Month: October 2007

God and Hillary Clinton, Part 4 – Pro-choice Christians?

This is part 4 of an ongoing series of interviews with colleague Paul Kengor examining the religious views of leading candidates for president. In this interview, Dr. Kengor expands his prior treatment of Hillary Clinton’s views on abortion by describing “pro-choice Christians.” Links to the previous posts on this and related topics are listed at the end of the interview.

THROCKMORTON: You have made a point to describe the sincerity of Hillary Clinton’s Christian affiliations while at the same time embracing abortion rights. In a sense, then, she could be described as a “pro-choice Christian.” Is there a larger pro-choice Christian voting block that may have some impact in the next election?

KENGOR: Hillary is very much part of the Religious Left, which is united in its commitment to “social justice.” Tragically, for many on the Religious Left, this justice is confined to race and class and economics, and only for those fortunate enough to have been born. They do not extend their social justice to the unborn, which they relegate to the status of non-humans who are deprived of the most basic of all rights: the right to life. This is a complete, utter injustice. They refuse to extend the social-justice umbrella to include these most innocent and defenseless among us, those who most need our protection. These Religious Left individuals include a Baptist named Bill Clinton, Roman Catholics like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, and a Methodist named Hillary Clinton, to name merely a few.

Both Hillary and her United Methodist Church leadership would describe themselves as “pro-choice Christians.” In fact, her church is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

This will shock pro-lifers to read this, but there are actually pro-choice Christian feminists who pray to God for the ability to abort their children.

THROCKMORTON: Give us some examples of these pro-choice Christians.

KENGOR: Well, Planned Parenthood has its own chaplain. Then there are groups like Episcopalians for Choice, Christian Dykes for Choice, Francis Kissling’s heretical Catholics for a Free Choice, and so on.

When I was an undergraduate, there was a group of feminists at a nearby college–the name of which I will withhold–that called itself First Church of Christ Abortionist, which taught that abortion was a kind of holy sacrament for women. I know this sounds completely insane, which, of course, it is, but I promise you that I’m not making this up. Who could make up something like that?

THROCKMORTON: What is Hillary Clinton’s association with some of these groups?

The most disturbing example that I detail in my book [God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life] was the April 2004 “March for Women’s Lives” in Washington, DC. This was a pro-choice gathering that was so over-the-top and in fact obscene that George Neumayr, the veteran Catholic reporter and editor-in-chief of Catholic World Report, characterized it as a Pagan festival, though Neumayr rightly cautioned that this might be unfair to ancient pagans, since worshipers of Baal would no doubt have found the gathering too depraved for their tastes. Much of what occurred there was so profane that it could not be printed in newspapers or broadcast without violating FCC standards.

Women carried signs decrying the president’s mother, Barbara Bush, for not aborting her oldest son. “If Only Barbara Bush Had Choice,” read one sign; “Barbara Chose Poorly,” said another. They held up similar placards regarding Pope John Paul II, stating things like “The Pope’s Mother Had No Choice.” Another sign declared: “Pro-Life is to Christianity as Al-Qaeda is to Islam.” Another proclaimed: “I asked God, She’s pro-choice.” A female rabbi said that to be “pro-choice” was to be “pro-God.” The abortion doctor George Tiller referred to the unholy alliance of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

It was a hateful, intolerant scene, and it was into this zoo that Mrs. Clinton stepped. In fact, her presence seemed one of the few joyful moments for these extremely angry women. The emcee had just finished telling the crowd, “I want to be your dominatrix this morning.” Then, before introducing Senator Clinton, she observed, to explosive applause, “Estrogen levels on this Mall have reached levels we enjoy.” These feminists adore Mrs. Clinton, and she adores them.

THROCKMORTON: You have said that Mrs. Clinton’s former OB-GYN, an abortion doctor, describes himself as a pro-choice Christian?

KENGOR: That’s correct. His name is William F. Harrison, who became Hillary’s personal OB-GYN in the early 1970s in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He has done about 20,000 abortions. He was interviewed at length for my book. He was quite candid, extremely open, and very generous with his time. He likewise is a Methodist. He says that he prays to God that Hillary will be our next president. He has described his patients as “born again,” saved from the scourge of botched abortions. I continue to exchange occasional emails with him. He sent me a copy of his memoirs, each chapter of which starts with a Bible verse. When asked how Hillary, as a Christian, could advocate abortion rights, he was puzzled by the question, noting that Hillary, after all, is a Methodist. Point taken.

Tomorrow I will post the remainder of this interview which will discuss the views of Barack Obama, and more on Rudy Giuliani. Thanks again to Paul for this series.

Past posts in this series:

New Book Explores God and Hillary Clinton

More on God and Hillary Clinton: An Interview with Historian Paul Kengor

Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani: A Pro-Life Dilemma?

Click HERE for a related article on abortion and mental health.

Cohen: IHF has “no religious affiliations”

Richard Cohen has issued a statement regarding his International Healing Foundation and religious affiliations.

IHF UC

I have a copy of what appears to be the IHF Articles of Incorporation supplied by a former board member. I hope to verify them soon. They begin this way:

Section 2 – Beliefs: Essential Beliefs of IHF

1. God, our Higher Power, is the center of the process of healing restoration. Without the power of God’s truth and love, true and lasting healing is not possible.

2. God created men and women to 1) fruitful – achieve individual maturity, 2) multiply – establish God-centered families; and 3) take dominion over creation with true love.

They continue in a generally religious manner. If these are current policy, it appears that IHF is indeed religious, but not sectarian.

Mr. Cohen’s website statement above is similar to a statement he issued in 2000 when this issue came up. Prior to 2000, the IHF was listed as a Moon Front Group. Compiled by Larry Zilliox and endorsed by cult expert and ex-Unification church member, Steve Hassan, the list is very long and actually referenced on a Unification church website. The list is also featured on Rick Ross’s website. The IHF is still on the list but also includes the following statements from Richard Cohen regarding the Unification Church.

International Healing Foundation P.O. Box 901, Bowie, MD 20718-0901 Phone (301) 3… Richard Cohen, Director. Mr. Cohen is author of the book “Coming Out Straight,” which is about “a successful treatment plan for transitioning from homosexual to heterosexual.” Within this book Cohen tells of his “own story of coming out straight [and] about [his] spiritual journey from Jew to Christian to moonie and back to Christian” again. Richard Cohen advised (Feb. 13, 2000) that his “foundation was never a project of the Unification Church [and that he] left the Unification church in 1995…[and] joined a local Christian church two years ago.”

In a recent statement (Feb. 16, 2000) Richard Cohen concluded, “I DO NOT believe Rev. Moon is the messiah…[nor that] Rev. and Mrs. Moon are ‘true parents’ or serve as role models. I under no uncertain terms, support ANY activity or program of the Unification Church.”

Recent questions regarding the IHF and the UC must be seen in the context of persistent concerns raised by cult experts and observers since the IHF was initially listed as a group with Moon connections. I believe the questions are fair in light of clear evidence of UC involvement by IHF staff and board members not long after these denials were issued. See my prior posts here and here.

It is also worth noting that the Unification Church is actually not an entity at present but, in 1997, was absorbed into an entity Rev. Moon set up called The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. Read this internal communication which addressed the confusion experienced by those in the movement about the change from church to family federation. It would be possible to claim one is not a member of the Unification Church and still be involved with the Unificationist movement or Family Church federation. On this point, Sun Myung Moon declared in 1997:

Therefore we can build the Kingdom of God here. As Unification Church Blessed couples, if we truly fulfill the role of tribal messiahs, there is an automatic extension. That is why we can truly restore this world into the Kingdom of God. For this purpose, Father took down the HSA-UWC sign and placed a new sign: The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.

In a history of the Unification Movement, there is a reasonably candid description of this change, referring to Moon’s requirement for a change of name and focus. Church leader Damian Anderson comments further about the name change here.

Another aspect of the Unification Movement that creates confusion is the similar sound of Unification theology to traditional Christian doctrines. Read this 2001 note regarding Christ from US Unification leader Michael Jenkins:

Statement Concerning Incorrect Presentation of Unification Teaching on Jesus Christ

To: National Desk

Contact: Family Federation for World Peace and Unification,

202-722-6800

Email: [email protected]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ — The following is a statement by Rev. Michael Jenkins, President, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, USA, concerning the incorrect presentation of Unification Teaching on Jesus Christ:

The Associated Press has recently reported incorrectly the beliefs concerning Jesus and the faith of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon).

An August 14th article entitled “Vatican:Archbishop Giving Up Wife” states incorrectly, “For instance, Moon’s followers regard Moon as the messiah who is completing the salvation Jesus Christ failed to accomplish.”

The church affirms Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and that his mission was successful in bringing salvation through the blood atonement. Because of the rejection of the chosen people to receive Jesus, the promised Kingdom of God did not come at that time but was prolonged until Jesus return. This prolongation was not a failure on Jesus part but of that of the people who God had prepared to receive Him.

The Unification teaching doesn’t associate the lack of the faith of the people to receive Jesus with any failure on Jesus’ part. Their rejection caused a prolongation of his mission and calls for His return.

Unification teaching affirms Jesus as Lord and Savior. In a recent publication of Rev. Moon’s teaching, The Life and Mission of Jesus Christ (HSA Publications, 2001), Rev. Moon has stated, “…Jesus is the only begotten Son of God…. That is why He is the Savior. Therefore it is only through Jesus that we can be connected to the lineage of God.”

Concerning the title of “Messiah” the Unification teaching affirms the biblical concept of the Hebrew term for “Messiah” , Messias meaning “anointed one”. Unification teaching affirms that Rev. Moon has received the anointing of Jesus and stands in a messianic role as “True Parents.” Unification teaching also affirms that the “anointing” or messianic role is also conveyed to other pastors and leaders who, if called by God, take up the cross and follow Jesus

Now I must hasten to add that much of what I have written here may have no relevance to Mr. Cohen’s IHF. By this point, I am developing some interest in understanding the Moon organizations. I am trying to understand how this organization operates to try to make sense of the statements of Mr. Cohen and Mrs. Wiemann and what I read on the Unificationist websites involving them (much of which is fast disappearing as someone is altering most of the websites). Again, readers must decide what if anything is relevant or important.

Hey, I read it in the papers – Paul Cameron extends his methods

Reading obituaries probably gets boring and maybe a little morbid, so it is understandable that the Paul Cameron research machine has branched out and included tragic news articles as data collection.

In his spanking new venture, the Empirical Journal of Same Sex Sexual Behavior, Cameron has released a “study” called, Teacher-Pupil Sex Across the World: How Much Is Homosexual? Apparently, the only article in the journal so far, the article’s abstract says:

In news stories in English across the world for 1980-2006, 902 teachers engaged in sex with 3,457 pupils. Teachers engaging in same-sex sex constituted 63% of perpetrators in Ireland, 62% in New Zealand, 60% in Canada, 54% in Scotland, 48% in Australia, 47% in England, and 35% in the U.S.; in smaller samples, homosexuals accounted for 71% of perpetrators in mainland Europe, 26% in Africa, and 13% in Asia. Proportionately more same-sex sexual activity with pupils occurred in the West as compared to Asia and Africa. Most (54% of 810 male, 83% of 92 female) teachers violated only opposite sex pupils; 43% of perpetrators engaged in homosexuality; and 55% of victims were boys. Findings for each country or set of countries were consistent with U.S. studies based on superintendent report, principal report, self-report, and convictions indicating that a male homosexual is the most and a female heterosexual the least apt to have sex with pupils.

Cameron begins the article noting the prevalence of sexual molestations in educational settings and then basically documents the fatal flaw in his paper:

Even though teacher/pupil sexual events are fairly common, an instance of teacher/pupil has to run a veritable gauntlet before it becomes public knowledge. Educational systems try vigorously to assure that teacher molestations are not brought to light. So such an event is likely to be suppressed. (p. 2)

Anyone familiar with schools and teacher behavior knows that these events are frequently covered up with many never getting to trial and thus are not captured by newspapers. Who knows how many actual events occur? Who knows how many of the same-sex perpetrators are married with kids? Not to mention that same sex perpetrations might actually be more likely to be reported and made public. And yet, Cameron considers news reports a source of data adequate enough to include in his inaugural issue. So since he demolished any credibility the study could have, there is no point in going any further, right? Of course, he does, and we get statistics that may end up in a news release somewhere.

Rather than me taking time to predict the next study that will emerge from the headlines, let me turn it over to my readers. What else might we learn from newspapers, folks?

Cameron’s news release on this study is here.

AP story on the Sanders’ study of gay brothers

The Associated Press reports that the Alan Sanders study of gay brothers continues in search of 1000 pairs of gay brothers.

The study’s website describes the scope and purpose:

In 2003, the N.I.H. funded Dr. Alan R. Sanders, a psychiatrist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute to conduct a five-year study of approximately 1,000 pairs of gay brothers, along with any other available brothers and parents from families recruited from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia, i.e., mainly English speaking countries since the materials such as the web site, consent form, and questionnaire are in English.

The purpose of this study is to see whether gay brothers on average share genetic regions inherited from their parents. When studying a trait, such as sexual orientation, with genetic techniques it is much more efficient to focus on the less common variant; hence, we are studying families with gay brothers to learn more about the development of male sexual orientation. This study will shed light on the role of genetics in the development of sexual orientation of human males.

Some research indicates that some very ‘feminine’ boys seem to become homosexual more frequently than other boys (reviewed in [1]). The same seems to hold true of some very ‘masculine’ girls. It is also true that many children who become homosexual adults behave just like other members of their own gender. However, it is not our intention to perpetuate stereotypes, or to imply that all gay men are or were ‘feminine’. Rather, our purpose is to understand what impact childhood ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ may have on the adult lives of men who are attracted to other men. In order to explore these observations further, this study will ask participating brothers about their recollections of their childhood behaviors such as play activities, relationships with others, and so on.

Stanton Jones and Alan Chambers were interviewed for this article. The AP writer implied that Stanton said the Exodus study has some relevance to genetics. I don’t believe Stan made such a link:

Skeptics include Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at conservative Christian school Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. An evangelical Christian, Jones last month announced results of a study he co-authored that says it is possible for gays to “convert” — changing their sexual orientation without harm.

Jones said his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.

Stanton dismissed such questions last month at the AACC meeting saying the Exodus study had nothing to do with genetics or causes.

UPDATE – 10/16/07 – As expected, I heard from Stan Jones today who said he was not characterized properly by the AP reporter Tanner. In fact, he told the reporter that using his study with Yarhouse to discuss cause was inappropriate. Stan does not think the genetic contribution is likely to be large and perhaps she wrongly combined the two points.