Rising Above The Fray
by tristero
The other day, in flacking his upcoming addresses on the importance of sending more of America’s children home to their moms in body ba- sorry – transfer tubes for no reason whatsoever, Crawford’s Own Churchill said:
These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn’t politicize these issues I’m going to talk about…
The only sensible response is to repeat Dick Cheney’s immortal words:
Go fuck yourself.
The Faiths Of The Founding Fathers
by tristero
Most readers of blogs like this one know that the question “Was the US founded as a Christian nation?” is a joke. Not so many a newspaper editor or tv producer, who regularly permit the likes of James Dobson or Tim LaHaye to get away with asserting without contradiction that the founders were devout Christians. David L. Holmes’s happily concise new book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers should serve as a useful corrective. He doesn’t exactly come out and say that the christianists are lying about the religious beliefs of the Founders, but that’s only because he doesn’t have to. The facts he amasses speak for themselves. However, given the nearly telegraphic, dispassionate style of the book (it contains neither an introduction nor a final chapter to summarize and assess what’s discussed), some reading-betwixt-the-lines and deduction is called for, on occasion. The book is packed with information, but I’ll discuss only one part of it here, which I think is the core of the book.
What were the Founders’ faith? In a chapter amusingly entitled “A Layperson’s Guide to Distinguishing a Deist From an Orthodox Christian,” Holmes, a professor of Religious Studies at William and Mary, writes
The religious beliefs of the founders seem to have fallen into three categories: Non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.
What’s Deism? Holmes quotes the immortal Tom Paine:
Its creed is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God and there it rests. It honours Reason [and] it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.
In his comments elsewhere, Holmes explicitly states that Deism cannot be considered a Christian religion as it rejects too much that is explicitly Christian, including the divine authority of the Bible. In other words, Deism’s pretty close to the bare minimum one can believe if one claims to be at all religious.
“Orthodox Christianity” is kind of a vague, catch-all term that includes both Roman Catholic and Protestant beliefs (it has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodox Christianity; it refers to how closely a belief system cleaves to western Christian orthodoxy). Unlike, perhaps, “Orthodox Judaism,” a follower of orthodox Christianity in Holmes’s sense need not be especially devout or observant, but rather must simply accept as true at least some aspects of the New Testament or traditional Christian belief. For instance, if you accept Jesus’s divinity but not the doctrine of transubstantiation, you could be thought an orthodox Christian, according to the way Holmes uses it, as opposed to a radical Deist.
Occasionally, I’ve seen the term used by christianists to confuse people, but Holmes, who is no christianist, uses “orthodox Christian” in a very specfic way, essentially to differentiate styles (or depths) of Deistic belief. In other words, when it comes to the Founders, Deism is the normative religious belief system, not Christianity. Therefore, the concept of some kind of generalized “orthodox Christianity” is helpful, not in uniting Christians politically as the christianists desire, but solely in demonstrating how the Founders’ beliefs deviate from strictly defined Deism. The term simply serves Holmes’ purpose in pointing to ways that the Founders privileged the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible in various subtle, perhaps even unconscious, ways. As his book makes abundantly clear, nearly all of the major male figures involved in the Revolution were Deists.* However, it wasn’t a consistent or organized theology; almost by definition, it couldn’t be. Many of them went to at least some church services (even if they didn’t take Communion) or maintained ties to the church of their youth. Many, including Franklin, held to beliefs that, strictly speaking, weren’t reasonable but supernatural. These are, according to Holmes, intimations of Orthodox Christianity within their Deism. They modulate their Deism and give some of the Founder’s beliefs a “Christian Deist” bent. But that does not make them pious, devout, or practicing Christians. Holmes goes to considerable lengths to demonstrate that assertions of specifically Christian piety for many of the Founders are baseless.
The religious beliefs of the Founders were highly individualized, and often a contradictory muddle, like the beliefs of most Americans today, and quite unlike the sclerotic and highly politicized irrationalism of modern christianists. Indeed, after finishing Holmes’ book, one can’t escape the conclusion that the decision to omit explicitly Christian references from the Declaration of Independence (and insert explicitly Deistic ones) was deliberate and supported even by those Founders with radically different beliefs, such as Jefferson and Adams. Furthermore, the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution was also deliberate. “We forgot,” Hamilton once quipped. Well, perhaps they did, but certainly on purpose.
But as I read him, Holmes goes even further. It is abundantly clear from the structure of the book, only in the most general sense are the three categories Holmes proposes (Deist, Deist Christian, orthodox Christian) equally populated by influential Founders. In fact, most of the “orthodox Christians” were women who, like it or not, had no direct power.** In short, regarding religion, Christianity per se was important to the mindset of the most influential founders, but more important still was the non-Christian religion of Deism, which most believed to a greater or lesser extent.***
And so, once again, when one examines the hysterical debates perpetrated on the country by the extreme Right, there is no there there. Yes, of course, it is a mistake to equate the non-rigorous religious thinking of the Founders with atheism or “secularism.” But here’s the point: Holmes can’t find anyone important to quote who makes such a basic error, not even the “secular humanist” journal Free Inquiry. Yes, as quoted in Holmes’ book, Gordon C. Wood, in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, appears to overstate the case for the Founders’ disinterest in organized religion and belief. However, Holmes cites numerous cases of important figures in the Revolution who avoided religous confirmation or failed to mention the consolations of religion at moments of personal crisis. Conclusion: Wood certainly did not exaggerate by much.
On the other hand, the quotes Holmes provides from the christianist LaHaye’s writings – “even secular humanists would have to admit to the religious (particularly Christian) origins of this nation” – stands exposed as just so much wildly inaccurate blather. Far more important to the origins of “this nation” is the liberal project of the Enlightenment, particularly Deism and perhaps most importantly, the consummately Enlightenment values of religious freedom and toleration (not the same thing). These values, clearly at the core of nearly every Founders’ political credo, are nowhere close to being a central part of orthodox Christianity, where the divinity of Christ, belief in the Bible’s authority, and belief in the moral truth of Christ’s and Paul’s teachings hold sway.
Holmes’s book also has a notable Epilogue in which he briefly describes the religious life of every president from Ford to the present one. Most readers of this blog will probably find that he is grossly unfair to the Democrats.**** But what I also noticed was a much stronger level of criticism of Republicans (even of Reagan!) than is common in many books that examine religion and politics from a religious/evangelical perspective. And so, whatever reservations I might have about certain details, I couldn’t help concluding that the entire book was a stinging critique of the religous right, written in a non-polemical style to attract those people – such as network tv producers, Fox News types, and the more gullible segments of their audience – who may have been bamboozled into taking scoundrels like LaHaye, Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson as serious theologians or social commentators.
If you have any interest in the religious beliefs of the Founders or any doubt as to how idiotic the notion that the US was founded as a Christian nation really is, you really should pick up this short, and intelligently written, book.
*The three most notable exceptions in Holmes’ book were Samuel Adams, John Jay, and Patrick Henry. As was Elias Boudinot, the president of the Continental Congress and a foe of Paine’s. The presidents were all Deists of one stripe or another.
**Holmes provides several good reasons why a disparity of belief along gender lines occurred. What were they? Read the book (grin).
***Was the US founded as a Deist nation? That’s a slightly more interesting question, perhaps, than whether it was founded as Christian nation, but the answer is emphatically “no.” Holmes’s book makes clear that the Founders had as little interest in foisting Deism on Americans as they did Christianity. The US was established as a civil government that deliberately separated church from state. Duh.
**** He makes a minor error, neglecting to mention that William Sloane Coffin had no recollection of a conversation in which Bush claims that Reverend Coffin insulted his father. As discussed elsewhere, I go further that that and strongly suspect Bush was lying.
.
A Wedge Issue To Exploit
by poputonian
DemFromCT at The Next Hurrah picks up on what might be the season’s most critical election issue:
Is the Iraq civil war a “good” war?
The point being made is that how the Iraq war is characterized can help determine the likelihood of Congress to continue its support for the war, and also, and perhaps more significantly, help determine the likelihood of American voters to continue sacrificing their children in someone else’s war.
Basically, DfCT’s post deconstructs how the Republicans got to their desired new framing, the one being promulgated by GWB’s current speech campaign, where the Chief Executive offers perfumed pink clouds as an antidote for administration-induced fear. DfCT then goes on to suggest the alternative frame by quoting from a News and Observer op-ed:
Facts have also accumulated to conspire against the administration’s preferred frame. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of al-Qaeda in Iraq is dead, Iraqis are killing each other at a much greater rate (approximately 3,400 per month) than they are killing U.S. troops, and American generals have admitted the possibility of a “civil war” fought along sectarian lines.
The generals’ frank admission has created a temporally limited opportunity for critics of the war to reframe the conflict and begin to credibly discuss disengagement alternatives.
Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia apparently seized upon this potential when he recently speculated that the president might need a new statutory authorization from Congress legitimizing American involvement in a nascent Iraqi civil war. Acknowledgment of a civil war would truncate the U.S. intervention into three phases: a major combat operations victory, a counterinsurgency campaign draw, and a civil war of which many Americans want no part and legislators did not approve.
This recognition offers an opportunity (for either side of the aisle) to reframe the war as a humanitarian intervention with questionable prospects for success. Ample research has shown that Americans are less tolerant of casualties in this type of war — suggesting that they might be persuaded the time has come to begin the process of disengaging from Iraq.
Isn’t using the term “civil war” a wedge tactic that could gain bipartisan support, and one which the Dems should fully exploit? DemFromCt says yes, and says it much better than I can. Inquisitive political minds should read the full post in order to capture its saliency.
By the way, who said this: ” … the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people … is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.”
Springsteen Sings Big Easy Pain
by digby
How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Times and Live?
Well, the doctor comes ’round here with his face all bright
And he says “in a little while you’ll be alright”
All he gives is a humbug pill, a dose of dope and a great big bill
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
He says “me and my old school pals had some mighty high times down here
And what happened to you poor black folks, well it just ain’t fair”
He took a look around gave a little pep talk, said “I’m with you” then he took a little walk
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
There’s bodies floatin’ on Canal and the levees gone to Hell
Martha, get me my sixteen gauge and some dry shells
Them who’s got got out of town
And them who ain’t got left to drown
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
I got family scattered from Texas all the way to Baltimore
And I ain’t got no home in this world no more
Gonna be a judgment that’s a fact, a righteous train rollin’ down this track
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
.
Consequences
by digby
If Dan Bartlett is any indication, the administration is going completely over the bend and are going to try to convince the American people that “Islamic fascism” is literally equivalent to WWII.
Here’s what he just said on Hardball:
Nora O’Donnell: Dan do you agree that making an analogy to Hitler can be disproportionate with the current battles — while it’s extremely important, the war on terror — comparing it to WWII is overstepping
Dan Bartlett: Absolutely not. The fascist movement from that era is very similar to the totalitarian ideology that al-Qaeda and other extremists, those who are wanting to pervert a very rich tradition of peaceful religion – Islam – to accomplish a certain set of objectives.
They have taken 3,000 American lives on one single morning, they’ve attacked country after country after country throughout the world with a very determined idoelogy, they’re trying to overturn governments. They took control of Afghanistan, they’re trying to take control of Iraq, they’re trying to take control of Lebanon and they’re doing it for a very specific reason — they have territorial ambition, they want the resources, they want the nuclear weapons, they want to destroy the west.
Very similar in proportion I would argue, and many other people would argue as well. So it is a very important historical lesson for to understand today because the fight we’re in today is as consequential as the fight we fought in the last century.
Let’s think for a moment about what he’s saying. If it is true that they have suddenly discovered that this threat is equal to the threat posed by the axis powers in WWII, then they have clearly failed miserably to meet such an existential threat. These monsters are allegedly attacking “country after country after country” trying to seize territory so they can take the resources and get nuclear weapons and we are sending national guard troops over to Iraq for their fourth or fifth tours instead of mobilizing the entire nation? The only sacrifice Bush has asked of the Amrican people is to pay their taxes and spend money.
But there’s more to the story. Nora then commented on Bush’s insistence yesterday that this wasn’t “political” and admonishing others not to politicize it. Bartlett was having none of it.
He continued:
Dan Bartlett: It’s important that certain aspects or certain reflection points in this war that the president of the United States speak directly to the public about the conduct of this war, developments in this war and the consequences of this war. He is not partisan in the sense that he’s going out and attacking individual members of the other party or the like…
Nora O’Donnell: No, because you are going to leave this for Rumsfeld to do.
Dan Bartlett: Rumsfeld talked about [inaudible]who as you have pointed out are many times on this program go off and say the president lied and people died, that the president, the administration is incompetent, the administration is this, the administration is that, and it’s important that the administration clearly articulate and set the recod straight on many of these outrageous comments that people are making.
And some of the outrageous comments are coming from people who want to take control of the congress. Now there are consequences for the rhetoric they are employing at this time and at this juncture in the war on terror and it is incumbent upon officials in this administration to clearly explain to the American people what those consequences are, so…
It’s a two way street Nora and as long as our critics are out there, saying what they’re saying, often times not based on fact, it’s important for the administration to very very aggressively articulate what the facts are and why we believe it. There are two sides to this debate.
Well now. That certainly clears up what the real motivation for this PR offensive is, doesn’t it? Bartlett lost his shit and pretty much admitted that this is a simple political ploy — a gambit to draw attention away from Bush’s failures. (Shrum just called it a “Katrina foreign policy.”)
But if this takes hold and people really begin to accept this WWII analogy, the logical extension of the argument is that the US needs to do everything it possibly can to defeat this existential threat and that can only mean we must be willing to use nuclear weapons. They keep using the word “consequences” and I’m getting a rather ugly picture in my head of just what they might be.
Update: Glenn Greenwald notes the similarities between Bush’s Iraq speech in Cincinnatti and his speech yesterday. I don’t know if they’ve decided on war with Iran and/or Syria, but they most certainly are preparing the ground.
Greenwald advises the Democrats to go on the offensive and hit Bush hard. I agree, of course. I was a little bit depressed to hear Nora O’Donnell tell Jack Reed today that they’ve tried to get a Democrat to come on for days to rebut the Republican attack and couldn’t get any calls returned. I guess people are on vacation… All Reed could say is “I’m here now.”
Update II:
And a Freeper has an aneurysm:
To: governsleastgovernsbest
I wonder if oberman has children;or nephews/nieces etc. All of these idiots that refuse to allow the front loading of a looming confrontation will be directly responsible for the fact that in all likelihood OUR children will absolutely be involved in a life or death struggle to preserve OUR nation. The very same elitist , do nothing but babble , morons that decry every use of force , every vengeful indiscretion, every PERCIEVED slight, of a murdering Islamofacists rights, will be the very same people that squall like stuck pigs , when all of our children are fighting and dying because of the aformentioned idiocy.
I just hope the marksmanship I taught my children can keep them alive when it becomes the difference between those that make out alive and those that don’t .
The really terrifying aspect of all this is the open borders issue and how it darn near grandee’s that 5th columnist are or will be in place to harm us in a much more personal way than Hitler ever did. 56 posted on 08/30/2006 8:16:31 PM PDT by ping jockey (radical islam; the great evil of all times.)
Stateless Fascists
by digby
I find it fascinating that the administration has taken on the shibboleth of the nuttiest far right wingnuts and is calling Islamic radicals, fascists. Clearly, they are just throwing it around as some sort of boogeyman word because Islamic extremists are like fascists only to the extent that they are dangerous creeps. But then you could say that about a lot of people, couldn’t you?
They are all blathering stuff like this to explain it:
Charles Black, a longtime GOP consultant with close ties to both the first Bush administration and the current White House, said branding Islamic extremists as fascists is apt.
“It helps dramatize what we’re up against. They are not just some ragtag terrorists. They are people with a plan to take over the world and eliminate everybody except them,” Black said.
Run for your lives!!!
I know I don’t have to spell out all he ways in which Islamic radicalism is unlike fascism. But it is worth taking a look at the writings of the guy who pretty much invented fascism, good old Benito Mussolini. He wrote a little treatise back in 1932 that spelled it all out. It’s true that fascism considered itself an enemy of democracy (and Marxism) and it fetishized war and violence. And yes, one of its primary tenets was imperialism.
We can argue about whether any or all of those components are part of the “Islamo-fascist ideology,” but for the sake of argument, let’s agree that on some level they are. But there are a few defining characteristic of fascism — as defined by the man who made fascism a household name — that surely make Islamic radicalism something else entirely.
For instance:
…The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others — those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after…
[…]
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State…….The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….
Those two things, it seems to me, make any comparison between fascism and a loose confederation (if that) of suicidal religious fanatics spread all over the world, ridiculous. They might just as well have appropriated the phrase Mongol Hordes for all the sense it made. (Actually, Osama bin Laden has made that comparison — with the US.) Not that it will stop the wingnuts from pimping it like it’s the latest teen-age fad — making sense has never been a hallmark of these people.
The funny thing is that if you look at Mussolini’s definition it does fit some modern western political factions much better than Islamic radicalism. I leave it to you to figure out who they might be.
.
Freedom
by digby
Hawlati: Couple were killed in Arbil for 6 minute sex video
London (KurdishMedia.com) 03 August 2006: In Arbil, southern Kurdistan’s capital, a couple were killed after their pornographic video CD was distributed in the city’s market, according to news published in the Kurdish weekly Hawlati on Thursday.
The couple were killed within one week. The woman’s body was found on Tuesday. The video is only 6 minutes and 10 seconds and it is taken on a mobile telephone, Hawlati stated.
The event has been the topic of discussion all over Arbil and the religious community in the mosques issued decrees for clamping down on the couple, Hawlati added.
They have good reason to nip this in the bud. Just ask this mullah:
As the 21st century progresses, it seems that every day brings new extremes of sexual debauchery and degradation. Simply put, our society has become obsessed by perversity. The term “pornography” itself no longer carries much of a stigma culturally, because what was once taboo is now the norm. Obscene material that was confined to seedy bookstores on the wrong side of town is now aired on network or cable television during the “family hour.”
[…]
At the outset, let me be perfectly clear — especially to those who may shrug off or slyly wink at the cultural acceptance of pornography. Much like a mistress, the philosophical acceptance of this salacious material in everyday life is a wickedly insidious thing that, over time, will devastate individuals and families. We must assume a zero tolerance policy toward obscenity … With every new assault made on God’s sacred and holy gift of sex, the appetite for lascivious images grows more insatiable.
As far as he’s concerned, Iraqi society has the kind of morality we should aspire to. One wonders if he agrees with the sanctions. Let’s say I’m more than a little bit curious about what he means by “zero tolerance.”
.
One Year Ago Today
by digby
Even though the media doesn’t seem to be buying it on the merits, I have to give the administration credit for their smooth pivot from their Katrina failure to defeating Hitler. It was savvy, you have to admit, to go down to New Orleans and give a couple of plodding, desultory speeches while Rummy delivered a half-mad stemwinder about appeasement in the 1930’s. Then, the minute the Katrina “anniversary” was over, Bush hightailed it out of town and immediately evoked the spectre of the Nazis, commies and martians coming to kill us all in our beds. I’m not seeing much about New Orleans anymore.
But I think it’s important to remember, nonetheless, that while Bush drones on and on about terror and fear and struggle and pain and sacrifice this morning, one year ago today Katrina was far from over. Indeed, the story of his incompetence was just beginning.
Today was the day he did this:
After he returned to Washington he held that bizarre, stiff press conference as we watched people begging to be rescued from the top of their houses.
The New York Times described it the next day:
George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.
He can assume a strong, manly pose today and catterwaul about “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century,” and fearmonger about “a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology” from the comfort of a hand picked audience. But when the chips were down a year ago, he proved he couldn’t lead his way out of a FEMA trailer.
One year ago today, I think we were all just beginning to wrap out minds around the scope of what was happening. I went back and looked at my posts and I think I was watching television most of the time because I only wrote a few. The pace picked up significantly over the following week as we all watched, appalled, at what was happening in an American city.
But it was clear that things were horrible even this early. That morning I wrote:
The pictures coming out of New Orleans are all horrible. But the income disparities among the citizens are brought into stark relief by this tragedy. Everyone is affected of course, but those who had little to begin with are truly left with less than nothing now. A whole lot of people who were hanging by a thread already just dropped into total despair. That dimension of the tragedy really makes my heart ache
.
As we know, it only got worse.
Think Progress has a very thorough timeline of events, here.
.
The Other Media Ain’t Buyin’ It Either
by poputonian
Boston Globe: Loose lips sink history
The latest effort — transparent as it is inaccurate — tries to draw parallels between Iraq and World War II.LA Times: Pipe Down, Rummy
Rumsfeld’s cranky outburst mangles a historical analogy, bad-mouths legitimate critics.Seattle PI: Iraq War: The false specter
The defense secretary now deals with questioning of the mismanaged campaign by raising the false specter of World War II style appeasement.Yahoo News: What Keeps Don Rumsfeld Up at Night?
Hint: It’s Not the Body Count in Iraq.
How do you eat an elephant?One bite at a time.UPDATE: Sara at The Next Hurrah on Murrow and OlbermannUPDATE 2: From the Salt Lake Tribune
A crowd of thousands cheered Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson for calling President Bush a “dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights violating president” whose time in office would “rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.”
The group – including children and elderly and some hailing from throughout Utah – then marched to the federal building Wednesday to deliver a copy of a symbolic indictment against the president and Congress for abuse of power and failure to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
With their signs labeling Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the “axis of evil,” calling the Iraq war a “mission of lies” or comparing the invasion of Iraq after Sept. 11, 2001, to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor, the estimated 1,500 to 4,000 protesters hoped their demonstration at the Salt Lake City-County Building sent a message about the reddest state in the country.
“If they [the Bush administration] lack support in Utah, my God they’re in trouble,” the Rev. Tom Goldsmith of the First Unitarian Church told the lively gathering between protest songs and banner waving.
via: Dependable Renegade