Powell Endorses Obama

This entire segment on Meet the Press is worth watching, but I want to direct your attention to the part of his statement beginning at minute 4:27.



Right on, General Powell!

"What if he is?" and "Is there something wrong with a 7 year old Muslim-American kid who believes he or she could be President?"

These are the questions we SHOULD be talking about. And "Muslim-American" in that question should be interchangeable with atheist or agnostic or Hindu or Jewish...

The Green Service

I'd encourage you to consider taking a little time this week to read some of the articles in the New York Times' Green Issue that they've published in honor of Earth Day. In the interest of mixing things up a bit, I've taken the liberty to arrange some of my favorite articles and features into the structure of a church service.

Where I go to church, the service starts with singing. In churchgoer lingo worship is a way to transition from the business of the week or the day and focus on the time you plan to spend meditating, learning, reflecting and challenging the ideas that will come of the service. Worship can be just song, but could also include projected artwork, dramatic readings, instrumental expression or even dance. The online version of the green issue includes a funky tribute to the sculptures used as headings throughout the article.

Every church service features a scripture reading, whether it be from a pre-determined yearly schedule or selected by that day's service leaders. In most Christian traditions, this includes readings from the Old and New Testaments. It was reading some of the entries in the ACT/ EAT/ INVENT/ LEARN/ LIVE/ MOVE/ BUILD sections that I though of this theme. Scripture readings are small snippets from the Bible that can then offer digestible ideas for study or contemplation. Of these, I recommend the LIVE and INVENT sections.

For the personal testimony, head over to Pasadena, CA where the Dervaes family has gone 'off the grid.' As my wife listened to the video report with me, she pointed out, "Those people used to be called Hippies." Maybe so, but these days, there's a lot more hip to what they are doing. Contrast their strategy with the way rich folks go green a la Bill Nye.

The sermon, tucked in toward the end of the service, centers on the motivation, justification, and implementation of individual efforts to curb fossil fuel consumption and carbon emission. The garden is rich with metaphor. The seed and sower have a long tradition in secular and religious texts. Michael Pollan provides a fresh take on the garden as a social force for lessening climate change.

Finally, for the benediction, I quote Rabbi Julian Sinclair:

“The environmental movement has been overwhelmingly secular for 40 years and has achieved amazing things,” he says, “but it hasn’t yet figured out how to move people on a massive scale because it isn’t telling the right story.’ Sinclair says he believes that the “doom-laden apocalyptic narrative” favored by the mainstream environmental movement can paralyze rather than motivate necessary lifestyle adjustments. Conversely, he says religion — which has been “in the behavioral-change business for 3,000 years” — offers a distinct message of hope and boasts an impressive track record of moral persuasion: “There have been watershed moments when religion has barged into public life, blown away the windbaggery of politics-as-usual and declared with irresistible force, ‘This must change now!’ ”

Race and Religion in 2008

Barack Obama made a speech this morning about race and religion in America. It cheered me after a rough and tumble day and a half on the wards. On a tip from a friend, I started listening to it in the background while I studied lung cancer. I had to put down the book to consider the elements of our life, culture and nation bigger than the little problems I'm facing today. If you have half an hour, I encourage you to listen. Here's a link to one recording of the speech. Don't worry -it's not a campaign speech until minute 27, and even then, it really doesn't have that feel. His words are part sermon, part lecture, part address to the nation, and yes, part campaign speech.

A Democratic Jesus

It's been a while since I've posted anything in overt reference to religion on this page. A piece in the Washington Post today got me fired up, though. I'd encourage all the liberals (religious, skeptic and/or atheist) out there to read this nice article by Amy Sullivan.

She uses some great examples of people from different backgrounds and intentworking together toward a common goal and wraps up with the following account:

Walking through Dulles Airport not long after losing the 2004 election, John Kerry was stopped by a supporter. The man shook Kerry's hand and told the senator that he was an evangelical. "I voted for you," he said, "and so did a lot of evangelicals. But you could have gotten more of us if you'd tried." Kerry was floored. Evangelical Democrats?

No wonder Kerry fared worse among evangelicals than any other Democratic nominee in modern history, losing the votes of nearly four out of five. To engage a constituency, a campaign needs to at least know it exists.

Even so, the Democratic nominee this fall will have advantages Kerry never did. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lifelong Methodist with years of experience teaching Sunday school in Arkansas who's married to the party's most prominent evangelical Democrat. Obama, a committed Christian, is more thoughtful and relaxed talking about religion than any other Democratic politician. Most important, they'll have the support of a party that is slowly starting to see that there are many faces of the faithful.

There is a reason to make friends on the other side of the aisle. We may not all agree on everything, but a lot of us agree that something needs to change. Let's find that small voice of hope and use it to tie us together in common cause.

A New Convergence?

Is there room at the center to talk about religion and politics? Jim Wallace of the Sojourners thinks so. He's got a new book describing our country as the post-religious right America. I haven't read it, but Seattle PI's Joel Connelly got me interested enough to put it on my Amazon wish list. I think I'd even subscribe to Sojourners Magazine. If only I had more time to read. I've kinda got a backlog. And there's something else I have to do...

What was it?

Shoot, I'm getting forgetful in my old age.

Socialized Mormons

So, Mitt Romney's a Mormon... This we knew. And he “will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.” Okay... That's inclusive (patronizing?) enough for me. And he does "not insist on a single strain of religion—rather, he welcomes our nation’s symphony of faith." Wait a minute... does this assume that all have faith? What about my atheist friends and colleagues? Will they have chairs in Mitt Romney's orchestra?

In the end, I think it is really too bad that Romney is not interested in being a spokesman for his faith. After all, the current President of the Mormon Church, Gordon B. Hinckley "hates war with all its mocking panoply... War is Earth’s greatest cause of human misery. It is the destroyer of life, the promoter of hate, the waster of treasure. It is man’s costliest folly, his most tragic misadventure.” The candidate willing to say this whose name is not Ron Paul, will get my vote. Even if he's from Ohio.

A look at Mitt Romney’s vision for America’s foreign policy reveals little, however, that resembles any of these most basic and central Mormon values. In contrast to Gordon Hinckley’s hatred of war, Romney’s central foreign policy concern, in fact, is a deepening of American militarism and war making. Specifically, Romney advocates drastically increasing American military expenditures, escalating the Iraq war, continuing operations against transnational Islamic militant groups, and preparing for a military assault on Iran.

That's the analysis offered by a little publication a friend recently alerted me of called The Mormon Worker. This was penned a few months ago; perhaps Romney will soon change his mind about Iran.

The Mormon Worker is a strange collection of ideas conflating anarchism, Mormonism, and socialism that highlights some central disparities between the teachings of Mormonism and the way most Mormons vote. Many of the arguments are the same made by Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. See also the Christians who in the voting booth or policy forum seem to always forget the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount.

Due to the agreements forged by church fathers and the state in the wake of the controversies surrounding polygamy,

Mormons find themselves supporting capitalism and government, and therefore exploitation, imperialism, jingoism, and militarism, considering these things inherent to their religion, despite the many resources within Mormon scripture advocating the contrary. One significant reason Mormons should seek to abolish government and capitalism is the fact that States continually wage war in foreign lands for the sake of economic gain.

To William Van Wagenen (the man behind the Worker) and the other Mormon workers (I wonder if all Mormon workers are stock brokers like Van Wagenan...) out there, I tip my hat. I challenge you to vote your conscience in 2008, even if there's no chance of Utah being a blue state.

Witnessing Evil?

On November 28 a young man named Dennis Lindberg died in Seattle's Children's hospital. He died because he refused treatment for leukemia. I have personally met many individuals close to this case. I work in Skagit County, WA - the same county where Judge John Meyer made his well publicized ruling. Last week, A Jehovah's Witness who happened to have a deep vein thrombosis taught me about the Winesses' perspectives about blood. His wife shared that she was in the same congregation as this young man. The attending hematologist for this procedure gave lectures about leukemia when I was a medical student at Children's Hospital in Seattle. My wife worked with him for a new diagnosis of leukemia that presented in a kid that came to the Children's ER. I have taken courses with and from some of the professional ethicists on staff at Children's. I would not choose the same path for myself of a child in the same situation, but when you see the story from so many angles, it's harder to be so critical of the outcome.

On top of the complexity already inherent in this case, there are a few distortions, inaccuracies and partial truths about this story gaining traction in the blogosphere - particularly in the atheist community. This post is meant to bring to light some of those lapses in intellectual honesty. We all complain about how science is too-often misused by politicians; when dealing with an issue as controversial at this one, the least we can do is present all of the facts.

Here are some points that if you rely on blogger news, you may not have encountered:

(1) Jehovah's Witnesses were founded in 1872. Any reference to the faith being founded on Bronze Age or Dark Ages thinking is inaccurate hyperbole. The religion is based on 19th Century pre-modern medical thinking.

(2) The treatment denied by the judge was not the stem cell transplant. It was a blood transfusion. Why is this distinction important? Stem cell transplants are the single most expensive procedure in medicine (hundreds of thousands of dollars just to do the procedure). We do them (and many health insurers cover them) because they work, but not all patients facing leukemia choose to be transplanted. Some cannot afford it. Some do not want to go through the pain of the procedure. Others (like this patient) have different reasons. If after providing all of the information, the patient does not consent to a procedure, the medical establishment usually respects this decision. Keep in mind that the legal decision here was related to the blood transfusion which could keep the patient alive for several days, not the stem cell transplant, which has 70% survival at 5 years as reported in the media. It's not as simple as a 750 word article would have you believe. (The Seattle PI printed a good story overall.) The Cheerful Oncologist offers a refreshing perspective on this issue.

(3) There has been some criticism of the words "mature minor." Some say it is a contradiction. The terminology comes directly from Washington State law. Health care providers are very familiar with the term; mature minor is most often applied to pregnant teenagers and to teens who need psychiatric services. The right to make autonomous, confidential (parent-free) medical decisions about reproduction (including abortion) and mental health issues is routinely conferred to 14-year-olds. It has not been previously applied to patients with blood diseases. Joana Ramos outlines some of the issues in a white paper she authored:

Doctrine of the Mature Minor
In most states of the US, 16 is the minimum age for donating blood with parental consent. In a variety of instances, teens are able to consent to, or refuse, medical treatments including surgery. It is customary that 14 is the age of consent for confidential reproductive health services, including elective abortions; substance abuse treatment and counseling; and for consent or refusal of mental health services, even when parents feel that a child’s life may be in danger(1).

The legal concept of the mature minor is well established in case law nationwide(2). It governs such topics the age of consent to engage in sexual activity, to marry, and to make independent and confidential decisions about medical care. The following list of rights extended to teens serves as a good illustration of this concept. Many of these rights involve activities that carry varying amounts of risk, may have both psychological and physical health consequences, and may be neither beneficial nor life-saving. While the laws vary in each state, teens commonly have the right to:

• make decisions as to one’s own guardian or custodial parent at 12
• travel and to purchase a ticket to travel by public conveyance anywhere in the US at age 13 without parental permission
• be employed at 16, but to engage in agricultural work at age 12, in other occupations at 14, with certain jobs being exempt from any age limits
• obtain a license and drive a motor vehicle at age 16
• have one’s body pierced at age 16 without parental consent
• enlist in the military at age 17, with parental consent
• petition the court to become an emancipated minor with cause
• make decisions on behalf of a child parented by one’s self at any age

References:
1. Stenger, RL. ( 1999-2001) “Exclusive or Concurrent Competence to Make Medical Decisions for Adolescents in the United States and United Kingdom”, Journal of Law and Health, 14(2):209-41.
2. Forman, DL. (1998) Every Parent’s Guide to the Law. (pp. 87-154) New York: Harcourt Brace.

The legal precedent in this case is that the 14-year-old was conferred mature minor status for a condition that was not reproductive or psychiatric. In his criticisms of this case, Orac makes the right concession to adult Jehovah's Witnesses regarding decisions about transfusion. He believes a grey area to apply between age 15 and 17. Based on the above examples, I think the range should be 14-17.

(4) Some have written this to be an ignorant backwards, if not abusive decision. To those who think this, I would invite you to seek out a Jehovah's Witness. Ask him about blood. If you don't learn from that individual, every congregation has several experts and health advisers. I bet you will learn things about bloodless surgeries (a few of which are at least as successful as traditional approaches) and artificial blood that you had know idea about.

(5) The newspapers included a fact about this case that most bloggers have left out. The patient's biological parents (who filed the injunction to force the blood transfusion) had a long history of drug abuse. They were in and out of jail, but had been in recovery only recently. They flew to Seattle days before the court hearing and the patient's death. If their son was dying of leukemia, why were they not in Seattle in the weeks and months before this incident?

The bottom line here is that this case is complex. At its center is a 14-year-old's autonomy. Closely related to that is the freedom of religion. The same individuals who value the separation of church and state have called for that wall's dismantling via a court of law. In the end, the judge looked at this young man's ability to make life and death decisions. My suspicion is that Dennis Lindberg was better prepared to make this decision than you or I.

Churched Stem Cells

You know those polls that separate out weekly churchgoers and Democratic voters? Or that distinguish scientists from folks that consider themselves spiritual AND religious? Well I break both of those molds. If you didn’t know already, I am a church attending, Democratic voting scientist. So shake of the surprise when I tell you that the other day I was sitting in church and the pastor opened his prayer with this statement: “The stem cell of worship is gratitude.” Often in times of public prayer, I usually zone out into my own way of meditating, but you can bet that this time I tuned in!

As a stem cell scientist (Oh yeah – I forgot to disclose above that I am an Christian embryonic stem cell scientist), I have taken full advantage of the metaphoric power of stemness. Believe me, there are plenty of opportunities for so-bad-you-can-groan puns and fantastic wordplay built into my field. Is your stem cell totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent or omnipotent? But from the pulpit?

Any good sermonette should have some numbered points. Let me make two reflections:

1) I am really glad that Pastor Dave (he officiated at my wedding, by the way) brought science into the sanctuary. Granted, this particular sanctuary is in a church situated adjacent to a large public university in liberal Seattle. There is a reason the Clergy Letter Project exists: there is the need to infuse science conversations into church life.

2) From my elementary understanding of theology, this makes sense. Think of stem cells as the progenitor. Whether worship is the act of expressing joy for your situation or it occurs as an activity to support yourself in the context of faithfulness, there is an underlying relationship with God that is dependent on the worshiper’s gratitude. If we approach whatever situation we find ourselves in – whether gifts or challenges – in the context of thankfulness, we may be able to more clearly approach our calling or purpose. This can happen with both corporate worship (as in Church), or personal worship (like when I ride my bike into work.)

I think it is the first point that got me really excited about the pastor’s use of the stem cell metaphor. If the language of science makes it into the sanctuary, can its ideas be far behind?

"Christian Faith and Reason"

Around the time the anti-evolution Creation Museum opened back in May, I stumbled upon a new magazine called Christian Faith and Reason. The publisher has an interesting idea: collect scientists, politicians, people of faith, and - really - anyone interested in reasonable discussion about issues related to Christianity to

provide in depth analysis on the most critical matters of faith in a manner that is both intellectually honest and consistent with Christian faith.

Science is an important voice in such analyses. You are thinking, "But I thought science and rational thought contradicts faith." Some of us (25-45%, depending on the survey) scientists don't think that at all. From the Christian Faith and Reason statement of beliefs,

We believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but that it must be interpreted using the faculties of human reason which God bestowed upon us.

The main way I employ the faculties of human reason is with science. I think that providing communities of Christians with a publication that provides multiple perspectives about controversial topics is a great idea especially if science is invited to a legitimate position around the table. And by multiple perspectives, the editors do not just mean all types of Christians: there were atheist and Muslim contributors in August's edition. From the magazine's statement of purpose,

We seek to provide a marketplace of ideas from all sources, especially those which challenge our viewpoint. Our thoughtful responses to those challenges will lead the sincere skeptic to consider the possibility of choosing to believe in God and the message of Jesus Christ.

This represents a moderately evangelical mission, but I appreciate the tolerance embedded in this invitation to contribute. And contributors the magazine is seeking; if after reading the online version, you wish to submit an article, visit this page. The areas covered the most so far have been science (mostly topics in evolution), atheism and topics related to Islam. The fledgling publication has had two online editions and just printed an August edition. I have signed on to contribute scientific articles for the next year, but (importantly for me) will not be responsible for others' content. You can read my primer to stem cells in this month's edition.

I would be interested to know if you think the articles up at this point live up to the ideal of intellectual honesty. It would also be interesting to know how folks respond to the more assertive claims made in a few of the articles - no matter what your background.

The Out Campaign

Those of you who read science and liberal political blogs have probably encountered a new symbol in authors' sidebars of late. Scarlet A's have been popping up all over the web. What do these red letters mean? Simply, the A is a symbol of solidarity for atheists and represents a call for atheists to make a more vocal contribution to the public conversation.

You might expect that I would - as a Christian - object to this campaign, or otherwise be put on the defensive by it. If you made that assumption, you'd be wrong. I think the Out Campaign is an admirable effort to unite a community of Americans that have been too quiet and too persecuted for too long.

My conversations with atheists about science, politics or religion are as interesting and meaningful to me as discussions on the same topic with Christians. In many instances, my agnostic and atheist friends are more likely to be open to thinking about new and different ideas. In the kinds of discussions I like to have about science, society and social justice, it doesn't matter what people believe in. It matters that they are respectful, honest and open to conversation.

As Richard Dawkins writes in his introduction to The Out Campaign,

Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.

With this, I strongly agree. Too many conversations among Christians (and other people of faith) involve categorization of atheists as militant haters. Even if names aren't used, there are underlying stereotypes of inferiority, immorality and other unfounded categories that atheists are crammed into. I resent it when as a Christian, I am labeled as homophobic, misogynistic and irrational just because other vocal Christians are these things and base their reasons for being so on a book I find illuminating.

Clearly, I will not be putting the "A" on my sidebar. But you won't find me shrinking from or picking fights with the website owners that that display that red badge of courage. If you want to display the A, head over to PZ Meyers' Pharyngula blog. He has provided code to help intrepid atheists come out.

An "A" for Zed

Remember the flurry and fury in the blogosphere last month when Rajan Zed delivered a Hindu prayer to open the Senate on July 12? A highly rated YouTube clip, a top viral video, and thousands of news articles later, Zed humbly recounts his experience for us in a guest article to the Washington Post.

Let me add my sentiments to the long list of well-wishers: Thank you for bravely continuing your prayer for understanding in the ugly face of intolerance.