Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner Responds

Text taken from the October 21, 2006 newsletter of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (not yet available online):

Bill Moyers

In the October 9 issue of this newsletter I reported my recollections of a conversation with Bill Moyers prior to a taping of an interview for his PBS special "Is God Green?" Mr. Moyers through his attorney challenged that report as being defamatory of Mr. Moyers. My response, through counsel, follows:

        Your letter of October 18, 2006, to Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and your letter of October 19, 2006, to Dr. E. Calvin Beisner have been sent to me by my clients for reply.
    

        I have carefully examined the language in the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance Newsletter dated October 9, 2006, that you contend in your October 18 letter is defamatory of your client, Bill Moyers. My examination of that language in the light of applicable United States Supreme Court opinions and those from other jurisdictions as well as major treatises on defamation forces me to the opinion that the language is not legally capable of a defamatory meaning. I would be pleased to review any authority you have that you believe supports your position.
    

        Dr. Beisner is troubled by the fracturing of the relationship with your client and desires to attempt to restore that relationship outside of the civil courts as Christians are admonished to do in First Corinthians chapter six.  He was preparing to do this before he received your first letter, which necessitated his seeking legal counsel.  He sincerely believes that he accurately summarized in the newsletter his recollection of a private conversation with your client that was not recorded prior to the interview on camera.  He also believes his recollection may have been influenced by a conversation he and your client had on the way to the airport following the interview.  Finally, he stands by the opinions expressed that you challenge in your letter.
    

        Accordingly, your demands in your letters are rejected.  Should you be able to call to my attention applicable authority in support of your position which is persuasive, then your demands will be reconsidered.

While I understood from the conversation that he was a Democrat, I accept his representation that he is an independent.

In Christ,
Calvin

NOTE: Equal space will be offered for any response that Bill Moyers or his attorney care to provide to me.

I’m Back

First, I’d like to thank all those who expressed support over the last few days and who have patiently borne the lack of blogging that ensued. I very much appreciate your kind words and understanding.

Receiving the threat of a lawsuit is a delicate matter–even when you know that you have not violated the law–and one must proceed with the utmost caution in responding.

There is an old saying that "A man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client," and even people who are themselves lawyers (I am not) are wise to obtain representation when they are being threatened with legal action. Nobody–not even a lawyer–should respond on his own behalf to threats posed by other lawyers. Even those who know the law intimately need someone who has the kind of cool head and situational detachment needed to help navigate such waters.

Consequently, upon reading the letter from Mr. Moyers’ lawyers, I immediately contacted my friend Stephen Dillard (who has a really cool signature) of the law firm James, Bates, Pope, and Spivey and he most graciously offered very timely assistance. I wish to thank him most of all for his effort, support, and wise counsel in handling the matter.

I’d also like to thank the other lawyers and legal professionals who offered their services in the event such were to become necessary.

As individuals have surmised in the combox, I have been advised not to comment on the matter in detail, though Stephen has examined and cleared this post for publication.

I regret that Bill Moyers did not choose to contact me privately and simply ask that I present his side of the story. As individuals have surmised in the combox, I would have been most willing to do so as a matter of basic fairness.

Such an approach would have been in keeping with the Golden Rule on my part and, on Mr. Moyers’ part, it would have been in keeping with Jesus’ directive to approach a brother privately and solve problems on the lowest level possible (Matthew 18), as well as St. Paul’s directive to be hesitant to engage the legal system in settling matters among Christians (1 Corinthians 6). Mr. Moyers is (or has been) an ordained Baptist minister, and I wish that he had attempted such private efforts first.

Finally, I would like to thank the other bloggers and news sources who have linked the story. Though they have expressed a variety of views on the subject, or run the link without comment, they have in any case publicized Mr. Moyers denial and thus helped spread his side of the story, both among those who read the stories on their sites and among those who clicked through and generated the tens of thousands of hits on the Moyers Exchange post on mine. These blogs and news sources include:

Instapundit
Salon.Com
The Corner
Crime & Federalism
No Left Turns
Amy Welborn
The Curt Jester
The Evangelical Outpost
Conservative Bulldog
Irresponsible Journalism
PowerBlog
BillHobbs.Com
The Evangelical Ecologist
No Silence Here
Three Br0thers
Daily Pundit
Hierodule
The Boring Made Dull

Because this exchange is likely to raise in the minds of bloggers and blog commenters the question of how libel law applies to the blogosphere, I felt it would be appropriate to link an article by law professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit that should help others understand what the law requires. This is presented as an informational source only and not as legal advice (which I can’t give, anyway):

Glenn Reynolds’ paper "Libel in the Blogosphere: Some Preliminary Thoughts" [.pdf]

One final note: In the interests of fairness to both sides, I plan on covering whatever responses Dr. Beisner and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance make public and whatever response Mr. Moyers has to them. If the responses are not too lengthy, I will endeavor to post them in their entirety. If not, I will post a relevant excerpt and a link to the originals (assuming they are presented online). If the latter approach is necessary, I will extend both parties equal space.

Moyers Exchange

Letterhead

October 18, 2006


PDF SENT VIA EMAIL (JIMMYAKIN01@GMAILCOM)

Mr. Jimmy Akin


Re: Bill Moyers


Dear Mr. Akin:

This firm represents Bill Moyers. The following statement from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance Newsletter dated October 9, 2006, by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner has been brought to our attention:

First, not earthshaking regarding climate science but of some interest to yours truly, Bill Moyers’s documentary "Is God Green?" (Click here: WGBH Programs) airs on PBS Wednesday evening, October 11 (check local listings). When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats. Don’t expect good science, economics, or ethics–or even journalistic balance. (Emphasis added.)

Dr. Beisner’s accusation is false and defamatory as it goes to the heart of Mr. Moyers’s integrity as a journalist. I am enclosing a copy of an e-mail from Mr. Moyers to Dr. Beisner dated October 17, 2006 in which he vigorously denies that any such statement was made and challenges Dr. Beisner to produce proof from his own tape recording to support his allegation. No such proof was produced.

We have demanded on behalf of Mr. Moyers a retraction from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance stating clearly and without qualification that Dr. Beisner’s statement was erroneous, that Mr. Moyers never made any such statement to Dr. Beisner or anything colorably close to it, and apologizing to Mr. Moyers for the error.

You have re-published at https://www.jamesakin.com/reels_squares/2006/10/pay_no_attentio.html,
and perhaps elsewhere as well, Dr. Beisner’s statement as if it were true, and without seeking

————————————————————————————————————-
FRANKLIN, WEINRIB, RUDELL & VASSALLO, P.C.
Jimmy Akin
October 18, 2006 Page 2

corroboration from Mr. Moyers or proof from Dr. Beisner. In doing so, you have also defamed Mr. Moyers.

On behalf of Mr. Moyers, we demand that you immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers’s response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the false statement of Dr. Beisner.

Nothing in this letter should be construed as a limitation of the rights and remedies of our client, all of which are expressly reserved.

Signiture_1

Neil J. Rosini

NJR/aws

Enclosure
cc: Bill Moyers

281309/1/0471/0000

————————————————————————————————————-
Moyers, Bill
From: Moyers, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:47 PM
To: [Dr. E. Calvin Beisner]
Subject: What has come over you?

You are not telling the truth. In fact, what you wrote in the ISA newsletter is an outright lie. You claim that "When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats." I said nothing of the sort — nothing. To the contrary, I told you that I am an independent – members of the crew remember my saying that to you specifically (there were, remember, three other people in the room.) You yourself taped the entire session with your own recorder; show me where in the transcript such a conversation occurred. I also told you, as I told everyone interviewed, that we of course could not usethe entire interview but that I would post it on our Website when the broadcast aired, as was done. If I had said anything approaching what you claim I said, if you perceived any bias on my part. you could have — and should have refused to participate. But you did participate freely, you were treated fairly and honestly, and for you now to bear false witness is not only unChristian but astonishing. What am I to make of the many friendly emails you have sent over these months, signed: "In Christ, Cal"? Or our exchange on how much I have enjoyed your daughter’s CD that you sent? Your conservative evangelical brothers who were also interviewed in the documentary – from Richard Cizik to Tri Robinson to Allan Johnson (not a liberal among them) have written in praise of how they were treated. You and you alone have chosen to bear false witness to our conversation and to defame – in your own words –the ethics and journalistic balance of the documentary. You owe me arid my team an apology and a public retraction.

Bill

ORIGINAL PDF.

————————————————————————————————————-

Letterhead2

October 19, 2006

Neil J. Rosini, Esquire
Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P. C.
488 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022-5707

Re: Jimmy Akin

Dear Mr. Rosini:

This firm represents Jimmy Akin. I am in receipt of your correspondence to my client dated October 18, 2006, in which you claim—without citing any legal authority—that Mr. Akin defamed your client, Bill Moyers, by republishing certain statements from a newsletter penned by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner on behalf of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance dated October 9, 2006.

Mr. Akin categorically rejects your characterization of the blog post in question ("Pay no attention to that man behind the camera: Part Two," October 13, 2006—the only place my client republished the statements in question), and—having reviewed the relevant case law—I find it highly unlikely that you can sustain a case against my client for defamation.

That having been noted, Mr. Akin is certainly willing to "immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers’s response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the . . . statements of Dr. Beisner"; not because your client demands it, but because he believes it is only fair to allow Mr. Moyers to have his say on the matter. I will email you the text and links to such posts once they are published. A post containing Mr. Moyers’s response to Dr. Beisner will be published on my client’s blog today, and (as a showing of good faith) will be featured as the top post for a 24-hour time period.

It is my sincere hope that the foregoing actions will resolve this matter between our clients. If you choose, however, to proceed with a civil action against our client, notwithstanding his willingness to comply with Mr. Moyers’s demands, please understand that this firm will vigorously defend Mr. Akin’s rights and good name.

 

Signature2

SLAD/cbt

ORIGINAL PDF.

Action Contra Legem

A reader writes:

On October 16th in "Music Scruples: The Opus Continues" you said,

"If it
does then it would be a matter of prudence as to whether you should
follow the moral law answer in violation of civil law. As long as you’re
doing what’s moral then, by definition, you’re morally safe, and it’s a
question of whether you’re willing to take the risks associated with not
following the civil law answer."

You also in a previous post talked about the concept of a "legamoron."

My question for you is as follows: is it always morally permissible to
do something morally neutral (drive without the proper insurance, speed,
take food into the movie theater, drinking moderately underage, etc) as
long as you are willing to accept the (often unlikely) consequences
associated with those actions?

I was under the previous belief that any
offense against legitimate civil law was an offense against the public
order and common good of society and so even minor crimes were at least
venially sinful. Your clarification on this matter would be most helpful.

It is not always morally permissible to do something that is morally neutral in itself, contrary to what civil law would provide. Civil law has a role in ordering morally neutral actions so that society is benefitted. For example, there is no intrinsic reason why we Americans drive on the right side of the road instead of the left. Considered in itself, driving on either side of the road is morally neutral. But given the amount of traffic on many roads and the speed at which the traffic moves, it is reasonable that the state make requirements about what side we drive on. That reasonableness enables such laws to be ordinances of reason, which is required for a law to be legitimate.

In the same way, requiring the people–under ordinary driving conditions–have a certain amount of insurance coverage also strikes me as reasonable, though in emergency circumstances that requirement would go out the window (e.g., if you’re rushing someone to the hospital or if you’re fleeing a murderer or if you just mailed your check to the insurance company but you can’t afford to stay home from work). In those cases–if the law were to require you to not drive–the law would cease being one of reason and it would be morally legitimate to ignore it as an unjust law, at least in those cases.

While the concept of a legamoron provides some additional flexibility in some cases (e.g., speeding), the default is to obey the law unless it is manifestly unreasonable and thus not a just law in those circumstances (legamorons being laws that, by their nature, would be unjust if rigorously enforced, though we still need to comply with even legamorons when they are functioning reasonably–so you shouldn’t be doing 75 in a school zone when kids are present).

In order to have moral justification for disobeying a civil law, it seems to me that the following conditions need to be met:

1) The law is of itself or at least in this particular case unreasonable and thus is not functioning as an ordinance of reason (or it must otherwise fail to meet the definition of a law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated"; ST I-II:90:4).

2) The benefits to you in ignoring the law are not outweighed by the harm that will come to you if you get caught, weighted by the likelihood of you getting caught.

In judging these matters, we need to carefully evaluate whether these conditions are fulfilled, for it is easy for us to rationalize civil lawbreaking, just as it is easy for us to rationalize sin.

Nevertheless, there are points at which the Christian faith recognizes it as being legitimate to break civil law, as when the apostles were required to stop preaching the name of Christ and they replied "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Moyers Exchange

Letterhead2
October 19, 2006

Neil J. Rosini, Esquire

Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P. C 488 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10022-5707

Re: Jimmy Akin

Dear Mr. Rosini:

This firm represents Jimmy Akin,. I am in receipt of your correspondence to my client dated October 18, 2006, in which you claim—without citing any legal authority—that Mr, Akin defamed your client, Bill Moyers, by republishing certain statements from a newsletter penned by Dr. E.. Calvin Beisner on behalf of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance dated October 9, 2006.

Mr. Akin categorically rejects your characterization of the blog post in question (“Pay no attention to that man behind the camera: Part Two,” October 13, 2006—the only place my client republished the statements in question), and—having reviewed the relevant case law—I find it highly unlikely that you can sustain a case against my client for defamation.

That having been noted, Mr. Akin is certainly willing to “immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers’s response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the . . . statements of Dr. Beisner”; not because your client demands it, but because he believes it is only fair to allow Mr. Moyers to have his say on the matter. I will email you the text and links to such posts once they are published. A post containing Mr. Moyers’s response to Dr. Beisner will be published on my client’s blog today, and (as a showing of good faith) will be featured as the top post for a 24-hour time period.

It is my sincere hope that the foregoing actions will resolve this matter between our clients.. If you choose, however, to proceed with a civil action against our client, notwithstanding his willingness to comply with Mr. Moyers’s demands, please understand that this firm will vigorously defend Mr. Akin’s rights and good name.

SLAD/cbt
————————————————————————————————————-

October 18, 2006


PDF SENT VIA EMAIL (JIMMYAKIN01@GMAILCOM)

Mr. Jimmy Akin


Re: Bill Moyers


Dear Mr. Akin:

This firm represents Bill Moyers. The following statement from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance Newsletter dated October 9, 2006, by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner has been brought to our attention:

First, not earthshaking regarding climate science but of some interest to yours truly, Bill Moyers’s documentary "Is God Green?" (Click here: WGBH Programs) airs on PBS Wednesday evening, October 11 (check local listings). When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats. Don’t expect good science, economics, or ethics–or even journalistic balance. (Emphasis added.)

Dr. Beisner’s accusation is false and defamatory as it goes to the heart of Mr. Moyers’s integrity as a journalist. I am enclosing a copy of an e-mail from Mr. Moyers to Dr. Beisner dated October 17, 2006 in which he vigorously denies that any such statement was made and challenges Dr. Beisner to produce proof from his own tape recording to support his allegation. No such proof was produced.

We have demanded on behalf of Mr. Moyers a retraction from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance stating clearly and without qualification that Dr. Beisner’s statement was erroneous, that Mr. Moyers never made any such statement to Dr. Beisner or anything colorably close to it, and apologizing to Mr. Moyers for the error.

You have re-published at https://www.jamesakin.com/reels_squares/2006/10/pay_no_attentio.html,
and perhaps elsewhere as well, Dr. Beisner’s statement as if it were true, and without seeking

————————————————————————————————————-
FRANKLIN, WEINRIB, RUDELL & VASSALLO, P.C.
Jimmy Akin
October 18, 2006 Page 2

corroboration from Mr. Moyers or proof from Dr. Beisner. In doing so, you have also defamed Mr. Moyers.

On behalf of Mr. Moyers, we demand that you immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers’s response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the false statement of Dr. Beisner.

Nothing in this letter should be construed as a limitation of the rights and remedies of our client, all of which are expressly reserved.

Signiture_1

Neil J. Rosini

NJR/aws

Enclosure
cc: Bill Moyers

281309/1/0471/0000

————————————————————————————————————-
Moyers, Bill
From: Moyers, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:47 PM
To: [Dr. E. Calvin Beisner]
Subject: What has come over you?

You are not telling the truth. In fact, what you wrote in the ISA newsletter is an outright lie. You claim that "When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats." I said nothing of the sort — nothing. To the contrary, I told you that I am an independent – members of the crew remember my saying that to you specifically (there were, remember, three other people in the room.) You yourself taped the entire session with your own recorder; show me where in the transcript such a conversation occurred. I also told you, as I told everyone interviewed, that we of course could not usethe entire interview but that I would post it on our Website when the broadcast aired, as was done. If I had said anything approaching what you claim I said, if you perceived any bias on my part. you could have — and should have refused to participate. But you did participate freely, you were treated fairly and honestly, and for you now to bear false witness is not only unChristian but astonishing. What am I to make of the many friendly emails you have sent over these months, signed: "In Christ, Cal"? Or our exchange on how much I have enjoyed your daughter’s CD that you sent? Your conservative evangelical brothers who were also interviewed in the documentary – from Richard Cizik to Tri Robinson to Allan Johnson (not a liberal among them) have written in praise of how they were treated. You and you alone have chosen to bear false witness to our conversation and to defame – in your own words –the ethics and journalistic balance of the documentary. You owe me arid my team an apology and a public retraction.

Bill

ORIGINAL PDF.

Spider Men

SpidermanSoon your friendly, neighborhood spider man may be living closer than ever before–even right next door.

Yet because of his secret identity, you may never know it.

Actually, it’s not so much a matter of a secret identity as medical confidentiality.

What am I talking about?

It seems scientists are now trying to find ways to use spider silk in medical applications (EXCERPTS):

Spider web silk, the strongest natural fiber known, could possess untapped medical potential in artificial tendons or for regenerating ligaments, scientists now say.

Studies on animals have revealed that spider silk triggers little if any immune responses, which cause rejection of medical implants.

Scientists are also developing spider silk to make exceptionally fine sutures for stitching up surgeries or wounds to nerves or eyes, to potentially help them heal without scarring.

"Right now we haven’t even optimized the silks we’ve produced yet, and we’re in the ballpark of the material properties you’d want for artificial tendons and ligaments," Lewis told LiveScience.

And where will scientists get all of the silk needed for such applications?

To mass-produce spider silk, Lewis said "our lab is pursuing the production of spider silk in alfalfa." Other researchers are experimenting with producing spider silk proteins in goat milk. Scientists generate these proteins outside spiders by inserting the genes for them into target cells.

Having artificial, spider silk tendons might (for the sake of argument) let you jump long distances, but there is no word about whether applications are being developed that would allow you to stick to walls or have an innate danger sense.

Scientists should, however, bear in mind one thing as they seek to use spidery substances to develop new medical applications . . .

NO ORGANIC WEB SHOOTERS!

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

Software Query

I’m looking for an application that will allow me to download the entire contents of a web site in one throw. In the old days, I would have used GoZilla for this purpose, but GoZilla seems to have fallen on hard times.

Ideally, I’d like to be able to download just the pages on a site that contain particular keywords, but the whole site would do.

Can anybody recommend an application that does this that (a) runs on Windows XP, (b) ain’t spyware, and (c) is free- or shareware?

Thanks much, folks!

GodBlogCon Update

I just got the final schedule for GodBlogCon 2006, and it turns out that I’ll be speaking on two panels instead of one.

The first panel will be "Bridging the Christian Divide" and will focus on  how Christian bloggers of different stripes (Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox) can work together to promote the common good and how they can handle their theological differences.

This panel will take place at 9 a.m. on Friday, October 27th. I’ll be serving as the Catholic representative and will be joined by Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, James Kushiner of Mere Comments, and moderator Joe Shroeder of Blogotional.

The folks involved in this panel have already been having an e-mail discussion amongst ourselves, and it has become clear that we do not take ourselves with supreme seriousness. Jokes at each others’ espenses are planned, so it should be a lively and entertaining discussion.

The second panel I’m on is a Roundtable Discussion that will take place at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 28th. This panel will focus on how Christians can make sure that their voices are heard in the blogosphere so that they aren’t shut out of the broader social discussion the way they generally have been on Television and in the news media.

Big names who will be attending the conference include Hugh Hewitt and La Shawn Barber. Info on the speakers can be found HERE, along with snazzy pictures of them.

I was particularly interested to see that, right next to my picture, there is a picture of another speaker who is perhaps best known for being the seventh president of the United States. All I can say is . . . wow, he looks a lot younger than I expected.

If you’ll be within spitting distance of Los Angeles during October 26-28, I hope that you’ll join us for GodConBlog 2006. It’d be great if a sizeable Catholic turnout appears. Many of the organizers of the conference are Evangelical, but they’re Catholic friendly, and any time our friends across the confessional aisle reach out to include Catholics in an event, it’s good for us to reciprocate.

MORE INFO HERE.