:

As a political matter, at least for the next few weeks, the intelligence findings will only fuel the argument over Iraq on both sides. Mr. Bush has grown increasingly insistent that nothing he has done in Iraq has worsened terrorism. America was not in Iraq during the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, he said, or during the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole or embassies in Africa, or on 9/11.
But that argument steps around the implicit question raised by the intelligence finding: whether postponing the confrontation with Saddam Hussein and focusing instead on securing Afghanistan, or dealing with issues like Iran’s nascent nuclear capability or the Middle East peace process, might have created a different playing field, one in which jihadists were deprived of daily images of carnage in Iraq to rally their sympathizers.

"Somehow we have to ... "

2006-09-27T10:30:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

I've been hearing this phrase a lot lately regarding the various secondary exacerbations and crises to have arisen from our adventure in Iraq. The latest, and for me the most frustrating, comes from Andrew Sullivan, responding to Bashir Goth's recent Washington Post blog entry. From Goth:

To survive in such unfriendly atmosphere like this, journalists in the Muslim world have become like parrots that only echo the official line. Torn between the call of professionalism and that of censorship, they have to always adhere to the call of the latter. If it takes a village to raise a child in Africa, it takes a community to kill a writer, artist and a journalist in the Muslim world.

Responds Sullivan [my emphasis]:

And so the backwardness deepens; and the ressentiment intensifies; and the censorship grows. Somehow we have to reverse this cycle of conformity and fear - there, and, to a mercifully much lesser extent, here.

What's my frustration, you ask? On the surface, I can disagree with nothing substantive that Sullivan has penned on the subject in the last several years, but I am always left unsatisfied. I want to know what we are going to do about Iran, Muslim democracy, and the unfolding civil war in Iraq. Sullivan quite rightly brings up all the little things that should make us afraid -- he is serious about taking real threats into account -- but he stops short of offering solutions.

Iran is dangerous: but do we invade? As Goth writes, free speech is not a guarantee to Muslim writers: do we invade? Women live under the burqas and the threat of assassination for driving a car in Iraq: do we invade? Oh, wait ...

The set to which Sullivan now belongs -- and it's an expanding one -- is those who supported the war in Iraq for the "right reasons", i.e., our desire to spread democracy, to save ourselves from another terrorist attack, and to show the world that we will not be pushed around, but which is now realizing with every new revelation about our government's incompetence and the scale of the risk we were taking that the war was a very bad idea. (I'm not talking about Afghanistan -- I think that was the right war, and it could have been brilliant had we decided to stick around with half the commitment we made in Iraq.)

Now, what Sullivan is left with is a overexcersized sense of outrage at all of the low-hanging fruit of the kind we see in Iran, and in Goth's comment, that drew him to support the war in Iraq in the first place. Unfortunately for him (but perhaps fortunately for the rest of us) there is no credible and belligerent anti-Iran US foreign policy behind which he can put his considerable rhetorical strengths. When he says "Somehow we have to ... " but goes no further, he leaves us standing at the altar, wondering if we should really have given him that second chance.

Perhaps recognizing how impotent his words about "scary" Ahmadinejad have become when there are no immediate plans to invade Iran -- if you want proof of the lack of imminent plans, look at the recent and very significant drops in oil prices from $75 a barrel to about $61 -- Sullivan posts a comment from a reader, who says [my emphasis]:

I find myself troubled by your recent posting. Specifically, the line, "We have a dictator on the brink of nukes." By all indications, the Iranian regime is at the very least, 6-7 years away from a working nuclear weapon. Most estimates give it a decade, as in around the year 2016. Some predict more time. I have seen no credible reports that they are remotely close to a nuclear weapon. Have you?

Also, Ahmadinejad is not a dictator. He cannot make decisions without the specific approval of Supreme Leader Khamenei. A small point, but still.

I understand the difficulty in projecting domestic politics in a country as hostile as Iran. However, we know that Ahmadinejad is facing a dearth of support in his country over his economic failures, when he was elected largely on an economic populist platform. Seeing how the key issue driving his popularity appears to be his belligerence and feistiness towards the USA, instead of adapting a hard-line stance and feeding into his popularity, it puzzles me why we don't treat him like the pretend fraud he is.

Indeed.

UPDATE 9/27/2006 12:32: Apparently Sullivan did know what a "high-risk adventure" the Iraq invasion was going to be:

We knew occupying a Muslim country would be a very high-risk venture.

I've read his blog since 2002. His recognition of what we knew is news to me -- but I'm ready to stand corrected.

Exactly my fear

2006-09-25T09:04:00.000-05:00

About the inevitable separation of The Episcopal Church from the remaining Anglican Communion, and the future of the conservative Anglicans who remain in the US, Jim Naughton nails my worries precisely:

Once the struggle is over, they are a group of perhaps a quarter million members on the crowded right wing of the American religious landscape, handicapped by the fact that they are more or less invisible in most of the country. Their leader, Peter Akinola, advocates putting gay people and thier allies in prison. And their banker, Howard Ahmanson once told the Orange County Register that while he no longer believed that it was "essential" to stone gay people, he would be hardpressed to say that such the practice was "inherently immoral."

Once they "win", and they will, conservative American Anglicans won't look too rosy.

Islam can be (and often is) a good-faith player for peace in Nigeria

2006-09-24T21:53:00.000-05:00

The comments posted to a blog should never be considered a pure reflection of the blog itself or of the readers of the blog (there's too much self-selection in who actually posts comments), but I found a recent thread on titusonenine (a blog run by Rev Canon Kendall Harmon of South Carolina) regarding recent riots in Nigeria by Muslims against Christian-minority churches and property to be disturbing. One commenter wrote:

Ah yes. Islam, the religion of peace.

Since I easily grow tired of this kind of Michelle Malkin-style religious polarization, the kind occassionally seeded by the Institute on Religion and Democracy, I got involved in the thread, pointing out, as one can see if they go to the end of the thread, that the violence is much more complicated than a "my prophet is better than your prophet" sort of struggle.

In fact, Muslim leaders in Nigeria, both religious and civil, seeing the coming electoral conflict in 2007, are working hard to stem this tide of internecine religious conflict, just as their Christian counterparts are doing so in the Church of Nigeria (Anglican). In the Vanguard yesterday (September 23) [my emphasis]:

In a special announcement made on the state-owned Kaduna State Radio Corporation (KSMC) Mr Ibhaze [the state police commissioner] said his command was reliably informed that trouble makers wanted to ferment trouble either yesterday or immediately after today's Jumat prayers pointing out that the aim was to cause violence and destruction.
Ibhaze said: "good morning the good and peace loving people of Kaduna State. As we look forward to sighting the moon any moment from today, I wish you Allah's blessings and a rewarding ramadan fast.
"We are reliably informed that some trouble makers want to infiltrate our faithful worshippers today (22/9/2006) during or immediately after the Friday prayers. Their aim is to cause trouble and cause a reign of destruction in this peace loving state.
"My dear good people of Kaduna state, I urge you to say no to violence; no to riots and no to destruction.
"What we need at this stage, is prayers and sober reflection so that Muslims and their Christian brothers can continue to live in peace. The police has not granted any body or group permit to do a precession or rally.
"Anyone who ferments trouble or sponsors chaos will be arrested and prosecuted. A word is enough for the wise."

The "threat" of Islam is commonly used, by the allies of Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola, to explain or deflect criticism of his actions. To whit, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh (Episcopal) wrote the following Friday regarding the recent move by the Anglican Communion's Global South Bishops to call for an idealogically purified and separate Anglican Church in the United States [my emphasis]:

We are deeply humbled by the care shown for us by our Fathers in God in the Global South ... In many places they and the Anglicans they pastor face poverty, disease and persecution for their faith on a scale that goes far beyond anything that threatens us. In fact, just this week, Anglicans in Nigeria saw their cathedral in Dutse burned to the ground by rioting Muslims. Yet, in the midst of dealing with these massive issues, they continue to offer us their support and guidance. We can only be profoundly grateful.

The same "threat of Islam" was used by Bishop Duncan (back in March, 2006) to rationalize the fully anti-democratic, anti-gay legislation that had been endorsed by Archbishop Akinola (an excerpt):

Bishop Chane's comments betray a profound lack of empathy or understanding for the position that Archbishop Akinola and all Christians in Nigeria find themselves in. During the last few weeks in Nigeria, an archdeacon has been murdered and two bishops have survived assassination attempts.

All were attacked by what appear to be Islamic extremists. During the same time, Islamic violence ignited by the publishing of Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed have claimed the lives of scores of lay Christians and seen numerous churches destroyed in Nigeria.

Further, it should be noted that while the proposed law sounds harsh to American ears, the penalty for homosexual activities in those parts of Africa under Islamic Sharia law (such as the Sudan and portions of Northern Nigeria for that matter) is death. It is precisely the imposition of these much harsher Sharia laws that Archbishop Akinola and other Anglican leaders in Africa have resisted so strongly for many years with little publicity or support from the West.

You seeing the pattern? Islam has become a convenient scapegoat for all kinds of anti-democratic initiatives.

Nice try, guys, but if Islam is such a threat to minorities and thus to democracy, then face up to it with a higher standard (i.e., a commitment to real democracy)! If it's not the threat you make it out to be, as suggested by the very well-meaning words of Commissioner Ibhaze above, then start answering criticism with facts and substance!

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

2006-09-22T17:55:00.000-05:00

From Billmon, on the lastest in the "America Is Losing Its Soul" saga.

No guilt by association

2006-09-20T06:52:00.000-05:00

The most serious charges (or criticisms) I've seen yet against my last two posts about the Nigerian anti-homosexuality bill (see here and here) have come from a commenter on Jim Naughton's Daily Episcopalian, who says that I am out to get the Anglican Communion Network (which is theologically closely aligned with Archbishop Akinola) and that I wish to cast guilt by association on Akinola's US bishop, Martyn Minns, or on the Network's moderator, Bishop Robert Duncan, for not denouncing the legislation. The commenter points out, quite rightly, that while both of these church leaders have commented on the bill, neither has endorsed it. In fact, their comments leave bread crumbs to the conclusion that they in fact do not support it at all.

My claim is actually that American conservative Anglicans are not taking the legislation seriously, and that, as their leaders, both Minns and Duncan have a responsibility to do so, and to react accordingly. While trying to think of a verbal explanation as to why the Akinola-endorsed legislation is so totally out of bounds, I came up with the following illustration (here, black and white have no moral significance):

(Please note that "divine" discourse is defined very broadly to include the core beliefs of agnostics -- yes, even agnostics have strong moral beliefs).

Both sides of the church-state debate have a disturbing tendency to want to claim the entire gray area for themselves. American evangelicals now have a history of attempting to make gay marriage an impossibility for all Americans regardless of their faith. Civil libertarians (including many in the Episcopal Church) now have a history of attempting to rewrite the central message of Christianity to accommodate what is, in fact, a rather derived notion of tolerance (i.e., "tolerance" means to accept the behavior of others, rather than simply to tolerate it). Like the religious right, the new "religious left" has its own version of the Gospel, one that is heavily influenced by civil libertarianism and social justice (two things to which I am quite partial), that it wants to impose politically on everyone else.

In reality, neither side can claim the "gray area" for themselves without asking the other side to compromise their own "divine discourse." The issues in the "gray area" relate to both important civil liberties (which are important) and core moral issues (which are also important). The direction that society takes when resolving these issues must therefore accept input from both sides as the result of a rational, if spirited, debate: the co-equal importance of civil and divine discourse (insofar as we all want to live together in peace) must not be denied.

It is here that the Nigerian bill and Archbishop Akinola's endorsement of that bill have crossed the line. What the bill asks of the debate surrounding homosexuality (let alone same-sex marriage, which this bill is not about) is that one side be completely shut out; that is, that the importance of civil discourse be ignored. I am not saying that gay marriage should be made legal in Nigeria, nor am I saying that there shouldn't be a debate about homosexuality. But with this legislation, there would be no debate at all, only 5 year prison sentences.

For this reason, and this reason alone, I have repeatedly called on Minns and Duncan, and their associates, to make a clear denunciation of the legislation -- for their own conscience, for the sake of the reputation of the emerging conservative Anglican Church in the US, and for the sake of the perhaps 1 million Nigerians whose voices would be silenced.

With his endorsement, Akinola has shown a desire to impose his God's Dominion on the lives of all Nigerians, regardless of their core moral beliefs. He has Nigerian colleagues in other faiths and denominations that agree with him, but that only makes his movement to outlaw "gayness" just another form of mob rule. There are dominionist Christians in the US who have made similar desires known. Are American Anglicans now among them?

What kind of black eye are Minns and the ACN hoping for?

2006-09-18T17:44:00.000-05:00

This is getting ridiculous.

From the Church of Nigeria's (Anglican) Message to the Nation, dated 15th September, 2006 [my emphasis]:

The Church affirms our commitment to the total rejection of the evil of homosexuality which is a perversion of human dignity and encourages the National Assembly to ratify the Bill prohibiting the legality of homosexuality since it is incongruent with the teachings of the Bible, Quran and the basic African traditional values.

Since this same sentiment was expressed in an earlier March "Message to the Nation", it isn't anything new, but I have to say that it doesn't get clearer than this. The Anglican Church is calling for homosexuality to be made ILLEGAL. Not just in terms of gay marriage (which isn't recognized in Nigeria), not just in terms of "sodomy" (which is already subject to a 14 year prison sentence), but in terms of the basic rights of a minority group to speak out on its own behalf.

There's no room for nuance. In calling for this legislation to be passed, the Primate of All Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, is explicitly calling for the end of one group's lawful participation in civil society.

We have heard his arguments, and the arguments of his supporters, before:

They argue that the Archbishop must call for this legislation to be enacted lest he appear weak in front of Nigerian Muslims. Of course, the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson in 2003 was personally embarrasing to Archbishop Akinola, as there were Muslims in Nigeria who criticized the Anglican Church for being morally degenerate, but there is no Christian moral or political principle to which Akinola and his allies can hold when calling for a ban on civil discourse among and by homosexuals because "Muslims made them do it." If, as our President says, this century is to be characterized by a grand idealogical struggle between Western and extremist values, this is hardly the time for the cool heads in the Anglican Communion to start giving in to or -- more than that -- encouraging extremist behavior. Also, religious conflict in Nigeria is commonly made to look like it is more than it really is. While the violence that has erupted between Nigerian Christians and Muslims is all too real, political leaders on either side (but especially on the Nigerian Muslim side) have a disturbing tendency to foment civil unrest to consolidate their "victim" status among their own people.

They argue that gay marriage is not recognized here in the US, and that there is nothing wrong with banning it in Nigeria. First, there is no state government in the Federal Republic of Nigeria that is planning to institute civil recognition of same-sex marriages or partnerships. Neither are such unions federally recognized. Thus, there is no current threat to Nigerian marriage law that this bill would redress. Second, the bill would do so much more than ban gay marriage. It would make it illegal to perform a private same-sex marriage ceremony -- even without civil recognition. Violators of this law, who in this case would be acting on their personal convictions in private, would be subject to 5 years' imprisonment. The bill would make it illegal to hold meetings or organize in the hopes of reversing the law, should it pass. The bill would make it illegal to depict homosexuality in any way in the press. It would make it illegal to display same-sex affection in public (I hope straight Nigerian male friends don't hold hands like they customarily do in Iraq). It is because of these extra steps taken by the Nigerian bill that the Rt Rev Martyn Minns' argument in his response to Bishop John Bryson Chane's February 2006 Washington Post op-ed rung so hollow, when Minns said that
... I am very much aware that even in the Commonwealth of Virginia there are still laws that deal with various 'Crimes against Nature' and in particular homosexual practice and adultery. The continued existence of these laws is a reflection of our own society’s struggle to find a way to support and protect heterosexual marriage while at the same time acknowledging the human rights of all persons.
This is not just about gay marriage or about "crimes against nature" -- it's about silencing a minority.

They argue that the idealogical left's concern for protection "speech" is all so much hypocrisy so long as there are "hate crime" laws in Sweden, the UK, and Canada that prohibit the Church -- or anyone for that matter -- from speaking out against homosexuality. The simple rejoinder to this argument -- and by the way I'm not totally comfortable with those laws, whatever their details -- is that those laws limit the right of a majority to speak out against a minority, whereas the Nigerian law abolishes the right of a minority to speak out for itself. Now, tell me there's any shred of moral equivalency here!

Enough is enough. Not commonly known by many Americans is that the same Nigerian church leader (Akinola) who is calling for the extermination of the civil voice of a sizeable minority within his own country is now ecclesiologically empowered to act in the US through his new Missionary Bishop, the Rt Rev Martyn Minns (see here). Conservative Christianity has already taken a very hard right turn into some very dark political corners, but I am sure that conservative Anglicans in the US and elsewhere would agree with me that this is not how they want to represent themselves to their fellow citizens.

I'm going to leave aside all issues of "church law" and what the future of the Anglican Communion is to make a simple, declarative statement, one that has no bearing on their theological position with respect to homosexuality (about which I care very little): Bishop Minns, and his allies in the Anglican Communion Network, have no moral alternative but to call for this legislation to be withdrawn (as the US Department of State has done), or at the very least make a clear statement of disassociation. If they can't do this now, then from here forward let them never again declare their support of the rights of the minority in the face of a majoritartian, idealogical onslaught (are you hearing this, Institute on Religion and Democracy?). They will have impeached themselves utterly.

Hat tip to the Daily Episcopalian and Thinking Anglicans in re: the Church of Nigeria letter. Mark Harris has further coverage (here and here).

PS. Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney (Anglican) had these words to say -- out of the blue -- about a supposed Akinola quote regarding homosexuality (hat tip to an anonymous commenter):

I'd like to add something else to that last point before I go into that, and that is to say that and if Archbishop Akinola ever did say something like that [that "gay men and women are lower than pigs"], which he may or may not have, I would utterly repudiate it and next time I see him, not that I see him very often, perhaps twice I've met him, I would certainly tell him so in no uncertain terms. It is reprehensible that he should speak like that. And that's as clear as anything. I just want to make that clear, because sometimes it's felt that one might associate with such speech, and I certainly don't.

Hopefully, Jensen has the same position on the Nigerian bill. At least, he should. I should point out that in late June of this year, it looked as though Bishop Duncan, the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, might make such a disassociation himself.

The Toxic Texan's U-turn

2006-09-17T15:21:00.000-05:00

From the Independent (UK), Sept 17:

President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say.
After years of trying to sabotage agreements to tackle climate change he is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources.
...
Environmentalists expect the measures to fall far short of what is needed, but say this does not matter. "The very fact that Bush would reverse his position will liberate many Republicans to vote for meaningful pollution cuts," says Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

But Iain Murray, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mr Bush's chief climate change cheerleader, is deeply alarmed: "We are left with the unpleasant conclusion that the only motivation is political."

Nigeria: Why doesn't the Anglican Communion Network come clean and speak out?

2006-09-13T14:30:00.000-05:00

[edited for style, 22:14, 9/14/2006; updated with a link to the bill's text, 00:39, 9/15/2006]

One can't help feeling impotent when railing about civil rights violations in another country. Even in my own country, the United States, any effort I make to change the Administration's policy on extraordinary rendition or their tendency to alienate rather than embrace moderates in Muslim countries will be utterly without effect. Bush doesn't read my blog. Neither do civil rights violators in Africa.

As actual readers of this blog know, this January saw the introduction to the Nigerian Federal Assembly of a bill that is designed to strip basic speech, press, and assembly rights, not to mention freedom of religion, from gay and lesbian citizens of Nigeria. While called the "Same-sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006" (pdf) -- and thus ostensibly targeted at ensuring that same-sex civil marriages are not recognized by the Nigerian government -- no one was fooled. The bill (available here as a PDF, and originally made available to me by Sokari at Black Looks) contains provisions that make it illegal, and punishable with a 5 year jail sentence, to form clubs that defend homosexuality, or worse to speak out individually. If the bill passed, and you were a witness of a gay marriage in Nigeria (even though the marriage is not recognized by the state), you would be subject to a similar penalty, as you would be if you engaged in public procession or printed stories in the press that defended homosexuality.

What has always made this bill peculiar, though, was not its draconian character, but the timing of its presentation only a few weeks after a new Anglican gay and lesbian organization began meeting in Nigeria's capital city, Abuja, and the coastal Lagos. While involvement by the Anglican Church of Nigeria in the writing or presentation of the bill has not been confirmed, the endorsement of the bill by the Church's leader, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, strongly suggests that the appearance of a gay Anglican group in their midst prompted the Federal Government to quickly draft and present legislation that would explicitly ban such organizations. A cursory history of the legislation can be found here.

Even more troubling than the Anglican Church of Nigeria endorsing the legislation -- which would imprison the church's declared theological enemies -- is the acquiescence of Archbishop Akinola's allies in the United States. As I said above, there is little I can do about anything in Nigeria, but it is certainly a worthwhile activity to point out to the conservative factions within the Anglican Church -- which are currently undergoing a significant realignment out of the Episcopal Church and into other branches of the global Anglican Communion -- that their compacency is suicidally short-sighted.

Perhaps the theologically orthodox Anglican Communion Network (ACN), which is the closest Church ally of Akinola in North America, feels that the lay people and clergy they represent have no objection to imprisoning homosexuals for their beliefs (let alone for their actions -- "sodomy" is already illegal in Nigeria and subject to a far greater sentence). As far as I can tell, most in the ACN are unaware that the the Nigerian bill would do more than just ban gay marriage. (A bill to ban gay marriage, when no State in Nigeria currently allows it, is a pointless effort, anyway.) They don't realize that the greatest effect of the bill would be to strip gay and lesbian Nigerians of civil rights that we in the US reserve for even the most odious (for example, the right to a free and fair trial is granted to all -- ahem -- regardless of how evil they might be).

The Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, now the Anglican Church of Nigeria's bishop in residence in the United States, provided a defense of the legislation that never mentioned the concrete prohibitions contained in the legislation, focusing instead on his belief that critics of Akinola were attacking him ad hominem. While Minns says that he "does NOT believe that criminalization is an appropriate response to those who understand themselves to be homosexuals", his statement would have had much more force if he were to have stated clearly that endorsing legislation that would put "those who understand themselves to be homosexuals" in jail for their speech is no way for a Church to behave. It reflects badly on Minns, it reflects badly on the Anglican Communion Network, and it refects badly on its supporters.

The Nigerian bill (pdf), though it has not yet passed, is most certainly not dead. The greatest danger posed by the bill is not so much that people would be put in jail (my guess is that actual prosecutions and convictions of Nigerians who violate the new law would be rare), but that it institutionalizes discrimination. Police harassment will become even more intense than it already is, and with its endorsement the Church of Nigeria will have signalled to its people both that gay and lesbian Nigerians are not be tolerated -- thus eliminating any remaining credibility in their stated position that they welcome all to the Church -- and that they are overt partners with the State in enacting laws with explicitly religious underpinnings.

As I have made very clear elsewhere, I believe the Church to have every right to define its beliefs as it wishes. But it is instructive to read how the subject is really discussed in the Nigerian press (from This Day, Lagos, September 7). Note the stereotyping, and the fact that the article focuses entirely on the "gay marriage" part of the bill, ignoring entirely the part that would commit massive civil rights violations [emphasis mine]:

In the past, around the central market in Kaduna they could be easily seen as they wait for customers. Quite a spectacle: painted lips, ear rings, neck laces complete with all sorts of rings on their fingers. They have imbibed the feminine mannerisms completely in their ways of life. They are homosexuals, now called men having sex with men.
Loathed and scorned by many in the Nigerian society, a combination of factors have driven underground the unrepentant army of homosexuals in the country. Within the central market, Kaduna where they used to practice their unusual past time openly, they are no longer seen, just as elsewhere in Nigeria. Within the secular and religious authorities, no sector has spared this group of individuals, who are treated as outcasts in the society.
In January this year, in a major pre-emptive move that has continued to receive public applause, the Federal Executive Council approved a Bill on the nefarious practice. If passed by the National Assembly, the bill would have the effect of banning the same-sex marriage in Nigeria. The new law, according to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Bayo Ojo, will provide for outright prohibition of two men entering into what they wrongly perceive as marriage or two women entering into what they wrongly perceive as marriage. The bill prescribes a five-year jail sentence without an option of fine for offenders. Also, any persons or institutions, which expressly or implicitly, aid or abet such an aberration, would equally receive the same jail sentence of five years.
While explaining the position of the government on the issue, Mr. Frank Nweke, Information Minister, stated: "It is an offence for anybody to contract a marriage or have a relationship with a person of the same sex. If you do, it carries a sentence of five years imprisonment without the option of fine, and if you aid or support in any way, anybody of the same sex to contract a relationship or marriage, it will also attract five years imprisonment." [Remember, there is no state in Nigeria that currently issues marriage licenses to gay couples -- this part of the bill is moot. -- MVT]
Home to the world's largest Anglican province, Nigeria is leading the resistance against accepting gays in the Anglican Communion.
Among the clergy in Nigeria, they have never been equivocal in condemning the practice, which they regard as sinful. But, particularly, among the Anglicans, the controversy raised a notch ever since the ordination of an openly gay New Hampshire bishop in 2004. It exposed a deepening fault line between conservative Christianity flourishing in many developing countries and more liberal doctrines preached elsewhere. It also underscores a long-standing intolerance of homosexuality in Africa, which carries very secular implications.
Homosexuals are certainly not welcome in Nigeria's 17 million-member Anglican Church [!!!!! -- MVT], whose primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, condemned the consecration of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as an openly gay bishop as a "satanic attack on the Church of God."
Akinola severed relations both with Robinson's New Hampshire diocese and with a Canadian one last year for accepting homosexuals. Should the church formally split over homosexuality, Akinola -- who has a large membership -is considered the likely leader of a conservative spinoff.
"Homosexuality is a deviation from the Scriptures," Dr. Adebola Ademowo, Archbishop of Lagos [Anglican], declared in the wake of the controversy, which has put the Nigerian clergy in the forefront of the campaign against same sex marriage. "And we are not alone in this belief. All the other denominations here are just enthused with our stance. They are praying with us", Ademowo added.

Read it all.

Sure, the ACN is in the midst of a political battle with the Episcopal Church that makes it difficult for them to express any criticism of Akinola, but they (and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams) are unwise to think that their unexamined allegiance to everything Akinola has said and done will yield positive fruit in the end.

PS: It's not just Nigeria that is teetering on this cliff of massive discrimination. Assuming at the very least 1% of Nigerians are homosexual, the Nigerian bill would put civil rights limitations on well over 1 million people. In Uganda, where the press has already taken on the responsibility of publicly outing its gay citizens, we would be talking about 200,000. Are conservative Anglicans in the US, who also have significant ties with the Ugandan Church, willing to take on this responsibility?

UPDATE: I should note that the US Government has already made clear its objections to the proposed law.

Digby on 9/11

2006-09-12T09:37:00.000-05:00

I'm so glad that someone who writes so well is out there putting my thoughts so eloquently into words.

If you haven't yet read Digby's spot-on post -- or if for some reason you want to know exactly what I was thinking on the morning of 9/11/01 -- read it now.

Finally: data!

2006-09-08T23:11:00.000-05:00

After about two years+ of dreaming about the feasibility of the project I've been working on, I finally have positive results (and they're better than I thought they'd be). I don't expect anyone to understand what this picture means (unless you're a phloem biologist), but I can't resist publishing at least one picture. It's still a crude image -- I need to do a lot more work on different microscopes to sharpen it -- but here it is:

ABC and unbelievable right-wing hypocrisy

2006-09-08T07:01:00.000-05:00

ABC's 9/11 "docudrama", The Path to 9/11 -- which, among other things, claims in a highly publicized dramatization that Clinton had his finger on the button to take out bin Laden but declined to do so because of potential "political fallout" from Arab nations (all controverted by the 9/11 commission report, BTW) -- is raising cain in the blogosphere, not least because only right-wing media outlets have been permitted to view it. Not on the list of screeners: Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and virtually any other Clinton official you can imagine.

President Clinton and his attorneys have lodged a letter of protest with ABC, and rightfully so. As Glenn Greenwald points out, it wasn't too long ago that Bush supporters were fighting for historical accuracy in media portrayals of their own favorite president:

When CBS announced in November, 2003 that it would broadcast a mini-series it produced about Ronald and Nancy Reagan called "The Reagans," Matt Drudge obtained excerpts from the script and published them. That led to right-wing bloggers, organizations and pundits, along with the RNC itself, demanding that CBS cancel the broadcast, which it did (moving it instead to Showtime, with a panel discussion afterwards filled with critics of the film).

Here's what Ed Gillespie, the then-RNC chair, said about "The Reagans" back on 11/06/2003 [emphasis Glenn's]:

GILLESPIE: And I think it was important that it be historically accurate. And if they didn't intend to make it historically accurate to make sure that viewers understood that it was not intended to be historically accurate but a fictional portrayal. So we made two requests: One is having historians review it for accuracy if you're going to broadcast it. And if you're unwilling to do that, inform the viewers that it's not historically accurate. That's not censorship, that's common sense ...

I've sent a similar letter to the head of Showtime making the same point: "If you're not willing to have it reviewed for historical accuracy, make sure your viewers understand that it's a fictional portrayal. You know, in this society that we live in and with the media culture that we have, there's infotainment and docudrama and reality TV, and the lines between fact and fiction blur. That's fine when it's entertainment, but when you're talking about the formative phase of the Reagan legacy formation, I think that it's important that we get things right. ...

I think that same standard should apply to the late president John F. Kennedy or to Jimmy Carter or any president. If you're going to portray a presidency and a president, I think you should do all you can to make sure it's accurate. ...

The irony is so deep now that that even Al Franken is running satirical "excertps" from the Path to 9/11 involving Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Bill Clinton all snorting coke off the chest of Madeleine Albright.

Read Glenn's entire post to see the increasingly long and updated list of hypocrisy by some of conservative media's most strident voices.

Qatar and dead fish

2006-09-08T06:51:00.000-05:00

Is this panel of Qatari environmental experts right when they say that the dead fish washing ashore on Qatar's beaches are the victims of global warming, and not of the polluted effluent of passing ships?

Or is this one in an upcoming series of cynical attempts by governments to pass off their responsibility for local pollution on a global problem over which they have little control?

I don't know.

But as it finally gains acceptance among world leaders, expect "global warming" to get the blame for a whole lot of unrelated environmental problems.

When climate change conferences attack

2006-09-08T00:11:00.000-05:00

Oh, my. Balooooooons.

Another enviro-kook for climate stabilization

2006-09-08T00:07:00.000-05:00

This time, from the British gov't:

Governments have traditionally invested in instruments of hard power as a backstop against the consequences of political and diplomatic failure.

But there is no hard power option either for mitigating climate change or for dealing with its direct impacts. You cannot use military force to make everyone else on the planet reduce their carbon emissions. No weapon system can halt the advance of a hurricane bearing down on a city, or stem the rising sea, or stop the glaciers melting.

If we want to achieve climate security, governments will need to invest more resources in the emerging techniques of soft power. There is no backstop: the politics and diplomacy have to work.

Follow the insurance money

2006-09-05T22:56:00.000-05:00

From Reuters (Sept 5) [emphasis mine]:

Unless climate change slows, insurers warn, years like 2005, when their catastrophe bill topped $80 billion, could become the norm, with premiums for those in disaster-prone areas soaring, and some regions becoming uninsurable.

But insurers have been criticised for not doing enough to encourage their clients to be more environmentally friendly.

"It is in the industry's best interests ... to seize this moment to act on what is likely to become the greatest risk the industry has ever faced," concluded a recent report by Ceres, a powerful coalition of American investors, environmental groups and other public interest organisations.

You know when the insurance industry gets involved that it's something to take seriously.

Australians surprised by rapid climate change

2006-09-05T22:47:00.000-05:00

Quote from The Border Mail:

Prof Peter Cullen, from the National Water Commission, said experts had expected the changes, which have left much of the country suffering drought conditions, but thought they would take much longer to take effect.

Why don't we talk like this in the US?

The head of the Joint Task Force on Iraq's WMD at the CIA in 2003

2006-09-05T21:03:00.000-05:00

There's been a lot of jibber-jabber over the last few days about Armitage's revelation that he was the one to reveal Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak. Some in the press have treated this as if it were the last word.

As if the only scandal was Novak's release of her identity to the public.

A new book by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek and David Corn puts this notion to sleep. As usual, Digby puts it best [bold emphasis mine]:

Armitage may have just been a gossipy little busybody from way back, but that doesn't explain Libby and Judy and Rove and Cooper or the "two senior administration officials" who tried to get the Washington Post to print that Wilson's CIA "wife" had sent Wilson on a "boondoggle." Rove said she was "fair game." You simply cannot persuade me that every last person involved in this did not know that the head of the Joint Task Force on Iraq's WMD at the CIA in 2003 was the person they were busy making sure was publicly outed.

Remember checks and balances?

2006-09-03T14:54:00.000-05:00

Dan Balz and David Broder have penned a ray of sunshine in today's Washington Post on the GOP's increasing vulnerability in the 2006 midterm elections. Quote [emphasis mine]:

Other GOP officials, while nervous, believe they can hold the House with aggressive local campaigns and a national effort to focus on terrorism and security to raise voter fears about the consequences of Democratic control.
All predict one of the most negative midterm elections in memory, with virtually no positive advertising from the national GOP committees or individual GOP candidates.

A Democratic takeover of one or both of the houses of Congress is by no means a foregone conclusion, but there is reason to believe that the American people are becoming increasingly aware of a fundamental imbalance in our government -- Congress is no longer able to adequately oversee the doings of the Executive. Another Balz / Broder quote:

... finger-pointing has begun as Republicans here and around the country blame the White House and the GOP congressional leadership for leaving Republican candidates in such a vulnerable position.

No kidding. My contribution to the world of bumper stickers:

Keith Ward on Intelligent Design

2006-09-02T11:33:00.000-05:00

Probably the single greatest impediment (and an intentional impediment, at that) to ending the current "conflict" between science and religion has been the use of the seemingly innocuous term "intelligent design" to describe Creationism's new disguise among many Christian evangelicals. The term is, in fact, deeply misleading. The science that proponents of Intelligent Design (or ID) advance is a non-starter. Evolutionary biology seeks explanations based on material (and, I guess, efficient) causes, whereas ID, as "practiced" by the Discovery Institute, advances the very difficult to prove hypothesis that specific features of living organisms (such as centrioles, flagellae, and blood clotting) could not have evolved without the influence of an interfering "final" cause.

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to do an experiment that verifies that those features could not have evolved without divine interference. Setting up such an experiment would, in fact, require the investigator to prove a negative (like Rumsfeld's famous quote, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). Ultimately, biologists reject ID not because they deny the existence of God or of his role in the Universe, but because a science based on ID would be impossible to execute.

So, it's nice to see a compatible viewpoint offered from a religious perspective. As Keith Ward says in the latest issue of The Tablet:

God creates adult human beings as organisms that have developed from a single cell over a period of time. It is not in principle different to say that God created human beings on earth as a species that developed from single cell organisms by a process of development over four thousand million years. The evolution of human life, and its intelligent design by God, are not in conflict.

I wish that could be the last word. Whether you find yourself on the "religious" or "scientific" end of this debate, the article is definitely worth the read (you may have to go through a simple registration process to read it).

UPDATE 6:40 PM, 9/2/2006: At the risk of scuttling my earlier tone of reconciliation, it should be pointed out that Ward, in the quote above, is wrong on one point: the development of a human being and the evolution of the human species are, in fact, different "in principle". Development is a high-fidelity process driven by a "program" comprised of the micro-supercomputer we call the "implanted zygote". But, as the late Stephen J. Gould put it in his fantastic book "Wonderful Life", if we were to replay the "tape" of evolution, it is unlikely that we would always get the same result, i.e., evolution is not high-fidelity. That's not to say that the Universe is not fundamentally deterministic, but that the processes that led earth-bound species to evolve this way or that are not inherently predictable in the same way that gene expression is in a developing embryo.

That said, I want to emphasize that Ward's overall point still stands. We all accept that the biological development of human beings is what brings us into existence on a regular basis. Doctors rely on the materialistic basis of that development for all kinds of medical procedures. Such an assertion about development does not preclude the role of a Creator. Therefore, why should a materialistic theory of evolution be any more threatening?

Mark my words -- a monumental waste of time

2006-08-31T17:17:00.000-05:00

I'm going to go out on a limb with a prediction, one that will stay on this blog as long as I keep it running, and one that will be used one day to determine if I am to eat crow or revel in my prognosticatory acumen.

It's this:

(Photo credit Reuters / Rick Fowler)

NASA has awarded Lockheed Martin Corp a $3.9 billion contract to develop the Orion Moon spacecraft.

Will Orion work? No. At least not for that price, and not by 2014.

Now, I'm not saying that Lockheed is somehow unable to do the necessary engineering, or that they are somehow incapable of grasping the management of the project. But conditions are wrong, wrong, wrong. Huge military/government contractors have shown themselves, over the last several years, to be unable to organize and execute large, complicated projects without massive cost overruns, inefficiency, corruption. The bidding process has led contractors to vastly undershoot cost and duration.

These are not the 1960s. Then, a sense of national pride and sacrifice led contractors (and there were lots) to adhere to unbelievably high standards of timeliness and efficiency -- today, profits have proven to be far more important. Watch as Lockheed subcontracts out most of the work, turning a profit by doing hardly any of the actual work.

And do really want to go to the moon now? NASA, the only US agency with a global focus (though not anymore), is now diverting precious money from unmanned astronomical, climate and remote sensing satellites toward a mission that promises to yield virtually no scientific reward. What's more, with this mission we are now spending money on a Moon mission while at the same time borrowing vast sums of money that our children and children's children will have to pay back to fight a war that only a minority of Americans now believe in.

This is a scam of the highest order, and a stupid, visionless scam at that. Come 2014 (the date that Lockheed proposes to first test Orion with humans aboard), there will have been no launch. Orion will go the way of Lockheed's 1996 X-33, the supposed space shuttle replacement, which the NYT says, "never got built because of technical problems."

Crash site confirmed

2006-08-27T14:08:00.000-05:00

The Louisville Courier-Journal has the best photo I've seen yet:

(Photo credit Michael Hayman, The Courier-Journal)

UPDATE: here's another (also from the Courier-Journal):

You can clearly see the number "8" at the end of the runway, and how the planes crash site, in the lower right of the photo, is along the line of runway 26/8, the wrong runway. A slightly out-of-date aerial view of this site can be found here on Google Maps. Note the crummy state of runway 26/8 -- just another reason to be completely shocked that the pilots took off from the wrong runway.

CNN is talking now as if there's a chance that Comair 5191 could have taken off from 22 (the correct runway) and then banked hard to the right to crash where it did. But that seems extremeley unlikely. Taking off on runway 22 and then crashing where the photo indicates, with a crash line that is also in line with runway 26, would be a miracle of the highest order.

For some reason, the New York Times crops the above photo exclude the runway. I have no idea why they would have done this, since the complete photo essentially fully corroborates the "wrong runway" hypothesis.

UPDATE: Doug Petch points out how annoying the coverage has been so far. His main point, I think:

What does it say about the local outlets’ news gathering capabilities that all three stations waited for their parent networks to provide confirmation before standing 100% behind the “wrong runway” storyline?

Amen. The local guys are on the ground. They should have been able to advance the wrong runway theory almost immediately. Why didn't they? The victims and families of this horrible accident deserve the truth and they deserve it right away.

Don Bornhorst, President of Comair, declines to comment on cause of crash

2006-08-27T13:46:00.000-05:00

After what looks to be a serious blow to Comair, the President of Comair just held an afternoon press conference, but gave few hints as to cause other than to give the most bare-bones of details, such as the flight number, the status of their efforts to inform families, the plane's tail number, the kinds of engines and number of seats on the plane, that both pilots were experienced, and the fact that Comair does not what to "interfere with the investigation."

No answer to the question, "did the plane take off from the wrong runway," other than to call such questions "speculation." He has not been to the crashsite. I should add that Bornhorst is clearly very broken up about what has happened.

All I can say is that if the plane took off from runway 22 and crashed and the upwind end of runway 26, then Comair 5191 would have to have been "magic." Comair must be looking down the bad end of a very bad lawsuit, and they know it. As such, no comment on which runway the plane used.

And I want to repeat what I said from the last post -- it is so very, very difficult to believe that the pilots both missed the fact that they were on the wrong runway. The runways look different. They are differently lit. Runway 26 is narrower. These pilots know very well that one runway is shorter than the other. And yet, they appear to have used the wrong one.

Plane Crash: runway 22 or 26 at Lexington-Fayette?

2006-08-27T09:53:00.000-05:00

I lived in Lexington, KY, for two years. I've flown out of Lexington-Fayette airport who knows how many times, often on the same Comair flight 5191 that crashed today just a half-mile from takeoff in western Fayette County. (I also have a private pilot's license, which, I must say, I haven't used in a long time -- but I am familiar with the terminology.)

Almost immediately, something about the Lexington, Kentucky, plane crash and the details of the recovery operation seemed to indicate that the aircraft, a Bombardier CRJ 200, had taken off from the wrong runway. (For a Google Map of the airport, click here; the map to the right comes from fltplan.com.) The longer of the two runways (7000 ft long) handles all of the jet traffic. It goes southwest to northeast. Since midnight last night, the prevailing winds have been out of the south and then the southwest. Because all aircraft have a easier time taking off in the space allotted if they take off into the wind, Comair 5191 would surely have been scheduled to takeoff on runway 22 (rather than runway 4); that is, toward the southwest on the long runway.

It is very unlikely that a jet aircraft would have attempted to take off from runway 26, except by accident, because the runway is too short. According to Flug Revue, the Bombardier CRJ 200 requires at least 1700 m, or 5800 ft, for takeoff. Anything shorter than that, and the aircraft would be forced to takeoff with help of what is known as "ground effect" without the velocity needed to sustain lift at elevations more than a hundred feet above the runway surface.

The pilots were veterans with Comair, which means that they had surely flown in and out of Lexington-Fayette any number of times. Both the pilot and co-pilot would have known which runway they were on before they took off. Furthermore, the control tower at Lexington-Fayette operates continuously (that is, there's someone there 24 hr a day). They would have been an additional impediment to mis-directed takeoff.

And yet, where did the rescue crews go? According to images from the local ABC/CNN affiliate, vehicles were accessing the crash site from somewhere near the intersection of Rice Rd (which heads north-south along the western edge of the Keeneland Racetrack grounds) and Versailles Rd, which heads east-west between Lexington and Versailles, roughly parallel to runway 26. The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that the aircraft crashed 1/2 mile from the end of the runway. Going back to the Google Maps image (here), if you were to try to access a crash site 1/2 mile from the end of runway 22 (the long runway), you would go to Parkers Mill Rd (KY Rte 1968), which is nowhere near where the vehicles were coming and going.

I have to conclude from this that there is a better than even chance that both pilots and the control tower failed to notice that the plane was taking off from runway 26. I find this completely surprising, and also really, really hard to believe, but I just don't understand, otherwise, why rescue and police vehicles would be using Versailles Rd, and not Parkers Mill Rd, to get to the crash site.

UPDATE: One blogger, worried about terrorism, lets this crash lead her into a complete psychotic break.

[Note that this blogger, Stacy Harp, is now threatening me with a libel suit for my comment that she was insane to jump to the rash conclusion that Muslims brought down the plane when it was so clearly pilot error. As a show of good faith, I am more than happy to state here, in front of everyone, that I have no way of knowing whether Stacy Harp is undergoing a psychotic break, and that the statement was meant solely to reflect the impression I got from the complete irrationality of her blog post that she was not thinking clearly. This is the most protected kind of speech under the First Amendment, especially since it was in no way meant to defame the character of Ms. Harp or harm her personally or professionally in any way. Blogs are meant to spread ideas and concepts -- and often in colorful and original ways. I found her ideas to be utterly bankrupt, and therefore took the step of publicly stating just how bankrupt I thought they were, just as she publicly defamed all Muslims by assuming that they would be responsible for the crash. So far, she has not provided a reasoned rebuttal to my claim that she was premature in assuming that Muslims caused Comair 5191 to go down. Personally, I think she owes the families of the passengers, and Muslim Americans living in the Lexington area, an apology. If she, or her attorney, wishes to send me another email concerning the content of this post, then they are more than welcome to do so. Perhaps the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee will contact her. Of course, I wish her no personal harm, but we are all grownups here. Not all responses to blog posts, such as hers, will be applause.]

UPDATE II: Sean Osborne from the Northeast Intelligence Network (I'm not familiar with this organization) is partial to the "wrong runway" hypothesis [emphasis mine]:

Based upon my carefull review of Bomardier CRJ-100 regional jet specifications, and having seen a live streaming video feed from a Lexington, Kentucky television station, as well as detailed satellite composite imagery of the Bluegrass Airport, it seems certain and is my assessment that Comair Flight 5191 executed its takeoff from the incorrect runway.

Facts I cite in making this assessment are as follows:

The ground impact markings and final site of the aircraft on the ground are consistent with an east to west departure from Runway 22/8.

Comair Flight 5191 impacted the ground a very short distance and in a straight line from the end of Runway 22/8, which on its western end is designated as runway 8 and is the nearest point to the impact site.

The length of this runway, which appears to be undergoing improvements of its surface, is approximately 3500 feet.

The primary runway at Bluegrass Airport, Runway 22/4, is 7,000 feet in length.

The CRJ-100/200 family of regional jet aircraft require a minimum takeoff distance of approximately 5,000 feet.

UPDATE III: A local farmer, Nick Bentley, confirms the "wrong runway" hypothesis (Lexington Herald-Leader). According to Scott Lanter, the Airport fire chief, the crash site is in line with the shorter runway 26.

An enabler of the path of least resistance

2006-08-15T13:20:00.000-05:00

New York Magazine has published a series of eighteen "what ifs" on what the world (or just New York) would be like if Islamic terrorists had not decided to park planes in the upper floors of the World Trade Center.

Amongst the entries is Andrew Sullivan's take, which he linked to on his site. He may have a future in science fiction. Here's my take on his must-read post in an email I just sent to him:

As I read your "what if" this morning, I couldn't help noticing that oil wasn't mentioned once, except as a nod to your gas tax. I found this disappointing but illuminating.

I've spent a lot of time in the last couple of months -- first through my (dilettante) interest in Nigeria, and later through my broader interest in global oil pricing -- grappling with the effects that the Iraq war and other supply disruptions have had on global oil markets. I have come to realize how completely dependent we Americans are on oil, not just in terms of the import ratio, but in terms of how utterly disastrous another major disruption (on the order of the Iraq invasion) would be for our economy, or worse if we were suddenly to lose a grip on those oil fields upon which we have increasingly come to depend.

We reached peak oil / gas in the US in the early 80's. Since then, we have been scrambling to find a strategic place for ourselves that guarantees steady (if not increased) supply for the foreseeable future. The oil majors understand this clearly. They know that if they decided today to rely solely on current drilling operations, their production capacity would steadily drop to zero. Without continued exploration, their volume shrinks, as do their profits, which becomes a problem not just for ExxonMobil or Royal Dutch Shell shareholders, but also for anyone who wants to buy oil.

Given how obvious this is, it amazes me how little credence those on the left are willing to give oil majors when they say that exploration is an issue of national security as well as of profit, and how little public recognition those on the right, especially neocons like yourself, are will to give to the fact that our involvement in the Middle East is not simply to impose militarily our brand of democracy but is primarily the result of our need to secure oil resources that in the future are likely to become increasingly non-fungible (that is, not freely traded on oil markets). We have no way of knowing for sure if we are reaching Global Peak Oil, but the oil industry knows that its days are numbered (even ExxonMobil is involved in developing renewables).

It is puzzling to me how silent you are on the issue of oil. I doubt very much that Islamist groups would be in a position to threaten Israel if there were no oil in the Middle East. There would be no Saudi millionaires funding madrases in Pakistan or Arab strongmen giving aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. If mideast economies were more diverse, there would be less corruption, and less opportunity for social unrest and religious extremism. Instead, the West is the Great Scapegoat. We buy their oil, we insert ourselves into their economies through "free" trade, and we show no signs of letting up. There are smart, liberal people living in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq who see quite well how the system works, and that the West is not without blame, as shown by the history of our involvement, with the British, in Iran and Iraq since we overthrew Moussadegh's in 1953's Operation Ajax.

But none of this is found in your blog: no discussion of Iran's strategic importance for our long-term petroleum security, no discussion of the underlying premise of the neoconservative world vision that democratization is a great goal but the steady flow of oil with the US controlling the spigot is even better, no discussion of how exercise of our military power on a Small Earth can make things worse, not better.

Am I wrong about any of this? Could be. But at least I'm trying to understand things at the level where they matter. I am trying to have a "serious" discussion about the Middle East. To me, though you have admirabily recognized your errors and your role as an Iraq War collaborator, you have failed to examine the principles behind your reasoning in the lead-up to the war. Your "what if" proves this, and clearly outlines what a superficial thinker you have become. To you, our impending oil doom is solvable with a gas tax (ha!) and there is no link between our need for oil and Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel. To you, the problem of Islamism is that "these people" are intolerant, not that we have put them in an economic position where those ignoble few are more likely to break ranks and put airplanes into the World Trade Center.

It is in this context that I have become very angry at your dismissal of the anti-war crowd (you have the emails from me to prove it). Your dismissal reflects both a tendency to discount all arguments that are not made on your (pro-war) terms, and your inability to see what lies at the root of the traditional arguments that have been made against the Iraq War. You have dismissed them for so long (and you have seen enough leftist idiots make fools of themselves trying to make them) that you have forgotten what they are. But now that an attempt has been made by the Administration to exercise a worldview that is consonant with your own -- an attempt that failed -- it's time you re-evaluated more than just your take on the war's execution, but also your position on what's best for this world from here on out.

Don't forget oil.

Is it "disproportionate"? Doesn't matter now

2006-08-11T07:13:00.000-05:00

Talk of whether the Israeli response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and continued rocket attacks against northern Israel by Hezbollah is "disproportionate" is really about whether Israel is committing war crimes ("disproportionality" is one of the predicates for war crime prosecution -- Articles 51(4) and 51(5) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions makes a "disproportionate" or "indiscriminate" response a war crime). To me, such talk seems counter-productive at this time. Of far greater concern is the galvanization of Lebanese of all stripes toward Hezbollah and against Israel. From Dahr Jamail at TomDispatch:

While the coming years also brought it [Hezbollah] more significant political representation and respect, the Druze and Christian populations continued to distance themselves from or oppose the group.

Now, the staggeringly disproportionate Israeli response to the detention of two of its soldiers and the killing of others in mid-July has changed even this. In a sense, the Israelis are accomplishing the previously inconceivable -- uniting the otherwise hostile power centers of the country behind Hezbollah. Last week, the Israelis actually began bombing key bridges in the Christian part of the country for the first time -- a clear statement that no Lebanese are to be spared their attentions. Most of the Druze and Christian leadership have by now condemned the Israeli response. Many have even gone so far as to state that they believe Hezbollah is working to defend the country's sovereignty.

Aside from protecting ourselves from attack (which is only the beginning), we have twin goals in the war against terrorism: first, marginalize extremists by stabilizing the legitimacy of secular moderates, and, second, create interdependence in the region based on a non-petroleum economy (see the Israeli economy for an example of how this works).

On both these counts, Israel's offensive against Lebanon has already utterly failed, and by generating new grievances it sets up the preconditions for further failures.

Until we can look critically at how we're waging this war and how we might modify our approach, and until we can get over our Vietnam-era and McCarthyite hangups about who's anti-war and who's not, this is going to go very badly.

Too bad the adults aren't in charge.

Is the London Hand-Lotion Bomb Plot "something dramatic"?

2006-08-10T08:52:00.000-05:00

From Charlie Cook, of the Cook Political Report, writing Saturday (Aug 5) [emphasis mine]:

Time is running out for Republicans. Unless something dramatic happens before Election Day, Democrats will take control of the House. And the chances that they'll seize the Senate are rising toward 50-50.

Has "something dramatic" happened? News from London (via the NYT):

British authorities said today that they had thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up multiple airliners traveling between Britain and the United States and cause "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

There was a time when plots / attacks such as these would have a positive impact on the Administration's approval ratings. This might still be the case. By elevating the terror alert yellow to RED for flights from the UK to the US -- for the first time ever -- the Department of Homeland Security indicates to the American people both the seriousness of the threat faced by the London Hand-Lotion Bombers and the potential seriousness of future threats. In 2004, the perception of real or puffed-up threats to the Homeland was no small part of Bush's reelection and the GOP's further consolidation of gains in both the House and Senate.

But does that dog hunt anymore? With support waning for the Iraq War, the Bush Administration, and the GOP-controlled Congress, and with new conflicts erupting (or re-erupting) in Lebanon, Iran, and North Korea, it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone who had voted for Bush in 2004 to see the looming crises as signs of incompetence, and therefore perceive further terror plots of evidence of deep disfunctionality in our government's primary task: protect the American people.

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: is it now the case that terror attacks, thwarted or otherwise, help or hurt the GOP in the polls?

I think it's the latter. While Congressional Democrats are unlikely to use the London plot to talk up the gross incompetence of the execution of the War on Terror™, I have no doubt that Republicans will use the plot in the same tired way they always have to get "security moms" to the polls. But this time, given the facts on the ground in Iraq and Lebanon, terror attacks with domestic implications might no longer have the same effect on the American polity as they would have had two years ago.

To answer Charlie Cook, "something dramatic" may yet happen, but unless it involves a three-way trist between Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi, I don't think it'll be in the GOP's favor.

The end of Miami politics as we know it?

2006-08-01T15:23:00.000-05:00

The relinquishing of power by Fidel Castro to his 75-year old younger brother Raul hints at what could be the end of Florida politics as we know it. And it couldn't come too soon.

I am one of millions of Americans who is tired of sane Cuba policy and Florida electoral politics being hijacked by this very strong single issue that only a relative handful of Americans care about.

We don't know what kind of reforms would be on the way if Castro dies soon, but there will be reforms. And there will be change in the kind of in jingoistic, LCD demagoguery that American politicians -- especially flag-draped variety -- can get away with.

Sure, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela are convenient targets, but their emigrants to the US do not live overwhelmingly in a single city in a single state, and they were not displaced by a communist coup d'etat in the name of either of their current presidents.

Baiting, are we?

2006-07-26T10:19:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan's recent post on "Kos, Atrios, Hezbollah" is startling:

A reader wants to know what the silence is all about:
The radio silence on Lebanon from the left-wing blogosphere (i.e. Kos, Atrios) is fascinating, and your reader from the 'Liberal Blogs and Israel' post had it about right. To sympathize with Hezbollah would expose these bloggers to a potentially career-damaging backlash. However, to take the mainstream Democratic line of say, Chuck Schumer, would be to seriously alienate a chunk of their readership.

And for sure, Hezbollah sympathizers do exist on the left. One only has to listen to KPFA, the 'free speech network' broadcast out of Berkeley to get a taste of unfiltered Hezbollah propaganda, in which Mullah Nasrallah is characterized as the new Che Guevara. The Weekly Standard might have done better to listen to some of these transcripts, rather than to desperately fish around the diaries on Kos.
I've actually been skeptical of beating up on Kos on this. But I just read the last three pages of posts on the main site, and there's only one even vaguely alluding to the crisis with Hezbollah. That's just plain weird. I know we're not supposed to notice silence on blogs - people are free to ignore all sorts of stories. But the silence can be instructive (hey, I studied with a Straussian). This is Atrios' second-hand excuse:
I've said nothing about war in Lebanon or Ethiopia because I have nothing to add, and also because - as you may or may not be aware - the United States is actually involved in a hugely bloody war right now, and this is more of a pressing concern to me personally. I don’t know the secret formula for unshitting any of these beds - I promise I wouldn't be shy if I did - but I currently only have to sleep in one of them; and, as it turns out, that's the one bed where I actually have some miniscule chance of influencing the situation. So that’s my concern.
This would make sense if there were no connections between Hezbollah and Iran and Iraq. Are lefties unable to grapple with complex regional wars? Nah. They're just wimping out. My reader gives one plausible reason why. Is there a more persuasive one?

First, the title. Is he equating the three?

Second, are my eyes deceiving me, or is he actually accusing Atrios and Markos of laziness when he says "they're just wimping out"? As if they're not spending a lot of time writing about other things ...

Third, his question, "are lefties unable to grapple with complex regional wars?" is insulting and ill-informed. Digby has been writing about Lebanon regularly since the current crisis unfolded two weeks ago. I'll let him do the basic research to find out who else has been at it (but here's a short list to get him started: Billmon, James Wolcott, Matthew Yglesias, Juan Cole, Steve Gilliard, Tom Tomorrow, LiberalOasis, War and Piece, etc.). And what has been the lefty-blogosphere consensus? (If he would only dig around further than Atrios and Kos, he would see it!) That Iraq has put us in the position of being unable to deal properly with any new crisis in the Middle East. That we have been actively alienating the Iranian middle every since the GWOT started, and we're paying the price today (and that Israel's attacks are hurting the Lebanese middle, as well). That we've been badly neglecting the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. That the Israeli attacks on Lebanon may badly destabilize the Lebanese government and bolster Hezbollah's ranks rather than diminish them.

Do these sentiments seem critical of Israel at times? Yes, but they always come with complete condemnation of Hezbollah (and a desire for it to disappear completely from the map, or at least become peacefully folded into the Lebanese political economy).

Are these sentiments critical of Bush? Well, Sullivan will be the first to admit, nowadays, that Bush is worthy of criticism.

Finally, the presumption of him and the readers he's published that lefty bloggers want to criticize Israel, but are kept from doing so by their political ambitions, is inane. Leaving the false choice aside, has he stopped to consider that they might actually support Israel defending itself?

What's disappointing is that Andrew Sullivan is typically a lot better than this. But he's gotten into the habit of criticizing lefty blogs for superficial reasons. He really should stop this childish baiting and propagandist "the-left-is-scared-of-this-issue" myth-making when he knows full well there are plenty of bloggers on the left working on this issue nearly full time.

Kooky James Inhofe

2006-07-26T01:09:00.000-05:00

Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma has become fully unhinged about global climate change. Why? Dave Roberts at Grist Magazine has the answer.

Oil industry profits -- where do they come from?

2006-07-26T00:46:00.000-05:00

Executives of oil majors hemm and haw about where their recent and massive profits come from, but they will mostly eventually state quite clearly that when the price of the base commodity (in this case, crude) increases, profits also will increase.

And BP, for all it's "green" advertising (you've seen the commercials with the hippy guy and his buddy all worried about where gas comes from like it was an organic energy bar), is no different.

Yesterday's New York Times reported on the massive 2nd q. profits BP has brought: $7 billion, or the equivalent of $55k per minute.

Now, let me ask you, my dear reader, a question. Do the oil majors have an incentive to bring down the price of crude?

The current price of oil includes a 25% risk premium, which is the additional cost the market is willing to pay in the face of Mideast terrorism, or violence in the Niger Delta. The oil majors are benefiting hugely from this premium. Why should they work to make it go away?

Freedom-loving forces

2006-07-25T20:36:00.000-05:00

From an interview this morning by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! with dissident Iranian investigative journalist Akbar Ganji [emphasis mine]:

AMY GOODMAN: How can you bring democracy to Iran? How can the pro-democracy movement in Iran be empowered?

AKBAR GANJI: [translated] We have a widespread democratic movement within our country. There are two main weak points for this movement. First is the lack of organization, and there is no leadership. We need to better organize the movement and to elect democratically a leader for this movement, a leader like Gandhi. If we can manage to do this, the road to victory is short.

But we should bear in mind at least one point. Wherever in the Middle East a free election is held, Muslim fundamentalists will inevitably win. In addition to fundamental structural problems, also Western foreign policy is responsible for this. Iran is the only exception in the region. Should there be a free election in Iran, the winner will be democratic and freedom-loving forces. But those parties look at U.S. foreign policies with suspicion.

One of great disgraces of the Bush Administration's foreign policy has been its alienation of the Iranian middle. We're paying for it.

NRDC says 12 US National Parks are at risk from climate change

2006-07-25T19:34:00.000-05:00

The story from Reuters:

All 12 parks are located in the American West, where temperatures have risen twice as fast as in the rest of the United States over the last 50 years, said Theo Spencer of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Rising temperatures, drought, wildfires and diminished snowfalls endanger wildlife and threaten hiking, fishing and other recreational activities" in the parks, Spencer said in a telephone news conference. "Imagine Glacier Park without glaciers or Yellowstone without any grizzly bears."

From the 29 page NRDC and Rocky Mountain Climate Organization report, regarding Joshua Tree National Park, one of my favorites:

Higher temperatures can eliminate an entire plant species from an area. Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey and universities have documented substantial mortality of Joshua trees in California’s high desert and project that because of climate warming the trees "will be unable to persist much longer within Joshua Tree National Park." Joshua trees need the relatively cooler temperatures now found in the higher Mojave desert, compared to those of nearby Colorado or Sonoran deserts, in part because they require winter freezes to flower and set seeds.

Which National Parks are most at risk:

Bandalier National Monument, NM
Death Valley National Park, CA
Glacier National Park, MT
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, UT/AZ
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, CA
Grand Teton National Park, WY
Mesa Verde National Park, CO
Mount Rainier National Park, WA
North Cascades National Park, WA
Rocky Mountain National Park, CO
Yellowstone National Park, WY/ID/MT (loss of Grizzlies expected -- Stephen Colbert should be thrilled)
Yosemite National Park, CA

The prescription, according to the NRDC [emphasis mine]:

Encouragingly, more Americans are becoming aware of what is at stake, taking action themselves, and expecting action from their leaders. The National Park Service can do more to identify park resources and values that are at risk from a disrupted climate and take action to preserve them. The U.S. government must establish sensible standards that begin to significantly reduce our emissions of heattrapping gases within 10 years if we are to avoid the most dangerous impacts caused by rising temperatures. In the face of inaction at the federal level, many states and cities are moving forward on their own, but much more can be done. Responsible and prudent action by all levels of government can make the difference in preserving not just the national parks of the American West but natural ecosystems and the quality of people's lives worldwide.

It's time to kick the bums out. You want checks and balances, Iraq War oversight, and sensible environmental policy as soon as possible? Vote Democrat in 2006. Then do it again in 2008.

Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, Andrew Sullivan, Markos Moulitsas, and a reader

2006-07-25T17:56:00.000-05:00

A reader to Andrew Sullivan's blog complains about Markos Moulitsas's "interference" in Democratic primary politics in Connecticut. The reader writes [emphasis mine]:

Reading the interview with Kos made me want to throw up. As a Connecticut native (and Lieberman supporter), I wonder where he gets off trying to play God in our elections. He says, "I don't think Joe Lieberman would have anything to worry about had he tended to his constituents back home. His job is to represent the people of Connecticut." What kind of view of Connecticut's politics does he think he has from San Francisco, exactly? Representing "the people of Connecticut" is exactly what Lieberman has been doing, which is why he is crushing Lamont and the GOP candidate in a 3-way general election with over 50% of the vote.

Old news.

From DailyKos, today, we get results from Rasmussen's latest Connecticut Senate poll. While last week Quinnipiac had Lamont losing to Lieberman in a three-way race 51% to 27%, Rasmussen reports today that there's an even split between the two candidates in a three-way race and Lamont making striking gains among Republican voters (Schlesinger, the GOP candidate, would get a measly 9%, largely due to some scandals regarding gambling debts).

Sullivan doesn't seem to like Kos very much, and I'm not entirely sure that Kos has comported himself with the kind of humility necessary to keep oneself free from criticism, but the fact is that Lieberman is in trouble, and for reasons that Kos lays out well in his interview.

"American Theocracy"

2006-07-25T16:26:00.000-05:00

I haven't read it yet, but I've seen or heard Kevin Phillips everywhere. And as if to answer my questions from a recent post, I read the following quote from a review by Anthony Monteiro of Phillips' book in Political Affairs Magazine [emphasis mine, page numbers are from Phillips' book]:

Under the cloak of fighting terrorism, talks have begun between Washington and several African nations to build permanent naval and military bases in West Africa, particularly Senegal, Ghana and Mali - a rising oil region. The Wall Street Journal indicates that the key mission for US forces in Africa is to guarantee that Nigerian oilfields, that in the future could account for 25% of all US imports, remain secure. US military officials have visited Gabon and Sao Tome where they are considering building a deepwater port. The US European Command has recently stated its carrier battle groups would spend half their time going down the west coast of Africa. (85). The US oil strategy in Africa has ignited ethnic conflict, corruption, wealth and income disparities and interstate tensions. (Phillips, p86 - 87). Sudan and Chad and the political and ethnic struggles in Nigeria are case studies of these developments.

I guess I'm not crazy to be asking these questions. Stay tuned for the next major battleground in the War on Terrah.

The principle of even-numberedness

2006-07-25T13:51:00.000-05:00

A fascinating NYT op-ed by Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert. Quote:

The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.

... What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves -- but that the opposite will be true of other people’s reasons and other people’s punches.

All of what's bad in modern political discourse is summed up in these paragraphs.

UPDATE: July 25, 5:41 PM. It just now occurred to me how wise Gilbert's op-ed actually is. Consider the response of Israeli Brigadier General Herzog to a question on CSPAN's Washington Journal this morning about whether Israel's response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers has been proportional. Herzog naturally responds that the response is proportional if one considers the longer history of attacks against Israel by Hezbollah, and given the recent withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon just a couple of years ago.

But is the issue really proportionality? Following Gilbert, Herzog thinks of the Israeli response only as a consequence of hostilities by Hezbollah, but fails to think of Israel's actions as the future cause of some more intense reprisal (one that has not yet materialized). "The product of two innocent facts": one, Israel finds it difficult to engage in self-evaluation when in the midst of an existential crisis; two, they will be more likely to see Hezbollah's response simply as further provocation rather than a response to their own reprisals. Same goes for Hezbollah.

Am I making a value judgement? No. I still support the right of nations to defend themselves. But perhaps talk of "proportionality" is misleading. What must focus at all times not on our responses to past injustices but on the avoiding letting our responses become the injustices of the future.

Heat wave not the same as global warming

2006-07-25T13:15:00.000-05:00

[updated below]

Critics of prudent measures designed to fight climate change have made a great big stink about the fact that there are natural cycles and that so far the increase in temperature over the last century (about 0.6 degC) is within that natural variation (never mind that the rate of increase over the last century is off the chart). If you want a rather shameful example of this line of reasoning among conservative evangelical Christians, see the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and its Cornwall Network.

They have also made naive and silly comments, whenever a big snow storm or a cold shock sweeps through an area, that certain weather events belie "global warming."

Some of those who are rightly concerned about climate change are also at fault for blaming every heat wave on global warming. This is equally incorrect. Climate is not the same as weather.

Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, makes the distinction, in an article from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune:

Don't blame the seemingly endless heat wave just on global warming - this one's the product of a high-pressure system to the east and California's rapidly expanding growth, said Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert.
Together, he said, they have combined to push the temperature 12 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit above normal.
"Of the 12 degrees, how much is global warming? I would say 1 degree," Patzert said. "The other 11 degrees is meteorology" and lots of new heat-soaking pavement and other developments.
As in most mid-summers, a region of high pressure over Arizona and New Mexico is pulling hot, moist air from the Mexican desert.
But this summer, Patzert said, "it's so intense it's actually included us in the pattern. It's kept the marine layer off the coast, what I call Southern California's air conditioner."
"We didn't get any May Gray and June Gloom, so we kind of skipped spring," he said.
But what has made these conditions especially unbearable, Patzert said, is the new face of California's landscape, repaved by ever-expanding development.
"As soon as you start putting in agriculture, golf courses, especially housing developments, it starts to retain heat. The nights are not cooling. That's why we get warmer and warmer temperatures by mid-afternoon, because we're starting warmer," he said.

Either way, it is people's actions that are the problem. It's time to start making moral choices about how we want to live our lives, and these choices are going to be difficult, painful, and probably economically damaging, at least in the short term.

UPDATED: July 26, 2 am. More on the ins and outs from a good basic news article in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Shell announces 180,000 bpd cut in Nigerian oil production

2006-07-25T12:58:00.000-05:00

[updated]

The AP (via Seattle P-I) is reporting that Royal Dutch Shell has announced a 180 thousand barrel per day cut in Nigerian oil export due to an unspecified oil pipeline leak. Residents in the Rivers State region of Nigeria where the leak is said to have occurred are not allowing Shell or Nigerian representatives into the site to investigate.

Currently, the AP is saying that about 650 thousand barrels per day have been curtailed, largely due to violence. Last I heard, spare petroleum production capacity worldwide was only about 500 thousand barrels per day. Thus, even a small relative cut in Nigeria's production capacity (say 180,000 bpd) is a big cut into the world's capacity to keep up with demand.

What does this do? It dramatically expands the risk premium the markets are willing to pay per barrel of oil. According to oil industry executives, the risk premium is about $20 per barrel, or about 25% of the total cost of a barrel of oil.

What can the US do about it? Well, the classical role of the Navy is to protect shipping lanes, and occassionally to provide security for foreign ports. With violence and smuggling on the rise in the oil-rich Niger Delta, it should therefore come as no surprise that our Navy is increasing its presence in the region. From DefenseLink (July 5, emphasis mine):

U.S. military engagement along southwestern Africa's Atlantic coast has increased exponentially, Navy Capt. Tom Rowden, commander of Task Force 65, said during a Pentagon interview last week. It's increased from almost no activity in 2004 to 130 "ship days" in 2005 to even more planned ship days this year, he said.

... Maritime security is critical for the region to benefit from its natural resources and prosper economically, he said. Africa provides almost 15 percent of the United States' oil supply, much of which comes from the Gulf of Guinea. In addition, the region is rich in timber, iron ore, copper and other resources.

How long will it take for us to get more directly involved in Nigeria's local political economy? More importantly, how long will it take for Nigeria enter the Global War on Terrorism?

UPDATE: July 25, 5:12 PM. The Houston Chronicle is saying the leak is cutting 180,000 bpd of Shell's Nigerian production and 30,000 bpd of Chevron's.

Compare and contrast

2006-07-24T22:29:00.000-05:00

If you were heartened by Anglican church leaders' complete acceptance of the coming climate crisis, you'll want to vomit when you see this press release. The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, a conservative evangelical group dedicated to fighting the prudent and now-essential steps needed to ameliorate climate change because such efforts would have:

... the unintended consequence of serious harm to the world's poor, delaying for decades or generations their rise from poverty and its attendant high rates of disease and premature death, and robbing them of the very tools they need to protect themselves from catastrophes ...

... is holding a press conference on the subject tomorrow, Tuesday, July 25, 10:00 am, at the National Press Club on F and 14th NW.

Of course, they're entirely full of CR@P. Among the speakers is, unsurprisingly, James Tonkowich, the president of the ever predictable Institute on Religion and Democracy. These guys are operating within a conservative political context, not a moral one. They should be completely ashamed of themselves. The economic consequences of climate change on the world's poor will be far greater than simply a delay in economic development -- it will involve the displacement of potentially hundreds of millions of people as previously marginal land become complely unarable. I wonder how these guys sleep at night.

I'm going to try to be there, but I don't know how to get in. Drop me an email between now and then if you'll be there, too.

Flying's a sin

2006-07-24T18:10:00.000-05:00

[updated below]

According to Bishop of London, Richard Chartres (Daily Mail, UK, July 23):

Flying abroad for a foreign holiday is "a sin" against the planet, one of the country's leading bishops has declared.
Like murder, adultery and stealing, choosing to travel on jet planes has moral consequences, according to the Bishop of London because flights are doing too much damage to the environment.
In a highly controversial statement, Richard Chartres, 59 - who admits to regular visits to Russia - urged Christians to stop taking endless flights and to live a more 'eco-friendly' lifestyle.
He said: "There is now an overriding imperative to walk more lightly upon the earth and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light.
"Making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin.
"Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions."

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams seconded:

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury who drives the eco-car, Toyota Prius, is also banging the green drum.
He has said: "We are not consumers of what God has made. We are in communion with it."

Al Gore is right: climate change is not a political issue, it's a moral issue, and it's an existential one to boot.

UPDATE July 24, 11:11 PM: Same story, other sources: Ekklesia, The Sun (UK), and The Sunday Times (UK). From The Times:

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We stand before God’s judgment on these matters. In life we have to make moral choices over our sex life and over our domestic and financial affairs. We make choices of moral significance and our relation to the environment is no exception."

An old but interesting article on Schism

2006-07-24T16:49:00.000-05:00

From Damian Thompson for the Telegraph (UK, June 19) [emphasis mine]:

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, implies that all the fault lies with one side, the "unbiblical" gay-ordaining American radicals. He is wrong about that.
While it is true that some bishops of the Episcopal Church have more in common with a crystal-gazing Californian housewife than George Herbert, it is also true that "Anglican" dioceses in the developing world have been hijacked by poisonously bigoted Bible-bashers.
...
Outmanoeuvred by back-stabbing colleagues, Dr Williams no longer possesses the time or the confidence to speak directly to the man and woman in the pew. So preoccupied is he by the prospect of "schism" in a non-existent global Church that his already convoluted discourse has turned into an incomprehensible parody of itself.

Read it all. It's still relevant, even if it's more than a month old.

Peter Laarman on the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD)

2006-07-24T15:47:00.000-05:00

Quote, from an entry on the Huffington Post [emphasis mine]:

Created by cunning Schactmanites and by ex-CIA operatives during the time of Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, the IRD's core work plan has always called for dividing and disabling the larger Mainline Protestant denominations -- the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Methodists, and Evangelical Lutherans -- using any means necessary. The means that has worked best by far is relentlessly flogging the issue of homosexuality and accusing religious progressives of departing from the true faith by preaching that God really does love everybody.

Thanks to the IRD's skillful fingering of this hot button through the different front groups it operates within each body, all four national denominations have been pretty much AWOL from the more urgent moral debates this moment: e.g., imperial wars of choice, torture, civil liberties, Katrina, climate change, and economic terrorism from above. The denoms just don't have the energy. Nearly all their attention and focus have been consumed by internal debates on matters Levitical.

Religion and politics and Nigeria -- no different from here

2006-07-24T15:10:00.000-05:00

On July 8, the Christian Association of Nigeria (or CAN), of which Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola is president, inaugurated its South-South branch.

At the meeting, deputy speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, Chief Austin Opara, declared that the gay marriage legislation so often discussed on this blog would be expedited through the Federal Assembly.

The article, in the Tide Online, a Port Harcourt paper, declared matter-of-factly that "the bill was sponsored by the Christian Association of Nigeria."

We've suspected this all along. While The Tide does not directly quote Bishop Okonkwo (the VP of CAN, who was at the event), it is quite clear that this is a CAN bill: it was sponsored by CAN, possibly written by CAN, and explicitly endorsed by Archbishop Peter Akinola and the Anglican Church of Nigeria.

Chief Opara's brand of pandering is made all the clearer here:

... [Opara] commended the Rivers state governor, Dr Peter Odili for personally attending the occasion and assured of the continuous support of Christians to ensure the success of his administration.

CAN is an integral part of Nigerian electoral politics, especially in the South-South, which has never delivered a successful presidential candidate. It is the most impoverished region in Nigeria, and it's the center of all of Nigeria's oil wealth. Expect the gay marriage bill to be used as electoral fodder as the presidential campaing matures (or "degrades").

UPDATE: At the same event, CAN endorsed a South-South presidency.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy condones torture by the United States

2006-07-12T15:48:00.000-05:00

In a rather astonishing bit of intellectual dishonesty, Mark Tooley, the director of UM Action at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, has criticized the call by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture to end torture, reports WDC Media.

The NRCAT ran an ad on the New York Times op-ed page (pdf), and released a statement that calls for an independent investigation of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp, overseas CIA prisons, extraordinary rendition, Abu Graib, and Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.

Did I mention that megachurch pastor Dr. Rick Warren signed the statement?

So, why would Tooley criticize an independent investigation of potential human rights abuses, including torture? Because, he says, the NRCAT's statement fails to condemn torture in other countries, like North Korea, China, and Saudi Arabia. He claims that the NRCAT is singling out the United States and the Bush Administration. Says Tooley:

If [the NRCAT] were genuinely interested in torture, of course they would be addressing those regimes that actively and deliberately do practice torture rather than focusing exclusively on the United States.

I don't get it. The US Government is the only government that US citizens can directly influence. If the NRCAT doesn't make an explicit call for an end to torture elsewhere, does that mean that the US should continue with its current policies?

What Tooley doesn't seem to realize (either that or he's deliberately dissembling) is that fudging on the issue of torture, however we want to define it, serves only to set a terrible example for North Korea, China, and Saudi Arabia, an example that makes it difficult if not impossible for the US Government to call for an end to torture in those countries. With every word out of Tooley's mouth, we understand more fully the political shackles that constrain his conscience. Too bad he doesn't have the commitment to human rights and democracy that the name of his organization would suggest.

The right to evangelize

2006-07-12T13:40:00.000-05:00

Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria is no stranger to the concept of "human rights" -- in fact, he frequently invokes them.

Evangelical Christians, like many religious and political groups, depend on "human rights" for their very existence, and yet they forget that when they find themselves holding a majority opinion. American Baptists, who were once very much in the minority, wrote to Thomas Jefferson begging him to assure them of their 1st Amendment right against established religion. Today, the Southern Baptist Convention and other like-minded organizations, have few qualms about pushing prayer in schools, banning evolutionary biology from classrooms, and making Christianity the official religion of Missouri. Once a minority becomes a majority, civil rights are no longer necessary.

Unfortunately, this tendency to neglect the rights of individuals can have disastrous consequences. When respect for civil rights breaks down, we see Muslims killing Christians in the Niger State town of Izom in northern Nigeria, and we see Christians killing Muslims in the name of Christ. And recently, we see majoritarian religious factions call for legislation that would levy prison sentences for those who voice a minority religious opinion.

The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) offers an interesting test case for the shifting importance of civil rights. In some cases, the Church is in the minority and it is all too willing to look to the government for protection. Its Episcopal Synod, held in Abuja, Nigeria, released a communiqué, dated June 28, 2006, and signed by Primate Akinola, with the following statement regarding violence against Christians by Muslims [emphasis mine]:

Synod is worried that months after the mayhem unleashed on the nation in February 2006 by criminals, murderers and arsonists hiding under the cloak of religion, no one has been brought to book neither any compensation paid for the properties especially churches destroyed and lives lost in the riots. It therefore, calls on the Governments of the land to take urgent steps to prosecute these enemies of mankind and pay necessary compensations in order to restore the confidence that every Nigerian is protected any where in this nation.

In other words, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) wishes to assert its rights before the government in its quest for justice. They go on [emphasis mine]:

While noting the spread of Islam in hitherto predominantly Christian cities, especially in Europe and America, and their insistence on minority rights, Synod is worried that this same Muslims have refused to allow people of other faiths into their (Muslim dominated) areas to enjoy such rights. It therefore calls on our Muslim brothers in the spirit of reciprocity to have a change of attitude and put an end to intolerance and hostilities to Christians all over the world.

Yet, in another communiqué, released two days later, they say this about Nigerian "gay marriage":

On marriage, the conference agreed that marriage between man and woman is the official position of the Anglican Communion, and confirmed by its laws, and condemned in its entirety homosexuality and same sex marriage.

This is a restatement of their endorsement of the "Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006" (pdf), legislation that would put Nigerians in prison for 5 years if they even witness a same-sex marriage. It's important to recall that no Nigerian municipality recognizes gay marriage nor does any provide gay or lesbian couples the rights of straight married couples. Furthermore, there is already a ban on "sodomy", and the degree of prejudice against homosexuals is among the greatest in the world. So why such severe penalties for gay marriage?

As I've written about extensively in an earlier post, the legislation is clearly aimed less at stopping gay marriage than at impeding the growth of groups like the gay and lesbian Anglican organization Changing Attitude. The bill appeared just weeks after Changing Attitude, and its leader Davis Mac-Iyalla, made a New York Times story by Lydia Polgreen. The story, as well as local Nigerian press, began to rattle the nerves of Archbishop Akinola and his communications director Rev. Canon Akintunde Popoola. Indeed, the stated mission of Changing Attitude is to gain full acceptance for gay and lesbian Nigerians in the Church of Nigeria -- a crusade, if you will.

By now, dear reader, the inconsistency of the Church of Nigeria's stand on "civil rights" should be clear. They want protection from the government and tolerance from Muslims as they extend their missionary focus into northern Nigeria, where Christians are in a clear minority. At the same time, they want to place a minority in jail for calling for tolerance within the Church of Nigeria.

Bishop Robert Duncan, the moderator of the conservative Anglican Communion Network in the United States, said the following of efforts by liberal Episcopalians to get Archbishop Akinola to withdraw his endorsement of the more abhorrent sections of the legislation (especially sections 6, 7, and 8):

It is jarring, to say the least, to see church leaders, who claim to champion the primacy of local understanding and culture, demanding that foreign sister churches give up their own local understanding and culture and be judged by an American understanding of individual rights. There is a word for the one-way imposition of values -- colonialism.

Blinded by the Network's agenda just months before this Summer's General Convention, Bishop Duncan got it exactly wrong. Church leaders, foreign or otherwise, cannot claim rights for themselves that they deny to others. Duncan said it himself in his own words: "A majority opinion does not make it right." So, following on his promising endorsement of Archbishop Rowan Williams "reflection", I hope he'll come around sometime soon.

I am in touch with human rights workers in Nigeria who say that stopping the bill's passage will be difficult (that is, gay marriage will be made illegal in Nigeria) -- but they say that there may yet be time to get the legislators to change the bill so that the basic civil freedoms it bans (such as speech, assembly, the press, and free exercise of religion for gay and lesbian Nigerians) are still allowed.

Bishop Duncan, and other prominent American Anglicans like the Rev. Martyn Minns, now elected a Bishop in Nigeria, still have time to do the right thing. May God forgive them if they don't.

I know I won't.

That's it ... I can't vote for her

2006-07-12T11:36:00.000-05:00

Aside from another major terrorist attack, health care is one of the greatest issues faced by Americans today. Its rising expense leads to higher labor costs, the export of jobs overseas, and increased hidden costs to our nation's economic and social productivity.

So far, Congress, health insurers, and Big Pharma have pushed health-care legislation that has had little effect on the current state of our health coverage other than to fill their own pockets. Medicare Part D, one of the largest entitlements ever passed (and when I say "passed", I mean held for a three-hour vote following arm-twisting and outright bribery on the part of pharma- and insurance-supported GOP House members), bans the Federal Government from using its vast volume purchasing power to bargain for lower pharmaceutical costs. Worse, consumers are forced to pick from dozens of prescription drug plans, which, far from competing, maintain non-overlapping service that denies the right of consumers to switch, even if the plan changes prices or stops covering a needed drug.

This same "health services" industry that pushed for Part D, according to the New York Times, is now warmed up to Hillary Clinton.

Don't be fooled. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have not changed overnight. They fully expect to have a "seat at the table" should Clinton run for President in 2008, and they hope to stave off any attempt to prevent them from continuing to rake in extraordinary profits.

Some entitlements are best left to the public sector. When did Clinton forget this?

Grant proposal submitted

2006-07-10T20:25:00.000-05:00

I'm back. It'll take some time to catch up.