Bruce Ivins: born again?

Bruce Ivins, who committed suicide when he found out the FBI was preparing to accuse him of sending anthrax-tainted letters that killed 5 people, wrote a number of letters to his local newspaper during his career. These letters are now available online, thanks to the Frederick (MD) News-Post, and they make for some fascinating reading. Dr. Ivins, it seems, was no Richard Dawkins.

August 24, 2006

Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a “dialogue.”

By blood and faith, Jews are God’s chosen, and have no need for “dialogue” with any gentile. End of “dialogue.”

And there’s more.

November 21, 2004

I would like to comment on the letter to the editor, “Wants off Christian Nation Express,” of Nov. 12.

I am certainly pleased that the writer is dedicated to service in the love of God, even though I find her theological focus on agony and suffering rather than the hope, joy and salvation of the resurrection to be puzzling.

Whether Americans like it or not, the results of the presidential election have propelled charismatic and evangelical Christians into new heights of political power. Many of those individuals would agree that the laws of this nation should be compatible with the Gospel, if not actually based upon it…

November 09, 2004

I read Deborah Carter’s column of Nov. 7, “Election blues,” and I have three comments for the good woman, and for everybody else, as well.

First, it’s clear that views like hers would put Jesus on that cross again. Second, thy loom and churn best be still, come the Sabbath. Third, you can get on board or get left behind, because that Christian Nation Express is pulling out of the station!

Ivins doesn’t come right out and say that he’s an evangelical Christian, but he sure doesn’t sound too unhappy with the prospect of an imminent theocracy. And while he does take a properly scientific view of the biological causes of homosexuality, he nevertheless shares a common conservative Christian conviction regarding Christian morality and its authority over non-Christians.

March 5, 1998

…Even before America was a nation, there was strong opposition to slavery from the religious group known as the Quakers, or the “Society of Friends.” They were steadfast in their belief that slavery was a sin, and this belief led them to be actively involved in the Abolitionist Movement and the “Underground Railroad” in this country.

We should all be thankful that these religious opponents were quite willing to “impose their moral views on others.”

In more recent times we need look no further than those ministers, rabbis and priests whose beliefs brought them to the forefront in the battle against forced, racial segregation in America. Despite real threats to life and limb, they persisted in their efforts to “impose their moral views on others.”

Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country’s most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.

Something to keep in mind should you hear any snide remarks about atheistic scientists, eh?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Posted in Current Events, Recommended Reading. 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Bruce Ivins: born again?”

  1. Addie Says:

    I don’t know that there’s enough here to say that he was an evangelical (without knowing a whole lot else about him). I’d agree that he’s definitely a Christian, and a fairly devout one at that, but just the fact that he took the time to sit down and write a letter about some of the science behind homosexuality makes me think he might not be evangelical. He also seemed to have fairly liberal social views (women and married priests in the Catholic church, opposed to racism, etc.) that generally aren’t prominent among evangelicals (that I’m aware of).

    He does mention that he generally doesn’t agree with Roy Meachum’s opinions; I did a search of the paper’s site for “Roy Meachum” (as well as various other spellings of the last name) but couldn’t find anything. It might be insightful if one could get a hold of some of Meachum’s columns.

  2. Deacon Duncan Says:

    You make some good points. I wouldn’t assume that he was necessarily evangelical. On the other hand, I’ve known some evangelicals with some pretty, shall we say, idiosyncratic ideas. Especially with the rise of seeker churches and megacongregations, there’s a lot wider spectrum of beliefs among evangelicals than used to be the case. So it’s still rather an open question in my mind. But he definitely was not an angry atheist.