From ehammond@uswest.net Sun Feb 6 23:09:57 2000 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id XAA42032 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 23:09:56 -0800 Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.wa.home.com [24.0.2.66]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id XAA26750 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 23:09:55 -0800 Received: from [24.12.240.231] by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000207070955.WRNP17514.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@[24.12.240.231]> for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 23:09:55 -0800 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 23:09:54 -0800 Subject: Re: Biodiversity PR From: Edward Hammond To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello R. Stepp, I humbly suggest that next time you do a little bit of research before branding a half-dozen charities as "right wing fundamentalist Christian groups--the same people that have done so much harm to indigenous people's [sic] around the world." I'll go out on a limb (not) and suggest that anyone familiar with the work of the organizations you mention might agree with me that your characterizations are, well, wildly off-base. Being a Southerner myself, I know a bit about the religious right. Trust me, we're not dealing with issues of stand, sit, kneel, grape juice, dancing and missions in your list of Jerry Falwell suspects below. Do yourself a favor - look into the subject a little bit. You might find that there are some faith-based donors that are doing some good in the world. I'm just an individual these days, so its not my job to defend RAFI's honor or, for that matter, that of any of the groups you mention. All I can say is that if I still worked for RAFI, I'd be amused by your confusion and probably decide the ignorance of your answer speaks for itself. If I worked for one of your would-be New Tribes Missions, I'd probably be offended. I know that the World Council of Churches, for instance, has provided critical support to many indigenous peoples, and has been particularly helpful assisting indigenous peoples' organizations at the ILO's Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, home of ILO 169. And WCC does a heck of a lot more than that. Another example: Lutheran World Relief's support to RAFI provided for Bolivian indigenous farmers trip to New York to explain why they opposed a Colorado State University patent that included claims on many Bolivian and Peruvian farmers varieties of quinoa. In part as a result of the LWR support, CSU backed down and gave back to Quechua and Aymara farmers what was rightfully theirs. And, actually, you are generally wrong about organized religion and genetic engineering. Pope John Paul II, a pretty conservative guy by most accounts, is on record as approving of the genetic engineering of just about everything except humans... By and large, religious groups have been timid on biotechnology, except when it comes to human cloning and, maybe, germline therapy... Anyway, genetic engineering per se isn't the issue - it's ownership, control, and marketing of technology. So much for the Oral Roberts thesis. I'm going to consider the religious right case closed, unless you'd like to follow-up about it one on one. Let's not bore the entire list with it. **** On to more interesting things (please!): Does anyone want to take me up on the ICBG retrospective discussion? That's where the action should be! Thanks, Edward Hammond > From: "R. Stepp" > Reply-To: rstepp@uga.edu > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 17:58:28 -0600 > To: indknow@washington.edu > Subject: Re: Biodiversity PR > > Edward, > > I hardly want this to turn into an attack against RAFI, as I mentioned some > of their work has been honorable. > > In response to your query about where the information about christian right > groups funding RAFI came from--it was directly from their own financial > reports. Only 3 years are available--for some reason the 95-96 report has > become inacessible as of late. However the following groups funded RAFI; > some repeatedly between 96 and 98 > > world council of churches 96-97-98 > united church of canada 98 > inter-church action 97-98 > canadian lutheran world relief 97 > lutheran world relief 97 > inter pares 96 > > It is perhaps understandable that these groups would fund RAFI. The > christian right is against life patenting and genetic modification in all > instances because it alters god's creations. RAFI is similiarly opposed > but with different justifications. Regardless they still make strange > bedfellows. And I in no way want you to construe this as an attack agaisnt > your own work with RAFI or elsewhere. You seem like a reasonable fellow to > me. Best, R.Stepp > > >> I'm sorry to say that your post makes clear that you are misinformed on >> several counts. >> >> >> >> First, as for "right wing fundamentalist Christian groups" funding RAFI, I >> am afraid that somebody has been feeding you nonsense. In 5 years working >> at RAFI I heard some strange criticisms (generally from industry and >> conservative governments); but that is about the strangest theory on RAFI >> that I've heard yet. >> >> >> >> The foundations that support RAFI are about as far from Christian >> fundamentalists as you can get. > > > > > .