SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)12/2/2003 1:56:42 AM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793671
 
Where Science and Religion Join Hands

[Note: Re: something you wrote reminded me of many of the Astronauts and their view of God....certainly men and women of science and technical training. Perhaps the looking at the difference in 'religion' and 'man made religion' would make tolerance a good word for all beliefs. "Nutters" (your quote) probably doesn't 'cut it'.

I can remember John Glenn and Buzz Aldrin actually saying what they thought then. ]


Where Science and Religion Join Hands

BY MARK O'KEEFE
c.2003 Newhouse News Service

newhousenews.com



When Rick Husband, commander of the shuttle Columbia, looked out the window of his spacecraft, he saw what he called God's awe-inspiring creation. Crew member Michael Anderson, a physicist, believed that heaven, not space, was his final frontier.

Their faith may come as a surprise to those who think science and religion are on irreconcilable paths. The spiritual lives of these astronauts and thousands of scientists reveal a journey in which religion enhances and supports scientific discovery.

The space program has a long history of astronauts who have boldly taken their faith into orbit. And even as Americans grapple with the thorniest of issues dividing religion and science, including the question of creation and evolution, several national organizations have emerged for those seeking to combine careers in science with their faith in God.

"I find my appreciation of science is greatly enriched by religion," said Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian who heads the National Human Genome Research Institute, in an interview with Beliefnet, a Web site devoted to spiritual topics.

"When I discover something about the human genome, I experience a sense of awe at the mystery of life, and say to myself, `Wow, only God knew before.' It is a profoundly beautiful and moving sensation, which helps me appreciate God and makes science even more rewarding for me."

In 1958, NASA's first seven astronauts were introduced at a news conference, where John Glenn said, "I got on this project because it'll probably be the nearest thing to heaven I'd ever get and I wanted to make the most of it."

In 1962, Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth. In 1998, at age 77, Glenn returned to space, on the shuttle Discovery, and said, "To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible."

The Apollo 8 crew celebrated the first flight around the moon by reading from Genesis, the first book of the Bible, which gives the creation account. The first meal on the moon was Holy Communion, taken by Buzz Aldrin.

Religion was a presence on board Columbia in its final mission.

Although he didn't observe Jewish dietary laws on Earth, Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli on a shuttle mission, ate kosher foods in space and carried a palm-size Torah scroll.

On Jan. 28, at 11:39 a.m. EST, the Columbia crew bowed their heads in reverent silence to honor the exact moment the space shuttle Challenger had exploded in the skies 17 years earlier.

Husband, an engineer whose first flight aboard a shuttle occurred in 1999, had told the Fresno (Calif.) Bee in November: "I am a strong believer and a Christian. I look out that window at what a beautiful creation God has made."

Anderson, who became interested in space exploration while watching the television series "Star Trek," put faith at the center of who he was, said his father, Bobbie Anderson. "Even now, with what happened, I can feel assured that by his being a Christian man, he's in a better place," Bobbie Anderson told reporters outside his home in Spokane, Wash.

Only a few scientists become astronauts. But many describe their work with the same awe-struck terms the astronauts use.

"The actual study of science and nature is likely to lead a practitioner to a sense of wonder and human smallness in the presence of a very great mind indeed. Many would say, for instance, that there is hardly any more glorious example of God's genius in creation than the way evolution works," said science writer Kitty Ferguson, author of a new book on Johannes Kepler, the 17th century German Lutheran who discovered the laws of planetary motion that now bear his name.

Evolution -- a tenet of 20th century science -- can be a great divide.

Some scientists embrace an "intelligent design" theory or other scientific explanations allowing for a creator. Others reconcile faith and science by maintaining, in Collins' words, that "a creator God set the process" of evolution in motion.

And while scientists are sometimes suspicious of men and women of faith in their midst -- "The standard assumption is that anyone with faith has gone soft in the head," Collins told Beliefnet -- people of faith are sometimes hostile to scientists.

Don Monroe, executive director of the 2,400-member American Scientific Affiliation, recalled how, as a graduate student studying cellular physiology in the mid-1960s, his pastor told him he couldn't understand how a Christian could become a biologist.

"It made me gasp," said Monroe, who lives in Ipswich, Mass., where his organization is located. "My wife was right there behind me and she gasped, too. I went home and thought about that, and I've continued to think about that for more than 30 years."

The ASA, a support group for evangelicals in science, is evidence that Monroe has company in his journeys down the paths of faith and science.

The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, Calif., also grapples with ontological questions. And since 1995, the Washington-based American Association for the Advancement of Science has had a "Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion" that reaches out to religious communities. The group is the world's largest general scientific society and the publisher of Science magazine.

Some see the gulf between religion and science closing.

William Phillips, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in cooling and trapping atoms with lasers, said the perception that religion and science are in intractable conflict is fading.

Increasing is the view that both religion and science have "important things to tell us about life and the universe" and that "sometimes you need to consult both in order to get the best answers," said Phillips, a University of Maryland professor who sometimes teaches Sunday school at his United Methodist church.

The public is showing increased interest in "the faith of scientists" while scientists are "exploring and speaking of their own faith," said Aileen O'Donoghue, a physics professor at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y., who recently returned from a sabbatical at the Vatican Observatory in Italy.

"We are moving," O'Donoghue said, "to an era where religion and science are less polarized."

(Mark O'Keefe can be contacted at mark.okeefe@newhouse.com)



To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)12/2/2003 3:22:57 AM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793671
 
The problem is that in Edwards’ day, acceptance of “the unerring authority of the Bible” was not fundamentally incompatible with reasoned thought. Today that has changed. It’s pretty much impossible to submit to the idea of an inerrant Bible without turning off significant portions of your mind.

I can’t see why anybody would do that voluntarily, and I can’t see the appeal of submission overall, especially when the submission in question is not to some hypothetical deity, but to self-appointed religious intermediaries.


Well at least now I understand why you ranted so often about Boykin's remarks.
As an atheist the issue for you was never really which God or whose God he spoke about...The issue was your personal objection to his mentioning God period.

The point was that an honest expression of our actual policy would be more productive than preaching a moral position that we aren’t willing to follow in practice.

The mere fact that you disagree with and do not care to adhere to a specific moral position does not make it wrong.

America is a religious based society. "In God We Trust" is a national motto. We are not about to apologize for that to anyone.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)12/2/2003 3:32:57 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793671
 
Why are people raised in the most scientifically advanced nation on earth, with free access to a greater body of knowledge than any humans have ever had, retreating into superstition?

<rant> Why do people embrace Religion? Because they are looking for answers, and their secular society has failed to give them answers. What is our Philosophy? Post Modernism, an approach that says Reason is of little use, man cannot know. If you take Philosophy at a top flight Western University that is what you are taught. And it filters down to the rest to those who don't take it directly.

The Enlightenment was the high point for the use of Reason. It lasted in our country from the Declaration of Independence through the Victorian Age, and ended with the death of Ingersoll in 1899. secularhumanism.org

America runs on reason and spends it's spare time engaging in superstition. That is why I keep bringing up articles about it. </rant>



To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)12/2/2003 4:24:36 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793671
 
We are producing more with less people. The analogy to what happened in Farming is so obvious. Good news for Bush. It's funny, the Democrats and the media are in the same line of business right now. They are both looking for bad news.

December 2, 2003
Manufacturing at Highest Level in Two Decades
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and FLOYD NORRIS - New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — American manufacturing activity rose to its highest level in nearly 20 years last month as factories raced to keep up with demand and indicated a readiness to expand their work forces for the first time in three years, according to a survey published on Monday.

In the latest good economic news, the Institute of Supply Management reported that its November survey of purchasing managers showed a surge in new orders and a big jump in production in almost every industry. The institute said its overall index of manufacturing activity climbed to the highest level since December 1983, an increase much greater than most economists expected.

But the bigger surprise was that manufacturers showed a wider readiness to hire workers after three years of reducing factory payrolls.

Major stock indexes rose yesterday to the highest levels in 18 months, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising 1.19 percent as investors became more convinced that the robust economic growth this summer was more than a one-time event.

Speaking at a fund-raising event in Dearborn, Mich., President Bush said his strategy of lower taxes had helped revive the economy.

"Our economy was strong and it is getting stronger," Mr. Bush said. "Productivity is high; business investment is strong; housing construction is strong. The tax relief we passed is working."

The positive news is tempered somewhat by the federal budget deficit, which is expected to reach $500 billion next year as growth is financed in large part with borrowed money, and by a lofty trade deficit.

Still, the new survey of manufacturing activity came on the heels of other reports indicating that the economy grew at an annual pace of 8.2 percent in the third quarter and the job market had begun to revive.

Economists said the data provided evidence that growth would continue to be strong next year, long after the effects from this year's tax cuts and the Federal Reserve's recent most reduction in interest rates wear off.

"I think this speaks to the strength of the economy right now, but it also speaks to the confidence of companies," said Norbert J. Ore, director of procurement at the Georgia-Pacific Corporation and chairman of the Institute for Supply Management's survey committee.

The institute said its index of manufacturing activity, computed from answers that purchasing executives provide about the pace of business activity, jumped to 62.8 from 57 in October. A reading above 50 signals that factory production is expanding rather than contracting. If it were to continue at the November level, the institute said, the index would correlate to overall annual economic growth of 7.3 percent.

Companies participating in the survey reported exceptionally big jumps in new orders as well as backlogs, both of which suggest that output will continue to rise robustly.

The buoyant conditions came through in 18 of the 20 sectors of manufacturing surveyed by the institute. The optimism ranged from producers of computers and office equipment to manufacturers of building materials, chemicals and machine tools.

Two other reports provided additional evidence of stronger growth. The Commerce Department reported on Monday that construction activity grew faster than many experts predicted. The value of building projects under way in October reached $922 billion, a monthly high. The increases were varied, in areas including residential construction, public works and commercial building.

Economists at J. P. Morgan said data from Europe and Asia showed that the global pace of manufacturing was picking up, as well. It said its global index of manufacturing activity had signaled an expansion for the last five months, with the United States and Asia leading the way.

The survey, which economists view as particularly important, provided evidence that a three-year deep slump in manufacturing is drawing to a close. American manufacturers have shed more than two million jobs since fall 2001, with many of the lost jobs in industrial swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri.

The encouraging economic data came at an opportune moment for President Bush, who is expected to anger steel makers this week by announcing the end of special tariffs against imported steel.

And while the job market had begun to improve modestly in August and September, that had occurred in service industries. The new survey announced on Monday provided the first evidence that manufacturers were finally poised to start hiring as well.

Economists are now fixing their attention on the next crucial piece of economic news: the Labor Department's monthly report on employment, which is to be released on Friday.

Forecasters are predicting an increase in November of about 125,000 jobs, roughly in line with the job growth in the previous two months. Though representing a turnaround from the steady stream of job losses before this fall, the economy needs to generate more than 200,000 jobs a month before the unemployment rate begins to drop significantly.

The increasingly clear evidence of economic growth poses a tricky choice for the Federal Reserve, which has contributed mightily to current growth by reducing short-term interest rates to their lowest level in 45 years.

The federal funds rate for overnight loans between banks is 1 percent, and Fed officials have said since August that they would keep interest rates low for "a considerable period."

But that open-ended commitment to easy money has already generated disagreement within the Fed, and every additional sign of renewed economic growth puts Fed officials under more pressure to resume tightening monetary policy.

Despite the upbeat news about manufacturing, the United States' recovery remains dependent in large part on borrowed money.

The budget deficit is expected to reach $500 billion next year and remain high for the foreseeable future. At the same time, the United States continues to run extremely high foreign trade deficits. The deficit in the nation's current account, the broadest measure of the financial relationship with the rest of the world, is expected to run about $500 billion this year.

That is a level of indebtedness that most economists consider unsustainable, and it is a big reason that the dollar has steadily lost value against the euro and other major currencies.

For American manufacturers, the declining dollar has provided a welcome boost because it makes American products cheaper in other countries. But a weak dollar leads to higher prices for imported goods, which can feed the rate of inflation, and it can push up long-term interest rates as foreign investors demand higher returns to offset their currency risk.

Investors, though, focused yesterday on the manufacturing index. The Dow's gain, of 116.59 points, to 9,899.05, left it at its highest level since May 31, 2002. The broader Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rose 11.92 points, or 1.13 percent, to 1,070.12, its highest close since May 28, 2002.

The technology-focused Nasdaq composite index climbed 29.56 points, or 1.5 percent, to 1,989.82, its best close since Jan. 15, 2002, nearly two years ago.

Oracle, Apple Computer and Nextel were among the large Nasdaq stocks posting gains of 3 percent or more.

The economy has been buoyed by consumer purchases for most of the last three years as many businesses cut back after the stock market bubble burst and industries, notably technology and telecommunications, were left with excessive capacity.

But recent news has indicated that economic strength is spreading from consumers and housing, which remained at high levels throughout the recession and recently rose to record levels, and that was reflected in the stock market Monday.

The Morgan Stanley cyclical index, which includes stocks that are deemed most dependent on a strong economy, rose 1.8 percent Monday, with companies like International Paper, U.S. Steel and PPG Industries, a diversified producer of chemical and industrial products, all gaining at least 4 percent.

U.S. Steel's advance came despite the widespread reports of the imminent demise of the steel tariffs. Thomas Usher, the chief executive of U.S. Steel, said that would "create an uncertainty going forward," according to Bloomberg News. But it apparently did not bother investors.

Retail stocks did less well. The Morgan Stanley retail index rose only 0.5 percent, with major sellers like Circuit City, Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us losing 2 percent or more. Some analysts said the holiday shopping season got off to a weaker start than many had expected. But J. C. Penney and Payless ShoeSource each rose more than 3 percent, as most retailers showed gains in their share prices.

Boeing was one of four stocks in the Dow industrials to decline, falling 37 cents, to $38.02, after its chief executive, Philip M. Condit, resigned days after two other officials were forced out amid an investigation into the way the company sought an Air Force contract.

In the bond market on Monday, Treasury bonds declined on the manufacturing news. By late in the day, the benchmark 10-year note was down 1632, to 98 2832. The note's yield, which moves in the opposite direction from the price, climbed to 4.39 percent from 4.33 percent on Friday.

Following are the results of yesterday's Treasury auction of three- and six-month bills.

nytimes.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)12/2/2003 5:09:32 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793671
 
For several months I used to argue, quite a bit, with fundamentalist Christians about evolution on Free Republic, but gave it up recently because I'd said pretty much everything I had to say on the topic. I also gave up because I was tired of the atheist evolutionists pissing on religion, which they do. Fundamentalists make convenient punching bags, but shooting fish in barrels is infra dig.

There are some very close-minded people on every part of the spectrum, whose personal views seem like caricatures, and whose understanding of other people's points of view seem like caricatures, as well.

Clearly, the guys who spend their lives "proving" that Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark are missing a few screws, but what can you say about the people who can't comprehend how one can believe that God created a universe that obeys the laws of physics, and that God created life on Earth using the principles of evolution?

I would say that the latter don't necessarily have screws loose but maybe bees in their bonnets. A bad childhood experience with close-minded people can close your own mind against anyone who resembles them in the least. Science cannot prove that God exists, nor can it prove that God doesn't exist. Faith cannot "prove" that God exists in any way that science can recognize. That's why it's called "faith."

There's a conceptual line between science and religion which at the present time seems insurmountable. But one can believe in both, just as once can like both soccer and basketball. They're different.

America differs from most European countries and Canada by having more people who self-identify with religious beliefs, it's true.

On the other hand, most European countries and Canada have more people who self-identify with Marxism, socialism, Lacan, Derrida, and other strange "isms" that are at least as odd and nonsensical as mere Christianity.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)12/2/2003 6:08:37 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793671
 
Is America Conservative?
By James Pinkerton Published 12/02/2003
Tech Central Station

So what are the remains of conservatism these days? What remains to be conserved? Consider, for a moment, the actions of the "conservative" Bush administration in three policy areas -- foreign, domestic, and cultural.



First, the administration seeks to guide the Middle East into democracy, an exercise in international social work that dwarfs the Great Society. As President George W. Bush said to Bob Woodward, "I will seize the opportunity to achieve big goals." That's good, because without the cooperation of the world -- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is more interested in condemning Israel's wall-making than in supporting America's nation-building -- it's going to be a big opportunity for Bush to show his global-colossus stuff. But of course, remaking the world is not within the traditional definition of "conservative." Edmund Burke, the patron saint of conservatism, believed, "The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and therefore no simple disposition of direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs." Of course, Burke died in 1797, and so Bush Doctrineers will argue that the situation has changed a bit since then.



Second, this conservative administration -- OK, this compassionate conservative administration -- vastly expands the size of the domestic government. Most obviously, there's the new prescription drug benefit, but also, as The Washington Times pointed out recently, most kinds of spending are surging; in the last three years, non-defense/non-homeland security spending has risen 13 percent. Sen. John McCain says that Congress is "spending money like a drunken sailor." But it takes two to tango a piece of legislation, the president as well as Congress. During the first three years of his presidency, Ronald Reagan vetoed 23 bills; by contrast, Bush has vetoed none.



Third, there's the cultural issue of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. Many on the Right are ready to backlash, but it's not clear that born-again Bush is going to take a strong position on the issue. And so social conservatives flounder; the headline in Saturday's Washington Post reads, "Opponents of Gay Marriage Divided." Reporter Alan Cooperman details the split between those social conservatives who merely want to ban gay marriage and those who wish to undo all domestic partnership laws. Conspicuously, the more hawkish social conservatives, including Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, and James Dobson, aren't getting help from the White House.



Is Bush a Conservative?



So what gives? A Texas conservative gets elected president, and we get a New Deal for the Middle East, a neo-Great Society on domestic spending, and a semi-laissez-faire attitude on gay marriage.



Here's what gives: the planted assumption in the first paragraph is that Bush was ever really a conservative, or, for that matter, that America has ever been really conservative. These words of Thomas Jefferson are inscribed on his memorial, alongside the Potomac River, in Washington DC:



I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.



These aren't the words of a willy-nilly radical, but they are the words of a man who was willing and eager to try new things. And so for two centuries, America has been molting off old opinions and attitudes, like so much dead skin.



One might consider, for instance, the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Even aside from the Civil War, it's hard to think of one conservative thing he did. The Sixteenth President was not a "Radical Republican," as were many, but he believed in raising tariffs, subsidizing railroads, and establishing land-grant colleges. And almost continuously since the Civil War, America has been an activist country, a country impatient with old rules, at home and abroad. And in the course of our political, economic, and cultural expansion, we've made ourselves felt. The 20th century was called "The American Century," and so far, the 21st century is shaping up to be a repeat.



Culture Wars



Now let's turn to a much-discussed piece by Brian Anderson in the current issue of City Journal, which argues that Americans should molt away yet another old idea -- the idea that the media are steadily pushing the country to the left. The article, titled "We're Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore," makes a good case that something has indeed changed; "new media" has muscled out "old media," flexing in a new politics.



"New media," according to Anderson, isn't just talk radio, or cable news, or the blogosophere, but also entertainment fare, such as Comedy Central's animated "South Park." "The non-liberal sphere is expanding, encroaching into the liberal sphere" Anderson asserts, adding, "It's hard to imagine that this development won't result in a broader national debate -- and a more conservative America."



But wait a second: what's conservative? Yes, Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and 28 governorships -- including the executive mansions of the four biggest states -- but as we have seen, this Republican ascendancy has not led to a return to the old vision of a prudently modest state, guided by ancient moral precepts. In fact, as Rush Limbaugh has opined, in the wake of the prescription-drug-benefit bill, the GOP can no longer make any claim to be the party of smaller government.



But the title of Anderson's article refers to the culture wars, not to the war against Big Government. "Lots of cable comedy," he writes, "while not traditionally conservative, is fiercely anti-liberal." He's surely correct about the "not traditionally conservative" part. To underscore that claim, he begins his cultural consideration with a look at "South Park," the cartoon show, "whose heroes are four crudely animated and impossibly foul-mouthed fourth-graders."



Many conservatives have attacked the show for its "exuberant vulgarity," Anderson observes. But such denunciations are "misguided." Instead, he argues, "Conservative critics should pay closer attention to what South Park so irreverently jeers at and mocks. As the show's co-creator, 32-year-old Matt Stone, sums it up: 'I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.'" In other words, the undermining of conservative values such as manners and restraint is OK, so long as other values are trounced, too. To put it another way, a show co-created a fellow who brags that he hates conservatives is to be lauded by conservatives, so long as the co-creator says that he really fucking hates liberals more. Is that the voice of conservatism speaking -- or the voice of nihilism?



Let's compromise, and say that the true voice being heard here isn't conservatism, nor nihilism, but rather something different. Blogger Andrew Sullivan calls it "South Park Republicanism," but let's call it something broader: "Right-wingerism." That is, it combines anti-liberal, anti-Left values into a brainy, in-your-face style, as embodied by, say, Newt Gingrich.



Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that style, but it's important to see this post-Burkean mode for what it is, and for what it portends. Is it good or bad? I'll report, you decide.



After Burke



First, in foreign policy, the shift is clear. In 1821, John Quincy Adams proclaimed that America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." But today, the new breed of "South Park Republicans" are inclined to support an energetic foreign policy. That activist approach succeeded in some places (Germany and Japan during and after WW II) and stumbled or failed in others (Vietnam, Haiti, and Somalia, all through the 20th century ), so now we'll see what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan. Early indicators are, shall we say, mixed, but if Bush is re-elected, he could have a mandate, and four more years to work his democratic magic.



And as for the domestic policy area, more specifically the political demand for expanded health coverage, that's a no-brainer for many post-conservative Right-wingers. Following the logic of Anderson's argument, watching "South Park" might make one less compassionate toward others, but it hardly makes one fatalistic about one's own fate. So while South Parkers are likely to embrace capitalism as the best way to get rich -- plus, as a bonus, bash some bureaucrats along the way up the ladder -- the same non-shrinking-violet ethos will be felt on the spending side. That is, the style of jeering and mocking is perfectly consistent with an I-want-it-all-now approach to domestic policy.



Speaking for the older, constrained vision, Sen. Chuck Hagel laments, "We have come loose from our moorings." And libertarian wonks might argue that the free market will deliver better health care over time, but in this TV-clicker world, it seems as though nobody wants to wait to see what the invisible hand can do; people want the visible hand of the government, and they want it before the next commercial break.



It can also be argued, of course, that expanded health coverage is simply inevitable. Once upon a time, conservatives railed against driver's licenses, sanitation measures, Social Security, and pollution laws. Principle notwithstanding, are any of those "nay" positions politically viable today? In a globalized world of open borders and communicable diseases, can we really afford to be indifferent to public health as a good for all of us? And if we insist on auto insurance before we let people drive around, do we really not care if people don't have health insurance before they walk around? By all means, the Cato Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis should come up with better approaches to providing health care, but let's realize that the political reality is that any passable plan must leave everyone passably covered.



And Burke might not be opposed, after all. It was he who defined the task of the statesman: to sluice the tides of change through the canals of custom. In other words, accept that change is inevitable, but don't let it get radical. And so one wonders: at a time when all industrialized countries provide a national health plan, is it really "radical" for America to join their ranks?



The third area to be considered is cultural policy. Here the big debate is over gay marriage. The President has said that marriage should be between "a man and a woman," but he has resisted entreaties to back up those words with action. In fact, Bush is widely derided by "movement conservatives" -- a phrase that, in itself, doesn't make conservatism seem so conservative -- as being "squishy" on this issue. But here, the basic libertarianism of South Park Republicans comes to the fore: We reserve the right to make fun of gays and lesbians, they seem to be saying, but of course, we reserve their right to make fun of everyone -- including prudes, squares, and gay-bashers. The upshot is a kind of politically incorrect free-for-all, in which speech is free, even as government gets more expensive. Any similarity between this South Park view and the view of the American Civil Liberties Union is, of course, completely coincidental.



No wonder, then, that David Horowitz -- a non-conservative conservative if there ever was one -- endorsed gay marriage back in 1997. And David Brooks, Bard of the Bobos, has endorsed it, too.



But the big tremor in the Force was felt when George F. Will, an American Tory, came out against a federal ban on gay marriage. He cited the reality that marriage is no longer primarily a procreative institution, in that many who are married don't procreate, and many who procreate aren't married. Perhaps these deep-seated cultural trends can be addressed, Will allowed world-wearily, but in the meantime, it was a bad idea to seek a national ban -- because it's a bad idea to use the Constitution to make social policy, and because it's a bad idea to deprive the states of their "laboratories of social policy" function.



Jefferson, who said, two centuries ago that "institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times," would no doubt be pleased.



It's very American to take something old and turn it into something new, be it Iraq, health care, or marriage. We might not succeed at all these experiments, but even failure does not deter us -- we try, try, and try again.



I don't agree with everything that Bush is doing, not by a mile. But personal preference aside, one must recognize that he is not only president, he's also popular. The non-conservative worldview of South Park Republicanism, or Right-wingerism, is in the ascendancy. This force might be shaped, but it can't be stopped, at least not now, any more than the great Burke could staunch the tides of change in his time. Instead, what's needed is a new vision of sluicing inevitable change. And if the new response to this new age needs an "ism" for a suffix, give it this one: Inevitabilism.



Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)12/2/2003 7:57:12 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793671
 
Heh heh, try not to have a stroke over this ... God on the Quad

New England's liberal college campuses have become fertile ground for the evangelical movement, which is attracting students in record numbers. But after they graduate, will they keep the faith?

By Neil Swidey, Globe Staff, 11/30/2003
It's the fall student activities fair at MIT, and the place is packed. Bright-eyed, bewildered freshmen snake through the aisles of the Johnson Athletic Center, past tables for the Hippocratic Society and the Vegetarian Group, the College Republicans and the Green Party, the Science Fiction Society and the Shakespeare Ensemble. Upperclassmen from about 250 student organizations are on the hunt for new blood, and they're using snazzy multimedia presentations and 3 Musketeers bars and Italian ice and all kinds of cheesy swag to get noticed. Mostly, the freshmen keep moving, leaving the recruiters munching on their own candy bars like overstocked homeowners at the end of a slow Halloween night.

To find the big, engaged crowds, you have to go to the corner of the gym, where there is a sea of black T-shirts that read "I once was lost, but now am . . . FOUND." The students wearing them are evangelical Christians, part of a tradition that is more Bible Belt than Boston Brahmin. They are not shy about telling you how beginning a personal relationship with Jesus Christ can change your life, the same way it changed theirs. And how much fun this whole God thing can be.
There are 15 evangelical Christian fellowship groups at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology alone. This is a pretty stunning development for a university where science has always been god, where efficiency and rationality are embedded in the DNA of the cold granite campus. Hundreds of MIT students are involved in these fellowships -- blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians, especially Asians. Some of the groups are associated with powerhouse national evangelical organizations, like Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Others are more home-grown. Either way, the ranks are multiplying.
"When I came to MIT, I was expecting it to be full of nerds -- people who don't really put together science and religion," says Benjamin Brooks, a senior from Paterson, New Jersey, who belongs to the MIT chapter of the evangelical group Chi Alpha. "I was really surprised -- and still am -- by the volume of Christian fellowship here."
It's the same on campuses across the Boston area. At Harvard University, "there are probably more evangelicals than at any time since the 17th century," says the Rev. Peter J. Gomes, religious historian and minister of the university's Memorial Church, who arrived on campus in 1970. "And I don't think I have ever seen a wider range of Christian fellowship activity."
After lagging far behind the rest of the nation, where a June Gallup Poll found that 41 percent of Americans identified themselves as "evangelical" or "born-again," New England is beginning to close the gap, with congregations sprouting in rented schools and office parks. Nowhere is that more true than at Boston's elite, soaked-in-secularism colleges, although you have to leave campus to find the strongest evidence.
On a warm Sunday evening in September, one of those amphibious Duck Tour vehicles trundling tourists slows as it approaches Park Street Church. The tour guide notes that nearly 200 years ago, William Lloyd Garrison delivered his first antislavery speech at this church, which sits across from Boston Common. The brick structure with the 217-foot steeple looks a lot like those historic churches that dot the Freedom Trail -- important, well preserved, and about as relevant to today's world as powdered wigs and mutton. But the people filing into Park Street Church tell a different story. Instead of middle-aged sightseers clutching guidebooks, this crowd is young, tan, and diverse. And they're here to talk -- and sing -- about Jesus.
Park Street is the flagship church for college evangelicals from about 20 campuses in the Boston area. Ten years ago, the church's traditional Sunday night service was attracting only 40 people and was about to be canceled. Church leaders instead decided to refashion it to suit college students and partnered with Campus Crusade and InterVarsity. These days, more than 1,000 students show up at Park Street most Sunday evenings. Church leaders have had to expand to two services.
It's a young show for a young crowd. The band -- electric and acoustic guitarists, drummer, keyboard player, tambourine-shaking lead singers -- is fanned out in front of the altar. The college students in the pews -- women in sundresses and jeans, guys sporting fresh buzz cuts and puka-shell chokers -- clap and sway to the music. Lyrics, superimposed on images of cliffs and forests, flash on a screen behind the band, PowerPoint style. "You make me move, Jesus/Every breath I take, I breathe in You!"
Associate minister Daniel Harrell, dressed in green khakis and a yellow Izod shirt, stands up to deliver his sermon. His easy sense of humor and rounded North Carolina accent make for a relaxing environment. Still, there can be no soft-peddling the central doctrines of this brand of Christianity. Evangelicals believe the Bible should be interpreted literally and relied on uniformly for answers to questions of faith and personal behavior. Premarital sex? Getting drunk? Homosexuality? All forbidden and not open to debate. While peaceful coexistence with other religions is preached, so is the message that eternal salvation is open only to those who line up behind them and Jesus Christ.
Yet in this hub of liberal, I'm-OK-you're-OK-we're-all-OK higher education, the pull grows stronger for this conservative, our-way-is-the-highway evangelism.
EVANGELICALS ON LOCAL CAMPUSES tend to fall into one of three categories: those who came with it, those who came with something else, and those who wanted nothing to do with it.
Christina "Tina" Teng of Long Island, New York, is a senior at Harvard majoring in English literature. She stands 5-foot-9 and has black, shoulder-length hair. She signs her e-mails, "in HIM -- Tina." Her parents both came to the United States from Taiwan, where they had been evangelized by Christian missionaries. Teng grew up on Long Island moored to the local Chinese church. "For the longest time," she says, "I thought all Chinese were Christians and all Christians were Chinese."
She came to Harvard looking for a community that would nourish her evangelical faith. But she wanted to branch out, so she opted for the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship, a presence on campus since the 1940s, rather than its upstart offshoot, the Asian-American Christian Fellowship.
Asians, particularly from Korea and China, have become a roaring engine of growth for campus evangelical groups. InterVarsity, the national group with which the Harvard-Radcliffe fellowship and its offshoot are affiliated, has seen the number of its Asian student members grow 300 percent since 1986.
Some of these students, like Teng, come from deeply evangelical families. Others had immigrant parents who adopted Christianity more as a means of assimilation. These parents are often horrified to see their children make it to the Ivy League only to spend more time feeding their faith than growing their GPA.
Teng is now a co-leader of her 60-student fellowship. They meet in small Bible study groups and in large gatherings for lectures, prayer, and song. They often share meals in the dining halls, share strategies for defending their faith, and share the struggle to stay on the right path.
How is life at Harvard different for her? For one thing, "I don't drink, and I'm not having sex with my nonexistent boyfriend," Teng says, chuckling. More to the point, she says, "It's a life lived for Jesus rather than just yourself. Life is not all about getting a good job." After graduation in May, she plans to work full-time for InterVarsity.
Danielle DiTullio from Stoneham is in her third year at Northeastern University. She has an electric smile and wears a stud in her nose and her dirty-blond hair pulled back. She grew up in Stoneham, marinated in Catholic culture -- church every Sunday, parochial school all the way through. "But," she says, "it never really connected with me."
As a freshman at Northeastern, she met a group of women in her dormitory who invited her to Bible study. "I held off for a while, not knowing if it was cultish," DiTullio says. "All I knew about evangelicals was that they were people who hand out pamphlets and yell at you." Yet DiTullio found herself attracted to their passion and eventually realized they were not a cult.
They were also patient. "They prayed for me to come to Jesus," she says. "They prayed for a whole year."
Their prayers worked. She went to a meeting at the end of her freshman year, then a worship service, and later a citywide Campus Crusade meeting. "I could literally feel my heart grow," she says.
Her involvement deepened last year, though her parents remain concerned. "We're still trying to get through it," DiTullio says.
Fred Lee is a second-year doctoral student in electrical engineering at MIT. He wears big glasses and a bigger, near permanent grin. He came to MIT with a predisposition against organized religion, in favor of science. "My parents were very against religion," he says, "especially my dad."
Yet the undergraduate years are often when the Big Questions move to the forefront. And so it was with Lee. He became friends with some Christians on campus, and they got into discussions about faith and life. When they invited him to join their fellowship group, he resisted. Then one day in his junior year, a friend handed him a book called The Case for Christ, a defense of Christianity by former Chicago Tribune investigative journalist Lee Strobel. The book persuaded him that the Bible is true. Lee joined a fellowship and called his mom. "I told her, 'I've become a Christian. But please don't tell Dad.' " (His father eventually came around.)
How has being reborn changed Fred Lee? He says he feels God at work in his relationships and in his answered prayers, even "in the science I study at MIT." This connection with Christ has given Lee new friends, new purpose, and new confidence. He successfully auditioned for MIT's Christian a cappella group. "I would never be randomly singing or even think about singing, much less in a group, before I was a Christian," he says. "After discovering Jesus, I wanted to sing all the time."
In a postmodern world, where students are searching for authenticity, these student-centered, open-invitation evangelical fellowships hold great appeal for those who feel alienated from the top-down approach of mainline religion and the chaotic and sometimes cold world they see around them.
And with so many demands on their time, plenty of students find a clarifying power in the fact that these fellowships won't settle for anything less than complete commitment. "The central message is: Christianity impacts your entire life, from how you relate with your family to the classes you choose," says 30-year-old Dakota Pippins, who joined the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship as an undergraduate and eventually dropped his high-tech career aspirations in favor of pursuing a Harvard Divinity School degree and joining the staff of InterVarsity. "That means giving up church compartmentalization, where you go to church on Sunday and then have the rest of your life. That's not attractive to college students. With everything you can spend your time doing on campus, if it's going to be worth giving an hour a week to, it's got to be worth a whole lot more."
Peter Gomes sits in his dark office in Memorial Church, whose white spire shoots up defiantly from the center of Harvard Yard. Gomes is wearing an elegant three-piece suit, bow tie, and gold-chain pocket watch. Squinting behind small gold spectacles, he speaks in his mannered baritone, which The New Yorker once called "three parts James Earl Jones, one part John Houseman."
Gomes, whose mother hailed from Boston's black aristocracy, has spent many of his 34 years at Harvard defending the right of evangelical groups to play a robust role in campus life, no matter how off-putting their activities have occasionally been to the university establishment, no matter how off-putting Gomes himself has occasionally been to the evangelicals for whom he has fought.
"My job has always been to remind people, even if they didn't want to hear it, that Christians belong here because this is our institution," says Gomes, a Baptist minister who is Harvard's longest-serving Plummer Professor of Christian Morals. "It may not look that way, but it was founded by us, for us, and we have kept it going, even in its most secular and pluralistic environment."
When he arrived on campus, Gomes recalls, the evangelicals were "rather beleaguered -- a small group of confessing Christians fighting godless Harvard." The university's push to diversify changed that. "People tend to think of affirmative action as only affecting racial minorities," he says, "but the change in Harvard demographics in the late '70s and early '80s meant that a lot of Midwestern white-bread Protestant Christian evangelicals at whom Harvard would never have looked in the past, and who would have never looked at Harvard, suddenly became members of the university."
Over the last decade, the evangelical scene has itself become more diverse. This brand of Christianity is particularly well suited to campus life, since it is propelled by "parachurch" groups like InterVarsity and Campus Crusade that don't recognize denominational lines. In fact, there is no uniform definition of "evangelical." Some define it merely as a style of expressing beliefs, incorporating a wide range of Protestants and even some Catholics. Others emphasize central building blocks: a conversion experience leading to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, an acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and a commitment to save souls by spreading the Word. This elasticity makes it impossible to determine a precise number of American evangelicals, though several surveys have estimated it to be at least a third of the US population.
Whatever the definition, the evangelical presence on campus is a big, rowdy tent. Many students buy into all the tenets of the national parachurches, no matter how incompatible they may be with the ethos of the Eastern liberal arts college. Other students function more like "cafeteria Catholics," picking and choosing the tenets they can get behind.
And somewhere along the way, evangelical Christianity -- which a generation earlier had been a mark of embarrassment, a sign that you had checked your brain at the gate -- became not just tolerated but cool.
You can see this in the throngs of students from around Boston who cram into Harvard's Science Center on Friday nights to sing, "We are hungry for more of You/We are thirsty, oh Jesus." The event is called RealLife Boston, which is Campus Crusade's name for its 500-student Boston-area ministry, and the SRO crowd is made up of well-built athletes, attractive faces, even artsy types with chin hair and trendy black glasses. The emcee is Aaron Byrd, an easygoing junior from Abilene, Texas, who plays safety on the Harvard football team.
How did evangelicals get this hip?
Part of it is marketing. The whole RealLife approach, for instance, came from a marketing firm that Campus Crusade hired in the 1990s to help it expand its footprint in Boston. There are catchy print ads (one features a pair of wedding rings and the message "For the best sex, slip on one of these") and flashy websites (everystudent.com, godsquad.com). The Boston University chapter of Chi Alpha holds regular "The Gospel According to The Simpsons" gatherings.
But a bigger reason for their new coolness involves Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus. When students from those religions began arriving on campus in larger numbers and continued to practice their traditions in public, others on campus were intrigued.
"It's very chic to be a believer now," says Gomes. "In a place which is so dispassionate, so rational, and in many ways so conformist intellectually, if you want to break out of the pack, you say your prayers in public. It is the example of religious practice elsewhere that has emboldened American evangelicals to exercise their own practice."
Yet it is the evangelicals, and their history of straying over that murky line between evangelizing and proselytizing, who have tended to make Harvard's secular establishment most uneasy. Gomes says that over the years he has been the evangelicals' "only institutional friend." That has occasionally made for some uncomfortable moments, none more so than in 1992 when a small group of evangelical Christians called for his resignation. Their demand came after Gomes, who had been on the stage for the inaugurations of both Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and had been sought out by the likes of the Rev. Billy Graham, denounced a bout of homophobic incidents on campus and, in the process, announced that he was gay.
Homosexuality has become the defining issue for evangelical groups, replacing the cleavage points of the past: abortion, race, predestination. Unlike fundamentalists, who historically have sought separation from the rest of impure society, "evangelicals thrive on being engaged with the world but feeling different from it," says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. With common ground on many other issues, homosexuality is increasingly what makes evangelicals different.
Smith's exhaustive surveys, detailed in his book Christian America: What Evangelicals Really Want, dispel the myth of evangelicals walking in lockstep with the religous right. He found that large majorities of conservative Christians do not believe public schools should require prayer in the classroom and do not favor a complete ban on abortion. But he found they were far more likely than other Americans to believe that gay rights groups have too much power and to object to having a homosexual for a neighbor.
Not that homosexuality is an issue that evangelicals on Boston campuses generally like to talk about publicly. As these Christian groups have become larger and more mainstream, distancing themselves from the controversial Boston Church of Christ and dumping bullhorn proselytizing in favor of one-on-one evangelizing, they've taken on more respectability on campus. Getting into rows over gay rights threatens their newfound seat at the table, and they know that. So leaders, who have picked up on the campus language of inclusion, tend to stress intergroup harmony in public while enforcing intragroup line-toeing in private.
For the most part, that works. And then one day everything erupts into full view, as it did at Tufts University three years ago, and it gets ugly fast.
Julie Catalano arrived as a freshman at Tufts in 1997 with a loose liberal-Protestant identity and confusion about her sexual orientation. About the latter, she confided in a friend from her dorm. The friend was a member of the Tufts Christian Fellowship, an InterVarsity chapter, and she invited Catalano to a group meeting.
"The guest speaker was an ex-lesbian," Catalano recalls, laughing. "That's how I got involved."
Within a few months, the fellowship became just about Catalano's entire social network on campus. And she was a true believer. She told her Jewish roommate that she couldn't get to heaven without converting to Christianity, and even drew a picture of her descending into hell.
As for her sexual identity crisis, she says she followed the plan put forward by the group's student leaders and the InterVarsity advisers: lots of prayer, some holy oils, and lengthy discussion during meetings about how she was doing. "I got so worn down by all the questions and focus on me," Catalano says, "that by the beginning of sophomore year, I said, 'OK, leave me alone. I'm straight!' " She says that even though she wasn't having sex of any kind, she felt more scrutiny than some others in the group who were having heterosexual sex and then repenting for it.
By her junior year, she knew she was a lesbian but didn't know how to square that with the group that had become her campus family. She says she became so depressed that she planned her own suicide. After a non-Christian friend counseled her, she told the fellowship advisers that she was a lesbian but wanted to continue with the group and advance into senior leadership. They said she could stay in the group but could not be a leader, since the fellowship's statement of faith was clear on homosexuality.
A messy series of events followed. Catalano filed a claim of discrimination with the Tufts student judiciary, which stripped the fellowship of its recognition. Outside advocacy groups and the national media jumped on the story. The fellowship was reinstated. More protests. Finally, when the smoke cleared, both sides felt they had lost.
In subsequent years, similar, though less explosive, controversies arose on other campuses -- Harvard, Rutgers, the University of North Carolina -- in which critics pushed, ultimately unsuccessfully, for the de-recognition of Christian fellowships on the grounds of discrimination.
Today, Catalano, a petite 24-year-old teacher with blue eyes and a bright face, has no doubts about her sexual orientation and no hesitation in proclaiming: "These fellowships are dangerous for gay students." Even for heterosexual students, she argues, they can be worrisome by "creating a safety zone where students are not grappling with life's big questions because everything is black and white."
Curtis Chang, who with his wife served as Catalano's fellowship advisers at Tufts, has also come away from the experience more hardened. He left InterVarsity -- "campus ministry is a young man's game," says the 35-year-old new father -- and he is now a pastor of an 800-member evangelical congregation in Sunnyvale, California. He says he feels terrible to hear that Catalano was suicidal, but he notes that she never mentioned anything about it to her closest friends in the group. As for charges of double standards, Chang says that Catalano would have been allowed to be a leader if she accepted the Bible's prohibition on homosexuality and premarital sex, even if somewhere along the way she "strayed" and engaged in homosexual sex but then repented for it, just like heterosexual students.
But Chang says the incident exposes much bigger stakes, with the viability of what he calls "educated evangelicals" hanging in the balance. A native of Taiwan and 1990 graduate of Harvard, Chang says educated evangelicals feel at home in the university world and want to be considered full members. So they're quick to distance themselves from Bible-thumping, anti-intellectual fundamentalists. Instead, educated evangelicals stress their more progressive politics and nuanced theology.
"Being drawn into conflicts over homosexuality profoundly discomforts us, for we fear that our hard-earned distance will evaporate under the public glare," he argues. During the Tufts controversy, he says, he watched as other conservative Christians who share his views on homosexuality remained silent "out of fear they would be persecuted next." Three years later, he's come to believe that "the price of admission" for educated evangelicals in a place like Boston is ultimately too high.
Homosexuality is a defining issue for evangelicals, Chang says, because "it calls into question what the authority is governing your beliefs and your group. Is it changing public opinion or is it Scripture?" He argues that the debate is really a table-setter for the biggest issues to come, when genetic cloning and manipulation of human biology take center stage. "At root is: Do we all have the right to self-define?"
He fears that if evangelicals cede too much ground on homosexuality in the battle to preserve their welcome in intellectual hothouses like Boston, they may ultimately sacrifice their ability to win the war.
t's a steamy September morning as I make my way to the headquarters of Campus Crusade for Christ in Orlando, Florida. The car radio crackles with the southern gospel sounds of AM 1520 Christian Heritage Radio: "I know that Jesus will be on the way."
Campus Crusade began in 1951 when the self-described former pagan Bill Bright, who died in July, had his vision to turn college students into ambassadors for Christ. Today, Campus Crusade is one of the world's largest Christian organizations, with 50,000 student members and 27,000 full-time staff, most of whom fund-raise to cover their own salaries. Campus Crusade is on about 1,000 US campuses and another 240 overseas, and the $450-million-a-year organization is consistently rated one of the nation's best-run religious charities. In 1999, Crusade moved into its new headquarters, which features twin rotundas, 275 acres of Bermuda grass, and 40 soft-focus original prints donated by artist/committed Christian/shopping mall magnate Thomas Kinkade.
Like most evangelical college ministry groups, Crusade seems to live in two worlds simultaneously. There are the field workers who, especially in places like Boston, speak of collaboration and dialogue. Then there is the gloves-off approach of the home office, which girds for a hostile world.
One large display at Crusade's Orlando headquarters contrasts the lives of John Mott and Karl Marx. It notes that Mott found God in college and eventually led 30,000 student missionaries worldwide. Marx, we are reminded, lost God and went on to hatch the ideology upon which communism would be built. "Up to 150 million people have died under communism," reads a text panel next to images of the Mai Lai massacre, Fidel Castro, and the skeletal remains from mass graves.
I ask Chris Kellum, my tall, personable tour guide, if there is any connection between Mott and Campus Crusade. "It's just an example of how one student can make a difference for good or bad," he replies. "John Mott came across some Christian friends. Karl Marx came across some friends interested in philosophy. A college campus is a time when people set the course of their lives."
We move on to a display headlined "The Bible calls it the Truth. The university calls it Trash. Is Jesus the Way or Intolerant?" The display contains a series of outrageous quotes from unnamed professors, such as: "Forget everything you learned about the New Testament. Jesus was homosexual and a magician."
"Are these comments reflective of what is happening on campuses today?" I ask Kellum.
"They're not uncommon," he says. He recalls an incident from his own undergrad days at the University of Colorado: "I'm a believer in creationism. In my psychology class, the professor was saying that our hands are shaped like this because the ape's hands are shaped that way. And I went, 'OK.' But then I realized that doesn't match up with what the Bible teaches."
More and more, Crusade is looking globally to spread the word. It has divided the world's 6 billion people into 6,000 MPTAs, or "million people target areas." Crusade now has a presence in 4,475. One of its most effective recruitment tools is Jesus, a feature-length film that Crusade made in 1980 and has since translated into more than 800 languages and dialects, making it the most translated and distributed film in the world.
But the approaches that work in less developed parts of the world just don't cut it in Boston. Patrick McLeod, Crusade's Boston metro director, who is based at Harvard, says his goal is to get evangelical Christianity out of the academic backwater. For his own doctoral program at Boston University, McLeod is studying the intersection of science and religion.
Does the growth on Boston campuses put the field workers here on a collision course with the front office? Gomes, who calls McLeod the best Crusade staffer he's seen at Harvard, says the national groups are gambling. "We in the Ivy League are big prizes for them," Gomes says. "They cannot be seen to be ineffective. But the more people come to places like this, the more what they bring here is tempered by what they find here."
A word you hear often from the leaders of Crusade and other evangelical groups is "trajectory." By focusing on students while they're in college, the evangelicals hope to launch them on a course that will lead them to build their lives around Christ. If there's a dream trajectory that leaders have in mind, it is represented by Steve Douglass, 58, who took over for Bright as president of Campus Crusade in 2001. Here was a guy who graduated at the top of his class at MIT (bachelor's) and Harvard (MBA) but found that, as he puts it, "success didn't satisfy." In 1969, for his MBA research project, he created a new business model for Campus Crusade, which he had joined at Harvard the year before. Bright heard about the plan and liked it so much that he asked Douglass to come aboard to implement it.
Douglass says he had no hesitation in saying yes. He just dreaded telling his Harvard professors. He lowered the boom at a faculty dinner honoring him and a handful of other top students. "Their eyes averted," he recalls. "They coughed. I realized they were thinking, 'Where did we go wrong? Does this man realize he is about to graduate from the high temple of capitalism?' "
Yet for every Steve Douglass, there are many more students whose intense involvement slackens after commencement. That's when all the attributes that made the evangelical groups so appealing to students -- their premium on tight-knit social circles, their student-run, non-hierarchical approach, their funky, late-night culture -- can begin to work against them in meeting the needs of the post-college crowd. To keep them in the fold, the groups try to serve as feeders for evangelical churches in the area. It's hardly a seamless transition, though, and these bustling churches have their own continuity problems. Park Street Church sees its congregation turn over by half every three years.
In the end, the evangelical groups have resigned themselves to a certain level of fall-off among graduates. That's acceptable, because next fall, on just about every campus, there will be a new batch of bright-eyed, bewildered freshmen snaking through a student activities fair. And for now at least, no matter what kind of candy bars are being handed out, they know they'll find plenty of hungry souls.

boston.com