The Prodigal Sheep

Many signs point to a growing consciousness among the American people. I trust that this is so. It is useful to remember that history is to the nation as memory is to the individual. As persons deprived of memory become disoriented and lost, not knowing where they have been and where they are going, so a nation denied a conception of the past will be disabled in dealing with its present and its future.

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., quoted in this month's Harper's Magazine.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. 

The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to Al Qaeda and their known affiliates.

President George W. Bush, May 11, 2006, quoted by PBS' Frontline.

General warrants was part of the reason for the American Revolution. It was that the king's agent could go in and search a house everywhere, search a whole neighborhood with one warrant. And the Boston people said: "We don't like that. We'll have a tea party. We'll fight you." We said no.

Peter Swire, former White House Chief Counsel for Privacy, quoted by PBS' Frontline.

The [PBS] documentary is a straightforward indictment of the Bush administration's decision to sacrifice individual liberties for collective defense ... Big Brother is not, as once feared, a giant centralized supercomputer with a massive amount of information about every American; rather, it is a cherry-picking operation in which the government goes looking for what it wants among gargantuan corporate databanks.

Washington Post, May 15.

Posted by Mark Poole at 2:38 PM in America, Politics, Privacy
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Apocalypse now. Just in time for the holidays. Take your pick of the following:

• Mel Gibson's latest movie, where America's conquered are fodder for Gibson's latest historically inaccurate depiction of evil,
• Left Behind: Eternal Forces, a so-called 'Christian' video game where you engage in apocalyptic warfare and win points by converting or killing atheists, Catholics, Muslims and Jews, or
• This report on where Western civilization is heading under the enlightened ethical leadership of Chairman Bush and co.
  

Posted by Mark Poole at 2:23 PM in Justice, Politics, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's readings from the daily office include Revelation 17. This passage and chapter 18 describe the punishment and fall of mystical Babylon, the mother of abominations who rules over all the nations of the earth:

Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries. (17:1-2)

To the first or second century readers of Revelation, Babylon of course was imperial Rome. But what interests me more than a historical-critical interpretation of this imagery is the idea of the embodiment of idolatry. Babylon is incomparably wealthy, riding upon the beast of imperial military and political power, drenched in the blood of the innocent, with all the nations are under her spell.

What particularly potent imagery for what Walter Wink refers to as the Domination System — an idolatrous system of power and privilege based on imperial culture and the myth of redemptive violence. In The Powers That Be (which I started reading a few days ago), Wink interprets the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish as the archetypal narrative of the myth that social order and cohesion must be maintained and reinforced through repeated sacrificial violence.

The Romans were the first century inheritors, through the Pax Romana, of the myth of redemptive violence. The Domination System ruled through Roman imperial power and through its descendants in Christendom and later the modern nation state.

One does not have to look too far to see Babylon's modern sons, who continue to insist it is necessary to destroy entire societies through suffering and bloodshed in order to save them. These days however, redemptive violence is waged under euphemisms like 'structural adjustment', 'collateral damage' and 'staying the course'.

They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers. (17:14)

The great promise of Revelation is that such oppression and violence will be overturned, ultimately and nonviolently, by the Lamb. Might is not right, and ultimately will not prevail.

Posted by Mark Poole at 3:49 PM in Justice, Politics, Theology
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the current issue of Newsweek there is a series of articles on 'The Politics of Jesus.'

In a lead article that dissects the growing rifts within evangelical ranks, Newsweek writer Lisa Miller parses evangelicals into the classic categories of conservative, moderate and progressive. She asks, 'How much do they have to show for the decades of activism? And if they are to turn from what Roger Williams called "the garden of Christ's church" to fight the battles of "the wilderness of the world," what should those battles be?'

In my view, there is no real 'politics of Jesus'. The issue is not whether God votes Republican, Democrat or Green. Nothing in Jesus' life, ministry or death suggests support for specific political parties or partisan positions. Jesus was not apolitical but anti-political (in the sense that the things of Caesar were definitely not the Kingdom of God).

There is much to be said for Greg Boyd's position that while Christians should engage vigorously in the public and political spheres, Jesus Christ transcends democratic politics — and it cheapens the gospel to suggest that there is a 'politics of Jesus' or a distinctly Christian political position.

Miller compares the culture war scaremongering of religious leaders like James Dobson to a much different message from suburban Kansas megachurch pastor, Adam Hamilton:

He was helping his 14,000 members parse the parables in Matthew 13—the wheat and the weeds, the good fish and bad. "Our task is not to go around judging people—Jesus didn't do that," he tells NEWSWEEK. He encourages his congregation to vote, he says, but when they do they're neither predictably Republican nor Democratic. On the issues, many are increasingly frustrated with the war in Iraq; they're conservative on abortion, but they "express compassion" for homosexuals. The religious right has "gone too far," says Hamilton. "They've lost their focus on the spirit of Jesus and have separated the world into black and white, when the world is much more gray." He adds: "I can't see Jesus standing with signs at an anti-gay rally. It's hard to picture that."

The fact that evanglicals are finding more nuanced positions on social issues and returning to the core of Jesus' social justice teachings should not come as a surprise. It should also not be seen as some sort of 'swing' to the left, as some commentators seem to posit. As Miller points out:

Some Christians, exhausted by divisive wedge politics, are going back to the Bible and embracing a wider-ranging agenda, one that emphasizes reaching out to the poor and disenfranchised.

I see this more as a spiritual issue than a political one. Evangelicals are coming out from under the shadows of a fundamentalism they have been unrighteously shackled to for the past two to three decades. As the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition flounder, as Focus on The Family and minsitries like it become more and more extreme and single-issue obsessed, people are beginning to ask what any of that has to do with the gospel.

My favorite personal Bible is my faux-leather bound version of Eugene Peterson's The Message. Embossed on the front cover is a small bird-like face, underneath which is one word: THINK. The emergence of intelligent thought in a young person is a sign of a maturing outlook. I'm sure it's the same with today's evangelicals.

Posted by Mark Poole at 1:50 PM in Politics, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I am not Episcopal, but I find the Episcopal daily office lectionary a wonderful resource for reading and meditating on scripture. Lowell Grisham's blog provides each day's readings together with his personal commentary. Lowell is an astute observer of religion and public life and I highly recommend his insights.

Yesterday's and today's Hebrew scripture readings are from Micah 1 and 2. The prophet Micah warns here of God's impending judgment upon the cities of Jerusalem and Samaria, the twin political and religious centers of ancient Judah and Israel. Like many modern centers of power both cities had become, in Micah's eyes, corrupted at the core through their political and religious 'prostitution' and their abuse of wealth and power.

He rails against powerful interests who snatch property from the poor and evict families from their homes, against political leaders who raise extortionate taxes on the poor whilst inflicting unnecessary wars upon their people.

As Lowell observes,

Much of the complaint of the prophets was directed at the abuse of power by the wealthy and the politically connected. The prophets accuse the powerful of using their power to expand their own economic interests, often at the expense of the peasants and smaller landowners. There was lying, arrogance and corruption in the high places, particularly the seat of government. God detests such behavior, says Micah and the prophets. Such behavior brings God's judgment.

This stuff reads like today's headlines. When you read the 8th century prophets it is like reading a contemporary newspaper or watching TV news -- just substitute Washington for Samaria and Jerusalem. The 8th century BCE was a time when Israel was wealthy and politically powerful. It was also a time of increasing economic contrasts. The wealthy were concentrating much of the wealth and power into the hands of the elite, a circumstance guaranteed to draw the ire of the prophetic tradition.

Lowell goes on to note that the prescription against such abuse is summed up in Micah's famous prophetic demans, that the Israelites learn again 'to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.'

Such an injunction is appropriate given the times we live in. We may not be facing fire and brimstone from heaven, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest a callousness in public and private life equivalent to that prophesied against by Micah.

Given that an election is looming in the US, the Christian Alliance for Progress is timely in releasing its Christian Voters Values Guide 2006, a welcome counterpoint to the almost deafening posturing on 'values' by the religious right.

On several key points, the Voters Values Guide echos the concerns of Micah:

• Forsaking brute power - seeking peace, not war
• Caring for the earth - responsible environmental stewardship
• Rejectig bigotry, embracing dignity - equality for all
  
• Extending healing to all - health care for all

Posted by Mark Poole at 11:52 PM in Justice, Politics, Progressive Christianity
Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Chip Berlet has an excellent piece on Talk To Action concerning the frightening direction culture war scapegoating is taking these days with the religious right. He is discussing the recent 'Value Voters Summit' orchestrated by the Family Research Council:

The Christian Right has regrouped and launched a new offensive in the ongoing Christian Right Culture War. Gay marriage and the "homosexual agenda" are the primary tactical scapegoats ...

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins suggested the nation was under attack from without and within, which was a theme throughout the conference. The domestic forces of Satan--secularists, liberals, homosexuals, feminists, abortionists, p o r nographers--are the subversives within; while the barbaric terrorist Islamic fascists are the external enemy. Godly "values voters" should remember how they felt on 9/11, and then go into the voting booth and vote to prevent the Democrats from having the opportunity to appoint more activist judges who are wittingly or unwittingly in league with the evil forces of darkness.

As I have said before on this blog, gay is the new Jew as far as the radical religious right is concerned. Gays have come to epitomize all that is evil, representing a threat to Godly sanctity that must not only be resisted, but eliminated altogether.

Time and again speakers at the conference made it clear that gay marriage was the key battle in the campaign to protect religion, (and thwart the plans of the Devil). Gay marriage, we were told, will spread like a disease across America from the source of the infection--Massachusetts and its cabal of activist judges.

But the fight against gay marriage and civil unions should be viewed for what it is: the thin end of a wedge, merely a starting point for drawing battle lines and testing the water to see what the citizenry will accept.

If the theocrats succeed in having enough 'Godly men' (i.e. fundamentalist or fundamentalist-controlled Republicans) elected to positions of power throughout the country, a Federal Marriage Amendment will be the least of our problems. The rhetoric will continue to ratchet up and the consequences will become ever more grave.

Will the true confessing church please stand up and be heard?

Posted by Mark Poole at 6:15 PM in Marriage Equality, Politics, Queer, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today I was browsing through the exhibits at the conference when I stumbled upon an interesting new product called Layered Voice Analysis (LVA).

LVA is software that analyzes 129 frequency parameters found in the human voice and provides an emotional/psychological profile of the speaker. It shows, for example, when a subject is being deceptive, excited or stressed.

To illustrate LVA's capabilities, the vendor had set up a large plasma screen showing the software running alongside a clip of Bill Clinton's now famous debate with Mike Wallace on Faux News.

As Clinton was speaking, the word "Truthful" continually flashed on the screen, punctuated occasionally by "High Levels of Stress". Who said telling the truth was easy? On several occasions when Wallace interjected or responded, the word "Inaccuracy" would flash on the screen.

I'm not making this up. I only watched a couple of minutes but found the demonstration fascinating. Now when can I buy a set-top box version to attach to my TV?

Of course, for watchers of Faux News, you wouldn't need to invest in this technology. Just place a sign on top of your set that says, "Lies, Damned Lies and Lying Liars" and you'll be set.

Posted by Mark Poole at 8:08 PM in Humor, Media, Politics, Psychology, Technology
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

More on the very real similarities between fundamentalisms — Christian and Islamic.

The current issue of The Christian Century has an article by United Methodist minister Paul Jeffrey on the difficulties faced by NGOs providing earthquake relief in Pakistan. The local director of Church World Service (CWS) describes some of the measures that have had to be adopted by western aid agencies in order to avoid showing disrespect to local tradition and culture, while still providing urgently needed relief.

Interestingly, the foreign influence that causes the most trouble with the locals is not western secularism or feminism, but conservative evangelical Christianity. Operations such as Samaritan's Purse, whose leader Franklin Graham has attacked Islam as a "very wicked and evil religion", seem all to ready to exploit the earthquake victims and their suffering as an opportunity to evangelize.

Blatant proselytizing mixed with religious intolerance can be volatile for all involved. Such an approach to aid is not only inflammatory, but can well endanger other Christian and western aid groups and damage good relations NGOs have taken years to build with local communities.

In the article, Jeffrey observes two interesting parallels between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity.

Firstly, both types of groups have flourished under US taxpayer funding. Islamist extremists got their headstart under Reagan with billions in US funding channeled through the Pakistan security forces. Based on what I learned this weekend on terrorist funding, such groups still manage to draw funding (albeit limited) through USAID by posing as legitimate charities. On the other hand, Christian fundamentalist organizations have in recent years been the primary recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to "faith-based" initiatives. In both cases much of the funding was and is diverted to proselytizing, political activity and other questionable ends.

Secondly, in troubled theaters like Pakistan and Iraq, both groups of extremists continue to foster discord among the ordinary people, posing a challenge to real relief efforts. Jeffrey quotes Marvin Pervez of CWS commenting how you hear the same type of shrill jeremiad coming from both the local church and the mosque, "as if the clergy and the mullahs exchange notes."

Another parallel is how fundamentalists of both persuasions will try to appear reasonable and compassionate in their efforts to win hearts and minds to the cause. For instance, Hezbollah is known for its charity and welfare work in Palestine. Various groups affiliated with al-Qaeda are known for the support for widows and families of suicide bomb 'martyrs'.

Likewise, on the Christian right you see furious opposition to women's reproductive choice and gay civil rights dressed up for the media and general public as compassionate "concern for the unborn" and for the "protection of marriage". But behind closed doors the real agendas of keeping women "in their place" and eliminating the homosexual 'problem' are openly discussed.

Ralph Reed does the same thing in his recent debate with Jim Wallis on God's Politics Blog. Among various other misrepresentations, he even manages to characterize the fundamentalist obsession with Israel (based on its belief in the end-times, which culminates in Israel's ultimate and horrific annihilation at Armageddon, as foretold by fundamentalist eschatology) as a social justice issue.

Pam Spauling noted a similar trend on her blog today, where she discussed Jerry Falwell's comparison of Hillary Clinton to Satan during private remarks to like-minded pastors at the Value Voters Summit. Falwell is an extremist and works closely with others who can be considered even more extreme than he is, but he likes to come across to the general public as a genial defender of the faith. Mel White has documented at length, in Religion Gone Bad, how these ideologues will say one thing in public, trying to sound as reasonable as possible, whilst uttering dark invective to foot soldiers when they suppose the media aren't paying attention.

The point of all this is not to attempt to equate Jerry Falwell or Franklin Graham with Osama bin Laden. To compare isms is not to equate them, nor to suggest moral equivalency between one kind of outrage and another. In any case, charges from the right of 'moral relativism' do not successfully detract from the validity of observations that similar dynamics appear to be at work in both.

Posted by Mark Poole at 11:55 PM in Media, Politics, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

Every now and then I come across a rare gem from somewhere on the religious right that simply leaves me dumbfounded by its unintentional irony.

Hence the following surreal quote in the Washington Post from Pope Benedict XVI's biographer, George Weigel. Weigel is responding to outrage throughout the Muslim world following the pope's recent comments in which he quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor saying that the prophet Muhammad brought "only evil and inhuman" things to the world:

The over-the-top reaction in the Muslim world simply underscores the truth of what he [the pope] said at Regensburg, which is that unless Islam develops the capacity to be self-critical — unless Islamic leaders take responsibility for saying to their extremists that violence in the name of God is wrong — then there can be no genuine interreligious dialogue.

Such arrogance. A prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. Inquisition, anyone? Witch hunt? Gay seminarian purge?

I don't remember the last time I heard Vatican leadership exhibiting the capacity to be self-critical in relation to any number of its dogmatic pronouncements — especially those condemning family planning and contraceptive use in the third world, or on the "intrinsic moral evil" of loving, committed same-sex relationships. Nor have I witnessed Catholic leaders taking "responsibility for saying to their [own] extremists that violence in the name of God is wrong."

This laughable piece of deflection ties in nicely with a recent article on Christian realism in the Progressive Christians Uniting blog. In it, Peter Laarman highlights Reinhold Niebuhr's insight that

Christians should see the world as it is and act ethically in the light of a clear-sighted realism. For the neoconservatives and for most other Right ideologues, “realism” means understanding how bad they are — all the “enemies of freedom,” “Islamo-fascists,” etc.; yet surely a major part of Niebuhr’s realism entailed understanding our own propensity to sinning, our own capacity for self-deception and hubris. It’s this kind of Christian Realism that is in critically short supply right now.

Laarman ties this lack of self-critical capacity amongst Christians to "the corporate-media mystification bubble". This lack seems to be particularly pronounced (in his view) among American evangelical Christians.

Consumption is a lonely pursuit, but it’s a pursuit that accords perfectly with the high level of small-bore anxiety that rules our culture ...

Consumerism pits me against other consuming monads ... it definitely does not invite us to think collectively about how we will fare in retirement, maintain our health, or gain education for the enhancement of life itself rather than for purposes of workplace competition. This latter way of thinking — thinking about the “we” and doing so with the benefit of critical consciousness — is the business of citizenship, not consumerism ...

The paramount challenge facing progressive Christians, I believe, is developing the courage and the tools needed to puncture the mysification bubble — is finding the capacity open the eyes and awaken the consciences of our fellow Christians and of the body politic as a whole to the suffering and danger all around us.

Mel White has also attributed part of this mystification or blindness to the average church-goer's tendency toward blind faith in their spiritual and secular leaders. If their pastor, pope or president say Islam is an evil religion or homosexuals are destroying the family, then it must be so.

So we wrap ourselves in the mystification bubble while blaming others, not ourselves, for all the evil in the world. Meanwhile, Rome is burning. 

Posted by Mark Poole at 2:24 PM in Justice, Politics, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

According to USA Today, the so-called 'homeland security' business (aka the military-industrial-security complex) is now worth $59 billion a year. That's how much governments and businesses spend to 'thwart terrorosts', whatever that term means in practice. Homeland security is bigger than the motion picture and music industries.

The big winners?

• The usual lineup of military contractors: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Ericsson, etc.
  
• Accenture, a $15 billion a year services company headquartered in Bermuda.
• The biometric industry and other whiz-bang technologies with limited or unproven effectivess.
  

Are we getting any value for all these billions?

Consultant Doug Laird, who worked for the U.S. Secret Service and was Northwest Airlines' security director, criticizes the Department of Homeland Security for awarding so many contracts to large corporations.

In general, he says, the contractors oversell the security value of their goods and services. Further, he says, the government exercises inadequate oversight.

"The DHS has pretty much given them an open check to supply products and services," he says.

Often, the large corporations "have no idea about" the work that needs to be done, Laird says. "In my opinion, it's a total rip-off."

The question on everybody's lips: Has the world become any safer? 

Posted by Mark Poole at 12:27 PM in Business, Politics, Security, Technology
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right

by Mel White

Focus on the Family Action, James Dobson's lobbying organization, will be holding a vote-your-hate rally at the Excel energy Center on October 3. Featured speakers will be FOTF's James Dobson, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and Antioch Bible Church's Ken Hutcherson.

The event is billed as a "rally for the family", but the speaker lineup and blurb on the web-site clearly indicates it is a publicity stunt designed to rally the troops for Dobson's anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-democratic political agenda ahead of the November elections.

Which is why the upcoming release of a new book on the religious right is all the more important. Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce, will be in Minneapolis Thursday, September 14 at the Wayzata Community Church, to promote Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Religious Right.

Mel is a former evangelical insider, having ghost written books for Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson before coming out as a gay Christian. From this background and his work with Soulforce he is uniquely qualified to write this exposé of the American religious right.

The Reverend Mel White, a deeply religious man who sees fundamentalism as "evangelical Christian orthodoxy gone cultic," believes that it is not a stretch to say that the true goal of today's fundamentalists is to break down the wall that separates church and state, superimpose their "moral values" on the U.S. Constitution, replace democracy with theocratic rule, and ultimately create a new "Christian America" in their image.

As he writes, "These are not just Neocons dressed in religious drag. These men see themselves as gurus called by God to rescue America from unrighteousness. They believe this is a Christian nation that must be returned forcibly to its Christian roots."

Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, in his review of the book, says that Mel lays bare

the fierce anti-homosexual agenda of organized religion from the Vatican to the American television preachers. White paints a frightening picture of what they mean when they call for ‘making America a Christian nation.’ He issues a challenging wake up call both to those who are traditional Christians as well as to those who hold deeply human values. A consciousness-raising, must-read book.

Rev. Paul W. Egertson of the ELCA says the book is

a devastating and documented account of what happens when fanatical religion and fascistic politics hook up in a semi-secret affair that gives birth to spiritual, and sometimes physical, terrorism.

The primary targets of this spiritual and physical terrorism today are gays. But the hatred extends to all who oppose the theocratic agenda. Presbyterian Church (USA) moderator Rev. Jack Rogers calls the book "essential reading for anyone concerned about the health of the church and the future of our nation".

I've already ordered my copy.

Posted by Mark Poole at 1:46 PM in Politics, Progressive Christianity, Queer, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The US military plans to spend more taxpayer money in an effort to influence media coverage on Iraq. The Washington Post reports that the military command in Baghdad has issued a request for bid on a two-year, $20 million public relations contract.

Apparently the incumbent PR firm, the Rendon Group, isn't doing a good enough job.

There is a concern that existing media coverage does not adequately present the official perspective on events in the Middle East. And apparently Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is none too happy about that. As the statement of work asserts,

Therefore, it is essential to the success of the new Iraqi government and the Coalition mission that both communicate effectively with our strategic audiences (i.e., Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. audiences) to gain widespread acceptance of their core themes and messages.

The successful contractor will be tasked with providing

the full range of strategic communication, media relations, communication research, and public relations services required to meet Coalition mission, monitoring and reporting Arabic and Western print and electronic media, including gathering raw data, analyzing and reporting effectiveness of communication programs, developing and staffing communication plans, developing and providing public relations products, and identifying methods for applying products to improve MNF-I’s mission performance.

The services provided by the contractor(s) have a core objective…engage and inspire targeted audiences.

The project is expected to require a team of 12-18 PR professionals, who will monitor US and international news sources and develop "product placement" that supports the Bush administration's "core themes and messages" on Iraq. Product placement will include preparing press releases, developing talking points and FAQs, writing op eds for publication, providing media training to officers, etc.

The worse things get on the ground, the more the administration spends ramping up the propaganda machine. And with with that machine in full force, the specter of media intimidation and censorship cannot be far behind.

As the Washington Post reports,

The monitors are to analyze stories to determine the "dissemination of key themes and messages" along with whether the "tone" is positive, neutral or negative. The media outlets would be monitored for how they present coalition or anti-Iraqi force operations.

What will happen to those outlets who are perceived to be too negative in tone or not sufficiently appreciative of the administration's "core themes and messages"?

Posted by Mark Poole at 2:07 PM in Censorship, Media, Politics
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And in news related to my prior post, Homeland Security's Chertoff defends the government's plans to snoop ever more closely on the personal communications of its citizens. He says that increased intelligence gathering and sharing doesn't equal less privacy.

As we have broadened information sharing, we have made sure that there are strict rules in effect...that prevent people from misusing that information or putting it out improperly [...] That's built into the DNA of this and all of our intelligence-sharing capabilities.

That's right... unrestrained and highly secret intelligence gathering programs by their very nature are respectful of citizen privacy. The same government that has accidental data breaches every other day is totally capable of respecting sensitive personal information.

And while we're at it let's throw in a few other nuggets from the Ministry of Truth: War is peace. Freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Posted by Mark Poole at 3:55 PM in Politics, Privacy, Security
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Confounded by wall-of-separation rulings prohibiting sectarian religious displays in the public square, religious conservatives in Texas have turned to kitsch.

Is the object pictured on the right:

1. A toursit map?
2. A trashcan?
3. An ATM?
4. An outdoor grill?
5. A stone monument featuring a Bible lit up with a red neon sign?

You would be correct if you chose 5.

As noted by Street Prophets,

On August 15, 2006, a federal appeals court ruled that an open-faced Bible must be removed from the monument because a district judge changed the 50-year old monument from a secular monument into a religious one when he restored it (and uglified it by the addition of a neon light) around 10 years ago.

The "reasonable observer would conclude," the majority opinion stated, "that the monument, with the Bible outlined in red neon lighting, had evolved into a predominantly religious symbol."

This history would also force an objective observer to gag. No longer is neon just for flashy come-ons to a cheap motel, pool hall, dive bar, or Krispy Kreme "Fresh Hot Donuts" sign. This is how conservative Christian nationalism practiced today, Texas-style. It apparently includes idolatry and the glorification of kitsch in the name of Christ.

The Bible has indeed become an idol in the hands of Christian 'conservatives', especially those of a reconstructionist bent. They are those who believe that the ancient prescriptions of the Hebrew Torah should form the basis of civil law and government in this country. While hard core reconstructionists are few in number, their influence is widespread within the US religious right, and their idea of Christian 'dominion' has replaced the Rapture as the number one dangerous idea being promoted in evangelical circles these days.

Idolatry involves replacing the worship of God with the worship of objects, the elevation of religious (or commercial or political) artefacts to the realm of the sacred. It is the worship of an image, idea or object, as opposed to worshipping their Source. When one values the Bible more highly than the command of its presumed author to love one's neighbor as oneself, one is an idolator.

As noted by Jonathon Hutson in Talk to Action, it is hard not to view a monument such as the Texas neon bible without recalling the words of Leviticus 26:1: "Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God."

Perhaps the Levitical authors or redactors forgot to add the corrollary commandment: "Avoid ye especially those graven images flanked by neon, for these are reserved for harlots and gamblers." But then they had never been to Vegas.

Posted by Mark Poole at 10:04 AM in Politics, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Is George W. Bush an idiot?

It's easy to lampoon the man. But is he stupid?

You be the judge.

Interesting to see some conservatives are coming to their senses about Bush however, as with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough:

For the past six years George W. Bush has been the target of ridicule from liberal circles. But now, instead of laughing at Democrats’ ill-directed arrogance, Republicans are quietly joining the left in questioning the President’s intellectual prowess.

The biggest knock on Bush’s brain is his lack of intellectual curiosity. Former administration officials still close to the White House will tell you Mr. Bush detests dissent, embraces a narrow world view and is intellectually incurious.

Worse for this White House is the fact that George W. Bush has daily smackdowns with the English language and the English language usually wins.

I agree with some of the anlysts though. In my mind, being arrogant, obtuse and inarticulate does not make a person an idiot. Otherwise half the country (and 90% of our political leaders) would all be idiots, and the word would have no meaning.

Liar? Yes. He lied to the American people on God knows how many issues.

War criminal? Quite possibly. He authorized detention and torture of so-called 'terror' suspects without a shred of evidence and in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

Idiot? Highly unlikely in my humble opinion. An idiot (even with help from smart friends) could not have so successfully carried out the transformation of America from a freedom-loving democracy into an incipient totalitarian state. Yes, he had good help, but I don't believe the story that Bush is a fool.

Posted by Mark Poole at 9:43 AM in Politics
Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In my American idols post I observed how busy the present Congress is going about its task of protecting America's constitutional freedom from the clear and present dangers posed by free speech, civil partnerships, progressive taxation, reproductive choice, living wages and an independent media. I noted that capturing Bin Laden and ending the 'war on terror' didn't seem to be too high on the priority list for a governing body so sated with this jihad against liberal values.

Ben, a commenter, said he's never thought of the war on terror in that way before. He went on to suggest:

If Bin Laden were to be captured, it is quite likely that 'war on terror' would no longer be politically feasible.

Such begs the question: If Bin Laden were to be captured, would it be a greater defeat for terrosim, or for those who use terrorism as an excuse to seek dominion over us all?

Indeed. Although I suspect things may transition as they do in Orwell's 1984. Yesterday's ally once again becomes tomorrow's enemy. If we are not at war with the Soviets or 'Islamic fascists' it will be some other bogeyman. For all eternity.

Is this perhaps what is really meant by the end of history?

Posted by Mark Poole at 8:09 PM in Politics
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I did not subscribe to Rick Santorum's campaign newsletter from Townhall.com. But they keep sending it to my work e-mail address anyway.

This issue: The Liberals Have Landed ... Can We Stop Them? Apparently the Democrat party has been taken over by, of all people... liberals! And little Ricky is just a poor persecuted minority battling valiantly to hold the barbarians at bay:

Believe me, it's not easy. Pennsylvania is a tough state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than half a million voters. This year, in my state, the liberals have set up camp and devoted an unprecedented amount of time and money to defeating me.

Those evil liberals. I just love the part at the bottom of each mail that says:

* This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. It was sent to you because you signed up to receive this newsletter on a Salem Web Network site.

I so did not sign up for it. It reminds me of the time I received a personally "signed" photograph of President Bush thanking me for my dedication as a grassroots Republican leader.

However, I don't think I'll unsubscribe just yet. Like another wingnut newsletter I receive regularly, it's providing me with hours of joyful reading and entertainment.

Just read the comment string on this tired old piece on the evils of marriage equality. Or how Mike Wallace and CBS television are now supposedly the official mouthpieces for the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's like reading the funny pages in the paper, only funnier. At least it would be funnier if humor was the actual intent rather than the unintended effect of hysterical paranoia.

Posted by Mark Poole at 3:11 PM in Humor, Politics
Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Terror Suspects Not Guilty, Wife Says

In the second such incident in three days, three young men of Arab descent have been arrested in Michigan on terrorist charges. They were stopped after purchasing 80 pre-paid cell-phones from a Wal-Mart, and found to have 1,000 of them in their minivan. The men were charged with collecting or providing materials for terrorist acts and surveillance of a vulnerable target for terrorist purposes.

In both cases the defendants claimed they had purchased the phones at various stores in order to resell them elsewhere for a profit.

"All we did is buy the phones to sell and make money," Louai Abdelhamied Othman told the magistrate. He said authorities had previously stopped the group in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

"We've been checked by the FBI before," he said. "They even gave us their card and everything."

Authorities won't say exactly what the men were planning to do with the phones, or why possession of too many cell-phones is sufficient grounds to make an arrest. But county officials claim that cell-phones can be used as detonators for explosives and that the men arrested Saturday were perhaps planning to blow up a local bridge. Yet the news stories don't report any discovery of explosives, bomb making materials or other terrorist paraphernalia.

OK... so if these guys are terrorists, why are they planning to blow up a bridge nobody heard of? Why does Wal-Mart sell untraceable prepaid phones in large volumes in the first place? How many phones can you legally purchase before being accused of terrorist plotting? How many detonators would you need to blow up a bridge? Why would you keep them in your minivan? Where are all the explosives?

What disturbs me is that people can be arrested and detained in this country nowadays without committing a crime and without there being any shred of evidence that a crime has been committed or planned. All you need to do is be or look Arab and do something the authorities consider suspicious.

Is it just possible that the only common sense reason someone would purchase 1,000 phones is to resell them for a profit, just as the defendants claim? Perhaps these men are terrorists after all. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that so many dire terrorist plots by unconnected terror cells have been foiled on both sides of the Atlantic in the past week. Or perhaps we are simply descending to a new level of madness in this country. After all, there are elections in November.

Posted by Mark Poole at 8:49 PM in Justice, Politics
Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Fred Clarkson at Talk to Action links to a provocative article posted at Media Transparency by Rev. Dr. Andrew Weaver on the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). If you care about religious freedom or the state of democracy in this country I encourage you to read this real eye-opener. If there ever was a conspiracy in this country to undermine the American way of freedom, then the IRD and its cohorts are surely at the center of it.

Dr. Weaver, a United Methodist minister, reveals the influence of powerful neoconservative Catholics, led by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who drive the IRD agenda "to neutralize and overturn the social justice tradition of mainline Protestant churches". These aims are carried out through public attacks against mainline Christian and Jewish leaders, and through funding and support for so-called "renewal" groups within Protestant denominations whose fundamental purpose is to take over the leadership and assets of those denominations and eliminate their involvement in liberal and progressive causes.

As I noted in a prior post, the Star Tribune's resident neoconservative social commentator Katherine Kersten was (until very recently) a member of the IRD's Board of Advisors. Her views on every social and politcal issue — from environmentalism and immigration to same sex marriage and welfare — mirror exactly those of the IRD and its wealthy sponsors.

Continue reading "Why Katie can't be trusted" »

Posted by Mark Poole at 6:07 PM in Media, Minnesota, Politics, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, but today's news concerning the UK government thwarting a major terrorist plot follows uncannily on some interesting domestic political developments here in the US.

On Tuesday night, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman lost the Democratic Senate primary to political newcomer Ned Lamont, a staunch opponent of the war in Iraq. The Washington Post referred to the campaign as "a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war and what opponents charged was his failure to challenge President Bush's war policies."

Then a CNN poll released yesterday reported that 60% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq. 48% believe that the US will not win the war in Iraq, and 61% believe some or all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq.

Yesterday I received an e-mail from the Christian Alliance for Progress, referring to both as signs of "an altered political landscape." Developments such as these mean that "both political parties are on notice that the country has had enough of the violence." The e-mail goes on to warn:

After last night you can count on there being a renewed attempt to bamboozle the American people by talking to us about anything but what we want to hear, which is namely  when the troops will be coming home.  We need your help to keep the nation's attention on what really matters.

What would such a "renewed attempt to bamboozle" look like? How would you detract the nation's attention? Raise the terror alert?

Interestingly (and by total coincidence) I sat down to watch the movie V for Vendetta last night. It's a futuristic political thriller in which a desperate UK government controlled by the religious right stages various security threats in order to bamboozle the populace into acquiescing to its increasingly militaristic and theocratic aspirations. The staged threats include a supposed terrorist attack on the London subway system.

So after yesterday's prediction it was quite shocking to wake up this morning to the latest news of newly thwarted terror attacks. Not many details yet, only the assurance that 24 unnamed suspects have been detained "only days away" from executing an alleged plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic. The suspects are apparently all British citizens, most of Pakistani descent.

President Bush refered to the arrests as "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

Is the timing of these announcements to follow the latest domestic political developments merely coincidental? Expect to hear much carping from the political and religious right about how now is not the time to talk of withdrawing from Iraq. Expect even more aggressive conflation of the war against Al Qaida with the war in Iraq.

Posted by Mark Poole at 2:54 PM in Politics
Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A Senate Republican proposal to amend the US constitution to criminalize flag desecration failed by a single vote.

Absurdly, supporters of the amendment keep claiming that US soldiers died to defend the flag, but apparently not to defend the values which the flag represents.

This follows on the heels of the earlier defeat of the so-called marriage amendment.

It is instructive to review recent committee and floor voting records to get a sample of what Senate Republicans consider to be the most pressing social issues facing society. The American Values Agenda is part of a broad election year effort to enhance the life of all Americans, through:

• Amending the US constitution to restrict the exercise of the first amendment right to free speech in cases where it involves flag burning;
• Amending the US constitution to deny states the right to determine who might be married or receive state recognition of their civil unions;
• Dramatically reducing or eliminating the estate tax on the super wealthy;
• Keeping the minimum wage way below the poverty level;
• Challenging the right of news media to act in the public interest by exposing potentially illegal acts engaged in or authorized by the Congress and Executive branch;
• Abolishing the right of citizens to open and nondiscriminatory access to information on the Internet;
• Restricting women's access to safe, legal abortions;
• Prohibiting human cloning;
• etc., etc.

Noticably missing from these efforts are nonessential trifles, such as:

• Impeaching the President for repeatedly lying to the nation;
• Withdrawing from Iraq;
  
• Dealing with the national debt;
• Addressing the trade deficit;
• Capturing 911 mastermind Bin Laden and ending the 'war on terror';
• Meaningful reform of national security;
• Abolishing the failed 'No Child Left Behind' program;
• Fixing the mess left by Katrina;
• etc., etc. 

Posted by Mark Poole at 11:25 PM in Politics
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

In a recent New York Times article, Gary Wills starts off by saying 'there is no such thing as a "Christian politics'" and that 'Jesus brought no political message or program'. I came across his piece via a discussion started by DonByrd on the Talk To Action forum. Wills says,

This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not.  ...

I haven't heard a lot of Democrats saying that. I've heard liberal Christians like Jim Wallis saying that that neither side of politics has it right, and challenging moderate and progressive people fo faith to take back the public square and deny the right its monopoly on religious language, which is a different proposition.

Anyhow, Wills goes on to make some good points about the differences between the Gospel and the social and economic programs of government:

Continue reading "A partisan Jesus?" »

Posted by Mark Poole at 11:40 PM in Politics, Progressive Christianity, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senator Michele Bachmann, Katherine Kersten, the Minnesota Family Council and their ilk couldn't care less if Susan Herlofson dies. As reported in today's Star Tribune, Herlofson has stage 4 breast cancer. She and her partner Pat Ferrian believe she wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for health insurance provided by Ferrian's employer, the University of Minnesota.

If the state constitution is amended to prohibit state recognition of same-sex marriages or their 'legal equivalent', then the U of M would likely be forced to stopped providing domestic partner health benefits to Susan Herlofson and others like her.

Bachmann denies that her consitutional amendment will result in women like Susan Herlofson losing access to health care. But that is exactly what will happen once government is prohibited from extending marriage-like rights to non-married families. After all, the 'legal equivalent' language is in the proposed amendment wording specifically to deny such rights. It serves no other purpose. It is happening now in Michigan, where an amendment passed in 2004: the University of Michigan is now barred from offering domestic partnership benefits to new employees.

The effect of so-called 'pro-family' activism by the religious right, as always, will be the erosion of rights and protections for any family that doesn't conform to the stereotype. The amendment favored by Bachman, Kersten and others, worded so broadly as it is, would create a legal vacuum that will quickly be filled by litigation to test its effects and reach.

If the amendment passes, its real implications will be decided by the courts, not by the legislature and certainly not by the citizens of Minnesota. So "let the people decide" really means "deceive the people, tie the government's hands and let conservative judges decide."

Posted by Mark Poole at 1:41 PM in Marriage Equality, Minnesota, Politics, Religious Right
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The proposed Minnesota anti-marriage amendment was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committe today 5-4 along party lines. Its supporters will now try to bring on a vote on the Senate floor before the end of the current legislative session.

Michele Bachmann's lesbian stepsister, Helen LaFave, spoke to reporters afterward about how an amendment would hurt gay families. Coming out publicly for the first time,

LaFave said she disagrees strongly with Bachmann, R-Stillwater, the state's most visible champion of the amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other legal equivalents.

"We've heard a lot of discussion about what this is all about," said LaFave, 46, of Minneapolis. "What this really is about is insurance coverage, inheritance rights and medical decision-making" for same-sex couples...

"This issue has been very hurtful to me personally, and divisive for our family." 

As Eva Young points out, LaFave wrote an insightful letter to the Star Tribune about Bachmann a year ago. 

Several others spoke of the real pain being caused already by the amendment's supporters. As reported by the AP via the Pioneer Press: 

"The whole premise is that if we do this, gay families and gay people are somehow going to go away," said Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville. "They're not going to. They're in my neighborhood and they're in your neighborhood. A constitutional amendment isn't going to stop any of these couples from falling in love, from making commitments to each other, from starting families. The only thing it would do is take away their rights."

... Cathy Peck, a Bemidji woman with a lesbian daughter, teared up as she described the emotional wringer she's been through over the issue.

"It makes us even more fearful for our gay and lesbian children," Peck said. "When you have pronouncements from authority figures, hateful letters to the editor, hate speak on the radio - these people are talking about our precious child, who came out of my body, and it hurts."

And from the recently chastened Star Tribune:

Ann DeGroot, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, the state's leading gay and lesbian advocacy organization, said passage of a constitutional amendment would create a "caste system" for families in Minnesota, including the potential for harming unmarried heterosexual couples and single-parent families.

"We believe this constitutional amendment is an attack on families," DeGroot said. "I look forward to a time when all of us can work together on legislation that strengthens and supports all families in Minnesota."

Posted by Mark Poole at 11:49 PM in Marriage Equality, Minnesota, Politics
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Australian Prime Minister John Howard claims that his government's plan to veto a proposed law in the Australian Capital Territory, that would recognize civil unions, should not be viewed as 'anti-gay'.

Mr Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock view the ACT laws as an attempt to undermine federal legislation introduced in 2004, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others...

"This is not an anti-homosexual gesture. This is a gesture to support the special and traditional place of marriage as a heterosexual union for life of a man and a woman in Australian society. Why we're against what the ACT is doing is that, in all but name, they are equating same-sex unions with marriage. I don't support that, not because I'm against homosexuals, but I think there should always be a margin for marriage as we understand it in our society ... you don't equate a gay union with a traditional marriage - that's our position."

So he's not anti-gay, just in favor of preserving special civil, political and economic rights for heterosexually married couples (including those married in common law, or de facto) while denying those same rights to same-sex unions.

Continue reading "Little Johnny apes Big George" »

Posted by Mark Poole at 11:02 PM in Australia, Marriage Equality, Politics
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kevin Phillips writes provocatively in today's Washington Post on how the GOP—'the first religious party in U.S. history'—is leading America toward a theocracy.

According to Phillips the development of a theocracy can be seen in the emergence of several conditions: a ruler who claims to speak for God, a ruling party controlled by religious believers, the establishment of religion as the ruling authority in government, and a public and foreign policy guided by sacred scripture.

Theocracy's emergence in twenty-first century America is r