FCC Chairman Kevin Martin responds to ruling on "fleeting expletives"

FCC Kevin Martin has responded to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on "fleeting expletives," which not only went completely against the FCC but suggested that the grounds for the FCC's authority to regulate indecency on the broadcast airwaves may no longer exist. Here's part of what he had to say:

I completely disagree with the Court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families. I find it hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that “shit” and “fuck” are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.

The court even says the Commission is “divorced from reality.” It is the New York court, not the Commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word “fuck” does not invoke a sexual connotation.

Here's Daniel Drezner's response:

1) Did Martin write this himself or did people with actual training in press relations whip this statement up?

2) By the FCC's interpretation, is Martin is obnoxiously hitting on erveryone who reads his statement?

3) Am I obviously encouraging rape and bestiality when I say, "F#$% Kevin Martin and the horse he rode in on?" or could I have a different intent in mind?

4) As [Jonathan] Adler asks, "Given the Second Circuit's ruling, could a network air Martin's remarks without fear of federal sanction?"

Read Drezner's full post here.

UPDATE (April 28, 2009): The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 2nd Circuit in a 5-4 decision.

The bots of summer

My two-part appearance on "The Security Catalyst" podcast last year has resulted in some media coverage of botnets this week at IT World Canada. The article, "The botnet menace--and what you can do about it," by Joaquim P. Menezes, is more detailed than most media coverage of bots has been. He draws on both my Security Catalyst interview and my colleague Bob Hagen's blog post on bots.

Who fears other ideas??

Casey Carmical, of Casey's Critical Thinking blog, posts about the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum under the headline "Evolutionists fear other ideas":

If Answers in Genesis is taking facts “out of context,” it should be fairly easy to point out, and if the information that AiG is presenting is, in fact, inaccurate and involves logical fallacies, then what could be a better resource for teaching critical thinking? Students of the university should be taken to the museum in busloads to learn how to think critically. But alas, evolutionists are not concerned for people’s critical thinking skills, they are afraid of people exercising them. Evolution cannot stand up to criticism, and when both theories are presented side by side people can instinctively see which one better fits with the evidence.

I posted the following comment, but apparently Casey hasn't seen fit to allow it through moderation, though he's let another comment through since I posted it this morning:

Answers in Genesis (U.S.) can’t even be trusted by its former Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian branches–the Australians have just filed a lawsuit against them. See AiG’s response and Creation Ministries International’s commentary.

I think it’s a bad idea to give money to frauds and liars, so even though the Creation Museum does serve as an example of numerous distortions and fallacies, I disagree with your recommendation that students be sent there. Their errors can be–and have been–refuted online, many times over. Pharyngula just had a Creation Museum Carnival that contains numerous commentaries, pointing out such deception as their completely inaccurate depiction of Archaeopteryx.

The final comment is a reference to a critique which may be found at Duas Quartuncias, titled "Jurassic Pigeon at the Creation Museum!"

Apparently Casey doesn't want his readers to see this information. Let's see if he'll allow a trackback...

Critical reviews of Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution

Blake Stacey is maintaining a list, at Science after Sunclipse.

Answers in Genesis responds to CMI

Answers in Genesis has sent out an email to supporters about the "spiritual attack" from Creation Ministries International. Where CMI has always kept AiG informed about how it has been proceeding and giving them a chance to respond and participate in dialogue, AiG didn't send a copy of this to CMI--but of course they ended up receiving it anyway.

This is the version that CMI sent out to its own supporters, with their comments included (as you'll see described at the very beginning). The AiG letter is in bold, the CMI comments are labeled, and I've inserted a few comments of my own, labeled and in brackets.

I find this very interesting, because if you dig into the details, the case overwhelmingly supports CMI, at least on ethical grounds. (I'm not an expert on the legal matters--the fact that the previous AiG-Australia board signed the one-sided agreement favoring AiG-US may be a difficult obstacle for CMI to overcome.) But most Christians don't care about digging into the details, they just listen to the pastors and leaders that they trust, which is why con men have such success preying on the religious. Ken Ham has apparently done quite well at getting people to side with him based on his own charisma and persuasiveness, but if you read any of his written work critically, you see that it falls apart.

UPDATE (June 18, 2007): A similarly commented email from Mark Looy of AiG-US may be found on the CMI website here.

Answers in Genesis under Spiritual Attack

June 1, 2007

(With interspersed responses, dated June 4, 2007, from Creation Ministries International. Although large numbers got this sent to them by AiG, CMI was not included. We are filled with dismay at the many distortions of truth and misleading comments in this, as we think will become apparent from our response, sadly. A document like this, which is in effect an 'accusation against the brethren', cannot be just ignored-truth matters. Perhaps reading this will help those unfortunate enough to have received it to become aware of why we had to, in an effort to be as open and transparent as possible, invite a formal ecclesiastical/judicial committee of enquiry to form under Clarrie Briese, the reports from which, plus other important documentation, can be found at www.creationontheweb.com/briese2 )

Dear Friends of AiG,

On behalf of the Board of Directors of Answers in Genesis, we want to invite you to praise the Lord with us in the opening of the Creation Museum (and in the blessing He has poured out on the entire ministry). On the museum's opening day, May 28, over 4,000 visitors attended, with more than 100 news media (over two days) also on hand to give the museum wide coverage all over the world. We enjoyed receiving well wishers from other ministries, such as the Institute for Creation Research (its president and chairman were present at the museum's ribbon-cutting ceremony), the Christian Law Association, and others. We give thanks for the tremendous support from God's people in prayer, gifts, and in museum attendance.

We pray and trust that the museum's message will be heard by hundreds of thousands of people each year, and will not only affect the lives of many of God's people, but see many others receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

CMI comment: CMI staff had input into the early stages of the museum planning, before we were 'cut off'. As we have said on our web site and in our Infobytes email newsletter, we are pleased that the museum is open and also hope that many will come under conviction and be saved through the museum's message. This has nothing to do with the dispute.

The AiG board is committed to honoring the Lord and His Word not only in the museum, but in all the ministries of AiG. Our commitment to financial integrity, for example, is evidenced by our membership in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) arid by a special designation from MinistryWatch.com as a "top 30" ministry that people can give to with confidence.

CMI comment: Nor has this much to do with the dispute, as we don't doubt that AiG-US follows proper audited accounting procedures, as required for a non-profit corporation under US law. However, from our experience of appealing to the ECFA for them to intervene re AiG's switching our Creation magazine subscribers to their new 'replacement' magazine, an effective theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars that involved deceiving subscribers into thinking that our magazine was no longer available in the USA, we doubt that its imprimatur means much in terms of guaranteeing ethical behaviour overall.

[Lippard comment: Indeed--it's clear that the ECFA doesn't say anything at all about the accuracy of the information purveyed by AiG!]

In recent days, we received museum opposition from protestors, some media outlets, and through emails and on the internet. Indeed, AiG finds itself in a continuing spiritual warfare. Yet in all this, we give thanks to our Lord, for the Lord will use it for His glory.

CMI comment: Such opposition is the common lot of all who will stand for the truth of God's Word. It has nothing to do with the CMI-AiG-US dispute. CMI is also subject to major opposition. However, such opposition does not of itself prove our godliness, righteousness, etc.

[Lippard comment: AiG's implied argument is: God's people are always under attack when doing his work. We are under attack. Therefore, we are God's people under attack. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent--the same erroneous argument used by crackpots who are receiving ridicule when they claim that "They laughed at Galileo," as though the mere fact that people laugh at them puts them on a par with Galileo.]

While we have received opposition from the secular world during this time, the most disappointing attack has come from our former sister ministry, Creation Ministries Int'l (CMI). On the eve of the opening of the museum, CMI sent letters and used the internet to publicly report on a dispute that is well over a year old. CMI sent us a letter, only 24 hours before the museum ribbon-cuffing ceremony, informing us they were filing a lawsuit against AiG and its president, Ken Ham, in an Australia court. They have now done so. Immediately after the opening of the museum, they sent letters to numerous (perhaps hundreds) of people and used the internet to publicly report the dispute.

CMI comment: This makes it seem as though CMI timed these events to be as nasty as possible. However, the reality is otherwise. Firstly, legal processes like the serving of writs (lawsuits) cannot be timed like this; such processes are determined by the legal process. Legal proceedings were initiated months ago (we told AiG-US of this, associated with one more offer to meet to resolve the dispute, and that being rejected (ignored), and then another offer of binding Christian arbitration-see below). Secondly, when it looked like the serving of the writ was going to coincide with the opening of the museum, we asked for it to be delayed, if possible. Furthermore, to avoid public embarrassment of a sheriff of the court serving papers in person, we asked if there was another way. We were told that if AiG-US told our lawyers the name of their lawyers for service of the writs, they could be lodged with them rather than in person. Why the communication with AiG-US 'only 24 hours before the ribbon cutting ceremony'? AiG-US was having a board meeting over the weekend of the opening, a rare face-to-face meeting of the directors at which the directors of AiG-UK would also be present. We thought it only fair that the directors had the opportunity to discuss the matter in such a setting, rather than by telephone or email, piecemeal, at a later time. Furthermore, we thought that this would have the maximum likelihood of a change of heart (although from the track record of the last twenty months we thought this was only a remote possibility, our directors wanted to pursue every avenue for resolution).

One of CMI's claims is that AiG-USA refuses to meet with its board. To the contrary our board met in person with the legally recognized and appointed board of directors of the Australian ministry (called AiG-Australia at the time) and signed a Memorandum of Agreement in October 2005, which had peacefully resolved the differences at that time (which included an agreement to arbitrate any future dispute).

CMI comment: This is amazingly deceptive, even astonishing in its brazenness. The refusal to meet that we repeatedly bring up is a refusal to meet with the current Board, the ones in office for nearly 18 months now in this time of major dispute. Whereas the Board to whom AiG refers here is not the legally constituted Board of the ministry, but the previous Board which handed over the company after resigning en masse and seeking indemnity from penalties for their actions signing that 'agreement'.

Furthermore, when we talk about a refusal to meet, it is clearly in the context of the present dispute, which only really erupted as a serious legal issue because of and therefore after the signing of the agreement drawn up by AiG-US's lawyers, with all the terrible ramifications for our ministry.

So how can reference to a meeting before that time, with people who are no longer part of the ministry, be anything other than a 'red herring' attempt to confuse the public on the very serious matter of their nearly two-year refusal to meet properly face-to-face to sort out the issues, as befits brethren?

Unfortunately, the management of AiG-Australia later disavowed the agreement and, after an impasse and much frustration with management, the full Australian board resigned.

CMI comment: This is a reversal of the order of events, giving another deceptively false impression. The management did not have the authority to 'disavow the agreement', and did not do so. The Australian management tried to meet with the Board to discuss the 'agreement', which was signed at AiG-US's urging behind the backs of all management here in Australia. (This was contrary to those previous directors' commitment to several senior staff before the joint board meeting that they would 'not sign anything' without consultation.) The Australian directors at the time failed to meet, and events culminated in their resignations. Their resignations were due to their own rash actions, not any 'rebellion' as AiG-US spokesmen have told third parties, poisoning the well for CMI. Furthermore, contrary to the impression given in this email from AiG-US, the Board of CMI (not the management) did not formally reject the 'agreement' until 28 February 2006, just before our re-branding as CMI.

AiG-Australia management then appointed a new board,

CMI comment: This makes it seem as though the appointment of the new board was somehow improper. This is untrue. The outgoing directors specified that the CEO, Dr Carl Wieland, should be made Managing Director and given responsibility for appointing new directors. They said through their lawyer that if Dr Wieland had been on the board (MD instead of CEO) that the recent catastrophic events would not have transpired. In consultation with senior staff and scientists, Dr Wieland chose directors with a proven track record of hands-on involvement with creation ministry. For the details of what happened, see A brief chronology of events www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/dispute/chronological_ordershort.pdf (scroll down to Oct 2005). CMI Board has also instituted another level of accountability for the board; an extra-board membership that outnumbers the directors, which now appoints directors and holds the board accountable at an annual meeting. 'There is safety in a multitude of counselors' (Prov. 11:14).

and changed its name to CMI.

CMI comment: AiG-Australia was forced to change its name when AiG-US told us to do our own web site. AiG-Australia was given this directive in response to our earliest pleas to AiG-US for peace talks, to find a way forward together, in mid-November 2005. This of course forced us to re-brand, since one cannot have two totally separate organisations using the same brand on two separate global websites-a recipe for total confusion, especially for our Australian supporters.

CMI continues to refuse to follow the directives of its former board (as contained in the October agreement), and the restoration of harmony so hoped for in October 2005 was derailed.

CMI comment: It is a strange way to bring 'restoration of harmony', to damage, plunder and pillage the other party, which is what the 'agreement' did. For a summary of the way that the agreement damaged CMI, please see What's our concern with the situation?
(www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4770)

Furthermore, by what reasoning should a lawfully constituted current Board feel itself bound to continue to 'follow the directives' of a Board which has abdicated en masse, especially when their actions have led to so much damage for the ministry?

In subsequent months, CMI continued to deny our requests for the new CMI board and AiG-USA board to meet. At one stage, the AiG board offered to meet with the CMI board at a mutually convenient location for a day or two to get to know each other, and then have the CEOs of both ministries join the boards to try to resolve the issues. To this end, we offered to fly the entire CMI board and its CEO to the U.S., at our expense. But CMI refused this and all other invitations.

CMI comment: This is bizarre in the extreme, a reversal of reality. See Mr Clarrie Briese's summary of the attempts CMI has made to find resolution, which were all rejected or ignored (mainly the latter) by AiG-US: look for the section titled Documents showing Genuine Efforts to Reconcile/Settle the Dispute
(www.creationontheweb.biz/chairmans_report.html ) and following.
The truth is that there was NEVER an offer to meet with the entire Australian Board, face to face, all at once, up front. Note how this is covered over by cleverly referring to the Australian Board 'and its CEO'. AiG knows full well that ever since the old Board's abdication, our ministry has not had a CEO. It insists on using such terminology, because otherwise it becomes a lie to say that it agreed to meet with the Board, because Carl Wieland is and was then a member of that Board. And all of their three (really 2 BD) offers were completely neutralized by coupling them with the following conditions:

a) Not wanting to meet with Carl present, or excluding him for the first two days (Ken Ham's brother later stated that this was so that Ken's Board could persuade the new Australian directors 'why Carl could not be trusted') AND/OR

b) Insisting that the meeting was not permitted to discuss the very issues at stake, namely the 'agreements' signed which plunged the ministries into crisis. We would counter by asking that they drop such preconditions, but to no avail.

It is obviously quite misleading to talk about 'inviting the Board', when one is actually refusing to include one member of that Board. But even more importantly, Carl Wieland was the only director who had first-hand knowledge of the events leading up to November 2005. The exclusion was clearly tactical.

CMI offered to arbitrate the disputes between the ministries, but they insisted on their own set of strict terms and pre-conditions.

CMI comment: No. CMI offered to submit to an arbitration process (CMI was not the arbitrator!), along with AiG-US. The proposal by CMI was never responded to by AiG-US to indicate which 'terms and pre-conditions' were not suitable to them. There was no statement by CMI that the conditions were not negotiable, only that if they were accepted the proposal 'as is', then CMI would be immediately bound to the process (i.e., CMI could not back out). This was the first of two 'binding arbitration offers' refused/ignored by AiG-US. They did not even bother to discuss the conditions.

Instead of relying upon a neutral and recognized arbitration body, CMI proposed its own unique arbitration method and insisted that it be conducted in Australia, under Australian law, and by Australian attorneys or judges. Frankly, CMI's proposal did not comport with normal and accepted rules for arbitration.

CMI comment: Which arbitration offer is being referred to here? CMI made two offers (August 2006 and March 2007), both of which were completely ignored by AiG-US (no response whatsoever). The second proposal was formulated under the guidance of a Christian barrister at law (senior counsel in the USA) and as the proposal stated, it would have been under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Queensland), which sets out the procedures in detail. So it is completely wrong for AiG-US to claim that 'CMI's proposal did not comport with normal and accepted rules for arbitration'. This is yet another example of a baseless claim by AiG-US, and they have been informed otherwise some time ago in writing. This is amazingly prejudicial and misleading statement that has no basis in fact. You can read the proposal at www.creationontheweb.biz/offer-binding_christian_arbitration.pdf and see that it is absolutely fair, with AiG-US choosing three possible arbitrators and CMI having to choose one of those three; what could be fairer? It is in effect saying, 'Pick your own Christian judge'. But having completely rejected all such things, though trying to shift the goalposts at the last minute, they are now able to cloak themselves in the mantle of 'godly persecution' and amazingly, make it look as if AiG has wanted binding arbitration all along!

More importantly, as a ministry in Kentucky, USA, we do not believe the law of Australia is even appropriate in this case.

CMI comment: The arbitration proposal above, reproduced in full on the web, sets out clearly why the arbitration should most definitely be in Australia. This is not some minor issue, and if one is only concerned with a fair verdict, why not use a formal process that involves the very jurisdiction (Australia) which one's own documents have stipulated?

At the least, this is an issue that a neutral arbiter should be allowed to determine.

CMI comment: How would an arbitrator chosen as per the procedure proposed above not be neutral? If anything he/she could be biased in favour of AiG-US, since they would choose all three options!

Having reached an impasse with CMI on numerous issues, we asked the independent, internationally recognized Christian conciliation organization, Peacemaker Ministries (which also has conciliators in Australia), to moderate and resolve the dispute.

CMI comment: This again is highly misleading. It makes it sound as if AiG-US was interested in mediation all along. However, as the Briese Chairman's report documents, it not only ignored such efforts, it formally cut us off with a widely distributed letter containing serious innuendo and libel/slander, which it refused to withdraw when we pleaded with them to do so. The sudden Damascus-road-like conversion to mediation was only after we said we would hold them accountable at law, failing an urgent meeting to settle the issues (which they again refused/ignored).

Under Peacemaker's direction, AiG will meet anywhere to resolve these disputes with CMI and under any arbiter or arbiters that Peacemaker Ministries finds appropriate. CMI refused three offers to settle the issues through Peacemaker Ministries-reusing Christian mediation and binding arbitration (and CMI even rebuffed Peacemaker Ministries directly). We are saddened that CMI rejects neutral Christian arbitration and conciliation, and instead opts to publicly try the dispute in the secular courts.

CMI comment: Once again this is a bizarre twist on what happened. After 18 months of our pleadings being ignored we told AiG-US that we had no choice but to hold them accountable at law. Suddenly AiG-US got interested in Peacemakers mediation, but at that stage, they were not suggesting going straight to arbitration. This is a very important distinction, as will become clear. (And we are only aware of one such formal proposal, not three.) They said that the process might lead to arbitration, but there was no formal proposal for binding arbitration. (See later re the informal phone call at the very, very last minute, when they had our lawsuit wording in their hands, about binding arbitration after all.)

[Lippard comment: In other words, AiG is willing to talk about arbitration to derail and delay a legal process, but not willing to commit to making that arbitration binding. So if they like the result of the arbitration, they'll commit, but otherwise, walk away or engage in further delay to avoid any results they don't like.]

Furthermore, the statement: 'CMI even rebuffed Peacemaker Ministries directly' is clearly and misleadingly designed to make us sound evil by innuendo. The truth is that we gave AiG-US our carefully-considered reasons why we could not take part in a process of mediation prior to binding judgment, because of the delays their intransigence had caused, which would permit them to drag things on past the point of our rights to redress expiring. Nevertheless, we gave them the last offer of binding arbitration, making it clear that because they had used Australian law (paying Australian lawyers, specifying the legal jurisdiction as Australia) to tie us in legal knots, all would have to be settled under Australian law, as it would be if we chose not to be merciful and proceeded to hold them accountable. However, instead of coming back to us, or even discussing our arbitration offers, AiG-US had Peacemakers approach us. So, our courteous response was of course to Peacemakers, who seemed to be acting as a proxy for AiG-US. As CMI said at the time, we would be happy to engage Peacemakers in a mediation process leading to reconciliation, after the legal noose is removed from CMI's neck. Since AiG-US would not willingly agree to such noose-removal, it could only be achieved by arbitration or, failing AiG-US agreeing to that, court action. Engaging in mediation before resolving the legal issues could well have jeopardized our ability to later find redress for the legal matters, as even Peacemakers' own information points out. At the very last minute, (everything was already in train. They had our lawsuit wording in their hands and had seen the Briese report) AiG-US finally indicated, via a third party phone call, that they would be now willing to go to binding arbitration but only via this same organization, and still rejected arbitration under Australian law. But without ever once saying to us why our proposal was unacceptable. This was literally only DAYS before AiG wrote this document to which we are responding, so it is highly misleading to give the impression as if all along they were willing to have binding arbitration. It's easy to say things, but it's documents that speak for themselves; which is why Mr Briese's report, analyzing the documents, turns out to be so vital.

We are grieved that CMI chose to make this matter public world-wide via the web and an email campaign;

CMI comment: AiG-US engaged in an email campaign by innuendo against CMI (CMI has a 'spiritual problem'; 'contact us for more details'). We don't know who received such emails or what they were told by AiG-US when they made contact. CMI's efforts are aimed at bringing resolution. If the only way this can happen, it seems, is to bring things into the light, then so be it. Scripture says that things whispered in secret will be shouted from housetops (Luke 12:3). If people do nothing wrong in secret then there is nothing to fear from public exposure.

in this manner, so many distortions and untruths have been scattered abroad.

CMI comment: No distortions or untruths have been pointed out by AiG-US. This is yet another example of AiG-US making grand claims without substance (Mr Briese also documents such tactics by AiG-US regarding emails by Dr Sarfati. When asked to produce evidence in the light of day, nothing happens).

One of the links they provided connects to something called the "Briese report." This report was issued by a group of people -- selected by CMI itself -- to conduct an "investigation." Because of concerns over the perceived bias of this panel (since it was selected by CMI and headed by a "member" of the CMI organization, and since CMI itself set the "objectives" of this panel), AiG and others associated or familiar with this dispute declined to be involved.

CMI comment: Please read the credentials of the committee members at: www.creationontheweb.biz/briese_committee_menu.html . All have independent reputations that they would not risk to rubber stamp some subterfuge of CMI or anyone else. This charge by AiG-US is astonishing in its brazenness. Mr Briese's reputation as a corruption fighter is unblemished (you could have read about Mr Briese on AiG's web site, except they recently removed the Creation article about him). You can read it at: www.creationontheweb.com/Briese . This was published well before any of the current troubles erupted. Yes, Mr Briese is one of the wider members of CMI, mentioned by us above, one of the body that holds the Board accountable at an annual meeting (that's all; he is not on the payroll, etc.). Also, Mr Briese chased the paper trail, which is a legal procedure that uncovers documents that have been not divulged (deliberately or inadvertently).

Indeed, it is shocking that CMI, which is a Christian organization, would employ such tactics

CMI comment: Tactics? This is a 'smear statement', with no substance. In desperation, we asked this eminent committee to form, to try to once again avoid the legal road. We not only invited AiG to participate, but said that if they did, we would also participate with a similar committee of their choosing, provided only that the rules of total openness were followed. The same Clarrie Briese, incidentally, helped save this ministry with a similar enquiry from damaging libel by a renowned humanist opponent, something for which Ken Ham, as a director at the time, was very grateful for.

and then publicize this report as fact, when it is filled with half-truths and blatant advocacy of the CMI position.

CMI comment: Once again, AiG-US makes unsubstantiated accusations. What half-truths? Mr Briese would certainly like to hear about them! Mr Briese's findings are backed by extensive quotes from AiG-US documents and some 700 pages of documentation are indexed to his report. Yes, Mr Briese certainly arrived at a point of supporting CMI's contentions, because that is where the evidence led. But he also added, of his own volition, his own observations, which only strengthened the gravity of the matters. If AiG had evidence to the contrary, and had provided it as invited, the Briese committee would have certainly wanted to follow the evidence wherever it led. In fact, Clarrie Briese's membership of the company is precisely to be in a role of watchdog, to hold the directors accountable.

Up to this point, our Board had chosen to remain silent and was trying to resolve this matter privately.

CMI comment: Yes, the silence even extended to completely ignoring almost every request that CMI made to meet to resolve the difficulties. But it has not extended to silence on the telephone to other parties, or the whispering campaign against CMI personnel, as documented by Mr Briese. As we have shown in www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/dispute/chronological_ordershort.pdf and as Mr Briese also independently documented, AiG-US have resisted every effort to settle this dispute.

CMI has now made this dispute public, and we are now compelled to provide information to you to clarify this matter.

CMI comment: It would be fine if it was accurate and not disinformation, as most of this is.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when even Christians have become highly litigious and are increasingly eager to use a secular court system to settle matters,

[Lippard comment: AiG-US is all-too-willing to rely on (or at least threaten to use) the "secular court system" to settle matters when it suits them. Check out this cease and desist notice that they issued to the Internet Infidels when I was president of that organization regarding cartoon parodies posted by users of our message boards. (This was ultimately resolved without legal action--we asked those who made the cartoon parodies to change the names on them and remove all references to the trademarks, then only removed those which failed to comply.) Also see below, where CMI mentions that they have documentation of a legal threat against them by AiG-US.]

CMI comment: It is with tears that CMI has embarked on legal action. It is a total misrepresentation of the directors' attitude to suggest that they were 'eager' to use the secular court system. AiG-US has no basis whatsoever for such a grave smear. Any reasonable person would see that we have gone the third, fourth and fifth mile in trying to resolve these matters privately, and then proposing Christian arbitration. All efforts rejected. Court action was the last resort, having tried all else. Their last-minute shift, 'dragged kicking and screaming' to the position of themselves informally proposing going straight to binding arbitration, should not be portrayed as a keenness for resolution. We asked them to explain what was wrong with our proposal (you can check that proposal for yourself). We cannot help but think that they are fearful of jointly submitting to arbitration under Australian law (despite having invoked Australian law themselves) perhaps because they know that there are issues of breach of Australian company law, etc. Should we permit those engaging in the breaches to choose their own jurisdiction, but let them knock back a much fairer, cleaner and more straightforward offer, using established rules of long standing? The other thing about Australian arbitration is that it is governed under law, which means that if the Christian judge makes an error of law in favour of CMI, e.g., then AiG could appeal it on those grounds. In short, if they were serious about peaceful resolution, they would have been able to choose their own Christian judge, and the whole matter would never have reached the public eye. The incredible distortions in this document give strong support to Mr Briese's sober judge's analysis of what is driving this whole thing and the need for it to be dealt with.

even trying to justify such actions by declaring that somehow Romans 13:1 overrides I Corinthians 6.

CMI comment: So is this saying that the CMI Board should allow CMI's supporters and staff to be defrauded by AiG-US? (How about 1 Cor. 6:8?) This would be an option for an individual, but not necessarily for a corporation governed by the laws of the state. To say otherwise is close to the same sort of reasoning that has led some Christians to think that a president of a country should never defend its citizens, because the Bible says individual believers should turn the other cheek.

But we totally agree that it is a shame for Christians to have to use secular authorities - as Paul said, they should be able to sort things out ecclesiastically. That should be something they agreed to ages ago, not just after it's clear that we will be taking them to court.

We are deeply concerned that a para-church ministry would refuse Christian arbitration and then decide to sue brothers in Christ with a lawsuit, thus disobeying the Spirit of God's instructions in I Corinthians 6.

AiG encourages people to be like the Bereans in the Book of Acts and read these two passages for themselves.

CMI comment: As part of this process, the whole counsel of God should be considered. As part of this, please consider: Why CMI-Australia is holding AiG-US legally accountable for its actions (www.creationontheweb.biz/lawsuit_justification.html ) Note that we have documentation of a written legal threat by AiG-US against us, so this position that it is always under any circumstances 'disobeying the Spirit of God' appears to be a position of current convenience. (Obviously, every Christian corporation potentially relies on the power of the law when it goes into any sort of contract, or registers a trademark, or gives a copyright warning on its work, for example. The point is the desire to sort it out between brethren if at all possible, and this is where the problem has been, as the Briese documentation makes clear.)

Our heart is particularly sad for the churches and pastors, and even book distributors, in Australia who have also been warned or threatened with legal action by CMI for their affiliation with AiG-USA. Notwithstanding the myriad of details about the issues involved, this legal threat by CMI against churches and others constitutes a serious disobedience to our God.

CMI comment: Note: 'notwithstanding the myriad of details about the issues involved'. In other words, if the reader were apprised of these it would not be as AiG-US insinuates. AiG-US's attempts to act deceptively in Australia by passing themselves off as Answers in Genesis in Australia when many (most?) still think of CMI as 'AiG' here, will be resisted, with good justification to avoid confusion (trademark law protects against such deception / trading off confusion). If AiG-US would walk in the light, it would not be trying to further undermine CMI-Australia by ruthless commercial actions, on top of what it has already done. This whole matter being raised by AiG-US to paint us in a bad light is also addressed in the Briese report. This judicial analysis is based on the documents, most of them exchanges between CMI and AiG-US, not on hearsay, emotive rhetoric or 'spin'.

AiG is committed to honoring God and His Word. We covet your prayers during these trying days. Yet, the Lord be praised.

CMI comment: It would bring a real, tangible blessing to us if AiG-US would really honour the whole of God's Word, including such strong admonitions as Micah 6:8 (God calls us to do justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with God).

If you have questions concerning the basics of this issue, please call Mark Looy, AiG's chief communications officer, at (859) 727-2222, ext. 450 (please note that AiG is in the eastern time zone). If you have theological questions concerning our understanding of the Scriptures as they relate to this issue, please contact our board chairman, Pastor Don Landis (through Mark, who will pass it on to Pastor Landis).

[Lippard comment: Note that Landis is the man who, in a letter to Carl Wieland, asked him if he had any undisclosed sins that might be causing this dispute, such as taking too many medications or being involved with pornography (quoted in the Briese report). That's a tactic that reminds me of the Church of Scientology's "sec check" procedure!]

CMI comment: If you contact Mr Looy, or Mr Landis, could you please get them to put their comments in writing (print) so that what is said can be tested to ascertain that you are being told the truth, or given accurate exegesis? Proverbs 18:17. Sadly, many have been just too willing to believe what they are told without checking it out (be good Bereans as AiG-US has said!). In fact, one of the tragedies in all of this has been that AiG-US's standard pattern has been to ask people to 'contact us and you'll get the facts'-but always declining if asked if a CMI person could be there to give the other side of the story. And/or people are sworn to secrecy not to reveal to CMI what they are told. Which is why it was so important to have the open (Briese) enquiry at last, where evidence could be presented, and tested at cross-examination.

We plead with you to help us inhibit this unbiblical internet gossip and rumor mill by contacting us directly and/or simply committing it in prayer to the Lord. Thank you.

CMI comment: What CMI has put on the Internet is not gossip or rumor. No one has demonstrated any factual error in what we have made available, and as we have said, if anyone will demonstrate such error we will correct anything we have written and we are sure Mr Briese would also. It is 'whispering' in telephone calls, swearing people to secrecy, as has been the pattern, that is gossip by definition, and that generates dark deeds and poisons relationships. So people are being urged to avoid gossip by partaking of gossip! We have with tears pleaded and pleaded for even the courtesy of open meeting for resolution, yet now we see this document that claims the very opposite, as if black is white, and good evil. Enough! If we had had the chance to talk all together in the open, even once, then maybe AiG's Board, or at least some of them, might have come to see how seriously 'filtered' their understanding of events is. Sadly, this was never once permitted.

Sincerely,

Board of Directors
Answers in Genesis -USA

Pastor Don Landis, Chairman
Dan Chin, Vice Chairman
Dr. Mark Jackson
Dan Manthei
Tim Dudley

With sadness, but resolved to see righteousness reign,

The Board of Directors,
Creation Ministries International (Australia)

Kerry Boettcher, Chairman
Dr David Christie
Rev. Dr. Don Hardgrave
Carolyn McPherson
Dr Carl Wieland

Hospitals have been treating cardiac arrest wrong?

From Newsweek:

Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his heart has stopped beating -- the definition of "clinical death" -- and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died? "After one hour, we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later.

But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed.

Mitochondria control the process known as apoptosis, the programmed death of abnormal cells that is the body's primary defense against cancer. "It looks to us," says Becker, "as if the cellular surveillance mechanism cannot tell the difference between a cancer cell and a cell being reperfused with oxygen. Something throws the switch that makes the cell die."

With this realization came another: that standard emergency-room procedure has it exactly backward. [...] "We give them oxygen," Becker says. "We jolt the heart with the paddles, we pump in epinephrine to force it to beat, so it's taking up more oxygen." Blood-starved heart muscle is suddenly flooded with oxygen, precisely the situation that leads to cell death. Instead, Becker says, we should aim to reduce oxygen uptake, slow metabolism and adjust the blood chemistry for gradual and safe reperfusion.

A study at four hospitals showed a remarkable rate of success in treating sudden cardiac arrest with an approach that involved, among other things, a "cardioplegic" blood infusion to keep the heart in a state of suspended animation. The study involved just 34 patients, but 80 percent of them were discharged from the hospital alive. In one study of traditional methods, the figure was about 15 percent.

(Via jwz's blog.)

Night at the Creation Museum

These guys are good. (Hat tip to Pharyngula.)

Clark Adams' memorial service

Until yesterday, I'd only attended funerals or memorial services for four people I've known; three of those have been in the last three years. All were at least nominally religious or spiritual funerals, and all (except the first, which I was too young to fully understand) struck a deep emotional chord in me. They were celebrations of the lives of these people, combined with grief for the loss of their presence. I wondered if a non-religious funeral would have the same emotional content.

Yesterday, I flew up to Las Vegas for Clark Adams' memorial service. Mel Lipman of HALVASON was the officiant--he said it was about the 50th such service he had done, but was the first for someone that he had been such a close friend to. He was followed by remarks from Clark's friends Rob and Raul, who shared personal memories of Clark and what he meant to them. Clark's mother was represented by a beautiful letter that closed with "THOUGHTfully yours, Clark's mom." There were photos and video of Clark. We laughed, we shed tears, we hugged. We shared memories of Clark and we made new friends. At dinner afterward, several people gave homage to Clark by ordering Diet Cokes with no ice (even though Matt said "I hate Diet Coke" and Brandon said "and I love ice!").

The emotional content was the same--a mix of joy for the positive contributions Clark made to all of our lives and sadness that he's gone. But I found it a better experience than the religious ceremonies in this regard, in that these are people like me, that I can genuinely connect with on a deeper and more honest way, despite the fact that I don't know many of them very well. We know that Clark is gone, and that our lives here are all we have, making every moment more precious.

Creation Ministries International sues Answers in Genesis

Creation Ministries International has filed a lawsuit against Answers in Genesis in Australia.

From The Australian:

A week after former Queensland science teacher Ken Ham opened the world's first Creation Museum - a $33 million facility in Petersburg, Kentucky - he is being sued by the Australian evangelical organisation he helped to set up and which served as a springboard for his leap into the US evangelical movement two decades ago.
...

The suit focuses on a dispute over the Australian organisation's production of a creationist magazine, sold in the US to more than 35,000 subscribers, and has led to revelations about the three-year battle between the two ministries.

A 40-page report, written by Mr Briese and obtained by The Australian, reveals a bitter power struggle across the Pacific that began with a challenge to the power Mr Ham allegedly wielded over the ministries.
...
A magistrate between 1982 and 90, Mr Briese found in his report that Mr Ham and his US organisation had launched a campaign after his leadership was challenged by his US deputy, Brandon Vallorani, who was then sacked, and Australian leader Carl Wieland, who was later allegedly the subject of innuendo about his private life.

According to Mr Briese's report, the campaign last year also involved John Mackay, a former associate of Mr Ham in Queensland, who was excommunicated in the 1980s after making allegations of witchcraft and necrophilia against a fellow member of the ministry.

The joint Australian-US push for reforms came amid concerns over Mr Ham's domination of the ministries, the amount of money being spent on his fellow executives and a shift away from delivering the creationist message to raising donations.

In his report, Mr Briese said Mr Ham and the US organisation responded with sackings, bullying and, in some instances, "unbiblical/unethical/unlawful behaviour" towards the Australian ministry that he suspected was intended to send it into bankruptcy.

"The report recommends that if CMI is to fulfil its fiduciary responsibilities to protect and safeguard the Australian ministry, CMI, and have a recalcitrant Answers in Genesis-USA brought to account for the serious wrongs it has committed," he said, "CMI has no option left except to bring AiG-USA before the secular courts, the 'powers that be ordained by God' under Romans 13."

I've previously reported on the details of CMI's complaints here, on the John McKay witchcraft and necrophilia accusations here, and on the CMI/AiG schism here.

UPDATE (June 4, 2007): P.Z. Myers gives his take, as does Bartholomew's notes on religion blog.

The Clarrie Briese report and related documents, including the text of the legal complaint, is online at the Creation Ministries International website.

UPDATE (June 5, 2007): Answers in Genesis has responded to the lawsuit with an email to supporters, and Creation Ministries International has commented on that email--I've got the full text on my blog, with some color commentary of my own.

Sen. Jon Kyl responsible for "secret hold" on Open Government Act

The Open Government Act, a bill which would require the government to provide justifications for refusal to answer Freedom of Information Act requests, has been blocked in the Senate by an anonymous, secret hold placed by one Senator. This is the same process by which Sen. Ted Stevens placed a secret hold last year on a bill to create a publicly searchable database of earmarks.

After the Society for Professional Journalists began a search for the responsible Senator who wants the government to continue to be able to stonewall FOIA requests without justification, he came forward--and it's Arizona Senator Jon Kyl.