Belief, faith, and framing the debate: who’s right? None of them.

For too many religious believers, the word ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ somehow have become cryptonyms for the belief in their particular deity. They talk placidly about ‘people of faith’, without specifying faith in what. This casts the wooly blanket of lowered expectations over the issue of internecine differences between sects. For those who complain about ‘political correctness’, I am not surprised that this word choice is not public enemy number one, but it usually doesn’t even make the metaphoric post office wall.

This is not surprising. In America, The Christian right, like its secular cousin, has become good at word shaping to frame a debate.

Perhaps this is just another expression of the tyranny of lowered expectations, but, more cynically, by failing to acknowledge the differences of faith, a sect can then move the goalposts silently. For instance what these Christians want is not a generic faith, but their same old Baptist fundamentalist belief, except dressed up in new interfaith clothing. They certainly don’t want to acknowledge the truth about how unyielding their positions really are, even on small matters like the literal truth of the bible. Some examples of the neo-Christianity include the Alpha Project or the older Jews for Jesus.

The hateful honesty of being tortured for, for instance, refusing to acknowledge the number of sacraments must seem nostalgic for those whose beliefs are patronized by a ‘pan christian’ Alpha church: [4]

Another way to see the tyranny of the majority, is to look at the minority. Jews are uncomfortable being smothered by blanket of interfaith Christianity. Yet, that is just what the neo-Christians are doing.[5].

For those who would say this is just an excuse to bag on the American religious right (and I do hate to pass up such opportunities), I observe this problem cuts many ways. It pollutes the Jewish-Muslim conflict as well. [2] [http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2005-12-13.9944000210]

As an atheist, I regard those divisions as incredibly valid and telling. As Abraham Lincoln, quoting biblical sources, stated in another context: “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. I see these as the building inspector does – a sign that the structure is fatally weak and should be destroyed before it collapses on its innocent occupants. These divisions must be noted and exposed, not covered over. Until this is done, the fundamental problem will still be the same: where parochial belief in a particular deity trumps humanism, people will suffer. When will it end?

_________________________________________________
[1] Interfaith events 'harmful to your Jewishness'
[http://www.jewishreview.org/Archives/Article.php?Article=2006-01-01-1942]
To the editor:
The Dec. 15 Jewish Review included two articles about interfaith events, one celebrating the Catholic Church's 1965 admission that I did not kill Jesus, the other praising a Middle East peace conference hosted by Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon.
Jewish participation in such interfaith events, in my opinion, should carry a warning, much like that on a pack of cigarettes: Caution, this may be harmful to your Jewishness.
For example, in the page-one article about the anniversary of the Catholic Church document "Nostra Aetate," Rabbi David Rosen praised Pope John Paul II's pronouncement that Judaism is Christianity's older brother.

John Paul's widely reported remark was not good for Jews.

John Paul was reaffirming Christianity's long-held belief that it is superior to Judaism. The older brothers in our beloved Torah were all passed over in favor of their younger brothers Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and David.

John Paul was telling his Jewish audience from the bimah of Rome's Great Synagogue that God favors younger Christianity over older Judaism.

This is not showing interfaith respect for Jews.

I believe Christians use interfaith happenings as a stepping-stone to our conversion to Christianity. Christians are obsessed with the conversion of Jews so that, according to their belief, Jesus can return.

Our religion of mitzvoth is very different from Christianity that first requires belief in the divinity of one individual.

The good works for which interfaith interaction is intended can be carried out by the participants working together as good citizens and neighbors without mentioning religion. That has been the successful pattern for 400 years in the New World.

Yehoshua Gloger, Portland


[2] “Dialogue is the first step to peacefully end conflicts; interfaith dialogue is its religious version with one of its objectives being to end religiously motivated conflicts. This promising approach is anything but unusual. Many regional and global interfaith meetings are held, and attended by high ranking religious scholars. To counter the vehement exchange of theological arguments among the masses, these scholars have issued statement after statement emphasizing the message of love and peace which naturally exists in all religions of the world. These statements, however, never materialize into palpable change in the reality around. The dissonant picture we have now is one of a liberal bourgeois enclave of interfaith dialogue surrounded by a vast terrain of conflicting masses who are either uninterested in, or not invited to, that enclave.

To repair this picture let us consider two objectives, which are unfortunately frequently overlooked. First, scholars should apply their knowledge to seriously counter the conflict discourse. In its Islamic variant this discourse evolves around a number of essential concepts such as Jihad, Martyrdom, The Jews, Holy Land, Islamic Caliphate and the Prophecy of the end of world. Here Jihad is used to mean an eternal war against non Muslims; Martyrdom is used to legitimize suicide operations against civilians; The Jews are a people destined to eternal hostility against Muslims; and the Holy Land has a special sacred nature which imposes specific political regulations. The Islamic Caliphate which was a specific historical formation now becomes a substantial part of the practice of Islam; Muslims believe if it does not exist then they can not really be Muslims. All these concepts, and their discourse, are led by a prophecy, a vision of the future, whose main feature is a fierce war between Muslims and Jews that will mark the end of the world. The creation of these religio-historical concepts and their weaving together is a recipe for eternal violence that nice rhetorical preaching of peace or promising economic incentives can not neutralize.”

[3] “You might think that the Catholic vs. Protestant debate has been relegated to musty theological tomes, but you’d be surprised at the vibrancy (and occasional nastiness) to be found in Protestant and Catholic apologetics blogs when it comes to this issue. In my limited experience from reading apologetics blogs, Catholic apologists sometimes come across as condescending towards Protestants, as if they’re upstart children in need of correction; and Protestants very quickly start lobbing around phrases like “Whore of Babylon,” which are guaranteed to kill any chance of meaningful interaction. It may be a huge challenge to have a productive exchange with somebody whose theology you find completely erroneous; but hopefully the suggestions at the above two blogs can help keep the debate calm and respectful.” [http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2007/02/02/protestants-vs-catholics-fight/]

[4] [http://www.alphachurch.org/]

[5] [http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm]

The Charge of the Light Bush Brigade

I keep wondering why the Bushies, more than any other administration really (especially in the last month) want not just to survive their term and get their way but to confront their enemies.
Part of the answer, I think, is that Bush has adopted the Rove-style tactic of attacking the strength of the enemy. This can be either brave (Rommel), foolhardy (Pickett's charge) or suicidal (Custer's last stand), depending on degree. Lately, Bush seems to be in the Custer category.

But that’s not enough to explain the latest series of Executive Orders, giving the president ‘emergency powers’, and it certainly doesn’t explain the declaration of universal executive privilege.

So, what’s happened to Bush?

I think it is in Bush's obsession with being vindicated, either by history, or in this case by the Supreme Court. He really doesn't want or need the powers he is exercising, but he wants to do something epic (or in this case infamous). Iraq is not going to do it. We aren’t going to conquer Iran. Afghanistan is a mess. He is perceived as a puppet, a cipher, in the Middle East, of the Saudis, of the religious right, and even of the business cronies, like Cheney, that profit, far more than he, from his largesse.

We always knew that Bush was a megalomaniac, but this desire to get back to the head of his parade is new. The proof of his insecurities seem to be growing. It seems to be coming through most as his time in office grows short. He's running out of time to have an impact on history, before we put him out to pasture.

Maybe he would consider Olbermann's suggestion that he take up arms in his own war. He'd probably fancy being like Patton, going around reviewing troops with a riding crop in his hand. I see him more like Slim Pickens, riding the bomb down to the ground in Strangelove, waving his stetson.

In any case, he is pretty sure he won't go down in history as the first president removed by impeachment. And now, I don't want him to. I want him to go down in history with his name on a series of United States v. George W. Bush rulings. Can this Supreme Court be so insane as to believe the idea that the Congress has no investigative power over the executive? I don't think so.

What might happen if the Supreme Court rules against him? If he were an ordinary president, I'd say he'll just sit back and look for sites for his presidential library. has assembled a world class team of stonewallers, stallers and liars. He has a Congress that barely is past the toddler stage of bravery. He only has a year and a half to go. He could probably take the rest of his term off and Congress would never lay a glove on him or any other executive.

But will that be enough for the Mad King George? I think not. I think he won't be happy until he goes down in a blaze of glory. That means picking new fights, each broader and crazier than the last until someone stops him. You see, we thought he was a sneak like Nixon, saying catch me if you can, or an obdurate but basically hollow man like Reagan, saying "I yam what I yam". No, he's crazier. He's saying "Forward, the Light Brigade! Charge for the guns!"

How can we get him his martyrdom? And what will it cost us?

Let us pray.

A song for Alberto

Oh my name is Alberto,
I look kinda like a turtle,
I stamp memos for torture all day,

I'm kinda ineffectual,
but that just satisfactual,
I don't get too much in the way,

So, one day I get a call from Rovey,
he said it would be groovy,
if I would sack attorneys for him,

You see they did some diggin,
and some pigeons started singin,
Casualties were gonna get grim

That's not among our troops, of course,
Our loyal American fightin force,
I mean our donation roll's not so large,

Now I'm in charge of Justice,
But I don't know how I musta,
been appointed by someone in charge,

In front of the nation,
Can't remember my relation-
ship to decisions I'm sure that I made,

I'll have to get back to ya,
With an answer for you Senator,
Just after Inaguration Day.

I'm kinda ineffectual,
but that just satisfactual,
So I don't get too much in the way,

George W Gump - just in time for the Oscars

Here I would let slip
(If I had any in me) scholarship,
And from all learning keep these lines as clear
As Shakespeare's are,
which to our heirs will show,
How far sometimes a mortal man may go
By the dim light of Nature.

- Francis Beaumont

It is of course pedestrian these days to state how average, or even idiotic, Mr. Bush really is (which shall not stop me from doing so). However, let us stop for a moment and consider how far Mr. G.W. Bush has, like Shakespeare (whomever he may be), gone by the dim light of Nature (and several hundred million dollars of Bush crime league money).

Mr. Bush is the Zelig (or the Forrest Gump) of our nation. And, as the Gump in chief, he is a true naif, more suited for observing the world than participating in it. How else can one explain how an average C student from an Ivy League background can morph himself into a rooten' tooten' cowboy from backass Texas? Not acting talent nor dint of effort can explain this. It is a true phenomenon. Ah well, every silver lining has its cloud, though. What has been dangerous about GW Gump is that, unlike in the movies, GW lacks that innate insight into character that the movie innocents possess. If he had such, he would have been positively allergic to the power hungry, money grubbing Republican scum that surround him like hornets around an open soda can.

I mean, really, even a good old patrician sense of superiority would do to separate him from the parvenus who seem to be in charge at the White House (also called Haliburton-DC office). But, somehow GW has liberated himself from his blueblood roots to become a new sort of man, a man who has to struggle to earn a buck, a man who puts his blue jeans on one leg at a time and goes out into the oil fields. Now, it is true that GW has struggled to keep a buck once it was given to him, but losing money on the Texas Rangers Baseball Club is hardly the stuff of T. Boone Pickens-esque legend.

No, the people who should consider bitch slapping the Gump-in-chief for impersonating a president are GW's brother Jeb, who at the very least has gotten his feet wet and his face dirty in the business of politics (I mean, you aren't a real politician until you've fixed your first election) or his father George Bush, Pere, who, as a former director of the CIA, should cringe at the imputation that his son knows better than he how to arrange the intelligence services, or any other lever of government for that matter.
And, it seems that as of the October 2006 elections, the Christian Right might be more sensitive to a faux salt pillar of the earth. We can hope they decide to melt old GW Salt-of-the-earth back into the silver spoon from whence he came.

Wish I'd written this

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

What drugs Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what drugs Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Good Night, Report-Whores

So, recent events got me thinking again. The movie "Good Night and Good Luck" lionizes (some say hagiographs) Edward R. Murrow. At the same time, the Valerie Plame/Judith Miller/Republican scumbags case kept its revelations going. Now, one of the problems with the debate on Plame and Judith Miller, the reporter who supposedly was leaked her name by Scooter Libby, is that no one wants to come out and say that she is just another Report-whore of the modern style, not a freedom fighter for the First Amendment (though, I suppose, the Fifth Amendment may come into play for her at some time soon …)

Yes, there has been a steady downslide in the image of reporters in the past few years. Of course there have always been the celebrity Report-whores, selling stories about the stars for money. We have seen the spectacle of formerly 'hard' journalists like Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters now paving their way on morning pseudo-news chat shows sitting on a couch talking about celebrity boob jobs. Report-whoring was made easier by the Fox network, who have funded an entire stable of Report-whores whose idea of hard news reporting is rephrasing White House press releases. But now, we are faced with the idea of a semi-permanent set of Report-whores whose accept their role is to push government propaganda with the same zeal as have celebrity reporters pimping new studio releases.

Liberals must be especially aghast at Miller. But, why are we now surprised? Partially because Miller works for the liberal bastion "The New York Times". A traitor in our midst? No, more like the token conservative at that paper, or at least so we thought. But is she the only sellout? Far from it. Just as we ask that question we get the spectacle of Mr. Bob Woodward, supposed Hero of the '72 Revolution. Woodward now admits he had contact with the Bush administration but failed to mention it as he 'didn't want to get involved' in the Plame case. Hard hitting? Only as he hit the bottom of his foxhole diving for cover. Surprised? A documentary of Watergate, Silent Coup, points out that Woodward was always a mole for the military intelligence community, being a briefer for naval intelligence. Since Watergate he has been a liberal paper tiger, mostly pimping his credentials writing supposedly hard hitting books with all the punch of a feather boa. But now, he whored out to the Rove-Cheney machine. How could we have been so naïve?

Back to "Good Night", though. Sadly, it points up to me that Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley and the like that I grew up with were all the exception, not the rule. The rule of American media history has been the corporate press, from the Federalist press machine of the 1780s, the Republican press of the Civil War to the Hearst tabloids.
What changed our perceptions was the Second World War. But, that was obviously more the exception than the rule. As the Greatest Generation ™ dies off, the next generations will find that the real problem is evermore rampant corporatism. And the only time in recent memory that corporations were at all brought to heel was when they were all but nationalized to fight WW2. Since then we have had increasing corporate sponsorship of war until the present day when the military-industrial complex of Eisenhower's warning pales by comparison to Bush's creation of a war not only sponsored by but outsourced to industry. The Report-whores who mildly complained at being somewhat shut out of the first gulf war were this time herded completely by the Rove-Cheney machine. All they wanted was the promise that they could be the next Wolf Blitzer, filming with the bombs falling around them. Be careful what you ask for, Report-whores. This time, the bombs are roadside and they don't make nice TV when they blow up your humvee.

Loveland = Dumbland?

So, the Guyster had the opportunity to see the latest (although not new) email screed circulating around his rather conservatively-oriented office. Interestingly, this email also was the downfall of Jim Welker, R-Loveland, which may argue its currency if not its accuracy.

In the interest of not advancing this silliness I will not reproduce the article, but there simply look up "Can Muslims Be Good Americans?" on your favorite search engine.

However, in the interest of being an equal opportunity offender, the Guyster has uncovered the following text:

CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A GOOD AMERICAN?

By Guy Weknow

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Jehovah, the god of the Canaanites and to his prophet, Jesus.

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the literal word of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople or other seats of the holy church.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with gays, liberals or Jews. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:33)

Politically, no. Because he must submit to the ministers (spiritual leaders), who teach the subjugation of women, minorities, homosexuals and all those sinners tolerated by the Constitution of the United States. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. " (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his god except Judaism: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution as it is based on a separation of church and state and an acceptance of other faiths.

Philosophically, no. Because he is instructed to kill anyone who asks him to moderate his faith: "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God... If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

Democracy and Christ cannot coexist. Every Puritan government is either dictatorial or autocratic: "England then had, in effect, a theocratic Puritan dictatorship. This was a dictatorship by a Christian fundamentalist, if you will. Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector until his death 5 years later." (http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans.htm)

Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," Christ does not wish believers and nonbelievers to live together as one nation: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37). "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)