Media Matters has a piece on Tucker Carlson's comments on Barack Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Apparently, if you can't smear a person by calling them a closet Muslim, perhaps even a closet terrorist (he went to a madrassah, you know, in Indonesia), then you can at least question the bona fides, not so much of his faith, but of the faith of an entire congregation. Man, Tucker, I'm impressed - you managed to get all that in. How do you do it?
The part that has Tucker's tie spinning like something out of The Three Stooges is the church, a predominantly African-American church, includes in its own mission statement what Carlson calls "a disavowal of the pursuit of 'middle classness'", and Carlson says that is somehow, not just un-American, but (gasp!) un-Christian. That would be true if Jesus had been a middle-class white guy from the suburbs, the figure that probably comes up in Carlson's fetid mind whenever he hears the name mentioned. Except, of course, Jesus was a dark, long-haired, carpenter/stone-mason who spoke Aramaic and resembled Yassar Arafat more than he did Jeffrey Hunter (if you haven't seen The Greatest Story Ever Told, you're missing a really campy rendition of the Gospel story; Hunter committed suicide not long after the release of this movie). More to the point, the refusal to pursue "middle classness" is, as a pastor-theologian has pointed out, the refusal to align the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the dominant ethic and lebensweld of bourgoise America. Nothing wrong with that, unless you are an upper-class twit who knows nothing about the actual content of the Christian message, or its revolutionary message.
As per the previous post, please hold on as this particular point of view makes its way around the right-wing. I feel sorry for the folks at Trinity UCC, going about the business of figuring out how to live as faithful Christians, and having a ninny in a bow-tie dis them on national television. There might be some good that comes from this, but we need to make sure the idiocy stops where it started.
Friday, February 09, 2007
The IG Report and the Press - Some Context
When I heard the lead headline this morning on NPR - the business about the Office of Special Plans making up stuff for the Vice-President to use on national television to sell the Iraq war - I wondered why it took nearly four years for the rest of the world to catch up with Seymour Hirsch. Back in 2003, Hersch published a story in The New Yorker detailing substantially the same information that was released by the Inspector General's Office, and suddenly thundered as NEWS. If you win a Pulitzer for whining about Bill Clinton's wierd repulsion/attraction and bad oral sex like Maureen Down, you are a serious journalist. If you pimp a war, and continue pimping it even after it is lost, like Thom Friedman, and win a couple Pulitzer's in the process, you are a serious journalist. If you uncover a massacre by US troops during one illegal war (and win a Pulitzer), write a book detailing the abuses of power by Kissinger and Nixon, write an issue-length story on another alleged massacre that the mainstream press called a "battle", and continue to hound an Administration bent on lying and leading us to destruction, first in Iraq then in Iran, you are not a serious journalist, like Seymour Hersch. Except, of course, Hersch was right, and everyone else - and I mean EVERYONE ELSE IN THE MAINSTREAM PRESS - was wrong, WRONG, WRONG.
Glenn Greenwald (of course) gets it exactly right:
Read the whole post.
I think this is an important and necessary point that I want to emphasize. To many mainstream journalists, the business over "flawed intelligence" is "old news" because, well, we're in Iraq, and we should be spending our energies figuring out what to do there. The problem with such a position is that it completely ignores the role the media played in getting us into Iraq in the first place. Responsibility, accountability - these are things the press seems to demand of others, but not of itself. More to the point, the run-up to the war is a sub-set, a horrific instance of a much larger phenomenon in which the press has failed and continues to fail us. An example of the former is the two-year media-frenzy over impeachment, a nightmare from which we are all trying to awake. An example of the latter if the business over "Pelosi's plane", with some examples of wonderful myth- and lie-shattering over at TPM Horses Mouth, here and here. It isn't bad enough that the whole thing is a lie - it has been uncovered as a lie since the very day some idiots started harping about it, and the story seems to have "legs" in the same way centipedes do. The right-wing just keeps it up, figuring that if they keep shouting the lies they will become the truth. And, of course, the press just keeps eating it up. FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, PLEASE JUST STOP!
Tristero at Hullabaloo has an excellent piece on this same topic, and Duncan has this to say on a symptom of the larger disease, as revealed by Tim Russert on the stand at the Scooter Libby perjury trial:
By admitting on the stand that his conversations with "Washington players" as it were are always off the record unless explicitly stated otherwise, he admitted that he does not hold to certain journalistic standards, and thus allows himself to be used by officials who see a convenient mouthpiece for the drivel they put out. Rather than, say, assuming an adversarial stand and insisting the it be "off-the-record" that is explicit, he has surrendered his journalistic credibility (or at least the last filthy tatters of it) for access.
We have had a victory or two in the past few days, including the whole Edwards' blogger business, and riding the truth about the attempted right-wing smear of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (although it hasn't quite caught on, and the story continues to fester, like a boil on the ass of the body politic). We need to keep working it, keep pushing, not just shouting down, but "Facting down" the noise- and hate- and lie-filled nonsense that for too long has taken over our national media.
Glenn Greenwald (of course) gets it exactly right:
It is vitally important to ensure that those who were responsible for the deceit that led us into Iraq are identified and held accountable.
But that responsibility extends beyond Bush officials into most of the nation's most influential media outlets.(emphasis added)
Read the whole post.
I think this is an important and necessary point that I want to emphasize. To many mainstream journalists, the business over "flawed intelligence" is "old news" because, well, we're in Iraq, and we should be spending our energies figuring out what to do there. The problem with such a position is that it completely ignores the role the media played in getting us into Iraq in the first place. Responsibility, accountability - these are things the press seems to demand of others, but not of itself. More to the point, the run-up to the war is a sub-set, a horrific instance of a much larger phenomenon in which the press has failed and continues to fail us. An example of the former is the two-year media-frenzy over impeachment, a nightmare from which we are all trying to awake. An example of the latter if the business over "Pelosi's plane", with some examples of wonderful myth- and lie-shattering over at TPM Horses Mouth, here and here. It isn't bad enough that the whole thing is a lie - it has been uncovered as a lie since the very day some idiots started harping about it, and the story seems to have "legs" in the same way centipedes do. The right-wing just keeps it up, figuring that if they keep shouting the lies they will become the truth. And, of course, the press just keeps eating it up. FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, PLEASE JUST STOP!
Tristero at Hullabaloo has an excellent piece on this same topic, and Duncan has this to say on a symptom of the larger disease, as revealed by Tim Russert on the stand at the Scooter Libby perjury trial:
Russert only reports what people agree to let him report.
By admitting on the stand that his conversations with "Washington players" as it were are always off the record unless explicitly stated otherwise, he admitted that he does not hold to certain journalistic standards, and thus allows himself to be used by officials who see a convenient mouthpiece for the drivel they put out. Rather than, say, assuming an adversarial stand and insisting the it be "off-the-record" that is explicit, he has surrendered his journalistic credibility (or at least the last filthy tatters of it) for access.
We have had a victory or two in the past few days, including the whole Edwards' blogger business, and riding the truth about the attempted right-wing smear of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (although it hasn't quite caught on, and the story continues to fester, like a boil on the ass of the body politic). We need to keep working it, keep pushing, not just shouting down, but "Facting down" the noise- and hate- and lie-filled nonsense that for too long has taken over our national media.
Discover Disc Cover
I have decided to start a new blog that deals only with my musings about music. It can be found here. Come have a look-see, and return, if you so desire. I hope you won't be disappointed.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
What Happens When Bloggers Go Mainstream
The whole Edwards' blogger affair (just click a link to the right, you'll find something about it) is interesting on several levels. First, it tells us that, despite a certain rhetorical courage (it comes with little political cost as he is out of the Senate and need only appeal to Democratic primary voters for his stance on Iraq), Edwards is, essentially, still a pre-'06 Democrat. He wants to make certain moves to appease more liberal voters, but his eye is still on the money prize (just go and read his televised speech to a conference in Israel; he sounds as much like Joe Lieberman on Iran as anyone), and that means appeasing the DLC types, and bowing under the pressure of the mainstream media. Rather than display the kind of courage that got the Democrats the Senate and House, he is displaying the kind of caution that lost us Congress, and Presidency, for years. Should he fire these bloggers he's hired, he will have proven he is more concerned about the opinion of Michelle Malkin and other truly loony right-wingers than he is with getting out a consistent populist-progressive message.
Another point is the whole brouhaha centers on - what? - the us of foul language? Oh. My. God. Are we in eighth grade here? Ann Coulter calls for the assassination, in turn, of a President, a Supreme Court justice, the fire-bombing of the New York Times building, and harasses 9/11 widows, yet her bony visage is continually corrupting TV networks. Had she called Bill Clinton a motherfucker, or insisted that before he was assassinated, Justice Blackmun should be gang-raped by a bunch of hardened criminals, perhaps she might find her network dance card emptier. And that's just Coulter. Malkin, the one responsible for spreading the nonsense about Edwards' bloggers, is directly responsible for a woman's suicide, has all sorts of ties to racist groups, and spouts off some of the most heinous rhetoric imaginable. Of course, she doesn't use four letter words, so I guess she's OK.
One would have hoped that we could have a more mature conversation in this country, but apparently we are perpetually stuck in Junior High School, where we giggle and clique about, worried over dirty words, and rumors of dirty words. One would have hoped, when the issue exploded over the previous couple days, Edwards would have said, "Yeah, so?" and refused to make another comment. It would have assured at least this blogger that (a) his courage was real, because it came when it counted; and (b) he was more mature than the gaggle of ninnies who want to control our national dialogue, who continually fret over left-wing "foul language" and (gasp!) "incivility". He did not, has not, and most probably will not; like Biden, who managed to mangle his Presidential bid on the same day he declared it, Edwards will most probably find support, espcially out here in the blogs, slipping away. A coward is a coward, and that is as telling as anything.
UPDATE: So Edwards hasn't caved . . . completely. You can see a copy of the press release here at Sadly, No!. I have to admit that I am, well, less than happy, shall we say with the tone and tenor of the statement. Rather than tell the mainstream press and the right-wing bloggers to please, for the love of God and all that is Holy stop, they said, "Gee, you know, maybe I was a bit harsh here and there, and it will never happen again." So, they keep their jobs, but they lose their creative freedom in the process. Sorry, but that's too big a price to pay. I would prefer freelancing for any candidate than whoring under the condition that I dress up nice and play by someone else's rules. That's just me, though.
One lesson we have not learned is to turn a sharp eye to the right-wingers spewing this nonsense; as has been pointed out ad nauseum, they are much worse, and much more consistently worse than anything these supposed "foul mouthed" bloggers have ever posted. Unfortunately, for some reason known only to them, God, and their therapists, the likes of Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and (gag!) Glen Beck are still on rolodexes all over the mainstream press. I suppose that is the next important task the progressive blogs need to address - this absolute blackballing of real liberal, progressive, and left-wing views from our national media. Anyh thoughts on how to do so?
Another point is the whole brouhaha centers on - what? - the us of foul language? Oh. My. God. Are we in eighth grade here? Ann Coulter calls for the assassination, in turn, of a President, a Supreme Court justice, the fire-bombing of the New York Times building, and harasses 9/11 widows, yet her bony visage is continually corrupting TV networks. Had she called Bill Clinton a motherfucker, or insisted that before he was assassinated, Justice Blackmun should be gang-raped by a bunch of hardened criminals, perhaps she might find her network dance card emptier. And that's just Coulter. Malkin, the one responsible for spreading the nonsense about Edwards' bloggers, is directly responsible for a woman's suicide, has all sorts of ties to racist groups, and spouts off some of the most heinous rhetoric imaginable. Of course, she doesn't use four letter words, so I guess she's OK.
One would have hoped that we could have a more mature conversation in this country, but apparently we are perpetually stuck in Junior High School, where we giggle and clique about, worried over dirty words, and rumors of dirty words. One would have hoped, when the issue exploded over the previous couple days, Edwards would have said, "Yeah, so?" and refused to make another comment. It would have assured at least this blogger that (a) his courage was real, because it came when it counted; and (b) he was more mature than the gaggle of ninnies who want to control our national dialogue, who continually fret over left-wing "foul language" and (gasp!) "incivility". He did not, has not, and most probably will not; like Biden, who managed to mangle his Presidential bid on the same day he declared it, Edwards will most probably find support, espcially out here in the blogs, slipping away. A coward is a coward, and that is as telling as anything.
UPDATE: So Edwards hasn't caved . . . completely. You can see a copy of the press release here at Sadly, No!. I have to admit that I am, well, less than happy, shall we say with the tone and tenor of the statement. Rather than tell the mainstream press and the right-wing bloggers to please, for the love of God and all that is Holy stop, they said, "Gee, you know, maybe I was a bit harsh here and there, and it will never happen again." So, they keep their jobs, but they lose their creative freedom in the process. Sorry, but that's too big a price to pay. I would prefer freelancing for any candidate than whoring under the condition that I dress up nice and play by someone else's rules. That's just me, though.
One lesson we have not learned is to turn a sharp eye to the right-wingers spewing this nonsense; as has been pointed out ad nauseum, they are much worse, and much more consistently worse than anything these supposed "foul mouthed" bloggers have ever posted. Unfortunately, for some reason known only to them, God, and their therapists, the likes of Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and (gag!) Glen Beck are still on rolodexes all over the mainstream press. I suppose that is the next important task the progressive blogs need to address - this absolute blackballing of real liberal, progressive, and left-wing views from our national media. Anyh thoughts on how to do so?
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Two Items
1) Over at AlterNet.org, Matt Taibbi has an article in which he pulls no punches against favorite left-wing blogosphere whipping-boy Joe Klein. I have wondered why Klein has become such a favorite target, and it comes down to two things - his arrogant attitude toward lefty blogs, with his constant "how dare they" pose whenever his integrity or even his thought processes (such as they are) are questioned; and his utter refusal to admit he was wrong about Iraq, and that in being so wrong, he has a duty now that he has seen the error of his previous position to acknowledge the correctness of his adversaries. I find his constant harping on dirty language and civility to be tiresome, to be honest; an additional strike against him (and one Tiabbi brings up).
Part of Klein's problem is that he actually believes that his judgement and understanding are superior to those of us who do not have the kind of access he does. That he has been wrong, again and again and again, should perhaps tell him something about his judgement. That he cannot take criticism should tell him and us something else - he is thin-skinned and needs to toughen himself up a bit. As for the foul language thing, all I can say is, Joe, deal with it.
2) Think Progress highlights part of a Vanity Fair article in which anti-tax guru Grover Norquist, no friend of the neo-con hawks in the Defense and State Department, makes clear that the Bush Administration is gearing up for some serious air action against Iran. You think? Two carrier battle groups and increased troop levels in Baghdad unrelated to any plan for their use in Iraq clearly show that he is plpanning for the likely contingency that Iran would launch a ground war against US forces in Iraq subsequent to some kind of massive air assault against their country.
The time is long past for Congress to put the brakes upon any of this. Forget the surge in Iraq; get on record, not in some nonsensical non-binding way, but in a way that ties the hands of the Administration, forcing some kind of serious consequences (can we all say the word impeachment?) should he ignore the mandate of the legislature and launch. Our current situation in Iraq will come to look like a pleasant afternoon in the park with family and friends should Bush unleash hell upon Iran. And that is only for starters. I cannot emphasize enough - we need to force Congress to act NOW to stop this before it happens. Waiting for the planes and missiles to take off from our ships in the Persian Gulf is far too late; by then we all need to buckle our seat belts for the roughest ride by far we have taken since the Second World War.
By the way, since I was right about Iraq before it even began, I trust my own judgement on this as well. If we attack Iran, we are in far deeper trouble than just a shooting war. The very life and health of our Constitutional form of government will be at stake.
Part of Klein's problem is that he actually believes that his judgement and understanding are superior to those of us who do not have the kind of access he does. That he has been wrong, again and again and again, should perhaps tell him something about his judgement. That he cannot take criticism should tell him and us something else - he is thin-skinned and needs to toughen himself up a bit. As for the foul language thing, all I can say is, Joe, deal with it.
2) Think Progress highlights part of a Vanity Fair article in which anti-tax guru Grover Norquist, no friend of the neo-con hawks in the Defense and State Department, makes clear that the Bush Administration is gearing up for some serious air action against Iran. You think? Two carrier battle groups and increased troop levels in Baghdad unrelated to any plan for their use in Iraq clearly show that he is plpanning for the likely contingency that Iran would launch a ground war against US forces in Iraq subsequent to some kind of massive air assault against their country.
The time is long past for Congress to put the brakes upon any of this. Forget the surge in Iraq; get on record, not in some nonsensical non-binding way, but in a way that ties the hands of the Administration, forcing some kind of serious consequences (can we all say the word impeachment?) should he ignore the mandate of the legislature and launch. Our current situation in Iraq will come to look like a pleasant afternoon in the park with family and friends should Bush unleash hell upon Iran. And that is only for starters. I cannot emphasize enough - we need to force Congress to act NOW to stop this before it happens. Waiting for the planes and missiles to take off from our ships in the Persian Gulf is far too late; by then we all need to buckle our seat belts for the roughest ride by far we have taken since the Second World War.
By the way, since I was right about Iraq before it even began, I trust my own judgement on this as well. If we attack Iran, we are in far deeper trouble than just a shooting war. The very life and health of our Constitutional form of government will be at stake.
Clarifying My Position After Talking to My Wife
Immediately after I wrote the previous post, my wife read it, and she and I talked about it. For a variety of reasons she took me to task for what I wrote, and after thinking about it, I have decided to change my mind about a couple things, the most important being the whole question of "foregiveness". I suppose I should apologize to someone, but I'm not sure who, so I'll just say, "I'm sorry", and be about what I want to do.
An Open Letter to Ted Haggard:
Dear Mr. Haggard,
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! My name is Geoffrey Kruse-Safford, and I like you am a fellow Christian. I am writing as a fellow-Christian, a brother in the family of God, united by the Holy Spirit in the great fellowship that worships the God who has created us, loves us as we are, and offers us a chance for change and hope for final victory over sin and death. I would hope that you take what I have to say in the Spirit in which it is offered, one of love and concern for a brother who has stumbled but through God's grace shall never fall.
Specifically, I am writing to you concerning your recent completion of "therapy" for your sexual confusion, and all that surrounds the events that led to your very public and painful fall from public favor last autumn. My concern here is that, quite honestly, I do not believe you have dealt honestly with the problem of your own sexual confusion, and the damage such confusion has wrought to yourself, your family, your church, or the public at large. As President of the National Association of Evangelicals, you were in a position of some authority, speaking on behalf of millions of faithful Christians around the country. During the time in which you were leading your double life, you were vocal concerning issues of gay rights, specifically arguing that such demands were a demand for "special rights"; that same-sex marriage was a threat to traditional marriage, indeed to the very social fabric; that any recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex desire posed such a threat.
One of my fervent wishes was that you would have emerged from your sexual counselling with a greater awareness of the nuances of your own sexuality; specifically, I would have hoped for a statement in which you acknowledged a certain level of same-sex desire. You need not have come out as a gay man; bisexuality, or even a certain ambivalence concerning exclusively heterosexual feelings is neither unknown nor would it have been surprising considering your own actions and life choices. I was sad, therefore, to read that you are "definitely heterosexual". I would have hoped for a more honest assessment of your own sexuality.
I say this because it leads me to two points. First, I do not believe you have dealt at all with your own sexual confusion in anything like an honest way. This failure tells me that you are still living within a view of the world in which your greatest sin was committing same-sex acts. Second, this lack of self-awareness, this refusal to honestly appraise yourself and your actions, and the depth of national anger aimed at you, is exacerbated by your refusal to denounce your previously-held positions vis-a-vis the social position of gays and lesbians.
As to the first point, by refusing to deal honestly with the problem, and seeking a cure for something that is not a sickness, you are not facing the problem as it exists; you are still living within some kind of bubble of denial in which, if you can only rid yourself of desire for men, you will be cleansed of sin. Same-sex desire is no sin; love is never wrong. Your sin was not gay sex. Your sin is lying - to yourself, to your family, to your church - concerning the reality of your own sexual ambiguity. Had you emerged with a statement in which you not only acknowledged that ambiguity, but accepted it as how God has made you, and therefore part of the good creation that is Ted Haggard, I would have rejoiced.
Instead, you continue to deny who you are, and I fear you will fall back, not necessarily with Mike Jones, but perhaps other willing partners, professional or otherwise. We lie to ourselves best, because there is no one to hold us accountable. Unfortunately, the psychological toll is tremendous, and when the break occurs, it can be devastating, as you have learned. I would pray for your sake, for your family's sake, that you open yourself to new possibilities, including the grace to accept a less rigid understsanding of human sexuality in general, and your own in particular.
As to the second point, my own anger and frustration with your refusal to acknowledge not just the reality but the legitimacy of ambiguous sexuality is compounded by your silence on issues of gay and lesbian rights. One would have hoped that, having been shown publicly to be sexually confused, you would have made certain retractions of public statements and positions concerning the place of gays and lesbians in the church and in the life of our country. As you refuse to countenance the reality of your own tendency to enjoy the company of other men, however, I doubt whether you would consider such retractions as warranted. You need to understand, however, that the public positions you have held have injured people, as you were part of a larger socio-political movement that sought to deny to those like yourself who have same-sex attraction any place in our national life. You have a responsibility not only to be honest with yourself about your own sexual ambiguity, but to those who have suffered in part because of your very public stance and work to make amends.
As a Christian brother, I am offering my help by giving you the opportunity to be accountable for your actions, both personal and public. In light of all the events surrounding your removal from the pulpit, and the very public nature of the pronouncements concerning your own sexuality, I do not feel untoward in making this offer. I believe it encumbent upon all Christians to hold each other accountable. Jesus said to those whom he healed, "Go, and sin no more." First, you need to recognize the reality of your sin was not performing gay sex. Your sin was breaking faith with your family, and refusing to confront the reality of your own sexuality in a way that was either healthy or honest. As you continue to refuse to do so, I would ask that you consider the option that you are, in fact, if not a gay man, a man who certainly has same-sex desire. It may take time to discipline these feelings, put them in their proper place, and continue to live a life of integrity and honesty. But first, you must make public a statement that you are not "definitely heterosexual" because that is simply not true. Honesty about yourself is the necessary first step to true healing, and a true assesment of what actually took place last fall.
Second, I would insist that part of your accountability would be to read what you have written and said, whether from the pulpit, in conferences, news conferences, even in private correspondence, that in any way is discriminatory or harmful to sexual minorities. I would then insist that, like St. Augustine at the end of his life, you print a book, the proceeds of which would go to the church of your choice for education on sexual realities in the church today, entitled Retractions in which you would publicly denounce any previous such statement you had made, and offer detailed reasons as to why that statement is wrong. Such a public conversion, the metanoia demanded by Scripture and tradition as a sign of true salvation, would serve as a sign that you were now dealing honestly with the reality not only of your own sexual ambiguity, but also dealing with the reality of sexual variety as part of God's good creation. Such a public statement of error would be followed by tireless efforts on your part, working for the full inclusion of gays and lesbins into the life of the society and the church. Surely you must recognize this double necessity. It would not be "penance" in the traditional sense, but rather an honest outgrowth of your own recognition that life and human beings are more complex and wonderful than you used to believe true, and that such complexity is a part of the mystery that is God's creation.
I offer this letter in the Spirit of love that unites us, the Spirit of faith tha guides us, and the Spirit of hope that offers us comfort in times of affliction. I would also offer the same your wife and family, as they struggle through these difficult times of change. Hold fast to what is good, St. Paul wrote, and that would be first those who love you. May God's peace and mercy and love shine in you and through you, sir.
In Christ,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford
An Open Letter to Ted Haggard:
Dear Mr. Haggard,
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! My name is Geoffrey Kruse-Safford, and I like you am a fellow Christian. I am writing as a fellow-Christian, a brother in the family of God, united by the Holy Spirit in the great fellowship that worships the God who has created us, loves us as we are, and offers us a chance for change and hope for final victory over sin and death. I would hope that you take what I have to say in the Spirit in which it is offered, one of love and concern for a brother who has stumbled but through God's grace shall never fall.
Specifically, I am writing to you concerning your recent completion of "therapy" for your sexual confusion, and all that surrounds the events that led to your very public and painful fall from public favor last autumn. My concern here is that, quite honestly, I do not believe you have dealt honestly with the problem of your own sexual confusion, and the damage such confusion has wrought to yourself, your family, your church, or the public at large. As President of the National Association of Evangelicals, you were in a position of some authority, speaking on behalf of millions of faithful Christians around the country. During the time in which you were leading your double life, you were vocal concerning issues of gay rights, specifically arguing that such demands were a demand for "special rights"; that same-sex marriage was a threat to traditional marriage, indeed to the very social fabric; that any recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex desire posed such a threat.
One of my fervent wishes was that you would have emerged from your sexual counselling with a greater awareness of the nuances of your own sexuality; specifically, I would have hoped for a statement in which you acknowledged a certain level of same-sex desire. You need not have come out as a gay man; bisexuality, or even a certain ambivalence concerning exclusively heterosexual feelings is neither unknown nor would it have been surprising considering your own actions and life choices. I was sad, therefore, to read that you are "definitely heterosexual". I would have hoped for a more honest assessment of your own sexuality.
I say this because it leads me to two points. First, I do not believe you have dealt at all with your own sexual confusion in anything like an honest way. This failure tells me that you are still living within a view of the world in which your greatest sin was committing same-sex acts. Second, this lack of self-awareness, this refusal to honestly appraise yourself and your actions, and the depth of national anger aimed at you, is exacerbated by your refusal to denounce your previously-held positions vis-a-vis the social position of gays and lesbians.
As to the first point, by refusing to deal honestly with the problem, and seeking a cure for something that is not a sickness, you are not facing the problem as it exists; you are still living within some kind of bubble of denial in which, if you can only rid yourself of desire for men, you will be cleansed of sin. Same-sex desire is no sin; love is never wrong. Your sin was not gay sex. Your sin is lying - to yourself, to your family, to your church - concerning the reality of your own sexual ambiguity. Had you emerged with a statement in which you not only acknowledged that ambiguity, but accepted it as how God has made you, and therefore part of the good creation that is Ted Haggard, I would have rejoiced.
Instead, you continue to deny who you are, and I fear you will fall back, not necessarily with Mike Jones, but perhaps other willing partners, professional or otherwise. We lie to ourselves best, because there is no one to hold us accountable. Unfortunately, the psychological toll is tremendous, and when the break occurs, it can be devastating, as you have learned. I would pray for your sake, for your family's sake, that you open yourself to new possibilities, including the grace to accept a less rigid understsanding of human sexuality in general, and your own in particular.
As to the second point, my own anger and frustration with your refusal to acknowledge not just the reality but the legitimacy of ambiguous sexuality is compounded by your silence on issues of gay and lesbian rights. One would have hoped that, having been shown publicly to be sexually confused, you would have made certain retractions of public statements and positions concerning the place of gays and lesbians in the church and in the life of our country. As you refuse to countenance the reality of your own tendency to enjoy the company of other men, however, I doubt whether you would consider such retractions as warranted. You need to understand, however, that the public positions you have held have injured people, as you were part of a larger socio-political movement that sought to deny to those like yourself who have same-sex attraction any place in our national life. You have a responsibility not only to be honest with yourself about your own sexual ambiguity, but to those who have suffered in part because of your very public stance and work to make amends.
As a Christian brother, I am offering my help by giving you the opportunity to be accountable for your actions, both personal and public. In light of all the events surrounding your removal from the pulpit, and the very public nature of the pronouncements concerning your own sexuality, I do not feel untoward in making this offer. I believe it encumbent upon all Christians to hold each other accountable. Jesus said to those whom he healed, "Go, and sin no more." First, you need to recognize the reality of your sin was not performing gay sex. Your sin was breaking faith with your family, and refusing to confront the reality of your own sexuality in a way that was either healthy or honest. As you continue to refuse to do so, I would ask that you consider the option that you are, in fact, if not a gay man, a man who certainly has same-sex desire. It may take time to discipline these feelings, put them in their proper place, and continue to live a life of integrity and honesty. But first, you must make public a statement that you are not "definitely heterosexual" because that is simply not true. Honesty about yourself is the necessary first step to true healing, and a true assesment of what actually took place last fall.
Second, I would insist that part of your accountability would be to read what you have written and said, whether from the pulpit, in conferences, news conferences, even in private correspondence, that in any way is discriminatory or harmful to sexual minorities. I would then insist that, like St. Augustine at the end of his life, you print a book, the proceeds of which would go to the church of your choice for education on sexual realities in the church today, entitled Retractions in which you would publicly denounce any previous such statement you had made, and offer detailed reasons as to why that statement is wrong. Such a public conversion, the metanoia demanded by Scripture and tradition as a sign of true salvation, would serve as a sign that you were now dealing honestly with the reality not only of your own sexual ambiguity, but also dealing with the reality of sexual variety as part of God's good creation. Such a public statement of error would be followed by tireless efforts on your part, working for the full inclusion of gays and lesbins into the life of the society and the church. Surely you must recognize this double necessity. It would not be "penance" in the traditional sense, but rather an honest outgrowth of your own recognition that life and human beings are more complex and wonderful than you used to believe true, and that such complexity is a part of the mystery that is God's creation.
I offer this letter in the Spirit of love that unites us, the Spirit of faith tha guides us, and the Spirit of hope that offers us comfort in times of affliction. I would also offer the same your wife and family, as they struggle through these difficult times of change. Hold fast to what is good, St. Paul wrote, and that would be first those who love you. May God's peace and mercy and love shine in you and through you, sir.
In Christ,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford
Ted Haggard, Sexuality, & Foregiveness
So Ted Haggard has been "cured" and is definitely heterosexual. Never mind three years with a male prostitute (not to mention alleged but denied methamphetamine use). Never mind a record of anti-gay statements and work all the while he was servicing a man for money.
Sexual confusion, never explored in youth, repressed through a virulent hatred fed by a bigoted and narrow religious world-view can be explosive. I am a firm believer in the "continuum" theory of human sexual desire, and that all of us, from time to time, might feel an urge to explore avenues we might not normally consider. Usually, this occurs in adolescence, a time when we are figuring out who we are, and trying on new identities as often as we try on new shoes and pants. Unfortunately for Haggard, that outlet was denied him in youth, so once he was an adult with a certain amount of freedom and power, he abused his position to the detriment of his family, his ministry, his honor, his integrity, and potentially his health. I do not doubt that, more than likely, Haggard is primarily or at least preferentially heterosexual. That is not to deny the reality of his gay encounters, it is only to (potentially) place them in some kind of context within his sexual psyche.
As sexual identity is something that cannot be programmed or set (apart from seriously deviant forms, such as pedophilia, bestiality, and other extreme sexual perversions), but is hard-wired into us, I doubt if his time in sexual rehab has changed Haggard's sexual identity one iota. Therefore, to come out and say he is "definitely heterosexual" is a lie. It compounds three years of lying, not just about himself, but about his views concerning gays, gay sexuality, and gay sexual acts.
When Jesus forgave people, he told them to "Go, and sin no more." Apparently the new standard is "Go, and bugger no more, or at least don't admit to it publicly." I do not wonder about the ultimate foregiveness coming from God, as that is not dependent upon anything we human beings do or can do. The question, however, is how seriously we are to take Haggard, taking all these things into consideration, and the insistence that honesty - honesty about ourselves; the integrity that follows from living out truthfully the life God has given us; loving others fully and without condition, including sexual orientation - is necessary in order for acceptance back into the community of faith to take place, I cannot help but feel that Haggard is making a quite public show that is meaningless on its face, and only a useful tool for him to return to his previous seat of power. That makes me sad, because this was an opportunity for real growth, real change, for a real, honest, integral life to emerge from the ashes of the brokenness of Haggard's sin. Unfortunately, he has taken the easy road, a road Jesus himself said was broad, and led straight down (as it were).
While I do not doubt God loves Ted Haggard just as he is, I wonder if Ted Haggard loves Ted Haggard just as he is, sexual confusion and all. Until I hear from Haggard that his sexuality is more complex than "definitely heterosexual", and expresses that reality by working for the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the society at large, and specifically the church, I withhold any foregiveness I can give, for the simple reason that I do not think he is sorry for what he did. He is sorry he got caught.
The Greek word in the Bible that is often translated "change", referring to a spiritual change is metanoia, quite literally a turning around, a one-hundred-eighty degree turn. It is a complete and utter transformation of a person's life. Haggard has not done that at all. That is why I do not think he is really sorry; he has not changed, he has only said he was confused, won't do it again, and "Hey, I'm straight!" He has learned nothing - not humility, not compassion, not the depths to which human longing can take us if it is not directed properly through a disciplined life - and so I withhold foregiveness and will continue to hold him accountable for his actions, not just in the future, but right now.
Sexual confusion, never explored in youth, repressed through a virulent hatred fed by a bigoted and narrow religious world-view can be explosive. I am a firm believer in the "continuum" theory of human sexual desire, and that all of us, from time to time, might feel an urge to explore avenues we might not normally consider. Usually, this occurs in adolescence, a time when we are figuring out who we are, and trying on new identities as often as we try on new shoes and pants. Unfortunately for Haggard, that outlet was denied him in youth, so once he was an adult with a certain amount of freedom and power, he abused his position to the detriment of his family, his ministry, his honor, his integrity, and potentially his health. I do not doubt that, more than likely, Haggard is primarily or at least preferentially heterosexual. That is not to deny the reality of his gay encounters, it is only to (potentially) place them in some kind of context within his sexual psyche.
As sexual identity is something that cannot be programmed or set (apart from seriously deviant forms, such as pedophilia, bestiality, and other extreme sexual perversions), but is hard-wired into us, I doubt if his time in sexual rehab has changed Haggard's sexual identity one iota. Therefore, to come out and say he is "definitely heterosexual" is a lie. It compounds three years of lying, not just about himself, but about his views concerning gays, gay sexuality, and gay sexual acts.
When Jesus forgave people, he told them to "Go, and sin no more." Apparently the new standard is "Go, and bugger no more, or at least don't admit to it publicly." I do not wonder about the ultimate foregiveness coming from God, as that is not dependent upon anything we human beings do or can do. The question, however, is how seriously we are to take Haggard, taking all these things into consideration, and the insistence that honesty - honesty about ourselves; the integrity that follows from living out truthfully the life God has given us; loving others fully and without condition, including sexual orientation - is necessary in order for acceptance back into the community of faith to take place, I cannot help but feel that Haggard is making a quite public show that is meaningless on its face, and only a useful tool for him to return to his previous seat of power. That makes me sad, because this was an opportunity for real growth, real change, for a real, honest, integral life to emerge from the ashes of the brokenness of Haggard's sin. Unfortunately, he has taken the easy road, a road Jesus himself said was broad, and led straight down (as it were).
While I do not doubt God loves Ted Haggard just as he is, I wonder if Ted Haggard loves Ted Haggard just as he is, sexual confusion and all. Until I hear from Haggard that his sexuality is more complex than "definitely heterosexual", and expresses that reality by working for the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the society at large, and specifically the church, I withhold any foregiveness I can give, for the simple reason that I do not think he is sorry for what he did. He is sorry he got caught.
The Greek word in the Bible that is often translated "change", referring to a spiritual change is metanoia, quite literally a turning around, a one-hundred-eighty degree turn. It is a complete and utter transformation of a person's life. Haggard has not done that at all. That is why I do not think he is really sorry; he has not changed, he has only said he was confused, won't do it again, and "Hey, I'm straight!" He has learned nothing - not humility, not compassion, not the depths to which human longing can take us if it is not directed properly through a disciplined life - and so I withhold foregiveness and will continue to hold him accountable for his actions, not just in the future, but right now.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Health Care in a Global Economy in Joe Klein's Universe
Over at Swampland, Joe Klein has this on John Edwards' health care proposal. While not saying this or that about the proposal itself - I haven't read the whole thing, and much of the discussion has been about (gasp!) tax increases to pay for it. One thing Klein points out as a con against the plan is that it is continues the employer-based insurance system that has existed in the United States; by creating certain unfunded mandates for private employers, Klein argues that, in a global economy, this places a competetive burden upon US companies.
There is one problem with this analysis. In a global economy, US companies do business all over the world, and abide by tax and regulatory regimes that make our system look positively libertarian. Just consider the mandatory holiday time in Europe - four weeks mandated vacation in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium; six weeks in the Netherlands, Scandinavia, New Zealand (not Europe, I know, but you know what I mean). Tax policies in these countries, for all the current trend toward corporate friendliness are, in comparison to our own, almost confiscatory. Yet, hundreds of US-based companies do business and profitable business in these environments. So, rather than place such an onerous burden on employers, perhaps they should be taxed and provide universal health care - kind of like these other countries have.
Of course, in Klein's world, none of this exists. Or does it? I wonder if he even understands the realities companies face overseas. Or cares.
There is one problem with this analysis. In a global economy, US companies do business all over the world, and abide by tax and regulatory regimes that make our system look positively libertarian. Just consider the mandatory holiday time in Europe - four weeks mandated vacation in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium; six weeks in the Netherlands, Scandinavia, New Zealand (not Europe, I know, but you know what I mean). Tax policies in these countries, for all the current trend toward corporate friendliness are, in comparison to our own, almost confiscatory. Yet, hundreds of US-based companies do business and profitable business in these environments. So, rather than place such an onerous burden on employers, perhaps they should be taxed and provide universal health care - kind of like these other countries have.
Of course, in Klein's world, none of this exists. Or does it? I wonder if he even understands the realities companies face overseas. Or cares.
Pundit Accountability
Of course, Duncan had to put it perfectly. I wonder, exactly, who these folks think they are. To whom are they responsible, beyond their editors and publishers and the producers who continually put them on the air? If not to the American people, then whom? Their own consciences? What?
Back in the late 1980's there was some discussion concerning journalistic oversight. There was a move to make newspaper ombudsmen more visible, forcing some kind of accountability. Yet, the arguments raged, mostly over First Amendment issues, often highlighting tabloids and scandal sheets as a counter to the more respectable journalism of the mainstream press. If that is the standard against which they wish to be judged, or to which they wish to be held, I suggest their sights are awfully low. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It does not guarantee freedom from accountability. A person can get up and say, or print, or blog, any thing they please. If they expect to be free from criticism, however, they might want to consider another line of work.
Punditry is a dying art, thankfully. Even as Klein, Broder, Shields, Kristol, Friedman, and the rest of the mouthy class continue to spew forth their opinions as truth, their perspective as wisdom, and their contacts with various Hill and EOB staffers as connections, they are taken less and less eriously, not just by the right and left, but by the broad mainstream of America. Just read the comments section of Swampland whenever Klein posts - he is hardly treated with the respect he thinks he deserves.
Opinions are like something else everyone has, as the saying goes, and too often what is produced in mainstream punditry is reminiscent of what flows from that ubiquotous orifice. One need not lunch with members of Congress of Supreme Court Justices in order to figure out what is going on, and use judgement, common sense, and insight to form an opinion. The people are finding their voice, and the official pundit class needs to shout to be heard. And whine about other people taking them to task for being wrong.
Back in the late 1980's there was some discussion concerning journalistic oversight. There was a move to make newspaper ombudsmen more visible, forcing some kind of accountability. Yet, the arguments raged, mostly over First Amendment issues, often highlighting tabloids and scandal sheets as a counter to the more respectable journalism of the mainstream press. If that is the standard against which they wish to be judged, or to which they wish to be held, I suggest their sights are awfully low. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It does not guarantee freedom from accountability. A person can get up and say, or print, or blog, any thing they please. If they expect to be free from criticism, however, they might want to consider another line of work.
Punditry is a dying art, thankfully. Even as Klein, Broder, Shields, Kristol, Friedman, and the rest of the mouthy class continue to spew forth their opinions as truth, their perspective as wisdom, and their contacts with various Hill and EOB staffers as connections, they are taken less and less eriously, not just by the right and left, but by the broad mainstream of America. Just read the comments section of Swampland whenever Klein posts - he is hardly treated with the respect he thinks he deserves.
Opinions are like something else everyone has, as the saying goes, and too often what is produced in mainstream punditry is reminiscent of what flows from that ubiquotous orifice. One need not lunch with members of Congress of Supreme Court Justices in order to figure out what is going on, and use judgement, common sense, and insight to form an opinion. The people are finding their voice, and the official pundit class needs to shout to be heard. And whine about other people taking them to task for being wrong.
Why Did I Write About Purity Balls?
I have berated myself a bit because of my post on the Colorado Purity Ball, because, I wondered, what possible relevance does it have to my own interests, etc.? I suppose this is rationalization of some kind, but I realized that these were done in the name of the Christian faith, and therefore deserved some kind of comment. They deserve more than an "icky-poo", however much that may be my first reaction.
First, the taboo-pushing nature of the Balls, done in the name of "Christian family values", shuld provide, for a disinterested observer, a peek into the nature of those values. It might not be a question of bordering on certain, ahem, inappropriate relationships as it were; indeed, I doubt if you asked the question that most participants would understand such a qualm. Rather, if one sees it from another point of view, the striking thing is the authoritarian patriarchy of such an event. It is not so much the quasi-incestuous nature of such vows, but the fact that daughters pledge to their fathers that which should be kept to themselves until it is shared with a man outside the family. Control over sexual behavior, responsibility for such behavior, is transferred from the individual girl or woman to a man, whose responsibility it is to guard it.
The second thing to notice about these ceremonies is their public nature. We often prefer to keep our sexual behavior, and our decisions about it, as private as possible. One of the cultural right's complaints about American society is its highly sexualized nature. Yet, here, right here, a very public display - an entire ceremony, complete with all the trappings of a festive occasion - regarding the sexuality of young women. Moving from the private sphere to the public sphere in this way creates an entirely new set of problems; now we have a social event in which the sexual behavior of young women becomes a matter not just for public scrutiny and comment, but examination.
Finally, and I know this question should not have to be asked - where are the ceremonies in which young men make similar pledged, either to their mothers or to their fathers? Of course, such pledges would violate certain rules of patriarchy, espcially those in which young women are perceived less as persons and more as property of men. Men do not need to make a pledge such as this because they do not owe anyone an explanation for their behavior, whereas women do. THe subtext, of course, is (to be crude) young men can dip their wicks whenever they want to, without consequence, without responsibility to anyone but themselves, whereas these young women are pledged and, if they become sexually active, they owe their fathers not just an explanation, but the fathers, implicitly, can punish them for violating their vows. Of course, if all these young women are chaste, the response may be, with whom could the young men possibly canoodle? We shall merely let that question hang in the air as one of profound naivetee . . .
I submit that such events as these, as bizarre and borderline taboo as they may be, will not become either very popular or very numerous. Nor do I think they will have any effect whatsoever on the sexual behavior of young women; quite the opposite, I think they might actually enhance the possibility that young women become sexually active, because, having made such a public display of their chastity, they now have a respectable cover for their private behavior. Such ceremonies, in other words, would encourage duplicity and promiscuity, rather than enhance honor and abstinence.
My one question, and it might seem irrelvant to most is - where is either the Biblcal, theological, pastoral, historical, or liturgical warrant for such a ceremony being done in the name of the Church of Jesus Christ? This is neither rhetorical, nor is it asked naively. I want an answer, not some kind of cultural answer, but a serious, thoughtful response to this in the terms set forth within the question above. If no answer is forthcoming, then maybe some Christians somewhere should maybe, you know, stand up and say something about this horror show being done in our name.
Note: I have been having serious computer problems, and it may be a couple days before I get them all fixed. That and time limitations and the weather (I have a broadband connection that doesn't work as well as it might in heavy cloud cover) seem to be conspiring against me spending the kind of quality time I want doing this. That includes commenting on my freinds' blogs, repsonding to comments, etc.
First, the taboo-pushing nature of the Balls, done in the name of "Christian family values", shuld provide, for a disinterested observer, a peek into the nature of those values. It might not be a question of bordering on certain, ahem, inappropriate relationships as it were; indeed, I doubt if you asked the question that most participants would understand such a qualm. Rather, if one sees it from another point of view, the striking thing is the authoritarian patriarchy of such an event. It is not so much the quasi-incestuous nature of such vows, but the fact that daughters pledge to their fathers that which should be kept to themselves until it is shared with a man outside the family. Control over sexual behavior, responsibility for such behavior, is transferred from the individual girl or woman to a man, whose responsibility it is to guard it.
The second thing to notice about these ceremonies is their public nature. We often prefer to keep our sexual behavior, and our decisions about it, as private as possible. One of the cultural right's complaints about American society is its highly sexualized nature. Yet, here, right here, a very public display - an entire ceremony, complete with all the trappings of a festive occasion - regarding the sexuality of young women. Moving from the private sphere to the public sphere in this way creates an entirely new set of problems; now we have a social event in which the sexual behavior of young women becomes a matter not just for public scrutiny and comment, but examination.
Finally, and I know this question should not have to be asked - where are the ceremonies in which young men make similar pledged, either to their mothers or to their fathers? Of course, such pledges would violate certain rules of patriarchy, espcially those in which young women are perceived less as persons and more as property of men. Men do not need to make a pledge such as this because they do not owe anyone an explanation for their behavior, whereas women do. THe subtext, of course, is (to be crude) young men can dip their wicks whenever they want to, without consequence, without responsibility to anyone but themselves, whereas these young women are pledged and, if they become sexually active, they owe their fathers not just an explanation, but the fathers, implicitly, can punish them for violating their vows. Of course, if all these young women are chaste, the response may be, with whom could the young men possibly canoodle? We shall merely let that question hang in the air as one of profound naivetee . . .
I submit that such events as these, as bizarre and borderline taboo as they may be, will not become either very popular or very numerous. Nor do I think they will have any effect whatsoever on the sexual behavior of young women; quite the opposite, I think they might actually enhance the possibility that young women become sexually active, because, having made such a public display of their chastity, they now have a respectable cover for their private behavior. Such ceremonies, in other words, would encourage duplicity and promiscuity, rather than enhance honor and abstinence.
My one question, and it might seem irrelvant to most is - where is either the Biblcal, theological, pastoral, historical, or liturgical warrant for such a ceremony being done in the name of the Church of Jesus Christ? This is neither rhetorical, nor is it asked naively. I want an answer, not some kind of cultural answer, but a serious, thoughtful response to this in the terms set forth within the question above. If no answer is forthcoming, then maybe some Christians somewhere should maybe, you know, stand up and say something about this horror show being done in our name.
Note: I have been having serious computer problems, and it may be a couple days before I get them all fixed. That and time limitations and the weather (I have a broadband connection that doesn't work as well as it might in heavy cloud cover) seem to be conspiring against me spending the kind of quality time I want doing this. That includes commenting on my freinds' blogs, repsonding to comments, etc.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Ick . . . Just . . . Ick
There is a link over at Alternet.org to an article in Glamour magazine on a tradition in Colorado called a "Purity Ball". Like a cross between a cotillion, a wedding, and a prom, fathers and daughters dress to the nines, get together, and the daughters (I can hardly keep my gorge down as I type this) pledge their virginity to their fathers. They promise to remain abstinent until marriage, making the vow public. They do it, however, in a way guaranteed to make most thinking, emotionally stable parents want to wash the creepy icky off.
You know, as a father of two girls, even if they wanted to do this, and insisted it was important to them to do so, I wouldn't do it. The gag-reflex is just a bit over-stimulated by the whole idea of my daughter pledging her purity to me.
I have to go shower again.
You know, as a father of two girls, even if they wanted to do this, and insisted it was important to them to do so, I wouldn't do it. The gag-reflex is just a bit over-stimulated by the whole idea of my daughter pledging her purity to me.
I have to go shower again.
Asking the Right Questions
Democracy Lover and Dan Froomkin (h/t FireDogLake for the link) both offer specifics and general rules for a proper journalistic approach toward Bush Administration claims concerning Iran. DL does a good job, not only of asking the right questions, but of answering them with facts, without hype, spin, fearmongering, or nonsense. Froomkin offers both specific and general guidelines to an industry that quite simply failed us in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and now refuses to admit it failed.
What astounds me more than anything is the persistent reliance in the mainstream press upon sources who, quite simply, are conniving, duplicitous, and conspiratorial. More to the point, as the rhetoric heats up, has no one noticed that much of the nonsense spewed by the Bush Administration is almost identical to that put out in the fall of 2002 in the run-up to the Iraq war? They changed one letter, "q" to "n", and the rest is the same tired, nonsensical drivel that proved so fatal to tens of thousands.
The Bush Administration lied about Iraq. They lied about lying about it. When they were caught, they lied about lying about lying about it. They are institutionally incapable of telling the truth. The American people know this; have you seen polls recently? Why doesn't the press corps jump on board? Why doesn't just one journalist, when confronted with Bush perfidy, say, "You know what, I'm not buying that sack of monkey crap"? It would end, right then, right there.
And if wishes were horses, I'd have a stable full.
At least there are those out here who know what the press should be doing. The task is to get them to do it.
What astounds me more than anything is the persistent reliance in the mainstream press upon sources who, quite simply, are conniving, duplicitous, and conspiratorial. More to the point, as the rhetoric heats up, has no one noticed that much of the nonsense spewed by the Bush Administration is almost identical to that put out in the fall of 2002 in the run-up to the Iraq war? They changed one letter, "q" to "n", and the rest is the same tired, nonsensical drivel that proved so fatal to tens of thousands.
The Bush Administration lied about Iraq. They lied about lying about it. When they were caught, they lied about lying about lying about it. They are institutionally incapable of telling the truth. The American people know this; have you seen polls recently? Why doesn't the press corps jump on board? Why doesn't just one journalist, when confronted with Bush perfidy, say, "You know what, I'm not buying that sack of monkey crap"? It would end, right then, right there.
And if wishes were horses, I'd have a stable full.
At least there are those out here who know what the press should be doing. The task is to get them to do it.
I Guess I'm un-American
I couldn't care less about the Super Bowl today. Not if Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice threatened to come to my house and explain to me what victory in Iraq would look like; not if Ted Haggard would explain how he is being cured of being a gay man by a bunch of closeted homosexuals; not if the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton sex video were played at half-time - if any of these things occurred, the amount of emotional and other energy I would put into the game would still be less than zero. That's right, I actually am working at not caring.
I do wish I didn't sound tedious, or earnest, or sophomoric, or humorless, but I just can't seem to get excited about what is, after all, less a football game than it is a media event when things are the way they are - here at home, in Washington, in Iraq, and maybe, just horribly maybe, in the Persian Gult as we race towards an apocalypse with Iran. The whole thing is about as fake as it gets, and the worst thing is that people get sucked into it - they feel they have to go to parties, or hold parties, or root for one team or another, or bet in office pools, or whatever. Just because everyone else is.
No, you don't.
I wish you all a football-free, hype-free, care-free Sunday. Spend the time watching a good movie, having special time with a significant other, shopping at your favorite store (everyone else will be somewhere watching the game, so even malls will be empty), or listening to your favorite music and reading a book. Anything but switching on the idiot box and watching a game that really, really, doesn't mean a thing, listening to imbeciles prattle on as if anyone cared ot listen to them. Commentators are a hold-over from the days of radio, a hold-over that should be discarded. I think we can watch the game without being told what is happening.
DO I sound like your typical humorless liberal yet? Good. The whole thing is making me so grumpy, I think I need to go listen to some Tom Waits to cheer me up. Enjoy the rest of your day.
I do wish I didn't sound tedious, or earnest, or sophomoric, or humorless, but I just can't seem to get excited about what is, after all, less a football game than it is a media event when things are the way they are - here at home, in Washington, in Iraq, and maybe, just horribly maybe, in the Persian Gult as we race towards an apocalypse with Iran. The whole thing is about as fake as it gets, and the worst thing is that people get sucked into it - they feel they have to go to parties, or hold parties, or root for one team or another, or bet in office pools, or whatever. Just because everyone else is.
No, you don't.
I wish you all a football-free, hype-free, care-free Sunday. Spend the time watching a good movie, having special time with a significant other, shopping at your favorite store (everyone else will be somewhere watching the game, so even malls will be empty), or listening to your favorite music and reading a book. Anything but switching on the idiot box and watching a game that really, really, doesn't mean a thing, listening to imbeciles prattle on as if anyone cared ot listen to them. Commentators are a hold-over from the days of radio, a hold-over that should be discarded. I think we can watch the game without being told what is happening.
DO I sound like your typical humorless liberal yet? Good. The whole thing is making me so grumpy, I think I need to go listen to some Tom Waits to cheer me up. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Some Thoughts on Creativity, Self-Indulgence, Art, Entertainment, and Popularity
No one responds to my music posts, but that's OK. In that way, they are my forays into "self-indulgence" - I do them because I want to - and I quite enjoy them, especially now as there is so much going on that is, frankly, worrisome.
Among the stupid things music critics throw around as a negative epithet is that this or that musician is "self-indulgent". The phrase, which I honestly profess not to understand in any negative way but, in fact, as a non-judgemental description of the activity of the best musicians, has become so common, musicians themselves use it. On Ken Burns' Jazz, Branford Marsalis calls Cecil Taylor's claim that listeners should practice before coming to one of his concerts "self-indulgent bullshit". In an interview recorded for a video-biography of the progressive rock band Yes, keyboardist Rick Wakeman admits that, during the bands prime years of the early 1970's, they probably did engage in "self-indulgence", and also calls the band "pompous in places". Jazz fusion keyboardist Jan Hammer, in liner notes to a re-issue of The Mahavishnu Orchestra's Birds of Fire LP says that the band members became "self-indulgent". I suppose I agree with Robert Fripp, who in the liner notes to one of the many releases and re-releases King Crimson has had over the past decade or so, wrote that self-indulgence is the cornerstone of creativity. Artists, whether painters, sculptures, writers, architects, or musicians, do what they do to please themselves, not others. The best art is honest art - art that comes from within, without any pretense or concern over acceptability or (God forbid) respectability.*
When you listen to Beethoven's fifth or sixth or ninth symphonies, you are listening to an artist thumbing his nose - or flipping the bird - to critics who, in the language of the day, called Beethoven "self-indulgent" for trying the patience of listeners with these long symphonies. There were conventions, there were rules, there was a structural order of melody, of harmony, of tempo, and of length, that Beethoven violated again and again.
In a different genre, but in a similar vein, when the Beatles produced
Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, they broke all the rules - the three minute pop song, the clean break between songs, the four-piece rock band playing a variation of the 12-bar blues. Of course, they had already pushed certain boundaries - the clarinet solo on "When I'm 64" is one tha tpops to mind immediately - but this went beyond all those limits.
Similarly, The Who, with time to spare in recording an album at about the same time, wrote and arranged and recorded a 12-minute song, "A Quick One While He's Away". This stunning violation of all that was holy, combined with the fearlessness that was Pete Townsend, led, eventually, to the rock operas Tommy and Quadrophenia and the failed avante-garde combination of rock, life, performance, and audience interaction, Lifehouse (the remnants were released as, arguably, one of the ten or twenty best rock albums of all times, Who's Next; even failures can be spectacular. To my mind, there are no wrong notes or bad or slow moments on that entire LP, an achievement Townsend reached only one other time, on his solo album Empty Glass).
The ultimate self-indulgent rock criminals were, of course, the British prog-rockers, most epsecially Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Yes, and King Crimson. ELP, with their arrangements of contemporary art music; Yes, with their arrangements that pulled in everything from TV music to Brahms' concertos to Hindu spirituality; Crimson with their apocalyptic visionary lyrics, their fusion-inspired heavy metal doubling and even tripling, and their long group improvs at concerts were the essence of all that was unholy in prog to critics who yearned for the simplicity (one could argue, especially in light of some of their more, ahem, racially insensitive comments on the blues and early rock and roll, the primitivism) of the two-and-a-half-minute, electrified blues.
Part of this criticism comes from an ignorance of something quite simple - those who think they are gate-keepers in art, any art, usually insist that there are rules. Music has to be in 2, 4, or at most a variation of 3 to be danceable. Songs have to be no longer than 3:00, 4:00 at the maximum; a ten-minute song is just too taxing for the average listenter. The blues is the basis of great American dance music, and must never be deviated from. Unfortunately, none of these are rules or laws, but only conventions that can be observed or not at the whim of the individual artist. One can listen to Tarkus, Tales From Topographic Oceans, and Larks Tongue in Aspic and accept them on their own terms, or reject them because they don't conform to what you perceive "true" rock or rock-n-roll should be. The problem, however, lies in the critic's obstuseness, not in any alleged "sin of self-indulgence" (to qutoe a Procol Harum song) in the musician.
This is not to say that those musicians and groups who are pushing the boundaries are so self-absorbed (which is not the same thing as self-indulgent) that they have no desire to reach people. They do. There is a difference between really good sex and masturbation, even though some of the sensations are the same. In the same vein, there is a difference between practicing and performing; there is also a difference between performing for an eager audience and performing for an audience that does not understand what you are doing. "Entertainment" is the belief that is is encumbent upon the artist to provide something for an audience - not just the music, but all the surrounding context, mood, atmosphere, an understanding of the music itself. Entertainment is what lazy people look for when they go to a nightclub or concert hall. "I want to be entertained" is one of the silliest, most vapid statements I can imagine, and I doubt there are too many musicians our there who believe it is their job to entertain anybody. They are to provide an experience - something to make you laugh, cry, get aroused, be joyful. Hopefully, the experience will be so exhilirating, you will come back for more. And spread the word.
This brings me to my last little contemplation. "Popularity" is something I find it almost impossible to understand. Prince, R Kelly, Usher - these men sell millions of records, sell out concerts, make some of the most interesting, most demanding, most boundary-pushing music around, and are almost totally ignored by the mainstream music press (of course, racism might have something to do with that, you think?). Gwen Stefani, Aaliyah, and Janet Jackson make some of the most derivative, over-produced and under-performed albums and are followed everywhere. Rush, Dream Theater, Pantera, and Tool sell millions of records, sell out concert tours, and are , again, ignored by critics, or treated as pariahs. Sheryl Crowe and Tori Amos write the same album over and over again - and are treated as "original artists". Of course, the one love-affair I have never understood is the critics passion for David Bowie, as big a pretentious, self-absorbed, poser as one could find; one who has admitted, incidentally, that he doesn't give a damn about music, but is only in it for the money.
Those whom critics love, and those whom the fans love, are not always in line. Sometimes it takes decades for a band to be recognized as truly great; it was thirty years before Rolling Stone actually did an in-depth story on Yes, admitting that there might be one or two moments on one or two of their albums worth listening to. On the other hand, the critical lines in the sand seem so rigid, that one doubts whether or not they will ever understand that art is not about boundaries and definitions, and definitely not about being popular. It is about honesty - and the most honest assesment of any artist comes from the reception among those (a) who understand what that artist is up to; and (b) those influenced by that artist to take the next logical step, advancing the conversation, as it were. To my mind, then, Black Sabbath is much bigger, much more important than any single recording Lou Reed ever made.
*This is not to say that musicians do not yearn for an audience. It is the kind of audience that is the question; do they or do they not understand what is being done and take it on something like its own terms.
Among the stupid things music critics throw around as a negative epithet is that this or that musician is "self-indulgent". The phrase, which I honestly profess not to understand in any negative way but, in fact, as a non-judgemental description of the activity of the best musicians, has become so common, musicians themselves use it. On Ken Burns' Jazz, Branford Marsalis calls Cecil Taylor's claim that listeners should practice before coming to one of his concerts "self-indulgent bullshit". In an interview recorded for a video-biography of the progressive rock band Yes, keyboardist Rick Wakeman admits that, during the bands prime years of the early 1970's, they probably did engage in "self-indulgence", and also calls the band "pompous in places". Jazz fusion keyboardist Jan Hammer, in liner notes to a re-issue of The Mahavishnu Orchestra's Birds of Fire LP says that the band members became "self-indulgent". I suppose I agree with Robert Fripp, who in the liner notes to one of the many releases and re-releases King Crimson has had over the past decade or so, wrote that self-indulgence is the cornerstone of creativity. Artists, whether painters, sculptures, writers, architects, or musicians, do what they do to please themselves, not others. The best art is honest art - art that comes from within, without any pretense or concern over acceptability or (God forbid) respectability.*
When you listen to Beethoven's fifth or sixth or ninth symphonies, you are listening to an artist thumbing his nose - or flipping the bird - to critics who, in the language of the day, called Beethoven "self-indulgent" for trying the patience of listeners with these long symphonies. There were conventions, there were rules, there was a structural order of melody, of harmony, of tempo, and of length, that Beethoven violated again and again.
In a different genre, but in a similar vein, when the Beatles produced
Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, they broke all the rules - the three minute pop song, the clean break between songs, the four-piece rock band playing a variation of the 12-bar blues. Of course, they had already pushed certain boundaries - the clarinet solo on "When I'm 64" is one tha tpops to mind immediately - but this went beyond all those limits.
Similarly, The Who, with time to spare in recording an album at about the same time, wrote and arranged and recorded a 12-minute song, "A Quick One While He's Away". This stunning violation of all that was holy, combined with the fearlessness that was Pete Townsend, led, eventually, to the rock operas Tommy and Quadrophenia and the failed avante-garde combination of rock, life, performance, and audience interaction, Lifehouse (the remnants were released as, arguably, one of the ten or twenty best rock albums of all times, Who's Next; even failures can be spectacular. To my mind, there are no wrong notes or bad or slow moments on that entire LP, an achievement Townsend reached only one other time, on his solo album Empty Glass).
The ultimate self-indulgent rock criminals were, of course, the British prog-rockers, most epsecially Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Yes, and King Crimson. ELP, with their arrangements of contemporary art music; Yes, with their arrangements that pulled in everything from TV music to Brahms' concertos to Hindu spirituality; Crimson with their apocalyptic visionary lyrics, their fusion-inspired heavy metal doubling and even tripling, and their long group improvs at concerts were the essence of all that was unholy in prog to critics who yearned for the simplicity (one could argue, especially in light of some of their more, ahem, racially insensitive comments on the blues and early rock and roll, the primitivism) of the two-and-a-half-minute, electrified blues.
Part of this criticism comes from an ignorance of something quite simple - those who think they are gate-keepers in art, any art, usually insist that there are rules. Music has to be in 2, 4, or at most a variation of 3 to be danceable. Songs have to be no longer than 3:00, 4:00 at the maximum; a ten-minute song is just too taxing for the average listenter. The blues is the basis of great American dance music, and must never be deviated from. Unfortunately, none of these are rules or laws, but only conventions that can be observed or not at the whim of the individual artist. One can listen to Tarkus, Tales From Topographic Oceans, and Larks Tongue in Aspic and accept them on their own terms, or reject them because they don't conform to what you perceive "true" rock or rock-n-roll should be. The problem, however, lies in the critic's obstuseness, not in any alleged "sin of self-indulgence" (to qutoe a Procol Harum song) in the musician.
This is not to say that those musicians and groups who are pushing the boundaries are so self-absorbed (which is not the same thing as self-indulgent) that they have no desire to reach people. They do. There is a difference between really good sex and masturbation, even though some of the sensations are the same. In the same vein, there is a difference between practicing and performing; there is also a difference between performing for an eager audience and performing for an audience that does not understand what you are doing. "Entertainment" is the belief that is is encumbent upon the artist to provide something for an audience - not just the music, but all the surrounding context, mood, atmosphere, an understanding of the music itself. Entertainment is what lazy people look for when they go to a nightclub or concert hall. "I want to be entertained" is one of the silliest, most vapid statements I can imagine, and I doubt there are too many musicians our there who believe it is their job to entertain anybody. They are to provide an experience - something to make you laugh, cry, get aroused, be joyful. Hopefully, the experience will be so exhilirating, you will come back for more. And spread the word.
This brings me to my last little contemplation. "Popularity" is something I find it almost impossible to understand. Prince, R Kelly, Usher - these men sell millions of records, sell out concerts, make some of the most interesting, most demanding, most boundary-pushing music around, and are almost totally ignored by the mainstream music press (of course, racism might have something to do with that, you think?). Gwen Stefani, Aaliyah, and Janet Jackson make some of the most derivative, over-produced and under-performed albums and are followed everywhere. Rush, Dream Theater, Pantera, and Tool sell millions of records, sell out concert tours, and are , again, ignored by critics, or treated as pariahs. Sheryl Crowe and Tori Amos write the same album over and over again - and are treated as "original artists". Of course, the one love-affair I have never understood is the critics passion for David Bowie, as big a pretentious, self-absorbed, poser as one could find; one who has admitted, incidentally, that he doesn't give a damn about music, but is only in it for the money.
Those whom critics love, and those whom the fans love, are not always in line. Sometimes it takes decades for a band to be recognized as truly great; it was thirty years before Rolling Stone actually did an in-depth story on Yes, admitting that there might be one or two moments on one or two of their albums worth listening to. On the other hand, the critical lines in the sand seem so rigid, that one doubts whether or not they will ever understand that art is not about boundaries and definitions, and definitely not about being popular. It is about honesty - and the most honest assesment of any artist comes from the reception among those (a) who understand what that artist is up to; and (b) those influenced by that artist to take the next logical step, advancing the conversation, as it were. To my mind, then, Black Sabbath is much bigger, much more important than any single recording Lou Reed ever made.
*This is not to say that musicians do not yearn for an audience. It is the kind of audience that is the question; do they or do they not understand what is being done and take it on something like its own terms.
More on Iran
As per yesterday's post, it is encumbent upon us to KEEP THE PRESSURE ON. In that vein, I have the following links for your consideration:
Talking Points Memo - here, here, and here.
The Incomparable Digby - here, here, here, and here.
Alternet.org has a story here.
Of all these links, the two most interesting are one from Joshua Marshall at TPM, in which he mentions the incoherence on a confrontational approach to Iran, and some sort of regional strategic alliance with the Saudis when it would be much more in our interest to do the opposite, espcially given (a) a preponderance of the historical and current evidence linking Saudi nationals and groups with links to the Saudi royal family to continued violence against Americans; and (b) a rational consideration of our national self-interest. This being the Bush Administration, doing the opposite is, of course, de rigeuer . . .
The other interesting item, at Hullabaloo, is one that suggests that, rather than concentrating their ire and an attempt at some kind of showdown with the Administration of Iraq policy, it might be encumbent upon Congress to make their stand - and make it NOW rather than attempt to do so after the planes are flying and people are dying - on any attempt at military action against Iran. I would concur wholeheartedly with this statement.
In reference to a comment on yesterday's post, a military coup is indeed one of the many nightmare scenarios I have kept myself awake with over the past months, as the generals take a stand against the reckless and feckless destruction and endangerment of our troops. Such a move would, I think, be like political chemotherapy - it would be worse than the disease. Of course, it might be that we are running out of options, especially as members of the Administration feel themselves even more constrained than usual, their collective backs against the wall, as it were. The fact that (a) such a nightmare scenario is entering our minds; and (b) being discussed by two generally rational people, shows just how desperate the situation in becoming. We need to act. We need to act now.
Talking Points Memo - here, here, and here.
The Incomparable Digby - here, here, here, and here.
Alternet.org has a story here.
Of all these links, the two most interesting are one from Joshua Marshall at TPM, in which he mentions the incoherence on a confrontational approach to Iran, and some sort of regional strategic alliance with the Saudis when it would be much more in our interest to do the opposite, espcially given (a) a preponderance of the historical and current evidence linking Saudi nationals and groups with links to the Saudi royal family to continued violence against Americans; and (b) a rational consideration of our national self-interest. This being the Bush Administration, doing the opposite is, of course, de rigeuer . . .
The other interesting item, at Hullabaloo, is one that suggests that, rather than concentrating their ire and an attempt at some kind of showdown with the Administration of Iraq policy, it might be encumbent upon Congress to make their stand - and make it NOW rather than attempt to do so after the planes are flying and people are dying - on any attempt at military action against Iran. I would concur wholeheartedly with this statement.
In reference to a comment on yesterday's post, a military coup is indeed one of the many nightmare scenarios I have kept myself awake with over the past months, as the generals take a stand against the reckless and feckless destruction and endangerment of our troops. Such a move would, I think, be like political chemotherapy - it would be worse than the disease. Of course, it might be that we are running out of options, especially as members of the Administration feel themselves even more constrained than usual, their collective backs against the wall, as it were. The fact that (a) such a nightmare scenario is entering our minds; and (b) being discussed by two generally rational people, shows just how desperate the situation in becoming. We need to act. We need to act now.
Where Democracy Lover & I Will Definitely Agree
I had first heard of this particular brouhaha last fall, but now, according to Crooks & Liars, ths case of a teacher in New Jersey has taken a turn for the bizarre. A student who taped a teacher prattling on about certain whacky religious views when that teacher should have been teaching, you know, science and stuff (the student did that because no one in the Administration would take the boy's word over the teachers; so he's a liar and loony), is now being punished for bringing the situation to light. Taping teachers is no longer allowed in that school district.
Were I a parent in that school district - you know I can't even begin to write, because my blood boils at (a) the situation itself; (b) the perfidy and cowardice of the Administration and school board for not firing this guy's ass; (c) creating a false debate over "rights" and "freedom" when what is at issue is professional integrity and honesty. The teacher in question needs to be fired NOW, and perhaps having his professional credentials revoked (is that even possible?) so that he can never teach in public shcools again (if he wants to teach in some religious-based schools, fine, although I think there might be a certain question of his moral character as, when first questioned about the incident, he LIED). The school board needs to publicly apologize to the student who called the teacher out, that student's family, and all those who support him; apparently the teacher in question is quite popular (why? he tells kids fairy tales and that they are going to hell!) and the student who made the tape has received a whole lot of flak from other students.
I think DL & I would be together on this one. This nutbag has no place teaching student in a public school; the sitting school board members need to be replaced as soon as possible, to reflect a bit more, ahem, spine and testicular fortitude.
Were I a parent in that school district - you know I can't even begin to write, because my blood boils at (a) the situation itself; (b) the perfidy and cowardice of the Administration and school board for not firing this guy's ass; (c) creating a false debate over "rights" and "freedom" when what is at issue is professional integrity and honesty. The teacher in question needs to be fired NOW, and perhaps having his professional credentials revoked (is that even possible?) so that he can never teach in public shcools again (if he wants to teach in some religious-based schools, fine, although I think there might be a certain question of his moral character as, when first questioned about the incident, he LIED). The school board needs to publicly apologize to the student who called the teacher out, that student's family, and all those who support him; apparently the teacher in question is quite popular (why? he tells kids fairy tales and that they are going to hell!) and the student who made the tape has received a whole lot of flak from other students.
I think DL & I would be together on this one. This nutbag has no place teaching student in a public school; the sitting school board members need to be replaced as soon as possible, to reflect a bit more, ahem, spine and testicular fortitude.
Friday, February 02, 2007
In response to Democracy Lover's comments, I offer the following points.
1) You want to argue that I am not addressing the central issue - viz., whether children are "endangered" by the teaching that evolution is not only wrong but evil - by bringing up questions of what constitutes scientific "truth". My point is that such a question gets to the heart of the issue. It is one thing to argue that, by failing to provide a proper scientific educatino for their children, parents are doing demonstrable harm to their children, and that it is encumbent upon the state to intervene for the sake of the children. This position, however, begs the questions which I shall raise again, concerning (a) the precise definition and general understanding of science, and the status of scientific findings as truth; (b) which theoretical and practical scientific truths are given sanction and which are not, and are therefore liable for state intervention; (c) what occurs when there are changes not only in theory but in scientific practice that falsify previously held scientific "truths". For all practical purposes, these are issues that would have to be decided upon before any kind of serious state intervention could be undertaken.
2) You argue that science has a "method" that arrives as truth, while religion does not. You argue that science changes and religion does not. Both of these statements are demonstrably false for a variety of reasons. Just for one instance, as you seem to vent your anger at fundamentalism, it is important to udnerstand that it is a very, very recent development in the history of Christianity, only codified towards the end of the 19th century, and set forth definitively in the first decade of the 20th. There is no monolithic "Christianity", not even a monolithic "evangelicalism". Christianity is as varied and variegated as there are times and places, societies, cultures, languages, and ways of thought. Surviving documents from 8th century China show a vigorous Christian community in the Middle Kingdom that discussed Christian theology in terms far different from the Platonic-Aristotelianism of the Mediterranean. Coptic and Syriac Christianity is still vastly different from either Roman Catholocism or the various Orthodox churches. I have not even begun to mention all the nuance of the various Protestant churches.
As for what we currently call the scientific method, it is just the latest development - hardly a timeless truth - in an ongoing process of trying to figure out a way of describing the world around us that is open to as many people as possible. It is in fashion, and has been so for a century or so, not because the teachings of science correspond to the way the world "really is", but because it works well. When it fails to work, when it no longer provides descirptions of the world that work, it will be replpaced by something else that does. Medieval science was just that; ancient science was just that. Simply because it is different from what we today commonly call science in no way justifies us dismissing it as not science. It was science because it was a way people used to try and figure out the world around them, and it worked for them. That's it, and that's all.
3) In the 1920's, as he was solidifying his hold on the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin declared that Darwinian evolution was antithetical to Marxist teachings, because it did not account for the possibility of "revolutionary" change. Darwin's books were banned, and Lamarckian evolution through the inheritance of acquired characteristics replaced it. Those who taught Darwin were arrested. Ther results, as history has shown, were catastrophic from a humanitarian point of view.
I bring this up to make the following point. One can argue that the Soviet agricultural disaster was a result of ignoring the "truth" of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwin, however, did not discount the possibility of inheriting acquired characteristics. Rather, he argued that change occurred slowly, over a vast expanse of time. He had no idea of genetics, the actual bio-chemical mechanism of biological change; nor did he articulate clearly what became more clear in the mid-60's "synthesis" Ernst Mayr and others worked out between genetics and evolutionary theory (it is forgotten that the two theories, Darwinian evolution and Mendellian genetics were theoretically incompatible until this synthesis occurred, changing both evolutionary theory and genetics) that evolution occurs both within individuals and within whole populations. Darwin was also an avowed racist (read The Voyage of the Beagle, a gossipy mid-Victorian travelogue chock full of horrid tidbits about our brown and black brothers and sisters), and a grand supporter of eugenics. In other words, Darwin was as wrong as he was right, and it has been constant scrutiny and questioning that has created our current evolutionary theory that uses certain Darwinian terms but is far from the original teaching in On the Origin of Species Through Natural Selection.
By refusing to remain open to any and all possibilities, by adhering to a strict scientific orthodoxy based upon previously held political and social commitments, Stalin doomed millions of Ukrainians and Russians to death by starvation. It was not because he chose the "wrong" science, but because this commitment was a small part of a much larger totalitarian scheme that stifled political, social, and intellectual life. My objection to your argument in your post, DL, is not based upon a disagreement over the question of creationism versus evolution, but the insistence that the state enforce conformity to any orthodoxy of any kind - political, religious, social, or scientific. That road is far too dangerous a road down which to travel.
To quote Arthur C. Clarke, I do not care what scientific perversions people practice in their own homes, as long as they do not force others to accept them through the power of the state (from a collection of non-fiction essays entitled Spring, 1984). I am appalled at the poor level of scientific education in this country, and the constant interference local school districts face when attempting to teach things like geology and biology from people whose religious sensibilities are offended. I would much rather school boards gained spines and told these people to yank their little kiddies out and home-school them if they don't like science being taught, but otherwise to please chut up and go away.
This does not mean, however, I would countenance the school board, the local municipality, or any other state agency move to restrict the way these children are taught outside the school room, because that is as unwarranted an interference as the other, and much more dangerous, not for the children, but for our whole society.
1) You want to argue that I am not addressing the central issue - viz., whether children are "endangered" by the teaching that evolution is not only wrong but evil - by bringing up questions of what constitutes scientific "truth". My point is that such a question gets to the heart of the issue. It is one thing to argue that, by failing to provide a proper scientific educatino for their children, parents are doing demonstrable harm to their children, and that it is encumbent upon the state to intervene for the sake of the children. This position, however, begs the questions which I shall raise again, concerning (a) the precise definition and general understanding of science, and the status of scientific findings as truth; (b) which theoretical and practical scientific truths are given sanction and which are not, and are therefore liable for state intervention; (c) what occurs when there are changes not only in theory but in scientific practice that falsify previously held scientific "truths". For all practical purposes, these are issues that would have to be decided upon before any kind of serious state intervention could be undertaken.
2) You argue that science has a "method" that arrives as truth, while religion does not. You argue that science changes and religion does not. Both of these statements are demonstrably false for a variety of reasons. Just for one instance, as you seem to vent your anger at fundamentalism, it is important to udnerstand that it is a very, very recent development in the history of Christianity, only codified towards the end of the 19th century, and set forth definitively in the first decade of the 20th. There is no monolithic "Christianity", not even a monolithic "evangelicalism". Christianity is as varied and variegated as there are times and places, societies, cultures, languages, and ways of thought. Surviving documents from 8th century China show a vigorous Christian community in the Middle Kingdom that discussed Christian theology in terms far different from the Platonic-Aristotelianism of the Mediterranean. Coptic and Syriac Christianity is still vastly different from either Roman Catholocism or the various Orthodox churches. I have not even begun to mention all the nuance of the various Protestant churches.
As for what we currently call the scientific method, it is just the latest development - hardly a timeless truth - in an ongoing process of trying to figure out a way of describing the world around us that is open to as many people as possible. It is in fashion, and has been so for a century or so, not because the teachings of science correspond to the way the world "really is", but because it works well. When it fails to work, when it no longer provides descirptions of the world that work, it will be replpaced by something else that does. Medieval science was just that; ancient science was just that. Simply because it is different from what we today commonly call science in no way justifies us dismissing it as not science. It was science because it was a way people used to try and figure out the world around them, and it worked for them. That's it, and that's all.
3) In the 1920's, as he was solidifying his hold on the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin declared that Darwinian evolution was antithetical to Marxist teachings, because it did not account for the possibility of "revolutionary" change. Darwin's books were banned, and Lamarckian evolution through the inheritance of acquired characteristics replaced it. Those who taught Darwin were arrested. Ther results, as history has shown, were catastrophic from a humanitarian point of view.
I bring this up to make the following point. One can argue that the Soviet agricultural disaster was a result of ignoring the "truth" of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwin, however, did not discount the possibility of inheriting acquired characteristics. Rather, he argued that change occurred slowly, over a vast expanse of time. He had no idea of genetics, the actual bio-chemical mechanism of biological change; nor did he articulate clearly what became more clear in the mid-60's "synthesis" Ernst Mayr and others worked out between genetics and evolutionary theory (it is forgotten that the two theories, Darwinian evolution and Mendellian genetics were theoretically incompatible until this synthesis occurred, changing both evolutionary theory and genetics) that evolution occurs both within individuals and within whole populations. Darwin was also an avowed racist (read The Voyage of the Beagle, a gossipy mid-Victorian travelogue chock full of horrid tidbits about our brown and black brothers and sisters), and a grand supporter of eugenics. In other words, Darwin was as wrong as he was right, and it has been constant scrutiny and questioning that has created our current evolutionary theory that uses certain Darwinian terms but is far from the original teaching in On the Origin of Species Through Natural Selection.
By refusing to remain open to any and all possibilities, by adhering to a strict scientific orthodoxy based upon previously held political and social commitments, Stalin doomed millions of Ukrainians and Russians to death by starvation. It was not because he chose the "wrong" science, but because this commitment was a small part of a much larger totalitarian scheme that stifled political, social, and intellectual life. My objection to your argument in your post, DL, is not based upon a disagreement over the question of creationism versus evolution, but the insistence that the state enforce conformity to any orthodoxy of any kind - political, religious, social, or scientific. That road is far too dangerous a road down which to travel.
To quote Arthur C. Clarke, I do not care what scientific perversions people practice in their own homes, as long as they do not force others to accept them through the power of the state (from a collection of non-fiction essays entitled Spring, 1984). I am appalled at the poor level of scientific education in this country, and the constant interference local school districts face when attempting to teach things like geology and biology from people whose religious sensibilities are offended. I would much rather school boards gained spines and told these people to yank their little kiddies out and home-school them if they don't like science being taught, but otherwise to please chut up and go away.
This does not mean, however, I would countenance the school board, the local municipality, or any other state agency move to restrict the way these children are taught outside the school room, because that is as unwarranted an interference as the other, and much more dangerous, not for the children, but for our whole society.
Thinking the Unthinkable
I am having multiple types of computer problems, so I didn't get a chance to do much of anything yesterday. Damn machines! Things seem OK right now, and I wanted to get this item in before I respond at length to Democracy Lover's comments on my previous post.
We are entering nightmare country here. The Bush Administration is ramping up the rhetoric against Iran. They are claiming Iranian repsonsibility for the attack last week in which five American service personnel were kidnapped and later found executed on the side of a road. They are insisting that a porous Iran-Iraq border is responsible for all the weapons and "foreign fighters" in Iraq. American troops now have ROE that allow them to "kill" "Iranians found in Iraq. We have not one but two Carrier Battle Groups in the Persian Gulf (I hope all those Tomcats don't crash into one another!). It goes on and on and on and on . . .
There are many reasons why this increasing belligerence toward Iran, despite its very public nature, is below the radar screen - Iraq is, in the words of Sen. Arlen Specter, "sucking the oxygen from everything else"; there is a power struggle, going on day after day in Washington, as to who is in charge, and right now, no one is winning; the struggle for power in Washington is a great distraction for the Bush Administration, because it allows them to move unnoticed. The biggest reason, however, is that I think so many Americans refuse to believe that the Administration would be so unbelievably stupid as to begin even an air war against Iran when things in Iraq are such a bloody mess. The whole south-eastern and southern Asian area could completely unravel, sparking a real war of Islam against the United States, and we simply do not have the resources or the will to continue in Iraq, let alone such a conflict. Of course, America has nukes, but so does Pakistan (who could not stay out of such a conflict if it expanded).
Speaking of nukes, does anyone really want to wake up tomorrow and read the United States decided to drop a few nukes on Iranian targets? What kind of response do you think that would receive around the world?
I will admit that, while I saw the signs as long ago as seven months, I refused to believe that an Administration as unbelievably stupid and incompetent as the one we now have would try the same tired trick and get people to fall for it. I also thought that, with all the evidence showing we were breaking the military months ago, they would abandon the plan because they were unrealistic from a logistical point of view. Because of the multiple horrors of such a potential scenario - constitutional crises of various types, nuclear weapons use, a real war with real, horrific consequences for the United States - I just closed my eyes and siad, "They simply won't be that dumb."
I think that position was common, and we are paying a price for a refusal to read the signs properly. I think we have to start yesterday to ensure that the Bush Administration does NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SO MUCH AS TOSS A PEBBLE UPON IRANIAN SOIL AND THAT IF IT DOES SOMETHING, ANYTHING (fart in its general direction, as the Pythons said), ALL OF 'EM, FROM BUSH ON DOWN, GET HAULED OUT OF OFFICE BEFORE THE FIRST SYLLABLE OF THE WORD IMPEACHMENT IS SOUNDED.
We have to start thinking the unthinkable in all sorts of areas, before it is too late.
We are entering nightmare country here. The Bush Administration is ramping up the rhetoric against Iran. They are claiming Iranian repsonsibility for the attack last week in which five American service personnel were kidnapped and later found executed on the side of a road. They are insisting that a porous Iran-Iraq border is responsible for all the weapons and "foreign fighters" in Iraq. American troops now have ROE that allow them to "kill" "Iranians found in Iraq. We have not one but two Carrier Battle Groups in the Persian Gulf (I hope all those Tomcats don't crash into one another!). It goes on and on and on and on . . .
There are many reasons why this increasing belligerence toward Iran, despite its very public nature, is below the radar screen - Iraq is, in the words of Sen. Arlen Specter, "sucking the oxygen from everything else"; there is a power struggle, going on day after day in Washington, as to who is in charge, and right now, no one is winning; the struggle for power in Washington is a great distraction for the Bush Administration, because it allows them to move unnoticed. The biggest reason, however, is that I think so many Americans refuse to believe that the Administration would be so unbelievably stupid as to begin even an air war against Iran when things in Iraq are such a bloody mess. The whole south-eastern and southern Asian area could completely unravel, sparking a real war of Islam against the United States, and we simply do not have the resources or the will to continue in Iraq, let alone such a conflict. Of course, America has nukes, but so does Pakistan (who could not stay out of such a conflict if it expanded).
Speaking of nukes, does anyone really want to wake up tomorrow and read the United States decided to drop a few nukes on Iranian targets? What kind of response do you think that would receive around the world?
I will admit that, while I saw the signs as long ago as seven months, I refused to believe that an Administration as unbelievably stupid and incompetent as the one we now have would try the same tired trick and get people to fall for it. I also thought that, with all the evidence showing we were breaking the military months ago, they would abandon the plan because they were unrealistic from a logistical point of view. Because of the multiple horrors of such a potential scenario - constitutional crises of various types, nuclear weapons use, a real war with real, horrific consequences for the United States - I just closed my eyes and siad, "They simply won't be that dumb."
I think that position was common, and we are paying a price for a refusal to read the signs properly. I think we have to start yesterday to ensure that the Bush Administration does NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SO MUCH AS TOSS A PEBBLE UPON IRANIAN SOIL AND THAT IF IT DOES SOMETHING, ANYTHING (fart in its general direction, as the Pythons said), ALL OF 'EM, FROM BUSH ON DOWN, GET HAULED OUT OF OFFICE BEFORE THE FIRST SYLLABLE OF THE WORD IMPEACHMENT IS SOUNDED.
We have to start thinking the unthinkable in all sorts of areas, before it is too late.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Liberal Thought Police
Frequent commenter, friend, and fellow Blogger blogger Democracy Lover has a post in which he waaxes indiginantly concerning parents teaching their children, not only that creationism is true, but that evolution is an evil, Satanic plot to destroy true American Christian living. Indignant that such is occuring, he insists not only that such teaching be banned, but that those responsible be arrested. The children, apparently, will be turned over to those better suited for caring for their inellectual and emotional health.
Such thinking is antithetical to eveything I believe and profess; thought police are thought police, whether I happen to agree with them or not. Hiding behind children is not only tired, it is old, and has a deadly history. Josef Stalin used the same excuse to endourage children to denounce their teachers, neighbors, even their parents to authorities.
I have a question for DL: Since what has constituted "scientific turth" has changed, and continues to change, at a drastic pace, which such version is acceptable? Is Newtonian physics outlawed because it is wrong? Do we ban Einstein, or perhaps Heisenberg, because they contracdict one another? Do we adhere to Darwin, Ernst Mayr, or Watson and Crick? What questions are legitimate questions, and which are unacceptable? Since science lives and breathes through the vigorous and open debate of ideas, even the theoretical foundations of all we hold to be true, what practical limits do we place upon what is, and is not, science? Again, who decides? Do we hide scientific debate entirely, because such debate may be poorly understood by children?
In the comments section of the post in question, Darrell claims that the First Amendment does not protect parents who lie to their children. So . . . half of American parents should be indicted because of the whole Santa Claus thing, I guess. Or is lying about Santa OK, but not about evolution. Of course, then we are back to the question of what standard we use to figure out what is a "lie" and what is not.
The First Amendment overs everyone, even those we find abhorrent - the Klan, Sparatacists, Joe Klein - and I will defend these and myriad others in their right to teach and live their lives the way they want to. Freedom is hard. America is hard. Legally enforced orthodoxy of any kind is antithetical to the spirit of the American constitution. Liberal thought police are as bad as conservative thought police. Thuggery is thuggery, even if I happen to agree with the thugs in question.
Such thinking is antithetical to eveything I believe and profess; thought police are thought police, whether I happen to agree with them or not. Hiding behind children is not only tired, it is old, and has a deadly history. Josef Stalin used the same excuse to endourage children to denounce their teachers, neighbors, even their parents to authorities.
I have a question for DL: Since what has constituted "scientific turth" has changed, and continues to change, at a drastic pace, which such version is acceptable? Is Newtonian physics outlawed because it is wrong? Do we ban Einstein, or perhaps Heisenberg, because they contracdict one another? Do we adhere to Darwin, Ernst Mayr, or Watson and Crick? What questions are legitimate questions, and which are unacceptable? Since science lives and breathes through the vigorous and open debate of ideas, even the theoretical foundations of all we hold to be true, what practical limits do we place upon what is, and is not, science? Again, who decides? Do we hide scientific debate entirely, because such debate may be poorly understood by children?
In the comments section of the post in question, Darrell claims that the First Amendment does not protect parents who lie to their children. So . . . half of American parents should be indicted because of the whole Santa Claus thing, I guess. Or is lying about Santa OK, but not about evolution. Of course, then we are back to the question of what standard we use to figure out what is a "lie" and what is not.
The First Amendment overs everyone, even those we find abhorrent - the Klan, Sparatacists, Joe Klein - and I will defend these and myriad others in their right to teach and live their lives the way they want to. Freedom is hard. America is hard. Legally enforced orthodoxy of any kind is antithetical to the spirit of the American constitution. Liberal thought police are as bad as conservative thought police. Thuggery is thuggery, even if I happen to agree with the thugs in question.
It's official: We are a Third World Country; Thank You, George W. Bush
First it was the revelation of signing statements, then warrantless wiretapping. Then, of course, there was the idiotic hyping of "the Commander-in-Chief". Of course, now that Congress is in the hands of Democrats, Bush has decided to rule by decree. The nail in the coffin, as it were, is the revelation of massive waste and fraud in Iraq reconstruction. That this last item was predicted years ago - remember the no-bid contracts with Halliburton and Bechtel? - does not render it any less saddening and maddening. Along with these political developments, there is the increasing socio-economic stratification at home, as the middle-class continues to whither, struggling to maintain a standard of living and hopes for their lives and the lives of their children a previous generation took for granted (it appears the dream of a college education for whoever wants it is as dead as many other dreams).
You know, David Broder whined about Clinton "trashing the place", meaning official and social Washington. Will he whine about Bush trashing an antire country? It will take years, perhaps deacades, to undo the damage Bush has done to the United States, its social and economic infrastructure, its military, its reputation abroad, and the sense of pride and well-being Americans have always held about their homeland. Like James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Ulysees Grant, and Warren Harding, Bush is headed for a small "Z"-list of "Worst President Ever". Personally, I think he should top that list; we had further to fall than before, but Bush managed it in just a few short years.
You know, David Broder whined about Clinton "trashing the place", meaning official and social Washington. Will he whine about Bush trashing an antire country? It will take years, perhaps deacades, to undo the damage Bush has done to the United States, its social and economic infrastructure, its military, its reputation abroad, and the sense of pride and well-being Americans have always held about their homeland. Like James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Ulysees Grant, and Warren Harding, Bush is headed for a small "Z"-list of "Worst President Ever". Personally, I think he should top that list; we had further to fall than before, but Bush managed it in just a few short years.
Americans On Trial
Glenn Greenwald has the skinny on Germany and Italy indicting Americans for the "extraordinary rendition" (a fancy, nonsensical bit of jargon for kidnapping) of their citizens, which resulted in them being held without charge, and tortured in some country or other. I find it fascinating that Bush "unsigned" the US from the International Criminal Court because Americans were not exempt from indictment and/or prosecution. Apparently it never occurred to him that there were national laws on the books as well that could very well be used to hold Americans accountable for illegalities. I know there are some out there who find tthis kind of thing enraging - how dare these non-Americans actually take action against Americans and America? - but I am surely not one of them. The more indictments the better - Henry Kissinger is long overdue for a day in court - and keep them coming, I say. When Americans break the law, they should be punished - or is law and order only for those of the wrong color or class?
At the end of the Second World War, the United States, under the leadership of Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, led the way in creating an international legal standard, both of precedent and enforcement, in which citizens of individual nation-states would be held accountable for illegal acts. Along with all the other destruction wrought by the Bush Administration, it seems this heritage, of which we should be inordinately proud, has also been pissed away.*
I have been wondering, for the past year or so, how other countries would begin to take a stand against the United States, the biggest, most dangerous rouge nation in the world, and have feared more than I care to admit, that military action would be the answer. It is a good thing to see that it is legal action, subpoenas and indictments, rather than armies and bullets, that will be used to bring us to heel.
*I am well aware that the United States, and most other countries as well, have violated various of the Nuremberg Standards. The principle, however, has rarely been ignored as extraordinarily as it has been under Bush.
At the end of the Second World War, the United States, under the leadership of Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, led the way in creating an international legal standard, both of precedent and enforcement, in which citizens of individual nation-states would be held accountable for illegal acts. Along with all the other destruction wrought by the Bush Administration, it seems this heritage, of which we should be inordinately proud, has also been pissed away.*
I have been wondering, for the past year or so, how other countries would begin to take a stand against the United States, the biggest, most dangerous rouge nation in the world, and have feared more than I care to admit, that military action would be the answer. It is a good thing to see that it is legal action, subpoenas and indictments, rather than armies and bullets, that will be used to bring us to heel.
*I am well aware that the United States, and most other countries as well, have violated various of the Nuremberg Standards. The principle, however, has rarely been ignored as extraordinarily as it has been under Bush.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Politics of Science in and Anti-Scientific Administration
Think Progress.org is on the case as Henry Waxman's Oversight committee shines a light into some dim, dark, rarely observed corners of the Bush Presidency here, here, and here. Of course, this is not "news" because I remember, years ago, articles in The Nation (to which I no longer subscribe for a vareity of reasons; originally it was a temporary money problem) in which scientists were complaining about the Bush Administration working to edit and manipulate scientific data to serve partisan or ideological ends. I thought then that this was such a minor complaint that it was hardly worth discussing. While troubling, certainly, it was hardly an issue to excite the public.
The preoponderance of the evidence, however, makes the issue no longer just one among many outrages of the Administration. They refuse to discuss the geological age of the Grand Canyon; they block stem-cell research funding; they try to come-up with science-fiction-inspired methods for blocking sunlight (which proves a point I have long held that too much immersion in science fiction creates an anti-scientific world-view); they manipulate debate on global warming. All of these pieces, taken together, show an Administration dangerously close to the Soveit Union's refusal to adhere to Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. Famously, Josef Stalin argued that Lamarckin evolution and genetics was more in keeping with Marxist-Leninist principles, and therefore forced Soveit agriculture to work on Lamarckian principles. The result, of course, was wide-spread crop-failure and the concomitant repeated famines in the Unkranian breadbasket, exacerbated by the forced relocation of the traditional field workers, the kulaks. Adherence to bad science led to horrific results.
I do not believe for an isntant that Bush, Cheney, or most of those in the Administration care a fig one way or another about questions about science versus religion or other such issues. Their hostility to global warming is expedient, as they choose to support a position that helps their cronies in the energy industry. They refuse to discuss stem-cell resarch and block discussions of geological time because it appeases their fundy-Christian base. They are hostile to science for immediate political gain. Period.
The problem, of course, is that such immediate political gain is undermined by the long-term implications of ignoring scientific research because it may cause political problems down the road. As long as we refuse to discuss, coherently and with a full accounting for all relevant scientific materials, global warming, we continue to make the problem worse. Interestingly, an oil-friendly group of politicos who adhere to creationism will find it difficult actually to find oil, because one needs to understand geology - real geology, not faith-based geology - in order to find it and then get to it, so, at least in this case, we have a potential scenario in which the Administration ends up at loggerheads with itself.
The political manipulation of scientific data is a dangerous road down which to travel. Science deals with discreet phenomena, open to public scrutiny, debate, and possible refutation. Politics deals with power, an aspect of which is controlling information. Completely open and public discussion of scientific matters can be detrimental to those who wish to control information in order to serve limited, political ends. We have a history in this country, at least since the Second World War, of open access to all but the most sensitive scientific information. We also have a history as a leader of scientific and engineering education. Sixtty-odd years of greatness is being pissed away by a small group that wishes to control information for partisan political purposes. Our country's reputation, its strength, its future is endangered by those who would suppress scientific data because it contradicts their political views or those of their supporters. Like WMDs in Iraq, the whole "war on terror", missile defense systems that don't work, and a whole host of other things, we have an Administration that is suite simply incapable of dealing with reality or the truth. The manipulation of science and scientific information is a special case of a much larger problem of having a truth-challenged group in power who believe that it is possible to force reality to fit their pre-conceived ideas through the simple manipulation of information. The result is the mess we have right now in our country - an Administration at war with reailty.
We need to rescue ourselves from the delusion that is the Bush Administration. Part of that process should be opening up previously closed windows and doors, and discussing scientific matters on their own terms, free from the manipulations and machinations of those afraid of reality.
The preoponderance of the evidence, however, makes the issue no longer just one among many outrages of the Administration. They refuse to discuss the geological age of the Grand Canyon; they block stem-cell research funding; they try to come-up with science-fiction-inspired methods for blocking sunlight (which proves a point I have long held that too much immersion in science fiction creates an anti-scientific world-view); they manipulate debate on global warming. All of these pieces, taken together, show an Administration dangerously close to the Soveit Union's refusal to adhere to Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. Famously, Josef Stalin argued that Lamarckin evolution and genetics was more in keeping with Marxist-Leninist principles, and therefore forced Soveit agriculture to work on Lamarckian principles. The result, of course, was wide-spread crop-failure and the concomitant repeated famines in the Unkranian breadbasket, exacerbated by the forced relocation of the traditional field workers, the kulaks. Adherence to bad science led to horrific results.
I do not believe for an isntant that Bush, Cheney, or most of those in the Administration care a fig one way or another about questions about science versus religion or other such issues. Their hostility to global warming is expedient, as they choose to support a position that helps their cronies in the energy industry. They refuse to discuss stem-cell resarch and block discussions of geological time because it appeases their fundy-Christian base. They are hostile to science for immediate political gain. Period.
The problem, of course, is that such immediate political gain is undermined by the long-term implications of ignoring scientific research because it may cause political problems down the road. As long as we refuse to discuss, coherently and with a full accounting for all relevant scientific materials, global warming, we continue to make the problem worse. Interestingly, an oil-friendly group of politicos who adhere to creationism will find it difficult actually to find oil, because one needs to understand geology - real geology, not faith-based geology - in order to find it and then get to it, so, at least in this case, we have a potential scenario in which the Administration ends up at loggerheads with itself.
The political manipulation of scientific data is a dangerous road down which to travel. Science deals with discreet phenomena, open to public scrutiny, debate, and possible refutation. Politics deals with power, an aspect of which is controlling information. Completely open and public discussion of scientific matters can be detrimental to those who wish to control information in order to serve limited, political ends. We have a history in this country, at least since the Second World War, of open access to all but the most sensitive scientific information. We also have a history as a leader of scientific and engineering education. Sixtty-odd years of greatness is being pissed away by a small group that wishes to control information for partisan political purposes. Our country's reputation, its strength, its future is endangered by those who would suppress scientific data because it contradicts their political views or those of their supporters. Like WMDs in Iraq, the whole "war on terror", missile defense systems that don't work, and a whole host of other things, we have an Administration that is suite simply incapable of dealing with reality or the truth. The manipulation of science and scientific information is a special case of a much larger problem of having a truth-challenged group in power who believe that it is possible to force reality to fit their pre-conceived ideas through the simple manipulation of information. The result is the mess we have right now in our country - an Administration at war with reailty.
We need to rescue ourselves from the delusion that is the Bush Administration. Part of that process should be opening up previously closed windows and doors, and discussing scientific matters on their own terms, free from the manipulations and machinations of those afraid of reality.
Short Take
With this interesting poll, I ask an historical question. Does anyone remember all the talk in the late-90's of "Clinton fatigue"? Will we soon, I hope, hear of "Bush fatigue"?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Getting it Right About Religion in America
The good folks at Faith in Public Life. org have reprinted this article by Dave Brown and Glen Hiemstra from the Seattle Times in which the reporters address the question of our current public discourse about religion in a way that cuts through much of teh garbage that currently passes for debate. Acknowledging (a) that there are conflicts within, between, and among religions, and between those who do not subscribe to religious belief and the faithful; (b) there is a vocal anti-religious movement out there that wishes to eliminate, not religion from our public discourse, but religion from life; (c) that (b) is nonsensical on its face, and distracts us from the real issue of how to discuss religion in such a way that acknowledges difference without belittling opposing points of view.
I like their suggestions, especially the business about the First Amendment. I am conflicted about what, exactly, the role of an individual candidate's or politician's faith profession should be. On the one hand, I find much with which to agree in Richard Rorty's position that religion is, as the title of an article suggests, "a conversation stopper" because there seems to be no appeal beyond a claim that one holds such-and-such a political stance due to one's faith commitments. On the other hand, we are, like it or not, stuck in the most religious of the developed nations in the world, and religion does play now, as it has always done, a role in our public life and discourse. If it becomes a matter of figuring out how to get religious talk right in public, then I think the authors are on to something.
The problem, however, is that there are those, on many sides of the issue, who are quite simply refuse to listen to those with whom they disagree. For some reason, the whole issue fills them with incoherent rage and tehey wish to silence their opponents. Since they shout the loudest, and publish the most often, these are the voices we hear, and we are forced into listening to ping-pong, "LALALALALA - I'm not listening to you!", nonsense that gets us nowhere. We are left with the impression that religion in America is represented by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the one hand; Jim Wallis and Sojourners on the other (I will admit right now I find Wallis irksome, a self-important, self-appointed media whore who is basking in a certain triumphalism right now I find grotesque; was that subtle enough a criticism?).
Discussion of religion in America needs to stand on certain premises, the first and most important of which is that it is not going away. The second premise is that there is no central voice on religious matters in America. We have no Pope, no Council, no Synod, no Head of the Church (as the Queen is the head of the church in England) - and we need to include all sorts of voices in the dialogue and debate. we need to acknowledge the limitations of our own points-of-view. Christians need to come clean about our history of anti-Jewish bigotry, anti-Mormon bigotry (now playing out over the Mit Romney candidacy). Protestants need to acknowledge a long history of anti-Catholocism. We all need to acknowledge not only anti-Islam prejudice, but a profound ignorance of its tenets, teachings, and practices. We might also want to surrender any notion that we have the keys to the kingdom, as it were, denied to all other benighted groups in the land. We are a passing breeze in the world, and even the most celebrated among us now will fade from memory, along with teachings, professions, and confessions, as times and ideas change. Humility is necessary for a reason, and that reason can be summed up in one word - fallibility.
We also need to allow real disagreements, real arguments, to take place. We should not shy away from conflict in some vague interests of civility. Civility is an overrated virtue; I would much rather argue with someone that play nice, muttering behind my hand. Discourse about religion, when acknowledging the reality of difference, and the necessity of humility, should not keep us from ensuring that we silence ourselves out of deference to the feelings of others. I can say, on the one hand, I find the persistent anti-Mormonism in America disgraceful; on the other hand, I find the tenets and teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints risible. This is the way to do public discourse. Maybe we can get move forward together now.
I like their suggestions, especially the business about the First Amendment. I am conflicted about what, exactly, the role of an individual candidate's or politician's faith profession should be. On the one hand, I find much with which to agree in Richard Rorty's position that religion is, as the title of an article suggests, "a conversation stopper" because there seems to be no appeal beyond a claim that one holds such-and-such a political stance due to one's faith commitments. On the other hand, we are, like it or not, stuck in the most religious of the developed nations in the world, and religion does play now, as it has always done, a role in our public life and discourse. If it becomes a matter of figuring out how to get religious talk right in public, then I think the authors are on to something.
The problem, however, is that there are those, on many sides of the issue, who are quite simply refuse to listen to those with whom they disagree. For some reason, the whole issue fills them with incoherent rage and tehey wish to silence their opponents. Since they shout the loudest, and publish the most often, these are the voices we hear, and we are forced into listening to ping-pong, "LALALALALA - I'm not listening to you!", nonsense that gets us nowhere. We are left with the impression that religion in America is represented by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the one hand; Jim Wallis and Sojourners on the other (I will admit right now I find Wallis irksome, a self-important, self-appointed media whore who is basking in a certain triumphalism right now I find grotesque; was that subtle enough a criticism?).
Discussion of religion in America needs to stand on certain premises, the first and most important of which is that it is not going away. The second premise is that there is no central voice on religious matters in America. We have no Pope, no Council, no Synod, no Head of the Church (as the Queen is the head of the church in England) - and we need to include all sorts of voices in the dialogue and debate. we need to acknowledge the limitations of our own points-of-view. Christians need to come clean about our history of anti-Jewish bigotry, anti-Mormon bigotry (now playing out over the Mit Romney candidacy). Protestants need to acknowledge a long history of anti-Catholocism. We all need to acknowledge not only anti-Islam prejudice, but a profound ignorance of its tenets, teachings, and practices. We might also want to surrender any notion that we have the keys to the kingdom, as it were, denied to all other benighted groups in the land. We are a passing breeze in the world, and even the most celebrated among us now will fade from memory, along with teachings, professions, and confessions, as times and ideas change. Humility is necessary for a reason, and that reason can be summed up in one word - fallibility.
We also need to allow real disagreements, real arguments, to take place. We should not shy away from conflict in some vague interests of civility. Civility is an overrated virtue; I would much rather argue with someone that play nice, muttering behind my hand. Discourse about religion, when acknowledging the reality of difference, and the necessity of humility, should not keep us from ensuring that we silence ourselves out of deference to the feelings of others. I can say, on the one hand, I find the persistent anti-Mormonism in America disgraceful; on the other hand, I find the tenets and teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints risible. This is the way to do public discourse. Maybe we can get move forward together now.
Evangelicals Are Christians, Too
The story about male prostitute Mike Jones, Ted Haggard's business partner, visiting Haggard's church, should make those who think of evangelicals as shallow, homo-hating, vindictive, and generally mean people sit up and take a bit of notice. Jones himself acknowledges the response was overwhelmingly warm, and while I doubt he shall become a member any time soon, there is no doubt he would be welcomed by the congregation should he so choose.
It is all too easy to stereotype groups by the behavior of individuals and even some portion of the membership of such groups, evangelicals among the rest. Yet here we have a group of evnagelical Christians acting like, well, Christians. They reach out, in love, without judgement, and welcome one into their midst that, by the normal rules of the game, would be shunned. While I doubt few minds will be changed because of this incident, I am heartened by it, because it is an object lesson in the possibilities inherent in the Christian life. I might disagree with the church's teaching (or I might not, I do not know what they are), and I might find Haggard a disreputable character, doing incalculable damage to himself, his family, and the reputation of Christians everywhere - not because he's gay, but because he chose to hide it behind lie after lie after lie, acting out in ways morally reprehensible, indiscreet, and illegal. It would have been much better had he acknowledged his sexuality and taken a stand within that, rather than hide behind a cassock and pulpit, convincing himself that he could continue to live two lives.
Haggard's church, it seems, is better than Haggard at the whole Christian thing. Perhaps he taught them too well, or perhaps he should have listened to himself more. Whatever the reason, this is a good story, a story to relieve a bit of ache from the heart.
It is all too easy to stereotype groups by the behavior of individuals and even some portion of the membership of such groups, evangelicals among the rest. Yet here we have a group of evnagelical Christians acting like, well, Christians. They reach out, in love, without judgement, and welcome one into their midst that, by the normal rules of the game, would be shunned. While I doubt few minds will be changed because of this incident, I am heartened by it, because it is an object lesson in the possibilities inherent in the Christian life. I might disagree with the church's teaching (or I might not, I do not know what they are), and I might find Haggard a disreputable character, doing incalculable damage to himself, his family, and the reputation of Christians everywhere - not because he's gay, but because he chose to hide it behind lie after lie after lie, acting out in ways morally reprehensible, indiscreet, and illegal. It would have been much better had he acknowledged his sexuality and taken a stand within that, rather than hide behind a cassock and pulpit, convincing himself that he could continue to live two lives.
Haggard's church, it seems, is better than Haggard at the whole Christian thing. Perhaps he taught them too well, or perhaps he should have listened to himself more. Whatever the reason, this is a good story, a story to relieve a bit of ache from the heart.
Spit and Polish (Digby Took my Title, Damn Him!)
Over at Hullabaloo, here, here, and here, Digby has been following a story about an alleged incident in which an Iraqi war veteran claims to have been spat upon by war protestors. As he notes, such stories, all proven baseless, still have a certain cachet among conservatives despite them being not true. By dipping a toe into this strange stream of American folklore, and by examining conflicting accounts digby does the kind of work reporters should do but do not do. Indeed, by Googling the name of the veteran, Digby was able to come up with all sorts of information that could lead a skeptical reporter to ask certain questions about ahost of matters, including the reality of the incident itself.
Part of the problem withreporting on large-scale protests such as this is that there are, quite literally, too many stories without a single narrative focus. Over here we might have mothers and grandmothers walking along peacefully; over there might be a group of black-shirted anarchists taking the opportunity to cause trouble; innocent by-standers may be dragged into the midst, or protestors may simply walk away. I have participated in a number of DC protests - agaisnt the first Gulf War, for gay rights, and I can tell you it is impossible to tell anything like a coherent story about such protests because the events themselves are, largely incoherent.
An anecdote. Prior to the first Gulf War, I was with a group on the sidewalk in front of the White House on a cold January night. We were chanting, stomping our feet to keep warm, and keeping our distance from a small group that had chained itself to the fence. The police, apparently understanding the protestors, were waiting, and when one of them tossed something over the fence on to the lawn, they moved in, cutting the chain, handcuffing the protestors, and moving them to a police van idling on the curb. The protestors were not resisting, but neither were they cooperating. They did not stand, they did not walk, they had to be dragged across the sidewalk and picked up and placed in the van. One protestor, hauled off the sidewalk by a large, burly officer, was hoisted like a sack of potatoes, then dropped, the top half of his body landing on the floor of the van, his legs dangling over the edge. He rolled, very slowly, onto the ground, and was quite literally stepped over as the officer placed the next person, a bit more gently, into the van. I made a move to help the man, writhing on the ground - handcuffed, out of breath, bleeding from his nose - then stopped, because (I hate to admit this) I was afraid what this cop would do to me. A couple friends of mine and I looked nervously at one another, then turned and walked away, the man still lying on a very cold Pennsylvania Avenue. Not one of my finer moments.
The next day, there was a small blurb on the inside pages of the Metro section of the Post about the incident, but nothing about the incident with the protestor. No reports of any injuries at all. I know a reporter saw it because there was a woman to my right scribbling notes in a small pad, talking to people around me, asking questions. I mentioned this to the people who had been standing with me that night and none of them acknowledged the incident; in dact, one refused to acknowledge he had been there at all. I found this not only bizarre but disturbing until I realized that, perhaps, shame or whatever had prompted these folks to refuse to acknowledge that they had failed to help someone who had needed helping. Or, perhaps, they had faulty memories. I, for one, know the incident took place, and will remember it (to my discredit) as long as I have memory.
The point in relating this incident is simple - reporters, even the bst ones, are limited to what they can see, hear, and the information given by those to whom they talk. At the same time, there is quite literally too much going on for any one individual to absorb. incident, people, words all flash by so fast, with no coherence or connection to anything else, that it becomes impossible to filter everything in such a way that some kind of overall picture emerges. Stories of incidents that never occurred become fact. Incidents that did occur become apocryphal. There is no way, really, to decipher, which are and which are not true. I say this not to argue that the reporter is not to blame for not doing what Digby did and discovering links between the person who alleges the spitting incident and an abundance of right-wing personas and personalities. All I am suggesting is that these events can become overwhelming, and physically and emotionally exhausting as well. It might be better if reports actually waited a day or two to allow the reporters a chance to get their heads clear.
My own opinion is simple - I doubt the incident occurred, and I agree with Digby that a little journalistic leg work (or perhaps "finger work" on Google would be more apt) could have cast doubts on the entire incident. On the other hand, I can understand its genesis and its possible inclusion in the story.
Part of the problem withreporting on large-scale protests such as this is that there are, quite literally, too many stories without a single narrative focus. Over here we might have mothers and grandmothers walking along peacefully; over there might be a group of black-shirted anarchists taking the opportunity to cause trouble; innocent by-standers may be dragged into the midst, or protestors may simply walk away. I have participated in a number of DC protests - agaisnt the first Gulf War, for gay rights, and I can tell you it is impossible to tell anything like a coherent story about such protests because the events themselves are, largely incoherent.
An anecdote. Prior to the first Gulf War, I was with a group on the sidewalk in front of the White House on a cold January night. We were chanting, stomping our feet to keep warm, and keeping our distance from a small group that had chained itself to the fence. The police, apparently understanding the protestors, were waiting, and when one of them tossed something over the fence on to the lawn, they moved in, cutting the chain, handcuffing the protestors, and moving them to a police van idling on the curb. The protestors were not resisting, but neither were they cooperating. They did not stand, they did not walk, they had to be dragged across the sidewalk and picked up and placed in the van. One protestor, hauled off the sidewalk by a large, burly officer, was hoisted like a sack of potatoes, then dropped, the top half of his body landing on the floor of the van, his legs dangling over the edge. He rolled, very slowly, onto the ground, and was quite literally stepped over as the officer placed the next person, a bit more gently, into the van. I made a move to help the man, writhing on the ground - handcuffed, out of breath, bleeding from his nose - then stopped, because (I hate to admit this) I was afraid what this cop would do to me. A couple friends of mine and I looked nervously at one another, then turned and walked away, the man still lying on a very cold Pennsylvania Avenue. Not one of my finer moments.
The next day, there was a small blurb on the inside pages of the Metro section of the Post about the incident, but nothing about the incident with the protestor. No reports of any injuries at all. I know a reporter saw it because there was a woman to my right scribbling notes in a small pad, talking to people around me, asking questions. I mentioned this to the people who had been standing with me that night and none of them acknowledged the incident; in dact, one refused to acknowledge he had been there at all. I found this not only bizarre but disturbing until I realized that, perhaps, shame or whatever had prompted these folks to refuse to acknowledge that they had failed to help someone who had needed helping. Or, perhaps, they had faulty memories. I, for one, know the incident took place, and will remember it (to my discredit) as long as I have memory.
The point in relating this incident is simple - reporters, even the bst ones, are limited to what they can see, hear, and the information given by those to whom they talk. At the same time, there is quite literally too much going on for any one individual to absorb. incident, people, words all flash by so fast, with no coherence or connection to anything else, that it becomes impossible to filter everything in such a way that some kind of overall picture emerges. Stories of incidents that never occurred become fact. Incidents that did occur become apocryphal. There is no way, really, to decipher, which are and which are not true. I say this not to argue that the reporter is not to blame for not doing what Digby did and discovering links between the person who alleges the spitting incident and an abundance of right-wing personas and personalities. All I am suggesting is that these events can become overwhelming, and physically and emotionally exhausting as well. It might be better if reports actually waited a day or two to allow the reporters a chance to get their heads clear.
My own opinion is simple - I doubt the incident occurred, and I agree with Digby that a little journalistic leg work (or perhaps "finger work" on Google would be more apt) could have cast doubts on the entire incident. On the other hand, I can understand its genesis and its possible inclusion in the story.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Elitism
I used to be a proud elitist. I admit it with only the embarrassment that comes from revealing some other non-dangerous vice. I used to be quite proud of myself, of the books I read, the music to which I listened, to my education status. I used to think it was important to make distinctions between what was just mediocre or popular or otherwise middle- to low-brow and what was truly excellent and good and true. I was most proud of the fact that I recognized this distinction and counted myself above those benighted masses who could not.
Life and experience have made me completely reject the very idea of elitism as anything other than an epithet tossed about by those who feel inadepquate when confronted by others who may know something they do not, or who may feel intimidated by those who are better educated, or better looking, or whatever. Conversely, there are elitists who truly believe the nonsense that most Americans are knuckle-draggin morons who prefer "American Idol" to discussing politics, art, music, or whatever. They disdain such fools, granting to themselves the privilege of being among those who understand quality. I know such people, and politely detest them, because they are usually smug, ignorant, small-minded, and as locked within their own world-views as those benighted, bedraggled masses they wish to elevate themselves from.
When I recognized that, far from making myself better, I was just making myself different from others because of what I choose to read, listen to, view, etc., I was suddenly free from the burden of being among an anointed minority staving off a new Dark Age in the wake of FOX TV, Paris Hilton, and a new CD from Britney Spears. I no longer judge other people for the choices they make - or do not make - concerning a whole host of things cultural, educational, intellectual, or otherwise, because, quite frankly, one man's meat is another man's poison, and I refuse to poison anyone in the belief that it is steak for all.
Another thing that forced me to rethink the whole elitism thing was actually listening to what other people said, whether it was about politics, about music, about religion, or whatever. Once I had completely absorbed my father's oft stated dictum that I "don't know every goddamn thing", I realized - lo, and behold! - there is an abundance of wisdom and understanding out there, and it is free for the taking as long as one is open to it. While still trapped within my own skull, as are we all, I no longer limit myself to seeing through my own eyes, but imaginatively live with and see with other lives and through other eyes. I engage others as equally befuddled stumblers through the world, trying, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but never surrendering. Once I realized that disagreeing with me did not make another person wrong - that is, absolutely wrong in some final epistemological and ontological sense - I was free to engage in lively debate, holding firmly to my positions, but listening to others and finding myself changing my mind once in a while.
One of the biggest challenging the liberal/progressive movement today is a pervasive elitism, manifest often by those who find that disagreement means fundamental error. As time has not ended, history continues, and entropy unfolds around us, we progressives may currently have the better arguments, the preponderance of the evidence, and many of those same benighted masses behind us; this does not make us "right" in some ultimate sense. It only makes us, to steal a quote, right now. A bit of humility is in order, a bit of listening, a bit less schadenfreude (no matter how good it feels!).
Life and experience have made me completely reject the very idea of elitism as anything other than an epithet tossed about by those who feel inadepquate when confronted by others who may know something they do not, or who may feel intimidated by those who are better educated, or better looking, or whatever. Conversely, there are elitists who truly believe the nonsense that most Americans are knuckle-draggin morons who prefer "American Idol" to discussing politics, art, music, or whatever. They disdain such fools, granting to themselves the privilege of being among those who understand quality. I know such people, and politely detest them, because they are usually smug, ignorant, small-minded, and as locked within their own world-views as those benighted, bedraggled masses they wish to elevate themselves from.
When I recognized that, far from making myself better, I was just making myself different from others because of what I choose to read, listen to, view, etc., I was suddenly free from the burden of being among an anointed minority staving off a new Dark Age in the wake of FOX TV, Paris Hilton, and a new CD from Britney Spears. I no longer judge other people for the choices they make - or do not make - concerning a whole host of things cultural, educational, intellectual, or otherwise, because, quite frankly, one man's meat is another man's poison, and I refuse to poison anyone in the belief that it is steak for all.
Another thing that forced me to rethink the whole elitism thing was actually listening to what other people said, whether it was about politics, about music, about religion, or whatever. Once I had completely absorbed my father's oft stated dictum that I "don't know every goddamn thing", I realized - lo, and behold! - there is an abundance of wisdom and understanding out there, and it is free for the taking as long as one is open to it. While still trapped within my own skull, as are we all, I no longer limit myself to seeing through my own eyes, but imaginatively live with and see with other lives and through other eyes. I engage others as equally befuddled stumblers through the world, trying, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but never surrendering. Once I realized that disagreeing with me did not make another person wrong - that is, absolutely wrong in some final epistemological and ontological sense - I was free to engage in lively debate, holding firmly to my positions, but listening to others and finding myself changing my mind once in a while.
One of the biggest challenging the liberal/progressive movement today is a pervasive elitism, manifest often by those who find that disagreement means fundamental error. As time has not ended, history continues, and entropy unfolds around us, we progressives may currently have the better arguments, the preponderance of the evidence, and many of those same benighted masses behind us; this does not make us "right" in some ultimate sense. It only makes us, to steal a quote, right now. A bit of humility is in order, a bit of listening, a bit less schadenfreude (no matter how good it feels!).
Because My Wife Complained
When she reads he headline, I will undoubtedly hear of it. She told me yesterday that I hadn't posted much about religion recently, and she is right. I have been feeling remiss about it myself. The problem is that too often my posts about religion cause me more problems than they are worth - I get stuck saying the same thing over and over, rather than moving the conversation forward, which is my intent. So, what follows are some general guidelines on how I plan on addressing issues of faith from now one. Of course, feel free to ignore them at your leisure; I, however, will try to stick with them as much as possible.
I could cut and paste the first paragraph from yesterday's post here, substituting "religion" for "music". Religion is a human phenomenon, a vast, sprawling phenomenon that covers every human social group of which we have record, in every time and place. Because of the varieties of religious expression, one finds it maddeningly difficult to define just what a religion is; I studied sociology under a scholar who wrote the first definitive work on Alcoholics Anonymous as a religion. What are the points of contact between, say, Chinese ancestor-worship and Zen Buddhism and Coptic Christianity? What possible link is there between the religious expression of the ancient Maya and contemporary snake-handlers? From just this, it should be clear that, like obscenity, religion is impossible to define, but one knows it when one sees it.
I say this, again (and again and again and again) because too often the word "religion" is substituted for the word "Christianity" by both critics and supporters alike as if they were interchangeable, a horrid ethno- and cultural-centrism I find both mindless and confusing. When I read Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, the two "bad boys" of the vocal atheist movement, deride "religion", then cite mostly Christian and Muslim horrors (or alleged horrors), I wonder what in the world they are toalking about. Certainly, since Harris exempts Buddhism, reincarnation, ESP, transmigration of the soul, and astral projection from criticism, one wonders about his hostility to religion in general, and about his credibility in particular. All of this together makes it difficult to discuss issues of faith because no one seems clear on what, exactly, the issue is.
For me, "religion" covers a vast array of beliefs and practices. I will undoubtedly enrage and insult not a few people by insisting that atheism is as much a religious phenomena (especially in its current, "evangelical" form) as, say Judaism or Lutheranism. My larger point is that attempting to divorce the concept of "religion" from its very specific realities - by treating religion as if it existed independent of those who practice and profess it, in other words - is to discuss an unreal abstraction. Religion is a human phenomenon, and cannot be separated from the very real people who sing the songs, say the prayers, light the candles, sacrifice the chickens, etc.
Second point: I will not discuss the "rational" or "reasonable" merits or demerits of religious faith versus other expressions of human life because, quite simply, such debates are meaningless. They assume too much about "rationality", they are ignorant of the history of religions and their role in propagating all sorts of rationalities in all sorts of settings, and too often we take "rationalism" and "reasonableness" to be something real, as well, i.e., divorced from human beings who think. Rationality is whatever people want it to be, and Christians are as rational as non-Christians are as rational as Buddhists are as rational as shamanists. To be rational is to think. Period. Unless one wants to argue that religion and thought are contradictory (and some have made that argument; it is simply ignorant, and I won't engage with ignorant people any more, trying to convince them of their ignorance) we will not move the issues forward if we try to figure out who is and is not rational or reasonable.
Third point: Christianity's hands - in all its guises and in all its vareigated histories and confessions - are extremely bloody. So are the hands of Muslims, of Hindus, of Buddhists. Indeed, except for Jains and Quakers, it is difficult for me to think of a religious group that has not been washed in the blood of opponents, dissidents, and false prophets. Why would I want to argue otherwise, since it is true? As long as we are admitting this truth, we might as well go whole hog, totus porcus, and point out that non-theistic beliefs - political ideololgies, social ideologies, and the like - are just as bloody, just as amenable to the delights of hurting and killing "the other" as are religion. It is simply historically and factually inaccurate to argue otherwise. In other words, I will not discuss the issue of Christian atrocities any more because, quite simply, human history is full of wars and pogroms and destruction wrought for any number of reasons, relgious among the rest. No human history is free of it (except, as I mentioned, Jains and Quakers; maybe, too, Ba'hai) so we will, again, get bogged down in irrelevancies if we try to outdo one another in the whole "who committed worse atrocities" game.
Third point: Secular liberals need to resign themselves to the fact that there are people of faith among them, people who share their political, social, and cultural values, but who also profess deep, profound, and abiding trust in some higher power (to use an AA term of art). Just because I am a Christian does not make me equal to Jerry Falwell. I will not check my faith at the door of progressive/liberal politics just because some people don't like it, are uncomfortable with it, or want to discuss something else. My politics and my faith are inseparable precisely because I am inseparable within myself. There are a whole host of reasons why ifind consonance between my faith and my politics - not the least of them being a commitment to the welfar and integrity and life of individual human beings wherever they may be and however that may be manifest. I am not interested in converting anyone to Christianity; I am, however, committed because of my Christianity to act to protect and and defend those who are weak, outside, lost, hurting, or under some threat. I do it because of my faith. Deal with it.
Finally, I will not belittle the faith of those Christians with whom I disagree politically. Some of them are United Methodists like myself. Others of other denominations, faith traditions, creedal traditions, etc., may believe slightly differently from me, but because I refuse to admit that any one faith tradition contians within it the whole truth of Christian faith, I will not denounce or otherwise call into question the faith of thosw who believe differently from me. Fundamentalism serves a vital spiritual need, and serves a check on the non-fundies who sometimes get all caught up in forgetting some very basic tenets in a continual search for relevance. I don't agree with fundamentalists, but I am thankful for them and the perspective they bring, and their militant refusal to compromise on issues that, quite possibly, should not be compromised. I am just one person occupying a very small portion of one faith tradition, and I have no monopoly on truth, and I will not presume it. I will call error when I see it, and reserve the right to disagree with pretty much anyone; I will not call anyone, however, a false Christian, or deride their claims to faith or faithfulness.
These are my rules. I hope I can stick to them. I hope you can, too.
I could cut and paste the first paragraph from yesterday's post here, substituting "religion" for "music". Religion is a human phenomenon, a vast, sprawling phenomenon that covers every human social group of which we have record, in every time and place. Because of the varieties of religious expression, one finds it maddeningly difficult to define just what a religion is; I studied sociology under a scholar who wrote the first definitive work on Alcoholics Anonymous as a religion. What are the points of contact between, say, Chinese ancestor-worship and Zen Buddhism and Coptic Christianity? What possible link is there between the religious expression of the ancient Maya and contemporary snake-handlers? From just this, it should be clear that, like obscenity, religion is impossible to define, but one knows it when one sees it.
I say this, again (and again and again and again) because too often the word "religion" is substituted for the word "Christianity" by both critics and supporters alike as if they were interchangeable, a horrid ethno- and cultural-centrism I find both mindless and confusing. When I read Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, the two "bad boys" of the vocal atheist movement, deride "religion", then cite mostly Christian and Muslim horrors (or alleged horrors), I wonder what in the world they are toalking about. Certainly, since Harris exempts Buddhism, reincarnation, ESP, transmigration of the soul, and astral projection from criticism, one wonders about his hostility to religion in general, and about his credibility in particular. All of this together makes it difficult to discuss issues of faith because no one seems clear on what, exactly, the issue is.
For me, "religion" covers a vast array of beliefs and practices. I will undoubtedly enrage and insult not a few people by insisting that atheism is as much a religious phenomena (especially in its current, "evangelical" form) as, say Judaism or Lutheranism. My larger point is that attempting to divorce the concept of "religion" from its very specific realities - by treating religion as if it existed independent of those who practice and profess it, in other words - is to discuss an unreal abstraction. Religion is a human phenomenon, and cannot be separated from the very real people who sing the songs, say the prayers, light the candles, sacrifice the chickens, etc.
Second point: I will not discuss the "rational" or "reasonable" merits or demerits of religious faith versus other expressions of human life because, quite simply, such debates are meaningless. They assume too much about "rationality", they are ignorant of the history of religions and their role in propagating all sorts of rationalities in all sorts of settings, and too often we take "rationalism" and "reasonableness" to be something real, as well, i.e., divorced from human beings who think. Rationality is whatever people want it to be, and Christians are as rational as non-Christians are as rational as Buddhists are as rational as shamanists. To be rational is to think. Period. Unless one wants to argue that religion and thought are contradictory (and some have made that argument; it is simply ignorant, and I won't engage with ignorant people any more, trying to convince them of their ignorance) we will not move the issues forward if we try to figure out who is and is not rational or reasonable.
Third point: Christianity's hands - in all its guises and in all its vareigated histories and confessions - are extremely bloody. So are the hands of Muslims, of Hindus, of Buddhists. Indeed, except for Jains and Quakers, it is difficult for me to think of a religious group that has not been washed in the blood of opponents, dissidents, and false prophets. Why would I want to argue otherwise, since it is true? As long as we are admitting this truth, we might as well go whole hog, totus porcus, and point out that non-theistic beliefs - political ideololgies, social ideologies, and the like - are just as bloody, just as amenable to the delights of hurting and killing "the other" as are religion. It is simply historically and factually inaccurate to argue otherwise. In other words, I will not discuss the issue of Christian atrocities any more because, quite simply, human history is full of wars and pogroms and destruction wrought for any number of reasons, relgious among the rest. No human history is free of it (except, as I mentioned, Jains and Quakers; maybe, too, Ba'hai) so we will, again, get bogged down in irrelevancies if we try to outdo one another in the whole "who committed worse atrocities" game.
Third point: Secular liberals need to resign themselves to the fact that there are people of faith among them, people who share their political, social, and cultural values, but who also profess deep, profound, and abiding trust in some higher power (to use an AA term of art). Just because I am a Christian does not make me equal to Jerry Falwell. I will not check my faith at the door of progressive/liberal politics just because some people don't like it, are uncomfortable with it, or want to discuss something else. My politics and my faith are inseparable precisely because I am inseparable within myself. There are a whole host of reasons why ifind consonance between my faith and my politics - not the least of them being a commitment to the welfar and integrity and life of individual human beings wherever they may be and however that may be manifest. I am not interested in converting anyone to Christianity; I am, however, committed because of my Christianity to act to protect and and defend those who are weak, outside, lost, hurting, or under some threat. I do it because of my faith. Deal with it.
Finally, I will not belittle the faith of those Christians with whom I disagree politically. Some of them are United Methodists like myself. Others of other denominations, faith traditions, creedal traditions, etc., may believe slightly differently from me, but because I refuse to admit that any one faith tradition contians within it the whole truth of Christian faith, I will not denounce or otherwise call into question the faith of thosw who believe differently from me. Fundamentalism serves a vital spiritual need, and serves a check on the non-fundies who sometimes get all caught up in forgetting some very basic tenets in a continual search for relevance. I don't agree with fundamentalists, but I am thankful for them and the perspective they bring, and their militant refusal to compromise on issues that, quite possibly, should not be compromised. I am just one person occupying a very small portion of one faith tradition, and I have no monopoly on truth, and I will not presume it. I will call error when I see it, and reserve the right to disagree with pretty much anyone; I will not call anyone, however, a false Christian, or deride their claims to faith or faithfulness.
These are my rules. I hope I can stick to them. I hope you can, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
