Good-bye

This is a very sad day for me, Loose Canon’s last boom. No, I wasn’t chased out by those cantankerous mini-boards!

I made the painful decision to give up Loose Canon. I have a book due at the end of summer; that is a tight deadline; something had to give. I’ve been in denial about this for weeks, dreading getting up on Monday morning without the prospect of making some mischief as Loose Canon.

There have been three Ash Wednesdays, two Easter Sundays, the death of one pope and the election of another since I began this gig. And I have the distinct feeling that I changed not a single mind. Perhaps I was too abrasive, or not abrasive enough.

Perhaps I should be concerned about the volume of rancor I generated on the mini-boards. Indeed, I have had, from time to time, the fleeting and disconcerting feeling that, like poor old Bridey Marchmain in Brideshead Revisited, I might not be the best apologist for the faith. It is after Bridey has made some particularly annoying statement that Charles Ryder says to him: “D’you know, Bridey, if I ever felt for a moment like becoming a Catholic, I should only have to talk to you for five minutes to be cured. You manage to reduce what seem quite sensible propositions to stark nonsense.” “It’s odd you should say that,” Bridey replies. “I’ve heard it before from other people. It’s one of the reasons I don’t think I would make a good priest.”

If the Church reaps a rich harvest of souls among Beliefnet members in coming weeks, I’ll know why. At the risk of delaying the influx of converts, I do want to make a few observations. One of the most hotly debated recent issues addressed on Loose Canon concerned pharmacists: Should they have the right to refuse to fill a prescription they regard as morally repugnant? In a society that puts a premium on the primacy of individual conscience, most Beliefnet posters said, no, a pharmacist should not have this right. The right to the “morning after” pill trumps all other considerations. First, they came for the pharmacists.

I was surprised that my posts on the cartoon jihad didn’t generate more conversation. Resurgent Islam of a fundamentalist variety is the big story of our age, and it is painful to me that so many people do not value our own country and our own magnificent civilization enough. There are many blots on Western civilization, among them slavery, but for so many the perfect is enemy of the good. We will have to value our civilization if it—and we—are to survive. But our civilization has been going on a long time, and its surprising regenerative powers have amazed throughout history.

But let me climb down from my soap box and bid farewell. I want to thank the fine editors at Beliefnet, most especially Steve Waldman, who offered me this chance, and Rebecca Phillips, who put up with my foibles longer than anyone should have to. She is a deft hand at editing and was tactful and soothing during the many food fights in which Swami and I engaged. I also owe many thanks to Beliefnet members, often fractious, frequently angry, but always interesting, for reading and responding to my posts. I shall miss you all. No, I swear I will. Be of good cheer.

Flunking History

"End of History" author Francis Fukuyama, who believed that the world was headed toward liberal democracies, was one of the hottest intellectuals of the 1990s. Now, the Fuke has a new book out, "America at the Crossroads," in which the most prominent defector from the neo-con ranks talks about his second thoughts on the Iraq war.

Christopher Hitchens demolishes Fukuyama and his arguments:

"The three questions that anyone developing second thoughts about the Iraq conflict must answer are these: Was the George H.W. Bush administration right to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Is it right to say that we had acquired a responsibility for Iraq, given past mistaken interventions and given the great moral question raised by the imposition of sanctions? And is it the case that another confrontation with Saddam was inevitable; those answering 'yes' thus being implicitly right in saying that we, not he, should choose the timing of it? Fukuyama does not even mention these considerations. Instead, by his slack use of terms like 'magnet,' he concedes to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses.

"That's why last week was a poor one for him to pick. Surely the huge spasm of Islamist hysteria over caricatures published in Copenhagen shows that there is no possible Western insurance against doing something that will inflame jihadists? The sheer audacity and evil of destroying the shrine of the 12th imam is part of an inter-Muslim civil war that had begun long before the forces of al-Qaida decided to exploit that war and also to export it to non-Muslim soil. Yes, we did indeed underestimate the ferocity and ruthlessness of the jihadists in Iraq. Where, one might inquire, have we not underestimated those forces and their virulence? (We are currently underestimating them in Nigeria, for example, which is plainly next on the Bin Laden hit list and about which I have been boring on ever since Bin Laden was good enough to warn us in the fall of 2004.)

"In the face of this global threat and its recent and alarmingly rapid projection onto European and American soil, Fukuyama proposes beefing up 'the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like.' You might expect a citation from a Pew poll at about this point, and, don't worry, he doesn't leave that out, either. But I have to admire that vague and lazy closing phrase 'and the like.' Hegel meets Karen Hughes!"

Earthquake in Canada

"Once upon a time, they might've been boiled in oil, drawn and quartered, hung by the neck and, if their luck held out, swiftly guillotined," a Canadian news outlet notes of the 19 Roman Catholic priests in the province of Quebec who defied the Vatican on gay "marriage" and ordaining homosexuals in an open letter published in Montreal's La Presse newspaper. Ah, but those were better days. (To those readers who are poised to comment in outrage: This is a joke. Or, on second thought, maybe not: One definitely wants more from her bishop than the statement that dissent on this scale and in this matter is "not an earthquake." It is.)

The National Catholic Reporter's Vatican correspondent John Allen had this to say in an article about the renegade priests:

"I am not sure what the scandal is," Allen, author of "The Rise of Benedict XVI" and a new book, "Opus Dei," told The Gazette.

"These 19 signatories are the usual suspects. There is no name on that list that would just shock you. There is nobody of any rank on that list that would surprise you that they would sign such a letter."

Having covered dissident Catholics for the National Catholic Register, I am sure they are the usual suspects. But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. These priests will claim to speak for the Church--some true, non-hierchical Church that exists in their imaginations--and people will believe that, indeed, what they say is what the Church teaches.

Catholic blogger Diogenese sums up this problem:

"What about the naive Catholics who presume that, when they visit their local parish, the homily will faithfully reflect what the Church teaches, and what they need to hear as they work toward their own salvation?"

John Allen gets that point, too:

"But there is an expectation that if someone is teaching, preaching or publishing in the name of the Church, they should not add to the confusion of what Church teaching actually is.
There's one time-tested method of ensuring that parish preaching matches Catholic orthodoxy. It's called a bishop--that is, one who accepts his responsibility."

One of these paragons of priestly virtue appears to have had quite the career before he entered the priesthood--indeed, one might ask: What was his vocations director thinking? Not that there's anything wrong with this, as Seinfeld would say.

Ash Wednesday, 2006

Ash Wednesday is one of the truly beautiful days in the Christian year--even though it is all about sin. In his Ash Wednesday audience, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the Christian's duty to "oppose evil with good, lies with the truth, and hatred with love." I wasn't there, of course, but the scene in Rome appeared to capture the beauty and solemnity of the day:

"The Holy Father presided at a traditional Roman observance of Ash Wednesday, leading a penitential procession from the church of St. Anselm to the basilica of Santa Sabina, for Mass and the distribution of ashes. In his homily he said that the Lenten season reminds Christians that spiritual life is a form of combat 'in which the weapons of prayer, fasting, and penance must be used.' The ascetic life of the penitential season should be followed 'with humility and patience, generosity and perseverance,' the Pontiff continued. By developing an interior attitude of humility and self-sacrifice, he said, Christians become 'witnesses and apostles of peace.' "

I hate it when preachers try to tart up some ancient idea by relating it to something modern, which can turn out to be trite if the preacher hasn't really thought it through.

At the risk of being trite, here goes: How is Ash Wednesday like a contemporary 12-step program? Both ask people to face the truth, or hit bottom. In the case of Ash Wednesday and Lent, the awful truth we must face is that we are all sinners. The Misere me, Deus in "A Penitential Office for Ash Wednesday" in the old Episcopal Book of Common Prayer captures the awesome nature of our sins:

"Have mercy upon me, O God, after thy great goodness; * according to the multitude of thy mercies do away mine offences. Wash me throughly from my wickedness, * and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my faults, * and my sin is ever before me. Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight; * that thou mightest be justified in thy saying, and clear when thou art judged. Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, * and in sin hath my mother conceived me. But lo, thou requirest truth in the inward parts, * and shalt make me to understand wisdom secretly. "

But the amazing thing is that, if we allow ourselves to face our sins, we don't have to rectify the situation on our own. We ask God to "Turn thou us, O good Lord, and so shall we be turned."

Ash Wednesday is about turning to God and allowing ourselves to be turned by Him. God bless, and have a nice Lent! [Just for the record, you weren't conceived in sin because sex is evil, but because we all inherit the taint of original sin--the one Christian dogma, some wag once observed, for which there is empirical evidence. In Lent, we try to build on nature and become better--with help.]

Baghdad Isn't London of the Blitz

Swami recently asked why Loose Canon never writes about the war in Iraq. But I have repeatedly made it clear that I support the war. Perhaps he means the civil war that is said to be emerging?

Here is a quote from a column from Iraq by military affairs expert Ralph Peters that might help explain my reticence:

"The reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

"Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

"Yesterday, I crisscrossed Baghdad, visiting communities on both banks of the Tigris and logging at least 25 miles on the streets. With the weekend curfew lifted, I saw traffic jams, booming business—and everyday life in abundance.

"Yes, there were bombings yesterday. The terrorists won't give up on their dream of sectional strife, and know they can count on allies in the media as long as they keep the images of carnage coming. They'll keep on bombing. But Baghdad isn't London during the Blitz, and certainly not New York on 9/11."

Happy Shrove Tuesday!

One of my favorite customs is having pancakes for supper on Shrove Tuesday, which is today. Pancakes were traditionally eaten because the rich ingredients--eggs, fat, and milk--were forbidden during Lent, which begins tomorrow with Ash Wednesday. Many churches and families preserve this tradition, providing a connection to the Christian past and a pleasant way to be reminded of Christian precepts.

Captain Yips, an Anglican blogger, has a nice piece on Lent and the weather (doesn't it come at just the right time of year to strike a penitential note?) and what we might derive from the penitential season that is fast upon us:

"As we consider Lent, let’s begin with the assumption that our imaginations are poor things, too stuffed with mashed potatoes to know all that God wants for us. We’re more like children who can only see the repressive and unwanted parental discipline but not the independence, the emotional and intellectual maturity that is the goal. We’re always down among the pigs, and every day begins with the realization that we can trust the Father. We’re a long way from home down a dry and dusty road, but the greeting at the end is beyond our imagination. In Lent, we fast a little, give up a little, for the sake of making room in our imaginations for something greater."

Wishing you all a happy Lent, too!

Science and Christianity: Bnet Members Speak!

Loose Canon correctly anticipated that Beliefnet members could go to town discussing two pro-Christianity quotes (you may read them here) from Rodney Stark’s new book, “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.”

Even Swami, often so manifestly unhappy, rose magnificently to the occasion. In a post headlined “Loose Canon’s Challenge: Name One great thing Jesus didn’t do,” Swam writes:

“Gotta feel really bad for LC, who writes:
Do I sometimes detect a soupcon of hostility toward the singular achievements of Western civilization among those who post comments on Loose Canon?

“I assume she means on her message boards, where a random reading does reveal considerable hostility. Most of it seems directed at LC herself.”

Well, I laughed out loud—Swam is right, I do have my—um—detractors among those who express themselves in the comments. A goodly number of the 40 posts were interesting and thoughtful. A few highlights are in order. Basileus writes:

“One final note, LC: if you detect a soupcon of hostility towards the singular achievements of Western civilization, I don't think it's due to those achievements themselves. Indeed, the achievements are profound. It's how you come across with it: like it's the only civilization ever to produce anything and it is just innately superior, just because...it's the West!”The West would not have gotten where it was today if it didn't piggyback on civs before it and sometimes even outright borrow or steal.”

I quite agree—of course, Western civilization has appropriated the achievements of other civilizations. The stream contains elements from desert tribes and highbrows who philosophized on the Acropolis. The point in the Stark book (I think) is that it is only in the much-maligned Western society that science arose. One reason for this is that the Christian West believed in a rational god who created the world. Here is another smidgen from Stark to get your engines running:

“As Alfred North Whitehead put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread ‘faith in the possibility of science…derivative from medieval theology.’ Whitehead’s pronouncement shocked not only his distinguished audience but Western intellectuals in general once his lectures had been published. How could this great philosopher and mathematician, coauthor with Bertrand Russell of the landmark "Principia Mathmatica" (1910-13), make such an outlandish claim? Did he not know that religion is the mortal enemy of scientific inquiry?

“Whitehead knew better. He had grasped that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else.”

Christianity postulated a rational deity and a universe about which mankind could learn. “As conceived by Chinese philosophers, the universe simply is and always was,” writes Stark, adding that therefore Chinese intellectuals pursued “enlightenment” rather than explanations.

Beliefnet member mercmisfire wrote:

“I stated that it [is?] the opposition of Christianity to science [that is?] is at least as valid a historical fact as the importance of Christianity to science, and that at this point the former has more practical usefulness (that is, that at this point, dwelling on the past successes of christianity is useless -- it has served its purpose and glorifying its past is less helpful than realizing the danger it poses to science NOW because the present it just a more useful focus in this situation). I must admit I don't really know that I need to defend this ... is it not obvious at this point ? Look to the bunk of intelligent design or creationism, to the opposition to stem cell research, cloning, materialism/naturalism, etc. and you will see all the proof I need.”

I, of course, believe that the purpose of Christianity is eternal. But I must admit that merc was hot on the trail of one of the reasons I had chosen these two quotes from Stark—I thought that if Beliefnet members could see that Christianity is not anti-science, they might be willing to entertain some of the cautions Christians throw out about the uses to which modern science is put—cloning, for example. I guess I was barking up the wrong tree.

Beliefnet member Cheryl writes:

”Christianity has fought tooth and nail against the advances that our gossip columnist now right pundit LC would have us believe were innovations of the faith.” However, the big-picture issue here is Ms Hayes [sic] and her supreme insistance that white is right. I'm glad that Bnet pulled her ‘the Crusades got a bum rap’ post, but she has posted things in the past that have gotten through, like a similar post to this awhile back, and the shameful post that no one should mourn the loss of the Mayan civilization because they didn't add anything to the world anyway (posted right after a devastating hurricane killed hundreds of Mayan descendants).”

I am glad you brought this up—I do not believe white is right. Forget race and color—this about creed, Cheryl. The point made in the Stark book is that Christianity—the thought processes it introduced, not the people who happened to embrace it—is responsible for the rise of science.

And I am glad that you brought up my ill-fated Crusades post—it was a technologically inept Loose Canon, not her editors at Beliefnet, who removed the post—accidentally. I might have said that the Mayan civilization ranked below, say, fifth-century Athens, but I never said that the deaths of Mayan descendants in a hurricane should not be mourned.

LC enjoyed the comments and regrets that she cannot mention all.

Conscientious Objectors in White Coats

The fight about pharmacists, conscience, and Plan B, the morning-after pill, is heating up. It looks as if it is going to be a state-by-state fight, with different states coming to different conclusions.

An interesting piece in the Washington Post this morning noted a variety of ways in which state legislatures seek to have the pill dispensed:

"Many of the state bills intended to expand access give specially trained pharmacists in states including Maryland, New York, Kentucky and Illinois the right to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription. Other bills require pharmacies to stock and distribute the drug, and to ensure that the pill is made available to women who come into emergency rooms after a sexual assault.

"But some bills would make it more difficult for many women to get emergency contraception, which is effective for only 72 hours after a woman experiences a contraceptive failure or unprotected sex. Legislation in New Hampshire, for instance, would require parental notification before the drug is dispensed, and more than 20 other states will consider bills that give pharmacies the right not to stock the drug and pharmacists the right not to dispense it, even to women with valid prescriptions.

"'Basically, every state now has an effort going to either make Plan B more easily available or to slow it down or make sure that pharmacists don't have to dispense if they oppose it,' said Edward R. Martin, a lawyer and lobbyist with Americans United for Life, who has helped put together some of the proposed 'conscience' clauses."

Most of us would say that we are a society that does not force you to act against your own conscience. The idea that someone might have moral qualms about dispensing this pill and insist upon acting on their consciences, however, is another matter, especially to the "enlightened" among us, people who would ordinarily hail those (conscientious objectors, for example) who act upon their consciences. But the morning-after pill brings out the illogical in its staunch supporters.

Nowhere was this more obvious in Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick's piece yesterday in the Washington Post. She started this way:

"No one disputes that there are circumstances in which people have a fundamental right to assert a moral or religious objection to performing duties -- such as military service -- and thus cannot be pressed by law into performing them. The problem lies in sorting out who can opt out and when.

"Consider, through that lens, the parallels between California physicians who refused last week to participate in the execution of a convicted killer and the growing numbers of pharmacists around the country who refuse to dispense morning-after pills."

You read this and think: How is she going to uphold the right of the California physicians and still deny the right to the pharmacists? You know it will take some fancy footwork, and fancy footwork is what you get. (By the way, Loose Canon, a supporter of capital punishment, not only believes the California doctors had the right to refuse--she believes they did the correct thing: the court has decreed a death, but using doctors to carry out the sentence blurs the distinction between medicine and execution. )

But back to Ms. Lithwick's dance of illogic. She is certainly to be commended for arriving at the "right" position:

"Physicians and pharmacists who refuse to participate in what they deem to be killing have more in common than many of us might like to admit. But the most important distinction between them has to do with their differing relationship with patients. The law recognizes that doctors' special relationship with their patients warrants a legal privilege: Their discussions are kept secret. You may like and trust your pharmacist. You may even trust him with intimate details about your yeast infection. But your pharmacist has neither the tools nor the right to probe details about rape and abuse, incest and health risks. Which is why pharmacists who interpose between decisions made by a doctor and her patient are overstepping not just moral but legal boundaries--and undermining another professional relationship that is fundamentally different from their own."

And this gem:

"The right of conscience is a subjective one. And no one disputes that a pharmacist's moral objection to dispensing certain drugs is as heartfelt or urgent as a physician's refusal to inject lethal doses of sodium thiopental. But as a legal or legislative matter, the inquiry should begin, not end, with that moral objection. Legal regimes that balance an individual's right to opt out against safeguards for patients (like making it the pharmacy's responsibility to provide timely alternatives) are good compromises. Similarly, if physicians cannot supervise executions consonant with their professional obligations, we may need to devise some new form of capital punishment that does not require a doctor's intervention to ensure against violent, painful death.

"There should and will always be space in this country for conscientious objectors. But it cannot and should not follow that murder is murder is murder."

I have no idea what the last sentence means. But I love, "the right of conscience is a subjective one." Such an overtly Orwellian sentence is rare. In this piece, the pharmacist has no right to exercise her conscience because the doctor and patient have exercised theirs. By that reasoning, the California physicians should just be told that the courts have decided: they have no right to exercise their own consciences. In Ms. Lithwick's word, there is "space" for conscientious objectors in matters of war but not for pharmacists who may in some states soon be required to do things they regard as morally repugnant.

I want to thank those who responded to my two quotes about Western civ in Friday's post. Thanks to the marvels of modern air travel, I arrived home this morning instead of last night (don't ask!) from a trip. I plan to read the comments in the morning after I have rested from my night of the living dead in a motel I'd better not name for fear of slandering it.

How the West Won

Do I sometimes detect a soupcon of hostility toward the singular achievements of Western civilization among those who post comments on Loose Canon? I would love for you to respond to these two quotes from a wonderful new book, "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success":

"Theology is in disrepute among most Western intellectuals. The word is taken to mean a passe form of religious thinking that embraces irrationality and dogmatism. So too, Scholasticism. According to any edition of Webster's, 'scholastic' means 'pedantic and dogmatic,' denoting the sterility of medieval church scholarship. John Locke, the eighteenth-century British philosopher, dismissed the Scholastics as 'the great mintmasters' of useless terms meant 'to cover their ignorance.' Not so! The scholastics were fine scholars who founded Europe's great universities and launched the rise of Western science. As for theology, it has little in common with most religious thinking, being a sophisticated, highly rational discipline that is fully developed only in Christianity."

And:

"The so-called Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century has been misinterpreted by those wishing to assert an inherent conflict between religion and science. Some wonderful things were achieved in this era, but they were not produced by an eruption of secular thinking. Rather, these achievements were the culmination of many centuries of systematic progress by medieval Scholastics, sustained by that uniquely Christian twelfth-century invention, the university. Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable--the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars."

I'll be interested in what you have to say, especially Swami, who has put forward the unverifiable claim that he actually thinks about his posts before writing them, and who has several days to cogitate on this.

Food for Thought

Loose Canon was thrilled to note that Rod Dreher's Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party) was #46 this morning on Amazon. Anything below 10,000 is considered good. Rod is a former colleague and a fine fellow, who did terrific work ferreting out clerical sexual abuse. It's great to see him doing so well. And if his thesis is right, it's great to see trad vals thriving, too.

A convert to Catholicism, Rod describes "crunchy conservatives" as people who have mostly old-fashioned, including most notably Christian, values but do a lot of things usually identified with lefties (free-range farming, etc.) A review in Publishers Weekly describes crunchy cons as people who "voted for Bush but shop at Whole Foods." (The review, not overly perceptive in my view, is quoted on Amazon.)

The National Review (where Rod once worked, before going to the Dallas Morning News) has devoted an entire blog to the book. Rod himself weighs in frequently, including a post on how we care for the elderly--see below, some people euthanize them.) Amy Welborn, Beliefnet contributor Fredericka Matthewes-Greene (here and here), and others debate Rod's ideas--and offer confessions. (I won't tell you who got her navel pierced!)

If Rod is right about all this, one pleasant observation: Christian conservatives are quite likely to outbreed secular liberals.

I am heading to Natchez, Mississippi, later today--but don't worry, I've left behind a thought-provoking item for you to discuss among yourseves on Friday.