Friday, June 18, 2004

A Modest Proposal

Jonathan Swift wrote a satiric essay in which he proposed that the Irish could solve their famine via cannibalism (devouring infants). He was attacking English sensibilities that were numb to all but the strongest assault. Like Dean Swift, I have a modest proposal in the aftermath of the beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia. The al Qaeda gang is hellbent to hold hostages and commit atrocities. Shock and Awe in reverse. Like another of Swift's characters (Lemuel Gulliver among the Lilliputians), the United States is a giant rendered helpless to deal with the terrorists. However, there is a way. What is most important to Osama bin Laden and his ilk? As devout Islamists, they revere—above all else—Mecca. Mecca is a city in Saudi Arabia with 1.4 million inhabitants (2003 estimate). Mecca is located about 80 km from the Red Sea Coast, around a natural well. Mecca is the most holy city in Islam. The city is revered from being the first place created on earth, as well as the place where Ibrahim together with his son Isma'il, built the Ka'ba. The Ka'ba, the centre of Islam, is a rectangular building made of bricks. Around the Ka'ba is the great mosque, al-Haram, and around the mosque, in between the mountains, are the houses that make up Mecca. Mecca's importance as a centre of religious teaching must not be exaggerated. Very soon in the beginning of the Muslim expansion, religious teaching moved to other places in the Muslim world. Mecca is important in two points: Centre of the compulsory pilgrimage, and a focal point for all Muslims. My modest proposal is simply to notify all Islamist terrorists via worldwide media that Mecca is now a hostage of the United States of America. All terrorists will surrender within xx hours or the United States will notify the inhabitants of Mecca to vacate the city within xx additional hours. Noncompliance with either condition will result in the nuclear annhilation of the holiest site in Islam. Mecca will be ground zero for the most powerful nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Mecca will not only disappear, but it will be unihabitable for thousands of years. My proposal may be harsh, even barbaric, but beheading a captive is barbaric. Crashing airliners into buildings is barbaric. The al Qaeda gang reveres only one thing on this earth and that is Mecca. Nothing short of my modest proposal will bring resolution to the horror. The terrorists respect NOTHING about the United States or its culture. Why should the United States revere Mecca? If this is a (fair & balanced) fatwa, so be it.



[x NYTimes]
American Hostage Killed, Terror Group Says
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, June 18 — Paul M. Johnson Jr., the American engineer kidnapped last weekend by militants in Saudi Arabia, has been beheaded by his captors, an Al Qaeda group announced today.

"The infidel got his fair treatment," said a statement posted by the group on the Internet, according to a dispatch from Riyadh by The Associated Press. The dispatch said the statement, posted on a Web site where the Qaeda group often makes announcements, was accompanied by three photographs showing a headless body....



If Only....

If only the Reagans had been as public during Dutch's last years as they were after his death. I am glad that have executed a durable power of attorney for medical decisions. Dr. Lerner poses some tough questions for the Reagan family. If this is (fair & balanced) empathy, so be it.

[x NYTimes]
Planning for the Long Goodbye
By BARRON H. LERNER

That Ronald Reagan's death has reinvigorated the debate on stem cell research is not surprising. Ever since he announced in 1994 that he had Alzheimer's disease, both he and his wife, Nancy, had been ardent supporters of increased research financing for the disease. Mrs. Reagan has also publicly advocated the use of stem cells.

But a more immediate discussion, and perhaps a more helpful one, would be to address how Alzheimer's patients and their families, lacking effective treatments, deal with the grueling realities of the disease over time. The avoidance of this topic mirrors the Reagan family's own reluctance to reveal details of Mr. Reagan's deterioration from Alzheimer's during the past decade.

The Reagans' decision to not go public, while understandable, nevertheless deprived Americans of the opportunity to learn how the family confronted questions crucially relevant to Alzheimer's patients and their families. Did Mr. Reagan fill out an advance directive indicating what types of medical treatments he did or did not want as he deteriorated? Why did the family choose to have his broken hip repaired in 2001 despite his dementia? Was Mr. Reagan's pneumonia, the cause of his death, aggressively treated with antibiotics, or was the disease allowed to be the "old man's friend?"

These difficult questions about cutting back on medical treatment came to public attention in the 1975 case of Karen Ann Quinlan, a 21-year-old who became irreversibly comatose after mixing Valium and alcohol. After two months, her parents asked the hospital to disconnect the ventilator that was apparently prolonging her life.

The hospital declined, leading to several court cases. Ultimately, in 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents, although Ms. Quinlan lived for nine more years after the ventilator was disconnected.

The Quinlan case popularized the living will, a type of advance directive that permits the withholding of certain treatments if people became seriously ill without chance of meaningful recovery. Another directive is a health care proxy, which allows patients to designate someone to be their decision-maker if they lose the ability to make choices.

Alzheimer's, which afflicts over 4 million Americans, is ideally suited for advance directives because patients in its early stages can still communicate their wishes. As is the case for patients with other diseases, however, the majority of Alzheimer's patients have no advance directive.

That leaves most families without guideposts for making decisions. As a result, intensive care units are full of patients whose dementia may worsen, even if they recover from an acute illness.

Doing more as opposed to less has become the default option for two reasons. First, treating acute illness is what doctors are trained to do. Second, pulling back, without clear wishes from the patient, may evoke feelings of guilt, and even the idea that the loved one is being "killed."

This instinct to "do everything" is particularly ill suited for Alzheimer's patients. Over the last 20 years, its victims and their relatives have written elegantly about the loss of personhood that accompanies the later stages of the disease. The day-to-day realities are grim for both patients and their caretakers.

Mrs. Reagan, and the Reagans' daughter, Patti Davis, in particular, have indicated that they had lost Mr. Reagan some time ago. As the disease progresses, its victims stop talking; they no longer recognize friends and family; they can't perform ordinary tasks like driving or walking down a street alone. They become incontinent. Sometimes they stay up all night, becoming increasingly agitated and paranoid.

The option of declining aggressive treatments may be an uncomfortable topic, but it should be widely discussed. Some patients who complete advance directives, for example, explicitly decline hip surgery like that Mr. Reagan underwent, as well as antibiotics to treat infections. The discomfort caused by these conditions can be eased with painkillers or sedatives.

As with many degenerative diseases, the progression of Alzheimer's has implications for how patients choose among treatments as they complete advance directives.

Withholding medical help may be inappropriate when patients can still enjoy pastimes like eating or listening to music. But curtailing treatment may be appropriate later, as may be allowing patients who no longer desire food to stop eating.

The Reagans' advocacy of more research that may lead to the prevention of Alzheimer's or its cure is laudable, although treatment breakthroughs may still be far in the future. In the interim, frank acknowledgment of the difficult choices the family faced could open a broader public discussion about the value, and the quality, of life for Alzheimer's patients during the "long goodbye." As Ms. Davis wrote in 2000, neither patients with dementia nor their families should fear death.

When his illness was diagnosed as Alzheimer's, Ronald Reagan eloquently stated that he would "continue to share life's journey with my beloved Nancy and my family." It would be interesting to know what he did — or did not — want that journey to entail.


Barron H. Lerner, a medical historian and internist at Columbia University, is the author, most recently, of The Breast Cancer Wars.

Copyright © 2004 The New York Times Company

Render Unto Caesar

The Greatest Teacher of All said: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. We have no need of theocracy in the United States of America. Even if atheists are outsiders, we are no better than the least among us. If we deny rights to ANYONE, who will be next? I remember when the under God phrase was injected into the Pledge of Allegiance. I remember when I consciously began to remain silent and not utter that phrase. In the summer of 1971, I heard a lecture by Madlyn Murray O'Hare at UT-Austin. I am not an atheist, but she made sense (and still does) on the matter of church and state. Above all else, I am a secularist and render unto Caesar. I do not support prayer in the schools. The Cold War is over. There is no more godless Communism to confront. We now are confronted instead by religious zealots who deem us the Great Satan. We are hoist by our own petard. No one's faith (or lack of it) has any place in our public life. Shame on the Supreme Court of the United States for lacking the courage to do the right thing in this case. If this is (fair & balanced) blasphemy, so be it.

'Under God'
Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America.

BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m.

The battle over the Pledge of Allegiance has stimulated vigorous controversy on an issue central to America's identity. Opponents of "under God" (which was added to the pledge in 1954) argue that the United States is a secular country, that the First Amendment prohibits rhetorical or material state support for religion, and that people should be able to pledge allegiance to their country without implicitly also affirming a belief in God. Supporters point out that the phrase is perfectly consonant with the views of the framers of the Constitution, that Lincoln had used these words in the Gettysburg Address, and that the Supreme Court--which on Monday sidestepped a challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance--has long held that no one could be compelled to say the pledge.

The atheist who brought the court challenge, Michael Newdow, asked this question: "Why should I be made to feel like an outsider?" Earlier, the Court of Appeals in San Francisco had agreed that the words "under God" sent "a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community."

Although the Supreme Court did not address the question directly, Mr. Newdow got it right: Atheists are "outsiders" in the American community. Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared with the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation.

Statistics say America is not only a religious nation but also a Christian one. Up to 85% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Brian Cronin, who litigated against a cross on public land in Boise, Idaho, complained, "For Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians in Boise, the cross only drives home the point that they are strangers in a strange land." Like Mr. Newdow and the Ninth Circuit judges, Mr. Cronin was on target. America is a predominantly Christian nation with a secular government. Non-Christians may legitimately see themselves as strangers because they or their ancestors moved to this "strange land" founded and peopled by Christians--even as Christians become strangers by moving to Israel, India, Thailand or Morocco.

Americans have always been extremely religious and overwhelmingly Christian. The 17th-century settlers founded their communities in America in large part for religious reasons. Eighteenth-century Americans saw their Revolution in religious and largely biblical terms. The Revolution reflected their "covenant with God" and was a war between "God's elect" and the British "Antichrist." Jefferson, Paine and other deists and nonbelievers felt it necessary to invoke religion to justify the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence appealed to "Nature's God," the "Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the World," and "divine Providence" for approval, legitimacy and protection.

The Constitution includes no such references. Yet its framers firmly believed that the republican government they were creating could last only if it was rooted in morality and religion. "A Republic can only be supported by pure religion or austere morals," John Adams said. Washington agreed: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." Fifty years after the Constitution was adopted, Tocqueville reported that all Americans held religion "to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, and some people cite the absence of religious language in the Constitution and the provisions of the First Amendment as evidence that America is fundamentally secular. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the 18th century, religious establishments existed throughout Europe and in several American states. Control of the church was a key element of state power, and the established church, in turn, provided legitimacy to the state. The framers of the Constitution prohibited an established national church in order to limit the power of government and to protect and strengthen religion. The purpose of "separation of church and state," as William McLoughlin has said, was not to establish freedom from religion but to establish freedom for religion. As a result, Americans have been unique among peoples in the diversity of sects, denominations and religious movements to which they have given birth, almost all embodying some form of Protestantism. When substantial numbers of Catholic immigrants arrived, it was eventually possible to accept Catholicism as one more denomination within the broad framework of Christianity. The proportion of the population who were "religious adherents," that is church members, increased fairly steadily through most of American history.

Today, overwhelming majorities of Americans affirm religious beliefs. When asked in 2003 simply whether they believed in God or not, 92% said yes. In a series of 2002-03 polls, 57% to 65% of Americans said religion was very important in their lives, 23% to 27% said fairly important, and 12% to 18% said not very important. Large proportions of Americans also appear to be active in the practice of their religion. In 2002 and 2003, an average of 65% claimed membership in a church or synagogue. About 40% said they had attended church or synagogue in the previous seven days, and roughly 33% said they went to church at least once a week. In the same period, about 60% of Americans said they prayed one or more times a day, more than 20% once or more a week, about 10% less than once a week, and 10% never. Given human nature, these claims of religious practice may be overstated, but the extent to which Americans believe the right response is to affirm their religiosity is itself evidence for the centrality of religious norms in American society.

Only about 10% of Americans, however, espouse atheism, and most Americans do not approve of it. Although the willingness of Americans to vote for a presidential candidate from a minority group has increased dramatically--over 90% of those polled in 1999 said they would vote for a black, Jewish or female presidential candidate, while 59% were willing to vote for a homosexual--only 49% were willing to vote for an atheist. Americans seem to agree with the Founding Fathers that their republican government requires a religious base, and hence find it difficult to accept the explicit rejection of God.

These high levels of religiosity would be less significant if they were the norm for other countries. Americans differ dramatically, however, in their religiosity from the people of other economically developed countries. This religiosity is conclusively revealed in cross-national surveys. In general, the level of religious commitment of countries varies inversely with their level of economic development: People in poor countries are highly religious; those in rich countries are not. America is the glaring exception. One analysis found that if America were like most other countries at her level of economic development, only 5% of Americans would think religion very important, but in fact 51% do.

An International Social Survey Program questionnaire in 1991 asked people in 17 countries seven questions concerning their belief in God, life after death, heaven and other religious concepts. Reporting the results, George Bishop ranked the countries according to the percentage of their population that affirmed these religious beliefs. The U.S. was far ahead in its overall level of religiosity, ranking first on four questions, second on one, and third on two, for an average ranking of 1.7. According to this poll, Americans are more deeply religious than even the people of countries like Ireland and Poland, where religion has been the core of national identity differentiating them from their traditional British, German and Russian antagonists.

Along with their general religiosity, the Christianity of Americans has impressed foreign observers and been affirmed by Americans. "We are a Christian people," the Supreme Court declared in 1811. In the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln also described Americans as "a Christian people." In 1892 the Supreme Court again declared, "This is a Christian nation." In 1917 Congress passed legislation declaring a day of prayer in support of the war effort and invoking America's status as a Christian nation. In 1931 the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier view: "We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."

While the balance between Protestants and Catholics shifted over the years, the proportion of Americans identifying themselves as Christian has remained relatively constant. In three surveys between 1989 and 1996, 84% to 88% of Americans said they were Christians. The proportion of Christians in America rivals or exceeds the proportion of Jews in Israel, of Muslims in Egypt, of Hindus in India, and of Orthodox believers in Russia.

America's Christian identity has, nonetheless, been questioned on two grounds. It is argued, first, that America is losing that identity because non-Christian religions are expanding in numbers, and Americans are thus becoming a multireligious and not simply a multidenominational people; second, that Americans are losing their religious identity and are becoming secular, atheistic, materialistic and indifferent to their religious heritage. Neither of these propositions comes close to the truth.

The argument that America is losing its Christian identity due to the spread of non-Christian religions was advanced by several scholars in the 1980s and '90s. They pointed to the growing numbers of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists in American society. Hindus increased from 70,000 in 1977 to 800,000 in 1997. Muslims amounted to at least 3.5 million in 1997, while Buddhists numbered somewhere between 750,000 and two million. From these developments, the proponents of de-Christianization argue, in the words of Prof. Diana Eck, that "religious diversity" has "shattered the paradigm of America" as an overwhelmingly Christian country with a small Jewish minority.

The increases in the membership of some non-Christian religions have not, to put it mildly, had any significant effect on America's Christian identity. As a result of assimilation, low birth rates, and intermarriage, the proportion of Jews dropped from 4% in the 1920s to 3% in the '50s to slightly over 2% in 1997. If the absolute numbers claimed by their spokesmen are correct, by 1997 about 1.5% of Americans were Muslim, while Hindus and Buddhists were each less than 1%. The numbers of non-Christian, non-Jewish believers undoubtedly will continue to grow, but for years to come they will remain extremely small. Some increases in the membership of non-Christian religions come from conversions, but the largest share is from immigration and high birthrates. The immigrants of these religions, however, are far outnumbered by immigrants from Latin America, almost all of whom are Catholic and also have high birthrates. Latin American immigrants are also converting to evangelical Protestantism. In addition, Christians in Asia and the Middle East have been more likely than non-Christians to migrate to America. As of 1990, a majority of Asian-Americans were Christian rather than Buddhist or Hindu, and about two-thirds of Arab-Americans have been Christian rather than Muslim, although Arab Muslim immigrants have become much more numerous. While a precise judgment is impossible, at the start of the 21st century the U.S. was probably becoming more rather than less Christian in its religious composition.

Americans tend to have a certain catholicity toward religion: All deserve respect. Given this general tolerance of religious diversity, non-Christian faiths have little alternative but to recognize and accept America as a Christian society. "Americans have always thought of themselves as a Christian nation," argues Jewish neoconservative Irving Kristol, "equally tolerant of all religions so long as they were congruent with traditional Judeo-Christian morality. But equal toleration . . . never meant perfect equality of status in fact." Christianity is not legally established, "but it is established informally, nevertheless."

But if increases in non-Christian membership haven't diluted Christianity in America, hasn't it been supplanted over time by a culture that is pervasively irreligious, if not antireligious? These terms describe segments of American intellectual, academic and media elites, but not the bulk of the American people. American religiosity could be high by absolute measures and high relative to that of comparable societies, yet the secularization thesis would still be valid if the commitment of Americans to religion declined over time. Little or no evidence exists of such a decline. The one significant shift that does appear to have occurred is a drop in the 1960s and '70s in the religious commitment of Catholics. This shift, however, brought Catholic attitudes on religion more into congruence with those of Protestants.

Over the course of American history, fluctuations did occur in levels of American religious commitment and religious involvement. There has not, however, been an overall downward trend in American religiosity. At the start of the 21st century, Americans are no less committed, and are quite possibly more committed, to their religious beliefs and their Christian identity than at any time in their history.

Samuel P. Huntington, the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, is the author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (Simon & Schuster, 1998). This is adapted from the current issue of The American Enterprise.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.