Friday, June 25, 2004
New Bible advocates fornication
New versions of The Bible pop out at the drop of a laptop these days. I've lost count of the number. But a new one -- dubbed a translation, but really a paraphrase -- is causing raised eyebrows.
Titled Good as New, the new Bible is translated by former Baptist minister John Henson for the "One" organization, to produce what the group calls a "new, fresh and adventurous" translation of the Christian scriptures.
Among the innovations: it changes the original Greek and Hebrew names into modern nicknames. Peter becomes "Rocky," Mary Magdalene becomes "Maggie," Aaron becomes "Ron," Andronicus becomes "Andy" and Barabbas becomes "Barry." In keeping with the times, translator Henson deftly translates "demon possession" as "mental illness" and "Son of Man," the expression Jesus frequently used to describe himself, as "the Complete Person." In addition, parables are rendered as "riddles," baptize is to "dip" in water, salvation becomes "healing" or "completeness" and Heaven becomes "the world beyond time and space."
What is raising even more eyebrows, is endorsement of the version by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams, who describes it as a book of "extraordinary power," but admitted many would be startled by its content.
For instance, "Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'," says Ruth Gledhill, the London Times religious affairs correspondent, "the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St. Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get 'frustrated.'"
Fortunately, we can easily ignore this new Bible, as there are some superb modern versions around which are very easy to read but don't commit gross violations of the original.
New versions of The Bible pop out at the drop of a laptop these days. I've lost count of the number. But a new one -- dubbed a translation, but really a paraphrase -- is causing raised eyebrows.
Titled Good as New, the new Bible is translated by former Baptist minister John Henson for the "One" organization, to produce what the group calls a "new, fresh and adventurous" translation of the Christian scriptures.
Among the innovations: it changes the original Greek and Hebrew names into modern nicknames. Peter becomes "Rocky," Mary Magdalene becomes "Maggie," Aaron becomes "Ron," Andronicus becomes "Andy" and Barabbas becomes "Barry." In keeping with the times, translator Henson deftly translates "demon possession" as "mental illness" and "Son of Man," the expression Jesus frequently used to describe himself, as "the Complete Person." In addition, parables are rendered as "riddles," baptize is to "dip" in water, salvation becomes "healing" or "completeness" and Heaven becomes "the world beyond time and space."
What is raising even more eyebrows, is endorsement of the version by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams, who describes it as a book of "extraordinary power," but admitted many would be startled by its content.
For instance, "Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'," says Ruth Gledhill, the London Times religious affairs correspondent, "the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St. Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get 'frustrated.'"
Fortunately, we can easily ignore this new Bible, as there are some superb modern versions around which are very easy to read but don't commit gross violations of the original.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
I thought urinals were for men!
Just when you think political correctness can't possibly reach any more heights of absurdity, someone comes along to prove you wrong.
And so, claims Ben Shapiro, the first big fight of the new century has begun: Should transvestites-transgenders have the right to use whatever bathroom they choose? Don't be too quick to think you know the answer.
While on the subject of political correctness, here are a few other recent gems:
Portland, Oregon, police kicked Mike McLaughlin out of Pioneer Courthouse Square for 30 days when he refused to stop playing with a ball. The council has banned playing in playgrounds.
The NZ Environment Court has ruled that the continued diversion of the headwaters of the Whanganui, Whangaehu, and Moawhango Rivers on the North Island Central Plateau is “sacrilege�, a “denigration of Maori values and beliefs�, and “hurtful of Maori self-esteem�.
Organizers of a St. Patrick's Day parade in Georgia refused to allow a local youth group to carry a cross in their parade because it might have been too "controversial," reports the Athens Banner-Herald. Leaders of the Irish-American Heritage Society in Augusta told the Alleluia Community youth ministry that the parade "cannot be a platform for anyone's views, standpoints on politics, religion, race." Organizers suggested the kids carry shamrocks instead.
There are lots of other examples of PC at Tongue Tied, a service of Fox News.
Just when you think political correctness can't possibly reach any more heights of absurdity, someone comes along to prove you wrong.
And so, claims Ben Shapiro, the first big fight of the new century has begun: Should transvestites-transgenders have the right to use whatever bathroom they choose? Don't be too quick to think you know the answer.
While on the subject of political correctness, here are a few other recent gems:
Portland, Oregon, police kicked Mike McLaughlin out of Pioneer Courthouse Square for 30 days when he refused to stop playing with a ball. The council has banned playing in playgrounds.
The NZ Environment Court has ruled that the continued diversion of the headwaters of the Whanganui, Whangaehu, and Moawhango Rivers on the North Island Central Plateau is “sacrilege�, a “denigration of Maori values and beliefs�, and “hurtful of Maori self-esteem�.
Organizers of a St. Patrick's Day parade in Georgia refused to allow a local youth group to carry a cross in their parade because it might have been too "controversial," reports the Athens Banner-Herald. Leaders of the Irish-American Heritage Society in Augusta told the Alleluia Community youth ministry that the parade "cannot be a platform for anyone's views, standpoints on politics, religion, race." Organizers suggested the kids carry shamrocks instead.
There are lots of other examples of PC at Tongue Tied, a service of Fox News.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Civil union absurdities
I'm in the middle of ploughing through the fine print of the new Civil Union Bill released earlier this week.
One of the (it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-tragic) absurdities that the Bill throws up is the problem of defining husband and wife.
Section 42, which modifies the Family Proceedings Act 1980, contains the following gem:
"husband: one of the parties to a civil union"
"wife: the other party to a civil union"
I wonder who is going to decide which is which?
This is on a par with one of the absurdities of the Care of Children Bill, which proclaimed that a lesbian woman could be declared a father of her partner's child.
We are now officially in Lookinglass Land.
I'm in the middle of ploughing through the fine print of the new Civil Union Bill released earlier this week.
One of the (it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-tragic) absurdities that the Bill throws up is the problem of defining husband and wife.
Section 42, which modifies the Family Proceedings Act 1980, contains the following gem:
"husband: one of the parties to a civil union"
"wife: the other party to a civil union"
I wonder who is going to decide which is which?
This is on a par with one of the absurdities of the Care of Children Bill, which proclaimed that a lesbian woman could be declared a father of her partner's child.
We are now officially in Lookinglass Land.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Civil Union Bills finally introduced
The government's two Civil Union Bills have finally been introduced to Parliament (the First Reading for the Civil Union Bill is scheduled for Thursday this week, and the companion Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will have its First Reading the following week). The Bills can be seen online at the above links.
Prime Minister Helen Clark said on Radio NZ's "Nine to Noon" programme today that it's all about providing people with choice, and eliminating discrimination.
When a government puts "choice" above a sound understanding of what provides the basis of a sound society, we are in real trouble. In this case, it will be a disaster for children, who will suffer the consequences of adults making "choices" with little consideration for the best interests of the children.
These bills will provide every sexual relationship with the same benefits and privileges as marriage. In other words, marriage will be no different legally from any other relationship. I wonder how married people will feel to realise that any two people who shack up together will be entitled to everything they get. Why bother getting married? is the message. And you can bet young people will take it on board big time.
That's already happening in Holland, where following the introduction of same-sex marriage, marriage rates have started to fall significantly, while out-of-wedlock births have risen sharply.
In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, points out that during Holland's decade-long drive to legalize same-sex "marriage," gay advocates openly scorned the idea that marriage ought to be defined by the possibility of
childbearing. Love between two partners -- any two partners -- was the real basis of marriage. Thus, as one gay "marriage" advocate told the Dutch Parliament, "there is absolutely no reason, objectively, to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual love." Dutch leaders bought this argument.
Then a funny thing happened on the road to redefining marriage: Dutch people simply stopped getting married -- even when they had children. This really ought to come as no surprise. After all, Kurtz writes, "Spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about parenthood, and they just might begin to believe you."
What's happening in the Netherlands gives us clear evidence of what gay "marriage" does: People stop getting married, and children suffer. Marriage between one man and one woman must be protected
and strengthened. If it isn't, then New Zealand families -- already deeply damaged by divorce and illegitimacy -- will be destroyed.
The government's two Civil Union Bills have finally been introduced to Parliament (the First Reading for the Civil Union Bill is scheduled for Thursday this week, and the companion Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will have its First Reading the following week). The Bills can be seen online at the above links.
Prime Minister Helen Clark said on Radio NZ's "Nine to Noon" programme today that it's all about providing people with choice, and eliminating discrimination.
When a government puts "choice" above a sound understanding of what provides the basis of a sound society, we are in real trouble. In this case, it will be a disaster for children, who will suffer the consequences of adults making "choices" with little consideration for the best interests of the children.
These bills will provide every sexual relationship with the same benefits and privileges as marriage. In other words, marriage will be no different legally from any other relationship. I wonder how married people will feel to realise that any two people who shack up together will be entitled to everything they get. Why bother getting married? is the message. And you can bet young people will take it on board big time.
That's already happening in Holland, where following the introduction of same-sex marriage, marriage rates have started to fall significantly, while out-of-wedlock births have risen sharply.
In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, points out that during Holland's decade-long drive to legalize same-sex "marriage," gay advocates openly scorned the idea that marriage ought to be defined by the possibility of
childbearing. Love between two partners -- any two partners -- was the real basis of marriage. Thus, as one gay "marriage" advocate told the Dutch Parliament, "there is absolutely no reason, objectively, to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual love." Dutch leaders bought this argument.
Then a funny thing happened on the road to redefining marriage: Dutch people simply stopped getting married -- even when they had children. This really ought to come as no surprise. After all, Kurtz writes, "Spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about parenthood, and they just might begin to believe you."
What's happening in the Netherlands gives us clear evidence of what gay "marriage" does: People stop getting married, and children suffer. Marriage between one man and one woman must be protected
and strengthened. If it isn't, then New Zealand families -- already deeply damaged by divorce and illegitimacy -- will be destroyed.
Medical researchers are skewing results
Articles in medical journals may be biasedtowards positive results, calling into question many "miracle drugs" and breakthrough developments, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Many scientists cherry-pick favourable results; others change direction when interesting results emerge. Many researchers change their main objectives in the course of research, violating basic guidelines for good research.
Dr An-Wen Chan, of Oxford University, analysed 102 trials and found
that researchers had failed to report almost two-thirds of results relating to potentially harmful outcomes.
Mounting concern about the influence of drug companies upon researchers has prompted closer scrutiny of research methods in recent years. A study at the Yale School of Medicine showed that 80% of clinical trials backed by drug manufacturers were positive -- compared to 50% of those carried out by independent academics.
Articles in medical journals may be biasedtowards positive results, calling into question many "miracle drugs" and breakthrough developments, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Many scientists cherry-pick favourable results; others change direction when interesting results emerge. Many researchers change their main objectives in the course of research, violating basic guidelines for good research.
Dr An-Wen Chan, of Oxford University, analysed 102 trials and found
that researchers had failed to report almost two-thirds of results relating to potentially harmful outcomes.
Mounting concern about the influence of drug companies upon researchers has prompted closer scrutiny of research methods in recent years. A study at the Yale School of Medicine showed that 80% of clinical trials backed by drug manufacturers were positive -- compared to 50% of those carried out by independent academics.
Monday, June 21, 2004
UK's first legal human clones on the way
Amidst bitter controversy, the UK's fertility medicine
watchdog is preparing to approve the nation's first human clones. A
Serbian scientist at Newcastle University who left Munich because of
Germany's ban on embryonic stem cell research has lodged an
application with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to
clone embryos for diabetes research. In the course of the
experiment, Dr Miodrag Stojkovic will create embryos using leftover
eggs from IVF treatment and then destroy them for their stem cells.
When news of the proposed experiment broke, arguments for and
against research cloning surfaced once again. One of the scientists
involved, Professor Alison Murdoch, explained: "We are not trying to
clone a baby... These embryos have no more moral status than blood
taken from a patient." And Dr Stojkovic asked, "Why put something in
the rubbish bin when it can be used in such a valuable way?"
The lobby group Human Genetics Alert has written to the HFEA urging
that Dr Stojkovic's application be rejected. "This research is a
waste of public money, and crosses important ethical lines for the
first time," said HGA's director, molecular biologist Dr David King.
"It is very unlikely to produce anything medically useful, but it
will be a great help for those who want to clone babies. It looks
like scientists trying to find a use for cloning, so the United
Nations won't ban it. We don't believe that embryos are people with
rights to life, but neither is it right to create them as mere raw
material for research."
Meanwhile, American fertility doctor Panos Zavos plans to open offices in London to counsel couples. He claims to have created a cloned human embryo and implanted it into a woman's womb, though the experiment subsequently failed. It is feared his premises in Tottenham Court Road will operate as a "travel agent" to recruit desperate couples to his clinic abroad, where he claims to be able to clone babies.
Amidst bitter controversy, the UK's fertility medicine
watchdog is preparing to approve the nation's first human clones. A
Serbian scientist at Newcastle University who left Munich because of
Germany's ban on embryonic stem cell research has lodged an
application with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to
clone embryos for diabetes research. In the course of the
experiment, Dr Miodrag Stojkovic will create embryos using leftover
eggs from IVF treatment and then destroy them for their stem cells.
When news of the proposed experiment broke, arguments for and
against research cloning surfaced once again. One of the scientists
involved, Professor Alison Murdoch, explained: "We are not trying to
clone a baby... These embryos have no more moral status than blood
taken from a patient." And Dr Stojkovic asked, "Why put something in
the rubbish bin when it can be used in such a valuable way?"
The lobby group Human Genetics Alert has written to the HFEA urging
that Dr Stojkovic's application be rejected. "This research is a
waste of public money, and crosses important ethical lines for the
first time," said HGA's director, molecular biologist Dr David King.
"It is very unlikely to produce anything medically useful, but it
will be a great help for those who want to clone babies. It looks
like scientists trying to find a use for cloning, so the United
Nations won't ban it. We don't believe that embryos are people with
rights to life, but neither is it right to create them as mere raw
material for research."
Meanwhile, American fertility doctor Panos Zavos plans to open offices in London to counsel couples. He claims to have created a cloned human embryo and implanted it into a woman's womb, though the experiment subsequently failed. It is feared his premises in Tottenham Court Road will operate as a "travel agent" to recruit desperate couples to his clinic abroad, where he claims to be able to clone babies.
