The End Of Days

Starting form the granted info that Feodor was over at ELAshley's blog, I thought I'd check it out. I'm providing a link because I'm pretty sure Eric would simply erase any comment I might make (what a man!), but I thought I'd make some general observations.

First, I do so love someone who claims to understand the Bible typing out the following list:

* The Rebirth of Israel --Matthew 24:32 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* The Increase of Knowledge --Daniel 12:4 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* The Birth of Nuclear Bombs --Ezekiel 14:12 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Russian Jews coming from the North Country --Jeremiah 3:27 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Jerusalem in the hand of the Jews --Zephaniah 3:16 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , Luke 21:24 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* International Television --Revelation 11:9-10 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Deception by Secular Humanism & Cults --Matthew 24:4 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Famines, Earthquakes, Aids, etc. --Matthew 24:7 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Marriage and Materialism --Matthew 24:37-38 [Open in Libronix (if available)]

International television was predicted in the late 1st century? Nuclear weaponry by an exiled Hebrew prophet? Not understanding that "prophecy" and "prediction" are two distinct phenomenon, the latter frowned upon by most Christians, the former the exercise of pronouncing God's judgment based in the Law, grace, and love, Eric manages to offer a fourth-grader's reading of the Bible. When taken to task on it by Feodor, his response?

My motivation is their eternal destination. My motivation is partly Ezekiel 3:18 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , and a desire to hear, 'Well done thou good and faithful servant.' I have no desire to lie to the lost and tell them their lives will be magically better, that their troubles will miraculously lift from their shoulders. Not that it can't happen, but if anyone is going to follow Christ, they have to know that it will not be an easy thing to do. Far from it. Their reward as you say, is a marriage feast... and that's stating it rather simply. No marriage ends with the reception. Likewise, what awaits them in heaven is far more than a sit down meal with their future husband and King.

You have misconstrued much of my intent here. Perhaps I'm not articulating it well enough.

How's this... "Bridge Out! 100 Yards!"

All I'm saying is, "His return is imminent. Get Ready NOW before it's too late!"

Now, I don't think Feodor missed Eric's point at all. I think he was making fun of it, or at the very least pointing out some pretty big errors in his Biblical reading-comprehension.

Personally, my favorite part is Eric's admission that all he cares about is getting a pat on the head from God for being such a good little boy. At least he is honest enough to admit that his Christian belief is all about him.

New Levels Of Crazy

Sometime when I read about right-wing Christians doing stuff, I think, "These folks just can't top themselves." Then, I read this, and I realize I should never underestimate the ability of these people to commit idolatry in their efforts to put politics before God.

It seems that Rob Schenck of Faith and Action and Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition took it upon themselves last week to bless the Capitol passageway through which Barack Obama will make his way to be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. Turned back by Capitol police, they happened upon Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who shepherded them to the place. There, as you can see, amidst the praying for the president-to-be and his family, Schenck anoints the door posts with holy oil from the Holy Land, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

What's up with this? In the video, Schenck declares that he is consecrating the passageway "as they did the furnishings of the Tabernacle and the Temple to the use of God and to His will and to His Word."

So . . . the Oval Office is now the Holy of Holies, to be entered only one day a year, where Pres. Obama will whisper the secret and Holy name of God three times amidst a cloud of incense?

These people are whacked out it is unbelievable.

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!

If you're an old fart like me, you might remember the Iran-Contra scandal back in the late-1980's. A few years before it broke, Congress discovered a spine and managed to make illegal sending funds to the Contras in Nicaragua. Oliver North and others took a brief from Pres. Reagan to continue support for these drug running terrorists and solicited money from various rich Americans, ultimately getting a windfall from a covert arms shipment to Iran, made at a time we were also providing classified intelligence to Iraq (nothing like playing both ends against the middle in a fruitless war of attrition, I always say, especially when you really don't have a dog in the fight). One of the players in this sleazy little D-grade political thriller was Elliot Abrams, a State Department official ultimately convicted of lying to Congress (back when that was a prosecutable offense). At one point during his rather contentious hearing before the special House-Senate committee empaneled to investigate this tangled mess, he insisted the entire thing was a farce, an effort to criminalize what was nothing more than policy disagreements. This particular framing was picked up by many on the right, and continues to this day. Every time some conservative gets harassed by the media and others that they might just have done something not quite legal in the course of their official duties, it's another example of mean, stupid liberals wanting to make doing conservative stuff illegal. Why do we do it? because we're mean and stupid and liberal, that's why!

Fast forward a couple decades, and we have an entire Administration of Elliot Abrams. Shoot, we have Abrams himself, rehabilitated by George W. Bush, no less. The entire crew is set to ride off in to the sunset, unmourned by an American public exhausted by their desire to have this debacle of Executive mismanagement over and done with. Yet, there are many loose ends, as they say, that need tying up, many questions for which the answers aren't exactly comforting, many deeds that need a closer examination. Pres.-elect Obama has done the Bush Administration a favor and signaled his refusal to investigate with an aim toward prosecuting any alleged criminal conduct on the part of members of the Bush Administration. Many on the left are outraged; there are just some things - like, say, torture, indefinite detention, domestic spying for starters - that need to be brought to the light of day, and those responsible held accountable.

I am, in all honesty, of two minds about this. On the one hand, my fondest dream has been to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and many lesser lights of this already-dim group prosecuted in various venues, not least The Hague (having a former President and Vice President extradited to The Netherlands to appear before a war crimes tribunal would most definitely be a victory for real justice). If any group deserved such attention, it is this bunch who have served us so poorly, destroyed so much of our national confidence in the ability of government to actually achieve things of worth, to even do public Administration with a minimal amount of competence.

On the other hand, while I think making such a signal so early and so public has certainly confused a vocal part of Obama's constituency, it might also be part of a deeper game on Obama's part. It is important to remember a couple things. First, many of those calling for investigation with an aim toward eventual prosecution want the kind of open-ended investigation Lawrence Walsh gave us during Iran-Contra. It took years, with the final indictments handed down as Bush 41's term came to a close - Cap Weinberger's indictment in particular was a memorable one - with Presidential pardons hard on their heels. While that was pretty shameless, it should not have been surprising. Such investigations are necessarily lengthy, dealing with millions of pages of documents, memoranda, emails, classified information, and the interview of principles and secondary figures multiple times, sometimes numbering in the hundreds (why else would Oliver North's secretary have to be hauled before a Congressional committee). Obama has to put in place a minimally-functioning Administration on January 20th at noon, and part of that process is getting everyone to play nice, handing over documents, policy statements, email directives and all the rest beforehand. If some mid-level political appointee is afraid there might be something potentially prosecutable in this, that, or the other communique, he or she might just not play along.

At the same time, once all this paperwork and screenwork is gathered together and examined, isn't it just possible - and I say this with more hope than confidence it is true - that someone higher up the food chain might just shout in good Capt. Renault-like tones, "I'm shocked, shocked to discover illegality going on here!" Rather than pursue this or that lead, isn't it at least possible that as specific acts come to light, they will be prosecuted?

Even if this isn't so, we should never forget that the Republicans, elephants that they are, have long memories. Bill Clinton was impeached not only because the Republicans were never satisfied he had won the Presidency outright; he was impeached because, 20 years before, a Democratic Congress had its sights set on Richard Nixon. It was payback. Now, it is true enough, as the example of the Republican treatment of the Clinton Administration demonstrates, that such nasty antics not only distract an Administration from actually doing work. It is also true that, a good prosecutor working long enough and hard enough will manage to find someone somewhere violating the law. When Bush took over, the constant crowing about alleged Bush crimes sounded kind of tinny even to me, a repeat from the left what happened during the eight years of the Clinton Administration. To turn around and start investigating every aspect of the Bush years would take time, resources, and emotional and political energy needed for doing other things, not the least of which is simply executing the laws of the land. Should Republican, by some miracle, win the White House again in the near future, if Obama wasted a whole lot of time and energy investigating and prosecuting every little piece of dirt from the Bush Administration, please know that a new Republican Administration would be dedicated to one purpose and one purpose alone - doing the same to previous Democratic Administrations, only with gusto, flair, and more nasty thoroughness than any Democrat could dream possible. At some point, I think, we have to be realistic enough to accept the fact that, even though there is probably enough evidence in the public record to impanel a dozen grand juries, the political cost might just be too high. It's an ugly reality, to be sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality nonetheless.

Sometimes, I think we have to settle for a kind of minimalist understanding that, yeah, the entire eight years was one long criminal enterprise with a combination of corruption, stupidity, ignorance, and blatant flaunting of the law that was breathtaking in its exuberance. At the same time, it's over, they're gone and this bunch, at least, won't be around to bother us anymore, so let's get some stuff done, and done right. While we're doing that, should we stumble across some evidence - actual evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to find) - that a crime might just have been committed by the Bush Administration ("Shocked, I tell you!"), well then, that's what we have a Justice Department for.

One finale note. I know that Democracy Lover, for one, and others often write about "principles". I am not dedicated to principles in politics, other than actually achieving stuff. Part of what made the Bush years so awful was we had a group of people in charge, in both the Executive and in Congress, who were dedicated to certain "principles" - conservative ideology, to be precise - and simply ignored public disdain and preference as well as the occasional law to achieve ends rooted in these principles. Whether it was the unitary executive or Tom DeLay threatening to subpoena a brain-dead coma patient to "testify" before Congress during the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco, that is what a dedication to principle leads to, in the end. Principles are for people who see nothing wrong with not actually achieving anything other than a moral victory. Politics isn't about moral victories, but real victories.

Music For Your Monday

I can't keep it straight, so I'll just give it a new title.

Arnold Schoenberg managed to set the musical world on its ear, in the same way and at the same time a bunch of painters were doing the same thing in the visual arts. Generally called "modernism", it was nothing more than innovation, taking the next logical step. Sometimes his music is considered "atonal", which it really wasn't. There just wasn't the same kind of harmonic order that earlier music had. His "12-tone" ideas are interesting, and would be picked up by jazz musicians later in the century. Here's an excerpt from his Piano Concerto 42, with Mitsuko Uchida on piano:



Another excerpt, from his Chamber Symphony, op. 9, from 1984, with Erich Leinsdorf conducting.



I think Glenn Gould is the perfect interpreter of Schoenberg, if for no other reason than he goes well with being a coke-head. Here he is with Yehudi Menuhin on violin, playing Fantasie, op. 47.

Eight Days

Not that I'm counting.

Will America survive?

Just so any right-wing Republicans who stop by may wonder, no, I do not think Obama is the salvation of the nation. Right now, I find him a bit too honorable toward the Republicans in Congress, who are owed nothing for their mismanagement of our national affairs. I think he is too honorable toward the Democratic leadership, for that matter, who are looking to earn points by standing up to a popular President-to-be from their own party so no one can accuse them of partisanship. I think he is aiming low with his stimulus plan - more money in a wider variety of ways (shoot, FDR even funded plays, poems, paintings, and novels) would be better - but since that's Paul Krugman's position and all he has is a Nobel in Economics, what do either of us know? My point is not that Obama is our savior (or, perhaps, Savior?). Rather, my point is that Bush is so bad he could still make things worse in eight days. He has the magic touch, after all.

Stimulus And Response

Being unqualified to speak on details of Pres-elect Obama's economic stimulus plan before the new Congress - I know what I read in the paper, and I also know that when we've reached numbers like "$700 billion" we have reached a level no one really can comprehend - I am interested in a report on "negotiations" between the Obama camp and Congress. When I first read about this, I thought, what leverage does Congress have in all this?

Then, it occurred to me. Obviously, Democrats have to cave in to every whim and fancy of the most unpopular Republican President in our history, because otherwise people might say bad things about how partisan they are. They win points, however, by standing up to an incredibly popular soon-to-be incumbent Democratic President, who is offering the American people an opportunity to lessen the damage and pain from the train-wreck of the Bush years.

Rather than sit and negotiate - and try to get Republicans on board - Obama should simply have drawn up a bill, had it introduced to Congress, let them vote on it up and down, and then if it failed, held a little presser saying the combination of Republican intransigence and Democratic ineptitude has led to the demise of a bill meant to help the American people. The outcry from the people might have been enough to get another, similar, bill passed without much fanfare. Obama is being far too deferential to the stupid Democrats in Congress and the obstreperous Republicans by holding "negotiations." Screw the negotiations. Play nice on stuff that doesn't matter all that much. Put and keep the Republicans in their place, the minority.

The politics of this thing is really maddening.

Double Standard?

NB: I saw this yesterday, and was going to write something about it, but was still recovering from a wonderful gastro-intestinal bug that hit me like a Peterbilt Friday morning shortly after I got home from work. I was still physically weak from the onslaught, but am feeling much better.

Poor Sarah Palin. She casts herself as a victim of horrid, evil, liberal journalists who used a double-standard in approaching her own family and that of either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Obviously, if she had been a liberal Democrat no one would have thought to examine her private life.

Over at Fire Dog Lake, Julia takes issue with Gov. Palin's insistence that the scrutiny she faced on this front was the result of media bias. While she makes a persuasive case, I think Julia misses a larger point.

While it is true, as Julia notes, that both the media and the Republican standard-bearers managed to include criticisms of President-elect Obama's wife in their campaign rhetoric, I think everyone can agree there was a larger-than-normal interest in the private life of Gov. Palin. Part of that was due, I think, to the simple fact that she was unknown on the national stage. Sen. McCain had been around, and the story of his marriages, etc., had been told and settled for quite some time. Everyone knew Sen. Biden had suffered a tragic loss, and dealt with it bravely, early on in his life and political career. While new as well, there seemed little in Obama's current life to attract attention. There was some scrutiny by some right-wingers over his birth certificate, whether he was really born in Hawaii or not, and the role his Muslim stepfather may or may not have played in his life at one time, but since most of this was the result of political senescence on the part of the right, it resulted more in derision than anything else.

For my part, I believe the scrutiny Gov. Palin's family life received was rooted less in sexism and political bias than it was in the kind of schadenfreude many feel in exposing moral hypocrisy. Part of the wing of the Republican Party that continues to insist that personal private character traits are, or should be, considered as contiguous with our public commitments and lives, she seemed to invite those who might wish to get to know her to take a look at her family. She trotted out her baby son, Trig, as evidence of her strong family values (a late-life baby with Downs' Syndrome whose birth showed their commitment to pro-life values, so goes the argument). I was personally disgusted with all the attention paid to the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol, yet since Gov. Palin was part of the Republican Party that crows about the evils of teen sexuality, it could at least be argued that here, if nowhere else, there was a lapse in the continuity between her espoused beliefs and her actual practice.

I do not believe Gov. Palin received critical press, however, because of her family life. I think it might have been more intrusive if for no other reason than there seems to be an audience for these kind of private portraits. By adding in her own adherence to a certain set of political principles that see no difference between how one conducts one's personal life and the conduct of public business, however, I think the whole issue of "double standard" dissolves. She was held, not to a double standard, but to her own.

And found wanting.

Death And Dying

This past fall I've had to face a lot of death. My dear friend Steve Creech is gone. My Aunt, Joan Konicki, passed away just a few weeks ago. After a battle with lung cancer, Kathy Zoeller died just a few short weeks ago. Just yesterday, we received word that Ruby Jones, a woman who lived catty-corner from us and was a member of the first church to which Lisa was appointed, died recently after a stroke, at the age of 91. Her passing marked the end of an era of sorts in the little town of Jarratt, VA, and there are few who remain from that once wonderful, confounding congregation with which we shared five years of our lives, including the birth of our first child.

I have faced death in different ways in my life, from my childhood loss of my paternal grandfather - my first real encounter with death - to the suicide of my best childhood friend to the sudden, inexplicable loss of my wife's father a little over seven years ago. Now, however, I am entering the age where it will be, if not a constant companion, at least always a shadow in the background, waiting perhaps around if not the next corner, then down the street a ways. Dealing with death, with the reality of the final answer to all of life's mysteries, is never easy. Knowing it is real, knowing it sits there for all of us, yet takes us piece by piece in the deaths of those we know and love before it comes for us is hard. Of course, we are lucky because this is a nation- and culture-specific issue. Were we to live in, say, Zimbabwe (according to an article in today's Washington Post), the issue of death and dying would be far different. Were we living in Congo, the site of a war that has already brought much death and destruction to central Africa with no end in sight, we would face a whole different set of questions, issues, challenges, griefs, etc.

None of this is to say our challenges are not real, or of less urgency than others. Only to say they are different.

In any event, I was brought to mind of these issues and questions, fears and anger, in reading this article in today's Washington Post. Written by a Minnesota-based internist, Chris Bowron, the article explores one physician's frustration as he deals with issues surrounding what are now called "end of life" issues. As he points out, with interesting new medicines and technologies created to prolong life, very often doctors, nurses, and families face increasingly difficult choices as to how best to deal with and care for those who are declining toward death.

I have to admit I was first a bit off-put by the initial presentation, as well as the way Bowron framed the fundamental question - how do we, as individuals, as families, as health-care providers, as a society at large, to come to grips with burgeoning life-extending technologies, yet still coping with the fundamental reality that death comes to us all? Reading a doctor's musings on the reality that death is not the enemy, but perhaps dying, or even the prevention of death (in some though certainly not all cases), was eye-opening. Of course, for his question, I believe there is no final answer. There is no "one way" that fits all situations, and doctors and nurses, families and loved-ones all face difficult choices - despite his assertion at the end that this "choice" is largely illusory - for which we have little guidance. Even the assertion of preference - a Do Not Resuscitate Order in one case; an order to do everything possible in another, similar set of circumstances - can be meaningless in the face of loved-ones, or health-care providers in the heat of the moment (Dr. Bowron offers an example of a patient brought to his hospital from a nursing home when there existed an order that no such measures be taken; the nursing home administration probably just followed their Policies and Procedures without reference to individual preference in this case).

In The True and Only Heaven, the late historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch offers the view of the differences between two societies - early-Victorian Britain and contemporary America - as members of each faced death. He uses the death scene of Little Nell as a template; here is a little girl, dying (as many young people did) surrounded by family and loved-ones (a not-uncommon occurrence). He makes the point that this was a ritual played out innumerable times. When a member of the family was dying, the whole family was paraded past, to see and offer one last goodbye, to be with so the final moment is not one spent alone.

We, on the other hand, keep a certain distance. Dying is done less and less at home (although that is changing) and more frequently at hospitals and nursing homes. Even if family is present, they are kept at a distance through the intrusive technologies and the insistence of doctors and nurses whose intervention is not always wanted or even needed. We attempt to shield our children from the reality of death, believing it unnecessary to expose them to this final state because "they won't understand it".

Yet, none of us understand it. Not really. Yet, is understanding really necessary? Whether we understand it or not, or even accept its inevitability or not, death awaits us all at some point. Dying can be long and drawn out, with or without technological helps. Or it can come in an instant, unexpected, stealing others from us in a blink of an eye. Whether we understand it or not, it is there. How we deal with it, how we face it as families, as health-care providers, as supportive loved-ones and friends, comes down, I think, in the end, to our ability to stare the abyss in the face, allow it to stare back at us, and not fall in to it ourselves.

Saturday Rock Show

Since we spoke of weird, wonderful music the other day, I thought I'd put up something from one of those groups that manages to do this consistently, with a good sense of humor. This is "Why Does the Sun Shine?" by They Might Be Giants:

On Our Culture

The discussion here has got me thinking (for real!), and I figured I should get those thoughts down before they escape my sieve-like mind.

One of the things that really bugs me is when conservatives claim, with no evidence, that "liberals" are comfortable with various elements of our culture - from teenage sexual behavior to the general moral nihilism of much of our popular cultural products - when, speaking only for myself (which is all any of us can do), I am not. In order to be clear, I will deal with the latter first, then move on to the former and related topics.

I make the point in comments that we have not had cable or satellite service in our house for years, and quite deliberately. With the explosion of Hannah Montana, High School Musical, and other televised commercials aimed at girls my older daughter's age, I can only cheer this decision ever louder each day. In fact, though, we stopped for a couple reasons. First, we found that we were paying through the nose for something we did not use. We avoided "sitcoms" because all the jokes centered on sex, in the crudest, most vulgar way. We didn't watch because we didn't want our children exposed to it. Dramas, for the most part, lacked that particular quality. Our kids spend their time reading, using their imaginations, and enjoying a wider variety of things life has to offer because the boob-tube isn't there to sap their energy and their brain cells.

More generally, I think our culture is full of tricks and traps, not just for children, but for anyone not wary enough to avoid them. I do not know, and do not think it possible to determine with anything like accuracy, whether or not people are having more sex and at a younger age, than in previous generations. I remember quite well when I was in Junior High and HS there were those who did, and it was not something we thought was a good idea. I can't remember if folks were ostracized for it, but I do know most of the talk was that people who engaged in such practices were not so much "bad" as they were pretty stupid. By the time I was a Junior and Senior in HS, that had changed slightly, because, of course, all HS students know how adult and sophisticated they are, but there is a vast difference between a sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen year old and a thirteen and fourteen year old, too. How we deal with it as a society, however, is a difficult question, fraught with all sorts of problems. I don't know of any parent who cares little for the behavior of his or her children; I do know that many parents, trapped by the need for multiple jobs just to keep from drowning financially, plus the various pressures of life in general, sometimes feel incapable of dealing with their children, which doesn't make them bad parents. It only makes them emotionally and physically drained and frazzled. That a child, looking for a way to act out, can use this to his or her advantage is something everyone knows, but no one, as yet, has a cure for.

The difference between the kind of response to our various cultural and social ills we see from liberals and conservatives is not so much either acceptance or at least tolerance on the part of liberals with a more traditional refusal on the part of conservatives. Rather, the difference lies in how we understand these problems, and how we approach dealing with them. In the linked post, Marshall posts and update on the state of MS and some of its troubles. I do not think one can place "culture" on the list of reasons for Mississippi's woes. There are issues of racism, poverty, the malign neglect of the underclass in order to do things like build casinos and give handouts to the wealthy who lost coastal homes in Katrina, rather than do what is necessary to support young people and working families that are far more important than some kind of general cultural acceptance of bad behavior. Dealing with these might be far more productive in terms of reducing social deviance, or alleged social deviance, than passing all sorts of laws, or creating a general social atmosphere, in which there is a re-emergence of social and cultural backlash against moral turpitude.

I think a fine example of this is how the question of "abstinence-only" sex education is discussed, at least in my own experience. Because I see and read about studies that show it not only ineffective but actually counter-productive to its stated goals, one might consider developing a curriculum based on comprehensive education, including information on conception control, but that would also include information on abstinence as well, perhaps with the addition of creating support networks for those who might wish to make such a commitment, after receiving enough information and doing so willingly. In other words, it isn't that we liberals, or at least this liberal, is against abstinence. It is the whole "only" addition, and the way it is used - poor and even incorrect information, a refusal to put abstinence in a larger developmental context, social context, etc. - that is the issue. Precisely because the curriculum as currently formulated is not only inaccurate, but does not work, it might be thought wise to do something that might work. Yet, we are accused, inaccurately and often screechily, of promoting underage sexual activity when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no guarantee that comprehensive sex ed would be more effective, and the first line of defense is always the home - in this as in pretty much everything else - but it seems to me since we have tried something that is a demonstrable failure, it might be socially responsible to try something that many people think would work.

For the sake of emphasis, I think it is important to repeat that moral instruction begins not in school, or in peer groups, but in the home. There is absolutely nothing society in general can do to enforce proper moral instruction in the home. We can encourage families to come to church, synagogue, or mosque, and that children receive religious instruction, although that really doesn't have a bearing, in the long run, as a general rule, on how kids and adults turn out. We can be attentive parents, open to discussing and especially listening to our kids when they have problems or questions. I just don't know how effective social coercion, or worse, legal coercion, would work to deal with certain social ills, if for no other reason than they have failed in the past to be effective, so it might be thought wise to avoid such failures in the future.

How we bring up the next generation of young people, in the end, is something each family has to address in its own way. We can support one another, commiserate with one another, but I just don't see where creating new structures of social or legal remonstrance would deal with underlying socio-economic conditions on the one hand, or the reality that there are personal, biological, and peer issues that cannot be dealt with through simple ostracism or worse. These are not easy issues, and I do not believe there can be easy solutions for them.

First, Baby Steps

As is usually the case for me, I am attempting to make sense of what it is I believe and why in a very tentative way. In order to do that, sometimes my initial thoughts and sentiments sound far more grand and fixed than they might actually be. I am thankful that Feodor called this "weak Christian liberal sauce" because it has forced me to be more clear.

First, this is a blog, not a theological seminar, so I don't feel obliged to be either as thorough or as detailed as I might otherwise. This isn't an excuse, it's just a fact.

Second, nothing I said in the linked post - initial thoughts only - should be construed as negating the call to a disciplined life, the call to live for others, or the demands of righteous living for one and all that is part and parcel of living for the Kingdom. I just see them as opportunities we are offered, rather than a new set of rules we are obliged to follow. Freedom means freedom for as well as freedom from. That initial post was nothing more or less than a brief explanation of my own sense of freedom from. Freedom for, well I think that should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. All of it, however, will take time to work out, to live out.

True to my own sense of the Wesleyan tradition, I see faith as something one lives, not something one declares, or claims. It is, to use a modern phrase, a process, even if it is characterized by moments of clarity in the haze and muddle of life. This blog is part of that process, and these are just steps along the way, and I may just turn around in another week and pronounce it all bunk and hogwash (never forget that).

Senator Diva Feinstein (UPDATE)

I am not a fan of Dianne Feinstein. Now, more evidence emerges that she is nothing more than a shallow, self-promoting preener, wishing nothing more than to be the center of attention.

Shortly after the news [of Pres.-elect Obama naming Leon Panetta CIA chief] leaked, however, the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), issued a statement complaining that she was not “consulted” about the Panetta selection and condemning his appointment

What a whiner.

I have no opinion on whether or not the Panetta appointment is a good choice or not. Feinstein's little hissy-fit, however, makes me support it whole-heartedly.

UPDATE: What fragile egos these people have.

Just talked with Dianne Feinstein outside the Senate chamber about her qualms with the Leon Panetta nomination. The incoming Senate intelligence committee chairman said that both President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden called her after the fact to discuss the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence agency experience and whose nomination came as unwelcome news to Feinstein when it broke yesterday.

"I understand their thinking" in choosing Panetta, Feinstein explained, describing herself as "very respectful of the president's authority ... this is the man [Obama has chosen]."

She's like a character out of bad political fiction.

Beating The Brain-Dead

Whether we want to or not, I think most people who pay attention to these things remember the circus that formed around poor Terry Schiavo. Reduced to a permanent vegetative state, her husband petitioned the state of Florida to remove her feeding tube in order to end what little was left of her life in some kind of semi-humane way. The United States Congress was actually called back from a vacation to address this particular private drama, with the extraordinary step of legislation passing the was focused on the life and impending death of a particular individual.

Fast forward, and it seems that "pro-lifers" are planning on reminding America of this entire sorry episode.

Conservatives are now brushing off the Schiavo case to use it against Thomas Perrelli, President-elect Obama’s pick for the no. 3 spot at the Justice Department. Right-wing websites are outraged at Obama’s association with Perrelli, since he was one of the lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo, who wanted his wife’s feeding tube removed. The Washington Times today reports that these conservatives are now gearing up to fight Perrelli’s nomination:

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, derided Mr. Perrelli’s selection as “just another death-peddler Obama has added to his list of nominees.” She said he’s earned the nickname among pro-lifers of “Piranha Perrelli” for his work on the case.

Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, said several end-of-life issues could make their way to the federal level in the next four years and having Mr. Perrelli at the department means pro-life causes would have a tougher time winning those debates.

“If the Justice Department isn’t going to do anything about it, the states, what’s to stop them from cases like Schiavo and even worse cases,” Mr. McClusky said.

I just love the whole "piranha Perrelli" bit.

Far be it from me to give advice to conservatives - no one listens to me anyway - but bringing up the Schiavo case out of dedication to principle may make pro-lifers feel good about themselves, but I doubt it will do much good. Most Americans were aghast at the thought the United States Congress would intervene in the private pain of a family wrestling with the most drastic decision any could face. I was particularly horrified at the way Michael Schiavo's reputation was destroyed by the connivance of Republican politicians trying to shore up their base and a press-corps reduced to tabloid-level sensationalism, printing every accusation imaginable. The whole incident was awful, yet because the Republican Party and the pro-life movement is tone-deaf to shame, it will soon be revived. The only benefit, it seems to me, will be reminding America why it voted Democratic in the past two national election cycles.

Music Monday

An odd band, to be sure, Procol Harum managed some interesting music. Let's start with one you may not know, but was covered by Transatlantic on their first studio release. This is "In Held 'Twas In I":



"A Salty Dog" from a 1977 concert.



I always liked "Conquistador", although it always bugged me that the word was consistently mispronounced. In this clip, Gary Brooker looks an awful lot like Anthony Hopkins. . .

Your Lips Say No, But That Gold Ring Says Yes

It seems Dennis "Womanizer" Prager has a defender! I'll just put it up without any commentary of my own.

Wow! A few things wrong here. First, that Geoffrey feels he's qualified to call Prager an imbecile. What hubris and what incompetence of judgement.

Secondly, where in this piece do you see a mandate for force in any way, shape or form. He's merely speaking from the perspective of the woman, not the man if the woman refuses.

Thirdly, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. And look closely at verse 5, where Paul speaks of mutual consent. No force is suggested there, either.

Fourth, love often means doing that which one would prefer not doing. If any of you feels that expressing love is contingent upon your mood, you don't deserve a spouse and as it is I'll say an extra prayer for each of them.

Fifth, everything to which Prager alludes can be said to men as well. The genders being different, there are other expressions of love that mean more to women than men. It could be something as simple as joining the wife for grocery or clothes shopping or picking out patterns for the freakin' drapes or forgoing the game on Sunday to visit relatives or planting bushes. How often are men in general in the mood for such things? Doing it anyway is a demonstration of love and not female tyranny. Rape indeed!

More than anything else, I see the point regarding behaviors based on mood and feelings as being the most salient in the article. But then, I'm not as progressive as you fakers here.

And just to re-iterate, I didn't see anywhere in Prager's article that suggests the point is based on whether or not the man insists. I think he's suggesting that the woman not even resist the advance just because she's not in the mood. At the same time, it does not preclude the possibility that the woman is NEVER to deny when she's not in the mood. It seems obvious his point concerns those who do it as a matter of routine, conceding only when everything's perfect in HER mind. That's called selfishness. And if, like Dcup (sheesh) suggests, if a woman must enjoy it everytime, selfish it is and again, she is unworthy of her spouse.

The Real Challenge Of Christmas

For those who may not know it, we are still in the Christmas season. Today is day 11, with Epiphany, the Feast of the Magi, just around the corner. Thanks to some links and the courtesy of a friend, I found the following, a sermon preached on Christmas Eve in Oklahoma City:

Essential to our Christian understanding of the birth of Jesus is the claim that Christ is born anew in all of us as an on-going event in the history of creation. We who have vowed to follow Christ must also imitate and embody Christ. This is a daunting task. I wish I could say that it is easy, but it is not. We are called to be countercultural, and in no way more obvious than by taking the path of peace.

--snip--

But we know that this beautiful story will lead to the cross. The way of peace that we must imitate and embody as followers of Jesus is the way of the cross. We can courageously live out that adventure assured that the story doesn’t end with the cross, but continues through Resurrection and Pentecost. However, that confident, post-Easter hope does not remove the fact that the cross lies starkly in the path of peace that begins here on this Christmas Eve.

Do we wish to face the stark reality that this moment of joy, this moment of peace, is the first step on the journey that leads to the place of the skull? To an ignominious death outside the city gates? Not just for Jesus, although for him certainly. This journey, this remembrance of the birth of the Savior, if it does not also bring about the recollection that we, too, are called to this journey, has not, yet, become fully real for us.

This is the challenge of Christmas, the dare, if you will, of God to all those who see this baby and rejoice in his birth. Are you willing, as all who follow are called to do, to bear your cross? Are you willing to embrace your own death, face squarely the reality that ours is a path of peace, to be sure, but a peace bought at a steep price? We recall Jesus' life, and death, and resurrection, his words, his healing, the loving care and frustration he directed at his disciples not because it offers some ideal we are to emulate. We recall Jesus' life, and death, and resurrection, his words, his healing, and all the rest because this is our journey. We are to be imitators of Christ, in the full knowledge that the Prince of Peace was brutally tortured, scorned, and died abandoned. Embracing the baby Jesus in the stable is not enough, unless we are willing to see the blood from his already wounded wrists on us, the mark of our salvation, the real blessing of Peace.

At Christmas, no less than any other time of year, as we recall the beginning of Jesus' life and ministry, we should remember that, having Jesus be born anew in us, marks us with the sign, not of a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes, but the sign of the cross, a cross from which flowed a fountain of blood (in the words of an old hymn). Before any of us get to comfortable with this whole "Christian" thing, I think recalling the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer are important - "When God calls a man, he bids him come and die."

Love - Revising and Extending

I would like to take part of a comment and expand upon it a little.

Falling in love, being in love - it's about the most threatening thing in the world. Making oneself completely open and vulnerable to another human being is the riskiest thing in the world. Wars have started because of love unrequited or gone awry. Love is about the most dangerous thing in the world. That's why I don't think it's schmaltzy. The real thing is a test of our strength; being able not only to feel this way, but to mean it - it entails the greatest threat and possibility of being fully human there is.

In the context in which this comment was made - responding to my sister's claim that a certain song was "schmaltz", I think it is important to amplify this statement a bit. We, especially Americans, love love. That is to say, we are a hopelessly romantic people. We think there is something all warm and cozy about love. We do not fear it, but desire it above all other states.

There is much to recommend being in love. There are few states as filled with moments of wonder and rapture. Yet, if we were honest, we would also admit there are few states as dangerous to our very selves as being in love. To be in love, to really love another, one must first be willing, against all good sense, allow ourselves to be completely open, honest, and vulnerable with another human being as possible. Love is fraught with hazards, to which the phrase "broken heart" hardly does justice. People have been psychically destroyed by the end of a love affair. The betrayal of a loved one is far worse than any other emotional pain. It can leave a person worse than depressed; despair, destitution, violation - these and far more can result from a love betrayed, or even just collapsing.

I think remarking that a song expressing undying love is "schmaltzy" while it may be true, also is a kind of defensive ignorance. We are refusing to acknowledge the other side of such a declaration. Giving voice to such feelings runs the risk not only that they will be belittled; it also runs the risk that such openness will be rewarded with rejection, whether in the present or the future. Loving, like all of life, is a risk. It is the most dangerous risk we run. Love can bring life, it is true. Love that ends, however, that is betrayed, denied, or simply withers away over time, can destroy.

Should

Feodor is lecturing me on what I should be doing and saying. I respond as follows:

I don't believe the word "should" applies to anyone, least of all me.

There is something fortuitous about this exchange. My wife and I were having a discussion about our faiths a couple days ago, and I said that I find myself drifting more and more toward a kind of mystical faith. I no longer believe there is any "must", "should", or any kind of imperative with God. When St. Paul writes that we are freed for freedom's sake, I take him at his word.

Before anyone starts huffing and puffing about anti-nomianism, though, I think it is important to say a couple things. First, my position does not entail any lack of moral clarity, or a refusal to take an ethical stance. Rather, I refuse to draw any necessary conclusions between certain factual matters and any particular moral position an individual, of necessity, must or should hold. To take an example from recent controversy, Rick Warren sees no moral difference between being a gay man and being a pedophile. I happen to think this belief is wrong, and that by expressing his belief, Rick Warren is nothing more or less than a garden variety bigot. I do not think that Rick Warren will be damned to hell for all eternity for his assertions; I do not believe that I am a far more moral and ethically upstanding individual than Rick Warren because I do not believe the way he does. I acknowledge our differences, and find his lacking. I would and will argue to my dying day that I believe mine is a far more acceptable moral position, because it recognizes the fundamental humanity and dignity of sexual minorities. What I would never do, however, is insist that everyone else hold the exact same position I do, or claim that my own position is reflective of some inner necessity stemming from God's law or anything else. I do not think it necessary to insist one's moral reasoning is based in anything transcendent for it to be any less worthy of consideration, or worth fighting for.

When someone insists that there is a necessity in argumentation, either logical (Neil) or moral (Feodor), I have to wonder. Are they so unsure of their own beliefs, do they think God so fundamentally weak, they insist that others are either theologically confused or morally degenerate because these others do not believe and act as they do?

God's freedom, granted in grace, is the freedom to be who we are before God and the rest of creation. It is a challenge lived out in faith and humility. I wouldn't surrender this freedom to any necessity whatsoever, including the necessity of human reason or moral clarity.

God offers us a more abundant life. I guess I just take God's Word on this issue.

Saturday Rock Show

My friend Jim Bush-Resko sent me a wonderful music care package, including Blue Oyster Cult's Extra-Terrestrial Live, some MP3s from "The Garage Files", a Chinese animated film for my daughters, and a recording of a Living Colour concert. It was from a show Jim attended at the Ritz in NYC in 1989. All I can say, after hearing this show was, "Wow". It is nonstop, and reminds me what potential they had before, like many groups, they went down the road of acrimony and petty infighting. Vernon Reid is one of the great guitarists of all time. Their rhythm section just rocked it. This is "Open Letter To A Landlord"

My Favorite

Cause I feel like it, I'm going to put up a video of my all-time, favorite love song. Could someone, preferably Alan, because he is in to this stuff, tell me what Sci Fi Network show the video clips are from, and who is that actress? Anyway, if you want to know the song and artist, ask. Otherwise, I'm figuring you should know.

Where Angels Fear

I am always reticent to write about the state of Israel. No matter what one says, one runs the risk of (a) attracting spam commenters who insist that Israel is behind every sinister plot to destroy the United States, even 9/11; (b) that my evident anti-Semitism leaks out of every syllable I have typed, even if I have written something positive; (c) getting in to stupid side arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand (usually involving (a) and (b)). Yet, it seems Israel is intent on doing the same stupid thing it had done repeatedly over the past twenty years, viz., when it realizes there is a serious power vacuum in the United States and that it will thus face no serious consequences, it goes about killing Palestinians indiscriminately. Not only is such action immoral on its face, it is counter-productive to the stated aims of Israeli governments since the mid-1970's, which is a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the original inhabitants of the land now known as the State of Israel.

Every time Israel does this, someone somewhere starts yakking about "the peace process", as if there actually were such a thing. The last time there was a chance was the tail-end of Bill Clinton's Presidency. There have been conflicting reports on what happened at the talks among Clinton, Arafat, and Ehud Barak, but the usual suspects ended any chance: the right of return and the status of Jerusalem in particular. I can understand the question of the right of return; Israel kicked all these people out of their homes, confiscated the property, and allowed Israeli citizens to move in. The process of "return" would end up with a mess of civil law suits, if nothing else. As far as the status of the city of Jerusalem is concerned, it seems to me the international community could deal with that rather easily. Legally, the city is divided between the State of Israel, and the occupied West Bank which was originally Jordanian territory. It seems to me that making Jerusalem a Free City - existing outside any State boundaries, administered via the UN through a mayor drawn from the international community, with rules regarding the rights of all religious inhabitants access to their Holy sites - might do quite well, even if it did upset just about everyone at first.

In any event, the latest Israeli stupidity and atrocity will have the same result as all the rest of them. A whole lot of Palestinians will die; Israel will be roundly, and justifiably, condemned by most of the rest of the world, while defended by the United States; the Palestinians will become even more defiant, starting yet another round of mutual killing; the Israelis will whine about how stubborn and recalcitrant the Palestinian people are; yadda-yadda-yadda.

There is no military resolution to the conflict. There is no reason for the Israeli action, as it will only result in further reducing the possibility of an achievable settlement in the near future. American encouragement, usually couched in terms at once ignorant and strident, only aids and abets the basic criminality and futility of Israeli military action, which is always - ALWAYS ALWAYS - counter-productive.

I think I've said enough now.

Beginnings And Endings

Happy 2009, to all and each!

ER got me thinking about the plethora of apocalyptic warnings in Christian garb out there, which takes me back to my youth, and the presence of a single and singular "book" that ushered in an entire "new way" of looking at the world. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth is without a doubt one of the biggest bits of garbage spewed out of "Christian book stores", and it certainly has set back an understanding of the last book of the New Testament by about 1400 years. None of this is to say that dire predictions of the end of the planet at the hands of an angry, blood-lusting God and warrior Jesus are new; historian Norman Cohn has written several works on the variety of apocalyptic cults in the late medieval and early modern eras. Even Martin Luther, who was not keen on the Book of Revelation, nevertheless keenly anticipated the imminent return of Jesus, and was eager to participate in battle with his personal nemesis, Satan. Apparently, tossing shit at the Prince of Light (it wasn't an inkwell, folks; Luther was a crude individual) only whetted his appetite for battle.

Of course, Lindsey's rueful consideration on the destruction of God's creation was popular because it was a "religious" version of many of the kinds of scenarios we were living with. Nuclear destruction, environmental degradation, the breakdown of the social contract over women's rights, civil rights for African-Americans, a birthing gay right's movement, the ubiquitous presence of urban unrest and an exploding crime rate - they all seemed to be signs of an unraveling. Lindsey merely provided one possible context for understanding this unraveling.

Fast forward, and these same ideas are still with us. They always will be (I think Cohn is correct that as long as there are marginalized populations with the ability to misinterpret the Bible, there will always be a projected hope of Divine revenge upon those who thwart the hopes and destroy the lives of society's cast-offs). Yet, I think we are sitting, not on the brink of The Battle for Megiddo (a cross roads of sorts where various trading roads met; this was the place where the final Epic Battle was to take place, allegedly), but perhaps moving towards some moments, if not of the Final Peace, certainly a measure of reconciliation and a renewed sense of national unity. We are 19 days away from the first Obama Administration. The new Congress will be seated, I believe, next week. Within a few days, a huge influx of public works projects, all sorts of money and opportunities for turning the country around will be passed and passed out. Even though we are facing dire economic times, there is the possibility that, having people in positions of authority who actually know what they are doing, and understand that policy is the end of politics, not an adjunct to it, we might actually weather this storm pretty well.

Yes, Israel is once again in the business of killing Palestinians for no real political, strategic, or even tactical purpose or gain. The Russians are awaking, which might just be a good thing. We are emerging from our national dream of being the world's only juggernaut to face the reality that we are not trusted, not listened to, and other nations once considered risible on the international stage - India in particular - have both the ability and flexibility to insist on being heard. The world is always a far more complicated place than the dreams of imperial conquerors, and that's all to the good. Much better to relinquish the desire to lead the world than to ruin it out of a combination of hubris and incompetence.

I believe with all my heart that 2009, despite all the rumblings of bad economic news and the desire among the vast majority of Americans for George W. Bush and his gang of idiots to just go away and disappear in to the dustbin of history, will be a great year. I believe we will surprise ourselves as a nation, as a people, as those who can tough it out, and make ourselves better by, perhaps, learning our greatness does not come from our military might, or our industrial prowess. Rather, my hope for 2009 is that we learn that we are great because of our Constitution. I hope we no longer see enemies in dark faces and strange names and different beliefs.

The past year was historic. It may have been, as the saying goes, prologue for what is to come. May we face it together in real hope, without fear, and always ready to have a laugh at our own absurdity.

"You Have Heard It Said . . ."

Refusing to leave well-enough alone, I want to take a look a bit further down Chapter 5 of the Gospel of St. Matthew. After the Beatitudes, with a short interlude on salt and light, we have a long list of sayings, using the formula "You have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . ." This series of sayings is prefaced by Jesus' insistence that he is not abolishing the Law, but fulfilling the Law. I think it important to keep that in mind as we consider this whole series.

One thing it is important to remember is that Jesus is saying all this on his own authority. Pronouncing upon the law was the role of learned teachers; Jesus is insisting he is one. Further, this authority of the Teacher was considered to be something granted by God alone; Jesus is insisting that he has Divine imprimatur for these teachings.

The "You have heard it said . . ." sayings deal with specific commandments: murder, adultery, and issues surrounding the legal practices of the people, including civil complaints, divorce, the rule of vengeance, and creating distinctions of "friend" and "enemy". All of them deal with how we are to live together as a people who proclaim the God of creation and redemption as their sole King. The King in his Court was the sole arbiter of true justice; here, Jesus is telling us that justice is not confined to a simple-minded literal understanding of words like "murder", "adultery", and that Divine favor is not limited to arbitrary distinctions like "friend" and "enemy". As the ekklesia, those called out to be a people different than others, we are a people whose life together is determined by a God of bounteous love and prodigal grace. Murder is not just taking a life; it is destruction of the communal bonds that hold us all together. Adultery is not just marital infidelity, but a surrender to physical desire that breaks the bonds of family that keep the community growing. Divorce might seem like a necessary evil, but it perpetuates the breaking of communal ties that bind us together. Enmity is an artificial category; we are all the recipients of God's grace and forbearance, and therefore entitled to all the love we can share with one another. The false distinctions between friend and enemy are just another way of destroying the communal bonds, a way we divide what God has not only called together, but called to be apart together.

One caveat, I think is necessary. Once again, while it might seem on a cursory reading that Jesus is here setting out all sorts of rules we are obliged to follow, otherwise facing eternal condemnation, I think that the context in which Jesus is offering this set of sayings belies such an interpretation. Remember, Jesus is heightening and tightening the demands placed upon the people who desire to be called God's people. These are not simple rules of personal moral virtue, but a set of understandings within a body of people. They are not rules for living; they are rules for living together. Jesus is insisting that, if we going to be the people of God, we have to live that way. Not just ensuring our adherence to the letter of the Law, but living in the Spirit of the law.

Again, I just don't know how someone could imagine that we liberals would find something not to like about this. Unless, of course, there are liberal Christians who think murder, hatred, enmity, sexual promiscuity, and the general destruction of communal ties is OK.

Marital Advice From An Imbecile

I was directed to this piece at Townhall via Sadly, No!, and all I can say is . . . well, just read it, and I do hope you aren't holding anything because before the first sentence is over you'll want to throw things at the computer.

In Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)

In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.

I've already read this, and I still want to throw things at my computer.

I will let you read the whole thing, if you dare, but I want to highlight a few things so someone less brave can get an idea of the kind of thing you would find if you read the whole thing.

2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?

[snip]

3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”

[snip]

7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.

There is much I could say, even more I so want to say, but I will reign in my desire to rant and rave at this nonsense.

Since many of these "reasons" legitimate - I cannot think of any other term to describe it - marital rape, I hope Mrs. Prager has a good attorney, because she could send her hubby to the clink for a long, long time. As Robin Williams said in Mrs. Doubtfire, Dennis Prager's idea of romance apparently can be reduced to three words: "Brace yourself, Effie".

A Different Description Of Progress In Iraq

On the one hand, there's the insistence that, because Christmas can be celebrated in Iraq, that means the entire project there is worth it.

On the other hand, there's the following story, highlighted by digby (be warned, the following is disturbing, graphic, and not for the squeamish):

Sheelan Anwar Omer, a shy 7-year-old Kurdish girl, bounded into her neighbor's house with an ear-to-ear smile, looking for the party her mother had promised.

There was no celebration. Instead, a local woman quickly locked a rusty red door behind Sheelan, who looked bewildered when her mother ordered the girl to remove her underpants. Sheelan began to whimper, then tremble, while the women pushed apart her legs and a midwife raised a stainless-steel razor blade in the air. "I do this in the name of Allah!" she intoned.

As the midwife sliced off part of Sheelan's genitals, the girl let out a high-pitched wail heard throughout the neighborhood. As she carried the sobbing child back home, Sheelan's mother smiled with pride.

"This is the practice of the Kurdish people for as long as anyone can remember," said the mother, Aisha Hameed, 30, a housewife in this ethnically mixed town about 100 miles north of Baghdad. "We don't know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it."

Kurdistan is the only known part of Iraq --and one of the few places in the world--where female circumcision is widespread. More than 60 percent of women in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq have been circumcised, according to a study conducted this year. In at least one Kurdish territory, 95 percent of women have undergone the practice, which human rights groups call female genital mutilation.

The practice, and the Kurdish parliament's refusal to outlaw it, highlight the plight of women in a region with a reputation for having a more progressive society than the rest of Iraq. Advocates for women point to the increasing frequency of honor killings against women and female self-immolations in Kurdistan this year as further evidence that women in the area still face significant obstacles, despite efforts to raise public awareness of circumcision and violence against women.

"When the Kurdish people were fighting for our independence, women participated as full members in the underground resistance," said Pakshan Zangana, who heads the women's committee in the Kurdish parliament. "But now that we have won our freedom, the position of women has been pushed backwards and crimes against us are minimized."
[...]

Kurds who support circumcising girls say the practice has two goals: It controls a woman's sexual desires, and it makes her spiritually clean so that others can eat the meals she prepares.

I will only add some thoughts from digby:

Women are dirty and their urges have to be controlled because they're always tempting men to do things they shouldn't do. Same as it ever was. The good news is that this practice helps preserve the ancient definition of marriage, so that's good. Maybe we can start practicing it here at those purity balls. If the men in pulpits told them it was required, have no doubt that the social conservative women would run with this one without a second thought.

The Kurds are free to torture their girl-children. Yee-ha! Thanks, George, Dick, Don, Colin, Condi. The future husband of this tortured and mutilated little girl will be able to eat a ritually clean meal thanks to you all.

The Beatitudes

Sometimes, even though I know I am being baited, I can't help myself. I need the address of Fundie Readers Anonymous or something to help me steer clear of it. "Liberals" are accused of "not understanding" the Sermon on the Mount at the top of one of the worst exegetical exercises I have ever read.

It portrays Jesus as being very intolerant. He tells the Pharisees how they are doing everything wrong - worship, giving, praying, fasting, behaving, etc.

He upholds every letter and pen stroke of the Old Testament, something they typically abandon first.

He spoke of judgment. He emphatically shows that there are false religions - the very thing that the liberal theologians teach the opposite of. He warns strongly against false teachers - people like them!

It sets an impossibly high standard and demonstrates that we need a Savior to reach God. He raises the bar or shows the real intent behind prohibitions against adultery, murder, etc. and sums up that section by saying, Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

The problem is that the liberal theologians view it as a checklist, just as they do with Matthew 22:37-40 (“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind . . . Love your neighbor as yourself.”). He didn’t mean for us to respond, “Thanks for the summary, I’ll get right on that!” The proper response is to be convicted that we can never be good enough on our own. You have to be pretty self-righteous not to realize what a joke it would be to claim you followed those passages well enough to merit God’s eternal favor.

In order to show that at least one liberal Christian has at least some inkling of how to read the Bible, let's stick with just the opening of Chapter 5, commonly known as the Beatitudes.

Before we even try to unpack all that, however, we need to take a step back and consider the Gospel of St. Matthew as a whole, and what purpose this passage serves in the author's overall narrative scheme. The writer of the Gospel sees the Christ-event as a recapitulation of the entire history of the people of Israel; every narrative moment, every event, each significant move is mirrored not only by analogy to events in the history of the people, but is accompanied by the writer's insistence that such-and-such an event is the fulfillment of this or that prophecy. On the one hand, this has led far too many people to think of "prophecy" as a kind of Divine divination, God predicting the future as it were. Another way of looking at this particular narrative device is to consider that it might just be a revolutionary rewriting of the entire Hebrew canon, centering it no longer on the people chosen by the LORD, called out of slavery; the center is now Jesus, the Son of Man (which embraces a later formulation, in the rebellious writings of Daniel, which were composed under the tyranny of Antiochus IV, about 150 years before Jesus was born), who embraces and transcends both the older history and tradition, as well as more recent yearning for freedom, independence, and the Kingdom of God.

This summary hardly does the subtlety of the Gospel justice, but we shall move now to the entire passage of Chapters 5-7. Simply put, this is, to use the terminology above, both an echo of and transcendence beyond the giving of the Law in Exodus. The Beatitudes echo the Ten Commandments to the extent that they offer a general view of the possibilities of a life lived in faith. They aren't rules. They aren't a new law. They aren't commandments. They are a description of God's gracious descent toward us, markers of the Kingdom of God, and the possibilities open to human beings who live in faith. We who mourn will be comforted. The meek shall inherit the earth. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled. Those who work for peace will be called children of God. These are not demands, laws, decrees, or limits upon human action. They are a vision of life lived under the grace of God.

Speaking as one liberal United Methodist Christian, I just have to ask: What's not to like here?

Public, Private, And Other Distinctions

After writing yesterday about the way the press is hounding President-elect Obama as he attempts to have some last few fatherly moments with his children before beginning the wild ride as our next President, I've been thinking a lot about the utter destruction of the line between public life and private life. I don't think this applies only to Presidents-elect, or Presidents. It is a phenomenon far larger than simple celebrity journalism, the hyping of all sorts of private pain in to public delectation. There seems to be some kind of general feeling that one's public persona should exist in continuity with one's private person. Where this particular bit of nonsense comes from, I really don't know, but it covers the gamut, not just in politics and religion (remember Ted Haggard? All those anti-gay gay Republicans?), but in the way we little people discuss issues on the internet. Even we peons face the demand that the way we frame our discussions of issues of public import exist as a mere extension of our private lives.

I guess I had always assumed that people understood that there was a real difference between the way one comports oneself in public, including how one argues in favor or opposition to this or that issue or controversy, and one's private goings-on. Yet, the line between private and public, between the contents of public argument and the day-to-day happenings of life is increasingly difficult to distinguish. Having faced the ire of those who seem to believe that, because I argue for or against this or that position my private beliefs and acts conform to my rhetoric. Is it at all possible to have a discussion without someone questioning how one lives one's private life? Is it at all possible to take an argument on its merits, rather than read in to an argument something either noble or nefarious about the person making the argument?

This distinction, I believe, should hold whether one is President of the United States or a small-time blogger trying to make this or that point in an argument. At one time, there was a kind of wall that surrounded the private lives of at least some public persons; Franklin Roosevelt could carry on a years-long affair with the White House press both knowing and respecting the fact that this private business had nothing at all to do with how he dealt with the nation's business. Except in the rare instance - Nixon's almost constant drunkenness his last year or so in office being the most recent example for which there is ample evidence - how a person, big or small, important or of little consequence, comports himself or herself in private is really no one's business.

For the purposes of our little blog argument thingy, I think that includes questioning the integrity or virtue of those who take a position with which one disagrees. Calling an individual who is pro-choice a "murderer" erases that private-public distinction pretty clearly, and as far as I'm concerned, is no longer "in-bounds". Insisting that, because someone supports this or that candidate, or does not support this or that policy, the individual in question "hates America", is "unChristian", or some other personal epithet, is also out of bounds. The simplest way to stick to the issues at hand is to do just that.

Others at other blogs and other places can formulate their own rules, and I am quite sure some may protest my own new and improved guidelines. I really don't care, because the point of all this is not to figure out who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. The point is to reach some kind of clarity about our life together. People who disagree, well, those disagreements don't reflect on the virtue or viciousness of those involved. We're all just people, trying to figure it out as we go along. We are, all of us, as right as we are wrong, most of the time.

This doesn't mean that we can't dismiss something that is clearly frivolous, or silly, or ignorant, or just plain stupid, in those terms, as long as we are clear it is the argument of which we speak, not the person making the argument.

This is my new policy for 2009. We are going to operate on the assumption that all of us are pretty good people with all the variety that entails. Any attempt to make either a personal compliment or insult, even some attempt to decipher the person behind the comment being made (and I will confess to having done so myself, so I don't exempt myself from the new "rule"), that comment will be removed. No one will be banned - I'm not Neil! - but I will remove any personal attacks, either upon me or any of my commenters. We need to do something to introduce, once again, the distinction between public and private, and it seems the best way to do it is, well, to do it.

Monday Music

Is it post-Christmas Depression? Nah. I just prefer songs with really dark themes. I suppose it's because some part of me figures this is the way life is; all the happiness and joy and love are the comforting illusions we tell ourselves to hide the terrifying reality that it's all a short, horrid ride from womb to tomb. Except, I don't really believe that, either. Happiness, love, peace are also real. The reality is that these songs put in to words and sounds my own sense of the limits of even these most desirous of emotive states. If you're feeling down, you might want to listen to these with the razors or pill bottles well out of reach.

"Heart Attack In a Lay By" by Porcupine Tree (a "lay by" is a rest area on British highways; the song is about a man dying in his car)

The following set of lyrics, from the end of the next song, sum up the sorrow that comes when a relationship ends. Pretty rough stuff, but, hey, life is pretty rough: "I know someday you'll have a beautiful life,
I know you'll be a sun in somebody else's sky, but why
Why, why can't it be, can't it be mine"
"Black" by Pearl Jam

From the Austrian progressive metal band Dead Soul Tribe (not too many happy songs with a band name like that, huh?) comes their song "Flies". It is a picture of the world as Hell, pure and simple. Not exactly cheery stuff, but hey, get out and take a look at the way most of the world looks to most people who actually live in it, and you might come to the same conclusion. "Sometimes it seems a laughing god has played his joke on me," indeed:

If you want happy songs, send me some requests for next week.

Promises Not Kept

By way of preface, let me just say that I think (a) we as a nation are as confused about human sexuality as can possibly be; (b) the Christian Churches do not help; (c) specifically my own denomination starts out well - by insisting the sexuality is a good gift from a good God - but ends up in the same confused morass as the rest of them, refusing to explain how it is a "good gift" apart from marriage.

Having said that, I have discovered, looking through my 1800 or so blog posts (!!) that I have spent quite a bit of time over the past two and a half years writing about sexual ethics, usually in a reactive way, i.e., reacting to something stupid I've read. I have yet to construct something positive as far as a healthy sexual ethic is concerned. I do think I have made some headway by clearing away what I believe not only does not work, but is actually counterproductive, including the whole "Purity Ball" thing, simple renunciation, and the current status quo. As far as reuninciation is concerned, atrios notes an item at Think Progress I was going to pass over without comment, but having said something, forced me to take up the subject yet again. First, the item itself:

A cornerstone of many abstinence-only programs is the concept of virginity pledges, which encourages “children as young as 9 to promise to wait until marriage to have sex.” But a new study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health finds that “teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do”. . .

Now, Duncan's commentary, which is spot on:

While the fact that virginity pledges and abstinence-only sex "ed" don't stop teens from having sex is unsurprising, I doubt that even proponents are particularly surprised. They aren't interested in abstinence, really, they're interested in making sure "bad girls" get punished for having sex by being subject to the appropriate consequences. So it actually works as designed.

So much of what calls itself "Christianity" these days can be reduced to insisting that much of life is a snare, a trap waiting the unsuspecting. It is hardly new; for centuries the Roman Catholic Church viewed women as a sink of sin designed by Satan to snatch good men away from a life of purity. One great Christian saint, whose name escapes me for the nonce, referred to women as "ordure and vomit". It is hardly surprising, then, that the onus of chastity is placed upon women, who are the source of boys' and mens' weakness when it comes to sexual temptation. After all, if it weren't for women and their wiles, men wouldn't give their sexual urges even a cursory glance, right?

It should surprise no one that those who pledge their virginity for marriage are no more likely to refrain from sexual activity, and when they do have sex do so in ways that are far riskier, than those who make no such promises. This is not to say there is nothing noble about such a pledge, or that, given the right support network, such promises are a complete waste of time. It is only to say the entire system of sexual renunciation is based upon the false premise that there is something of intrinsic worth about sexual abstinence, and that marriage is the sole place for sexual activity. It would be nice if this were true; it might even be nice if we could escape the weight of time and history and develop a healthy ethic of sexuality that recognized its goodness and was open to the possibility that, by reducing it from a necessary evil to just another part of life, we could demystify it, the Church would go a long way toward a healthy sexual ethic.

We have a lot of heavy lifting to do first, however. Part of that includes ridding ourselves of the idea that if we only say a few magic words and think good, pure thoughts, we can avoid the temptations of the flesh, especially when said temptations are clothed in the tresses of the first temptress, Eve. Removing all the onus from women and girls would go a long way toward that goal. Until that time, I don't think there is anything to be gained by making promises disconnected from the rest of life.

The Personal Isn't Political

I marvel at the self-importance of some journalists. Politico has an article on the way Obama is reacting to the constant presence of the press corps, even as he spends the Christmas holidays at home in Hawaii. There are moments of absurd self-importance verging on parody, if only the author of this piece were aware enough of them. In fact, the following paragraph borders on the kind of thing The Onion would write.

Obama even took the unusual step Friday morning of leaving behind the pool of reporters assigned to follow him, taking his daughters to a nearby water park without them. It was a breach of longstanding protocol between presidents (or presidents-elect) and the media, that a gaggle of reporters representing television, print and wire services is with his motorcade at all times.

It is against a longstanding protocol for the President to decide to take his children to a waterpark without dragging along a bunch of reporters? Said reporters believe such calumny not only worth reporting, but assuming the President-elect did something wrong in doing so?

Here's a thought, even in this 24-hour, internet era of constant scrutiny and over-exegesis of every word and gesture. Dial it down a bit. Show not only restraint and respect, but recognize there might just be nothing newsworthy in a man taking his children to a waterpark. Even if that man is the next President of the United States. Especially since Barack Obama's children are so small, it might be considered not only respectful, but just plain good form to leave him alone in his private moments, to allow him to take his children to a waterpark without a pack of vultures, protocol or no protocol, waiting in the wings.

He has his Secret Service detail to protect him. He doesn't need you to record his private life. An individual's private life is, for the most part, pretty banal. Even the President of the United States just might wish not to be photographed scratching between his legs, or whatever. Since we are returning to the days of the New Deal in economic policy, we might just consider moving to those same days in terms of the way we cover a President's private life.

Leave them all alone. Especially as President-elect Obama wishes nothing more than to be "Dad" to his two girls. Those moments are going to be few and far between over the next eight years as it is.

Do Things Happen For A Reason?

I do not want to step on any toes. Seriously. Reading this at Unglued, however, got me thinking about a common enough assertion - "things happen for a reason". As we near the end of 2008, I have been given many chances to revisit this particular phrase. Someone I work with uses it quite frequently. I guess I have to say that I think it's a way people cope with events that seem out of their control. Recession cause you to lose your job/home/relationship/marriage? Things don't just happen, or are the result of forces beyond your control, but they happen for a reason. A random set of events set in motion another series of events that lead you to meet the person you spend your life with? It isn't all random chance, but happened for a reason. The most extreme case I have encountered in my life of this was the biography of a prominent local personage from my hometown area, who spoke of his mother's early death, the ensuing family dysfunction - alcoholism, serial marital break-ups, estrangement - as all leading to his embracing the Christian faith, meeting his wife, and landing a position that allowed him to do work that he loved and . . . become a prominent person in our local area.

Untangling that web of reasoning, a kind of Gordian Knot of self-justification to my not-quite sixteen-year-old mind, led me to conclude that things don't happen for "a reason". Things happen, and after the fact we insist there were "reasons" for them happening. Whether to justify our own actions (or inactions), to make sense out of the senselessness of it all, or to find that silver-lining amongst the clouds of life, or perhaps to marvel at the way events sometimes disparate, sometimes unconnected, can lead to profound changes or surprising moments of joy in our lives, the effort to make sense of the myriad and panoply of our lives can lead us to toss up our hands and say, "Must have happened for a reason."

There was a television program that The History Channel used to broadcast (perhaps it still does) called "Connections", in which the odd correlations and interactions among various historical events were traced from some random point in the past to some seemingly unrelated event in the near-present/past. What I liked about that show was not only the way it displayed the futility of any direct cause/effect link (most of the links in the program were links of passing historical interest at some particular time, having consequences only in retrospect, and certainly little meaning), but the wide variety of ways human beings have of drawing meaning and importance out of one event and attempt to apply it to another.

I do not believe "things happen for a reason". I believe that, sometimes, we human beings become the passive recipients of the result either of the actions of others or social/historical forces beyond our control; or we act in ways that may surprise us or others, sometimes in our own interest, sometimes not, and the results are not what was intended, or even perhaps contemplated as possible when the action was first undertaken, but nevertheless can be traced loosely enough to some initial decision on our part. While this latter may under some general understanding come under the heading "reason", I do not believe one can do so unless one stretches the meaning of the word beyond recognition. We may be able to find solace in the idea that "things happen for a reason"; I do not believe such solace, however necessary for a few moments or even a few days, can stand up against the terrifying weight of the reality that things just happen. Sometimes good things. Sometimes terrible things. Sometimes, if we are resourceful enough, emotionally and intellectually strong enough, or just lucky and clever enough, we can draw something beautiful out of the morass. While I would never insist that human beings are passive recipients of events, the interactions of many different individuals, collectives, social and historical events make tracing any "reason" for anything beyond our abilities.

I guess I just prefer to face the fact that sometimes, as the bumper sticker says, "Shit happens". If you can clean it up and through the weird alchemy of life transform that shit in to something sublime and wonderful, that's great. I would hardly insist, however, that the latter result of much emotional effort was the reason for being shat upon in the first place.