Religious Extremism? I Wonder....

Malala Yousafzai

The Taliban hit-men who tried to kill a 14-year-old girl on her way to school recently are, like those who sent them out, not only cowardly, but incredibly stupid. Whether Malala lives or dies, she is now an inspiration for those of either sex and any age, nationality, or religion who are fighting back against the domination of women by men who hate them.

On the surface, this is a clear example of the dangers posed by religious extremists. And while our own home-grown religious extremists haven't yet (as far as I know) stooped to shooting young girls, they have not been as reticent when it comes to abortion providers, homosexuals, and other objects of their hate. So the attack on Malala should stand as a clear warning to us: This is what religious extremism can lead to.

And yet, I am coming to believe that sectarian violence, whether in Pakistan or in America, really has nothing to do with religion at all. Oh, religion makes a wonderful excuse – carrying out the will of God/Allah is, after all, the ultimate justification for anything we choose to do. And at least some of those who commit "divinely-ordained" violence may honestly believe that's what they're doing. But if religion were to disappear, would "religious" violence disappear too? I doubt it.

I'm much more inclined to think that violence results from racial and/or cultural causes: groups of humans everywhere seem to be hard-wired to fear – and therefore hate – other groups who are different. The difference may be in skin color, or in language, or in any other characteristic. Over 60 years ago, the psychologist Gordon W. Allport gave a masterfully brief example of how basic this process is:

The child asks, "What are we?" and learning that "we" are Presbyterians, requires no further authority for the superiority of Presbyterianism. He fights, if necessary, in its defense, and may go so far as to tear Catholic hair out of Catholic heads, unless given concurrent training in tolerance. [The Individual and His Religion, 1950.]

Religious extremism is certainly a danger. But the danger comes from the extremism, not the religion. In our attempts to combat it, let's be sure we're aiming at the right target. The would-be killers of Malala acted not because they love their god, but because they hate their women.

Martha in Wonderland Meets the Tweedles

In Vermont, they tell a story about an elderly lady who declined a ride to the polls saying, "I never vote.... It only encourages 'em."

I never watch political debates ... for much the same reason. I mean, who needs to waste 90 minutes watching Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber talk over and around and through each other about their plans for the future of Wonderland?

But after reading various positive accounts of moderator Martha Raddatz's running of the recent vice-presidential candidates' alleged debate, I decided I ought to at least read through the transcript.

I came to three conclusions:

(1) I'm glad I didn't watch it.

(2) It was a sad day when the League of Women Voters lost control of the debates to the two dominant political parties.

(3) Though Raddatz did try a couple of times to pull the candidates back into the real world, she mostly operated under the assumption that the Wonderland the candidates live in is the real world.

Here are three examples (quoting from the transcripts):

(1) Raddatz: "Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process." This has become The Big Lie of this political era, repeated so often by so many for so long that "everyone" knows it's a fact. In fact, however, both are doing quite well, and will be for decades without any action whatsoever. Some minor tweaking would keep them solvent for even more decades. Where did the lie start? With those who would like to privatize both programs (the very wealthy) and their employees (the politicians and the press). Why? So they can get their hands on yet more trillions of public dollars. (In America, you can never be too rich.)

(2) Raddatz: "Let's move to Iran. I'd actually like to move to Iran because there is really no bigger national security [inaudible] this country is facing." Whether the inaudible word was "issue" or "crisis" or something else, to state, in a way that implies that everyone knows this, that Iran represents the biggest national security concern this country faces is nothing short of laughable. The US is deeply threatened because Iran might be planning to acquire a nuclear weapon? In the real world, both Pakistan and Israel (not to mention the US) actually have nuclear weapons. Personally, I find that much more threatening. And of course there might be some slight national security concern about our crumbling infrastructure, our persistent unemployment, our increasing poverty, and -- oh, yes -- climate change.

(3) Raddatz: "I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion." What??? Point of order, Madame Moderator! Please take time out to review Article VI, paragraph (3) of the US Constitution, which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Now, we all know that some people may decide whom to vote for on the basis of their religion; that's their right – and their problem. But to inject the issue into a public forum, to ask the candidates to state their religious views on a particular subject, is completely unacceptable. What were you thinking, Martha?

In short, Wednesday night's performance (which is all it really was) gets two thumbs down from me. But that's not the point. The point is that these kinds of shenanigans are what pass for electoral politics in 21st-century America. No wonder some old ladies in Vermont don't vote.

Victoria Grant

Are we as smart as this 12-year-old?

What If They Held an Election and No One Came?

It already feels like the 2012 presidential election campaign has gone on forever, and we're still eleven months out. Apparently, permanent campaigns will join permanent war as just something that America does.

For the first time in the 44 years I've been eligible to vote, I probably won't this time around. Actually, I've been thinking about just showing up at the polls and standing around outside carrying a sign that says, "If God had meant us to vote, he would have given us candidates." (Or would that be illegal now?)

Robert C. Koehler, writing recently for Common Dreams, explained, for me and perhaps for many others, why voting has become a meaningless ritual:

It’s not democracy that’s inadequate, but a system of representative government in which only the enormously wealthy, or those who have indentured themselves to moneyed interests, can cross the threshold into leadership positions. In such a system, those who oppose the interests of war and empire can’t possibly be represented.

I want to vote for a candidate who will end our wars of aggression; who will restore the Constitution; who will not accept corporate bribes; who will act to mitigate climate change; who will abandon the childish fiction of American exceptionalism and govern by clear thinking rather than by cliché. But there is no such candidate – nor can there be, because our system of government is not capable of producing one.

The "right to vote" doesn't mean much when there's no one to vote for.

Christmas Is No Time to Talk About War and Peace

The following are not my words, but I couldn't agree with them more....

Published on Monday, December 19, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
 

Christmas is No Time to Talk About War and Peace
by Jim Rigby

When I heard the president speak to returning troops last week, my mind flashed back to an article I once wrote for our local newspaper. Each week a different member of the local clergy would write a column, and I had been asked to write the piece for Christmas. That year all I could hear was the drumbeat leading toward a war with Iraq. I racked my brain trying to think of a way to put faces on the people we were about to bomb. Looking at a nativity scene I thought, “The people we are about to kill look like that.” Maybe a reframed Christmas story could help Americans stop hating Saddam long enough to care about the people who will pay the real cost of this invasion. I submitted the following article, covering the Christmas story the way the U.S. press was covering the build-up to the Iraq war. Looking back, I should have known what was about to happen.

Christmas Cancelled as a Security Measure

ELLIS ISLAND – The three wise men were arrested today attempting to enter the country. The Iraqi nationals were carrying massive amounts of flammable substances known as “frankincense” and “myrrh.” While not explosives themselves, experts revealed that these two substances could be used as a fuse to detonate a larger bomb. The three alleged terrorists were also carrying gold, presumably to finance the rest of their mission.

Also implicated in the plot were two Palestinians named Joseph and Mary. An anonymous source close to the family overheard Mary bragging that her son would “bring down the mighty from their thrones and lift up the lowly.” In what appears to be a call to anarchy, the couple claims their son will someday “help prisoners escape captivity.” “These people match our terrorist profile perfectly,” an official source reported.

All of the suspects claimed they heard angels singing of a new era of hope for the afflicted and poor. As one Wall Street official put it, “These one-world wackos are talking about overturning the entire economic and political hierarchy that holds the civilized world together. I don’t care what some angel sang; God wants the status quo – by definition.”

A somber White House press secretary announced that it might be prudent to cancel Christmas until others in the plot are rounded up. “I assure you that this measure is temporary. The president loves Christmas as much as anyone. People can still shop and give expensive gifts, but we’re asking them not to think about world peace until after we have rid the world of evil people. For Americans to sing, ‘peace on earth, good will to all,’ is just the wrong message to send to our enemies at this time.”

The strongest opponents of the Christmas ban were the representatives of retail stores, movie chains, and makers of porcelain Christmas figurines. “This is a tempest in a teapot,” fumed one unnamed business owner. “No one thinks of the political meaning of Christmas any more. Christmas isn’t about a savior who will bring hope to the outcasts of the world; it’s about nativity scenes and beautiful lights. History has shown that mature people are perfectly capable of singing hymns about world peace while still supporting whatever war our leaders deem necessary. People long ago stopped tying religion to the real events in the world.”

There has been no word on where the suspects are being kept, or when their trial might be held. Authorities are asking citizens who see other foreigners resembling nativity scene figures to contact the Office of Homeland Security.

A few days after submitting that piece, I received a nervous call from an editor. “We love your story. It’s very funny.”

“Thank you,” I said, waiting for the other shoe to fall.

“The thing is, we want to take out the part about Iraq and Palestine.”

After a horrified pause, I explained that had been the whole point of writing the story – to humanize the people who were about to be killed. When I refused to gut the story, he told me they would have to drop it altogether.

I shouldn’t have been surprised. Clergy who want to talk about real events in the world are seen as too political for the religious section, and too religious for the political section. Of course, if a minister gets in the pulpit and waves the flag and prays for the troops, that’s not called “political,” but if a minister questions any war, then it is considered mixing religion and politics. The resulting pablum in most clergy columns validates their strategic placement somewhere between the obituaries and the comics.

What have we learned as a result of the war? That was answered by Obama’s words to the returning troops:

“Because of you – because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met – Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That’s part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don’t make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it’s right. There can be no fuller expression of America’s support for self-determination than our leaving Iraq to its people. That says something about who we are.”

Looking back at my earlier Christmas article, I feel pain not pride at what the president said. His speech to returning troops could have been taken from any leader, of any nation, from any period of history, simply by changing the names and places. It is the kind of speech every leader has given since the emperors: brave and noble words, written in someone else’s blood. This president, who ran, in part, against this war, has come to repeat the party line. This president, who once spoke of respect for all people of the world, has now deported more immigrants than Bush.

Hearing another speech expressing our nation’s narcissistic delusion made me physically ill. I could not help but think of the bloody wake such rhetoric leaves behind when put into action. The fact that we are leaving Iraq at this point says nothing about the purity of our initial motives. Even bank robbers don’t stay around after the crime has been committed. I appreciate trying to make our young soldiers not feel like they were pawns in someone else’s parlor game, but for the sake of future generations we must painfully remember and affirm that that is exactly what happened.

We from the United States are not like the people in our nativity scenes. We are like the Romans looming ominously in the background of the story. Christmas is about the little people of the world who find joy and meaning while living under someone else’s boot. We from the United States can only celebrate Christmas by ending our cultural narcissism, renouncing empire, and making room for the poor and the weak of the world like Joseph and Mary.

Christmas is not a fact of history, but Christianity’s particular symbol of every human being’s hope for world peace and universal happiness. When the angels sang, “peace on earth, good will to all,” they were expressing the song written in every heart. But that song calls us out of empire and into our entire human family. Maybe stopping the frenzy of Christmas long enough to really hear the song the angels sang to the wretched of the earth, would give us the humanity to stop hanging our Christmas lights until we no longer kill our brothers and sisters for the fuel to illumine them.

“O ye beneath life's crushing load, whose forms are bending low,
Who toil along the climbing way with painful steps and slow:
Look now, for glad and golden hours come swiftly on the wing;
Oh, rest beside the weary road and hear the angels sing.”

Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX.

Don't be taken in by "physicality"

According to a report yesterday on CNNMoney.com, "geopolitical concerns have eroded confidence in paper money, leading investors to pile into commodities -- which, in turn, have reached multi-year and all-time highs. ... The appeal of stocks has been somewhat tarnished by the volatile global situation [translation: the ongoing financial collapse]. ... Meanwhile, the physicality of commodities have boosted their appeal -- and made prices soar." Says Phil Flynn, senior market analyst for PFG Best, "We're almost going back to a barter system, where commodities have more value than paper ..."

Imagine -- people actually valuing commodities (mere stuff) over paper (to say nothing of electrons which of course represent real wealth)! We might as well go back to swapping pigs and chickens for our clothing and supplies! Thank goodness we have senior market analysts to point out such absurdities!

The Daily Outrage

Imagine this headline -- CEO of Company Responsible for 11 Deaths Receives Six-Figure Safety Bonus. You say you missed that in this morning's paper? Didn't hear it on the evening news? I'm sure you didn't, because I just made it up -- the headline, that is, not the fact.

The CEO of TransOcean, whose Deep Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico last year, killing 11 workers, received $374,000 above salary for his company's safety record. A presidential commission determined that the explosion resulted from "lax standards," but according to TransOcean, "Notwithstanding the tragic loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico, we achieved an exemplary statistical safety record."

As Laura Flanders put it, "Eleven workers dead, untold volumes of sea-life poisoned and more than 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the sea.  If that's what an historically good year for safety looks like at TransOcean, I'd hate to see a bad year."

Yet Another Postmortem Look at Election 2010

Once upon a time, so the story goes, a well-meaning, civic-minded citizen offered to provide a ride to the polls for an elderly woman who found it hard to get around. She politely declined, saying, "I never vote. It just encourages 'em."

If ever an election justified that lady's attitude, it was the one just past. Even veteran political observer Tom Englehardt called it the most dispiriting election of his lifetime. The candidates and their corporate backers spent over four billion dollars on this campaign – and for what? What difference will the results make in your life or mine? What will change? Will people now find jobs? Will the wars end? Will global warming be reversed? Will any real problems even be addressed?

The chief lesson of this election – and, for the matter, all the ones preceding it, at least in my lifetime – should be that if you really want change, don't vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans, whether they're called "blue dogs" or "tea partiers" or anything else.

According to another story, Ralph Nader's father was once asked if he thought the nation needed a third party. He said he thought it needed a second party. He was right. For at least a half century now, America has had one political party, the Corporate Party, with "Republicans" and "Democrats" representing two factions that differ hardly at all but that provide the illusion of "choice" come election day.

Is it even possible to change a system so badly broken? Probably not. But certainly not without first eliminating the legalized bribery that buys our "elected" officials. How do we do that? Better folk than I have tried to figure out a way, without much success.

Not cheerful thoughts, I know. But this election has left me, like Tom Englehardt, quite dispirited. So, as Edward R. Murrow used to say: Good night, and good luck.

On Understanding America and Americans

The following are the words of historian Ray Raphael. They deserve a wide audience....

Americans, from the beginning, were both bullies and democrats. Despite the hesitancy of elites, most patriots at the time of our nation's birth believed that ordinary people were entitled to rule themselves and fully capable of doing so. They also believed they had the right, and even the obligation, to impose their will on people whom they deemed inferior. These two core beliefs are key to understanding American history and the American character, and we do an injustice to ourselves and our nation when we pretend otherwise.

-- Founding Myths, pp. 244-45

WE WRITE THE LAWS

(As performed by the CEO Chorus, with apologies to Barry Manilow)

We’ve been alive forever,
And we wrote the very first law.
We put the rules and the penalties together,
We’re Big Business, and we write the laws.

We write the laws that make the whole world pay.
And we get richer nearly every day.
Of prison bars we have no fear because
We write the laws, we write the laws.

Our profits must keep growing,
So we've got our own place in your home.
We set the rates on the money that you’re owing,
And on top of that, we can still tap your phone!

We write the laws that make the whole world pay.
And we get richer nearly every day.
Of prison bars we have no fear because
We write the laws, we write the laws.

We’re Big Business, and we write the laws!

Israel Claims to Be Above the Law

The title of this post links to a story on The Real News Network regarding the Israeli attack on the ships trying to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. Here is a brief quote from that story....

The Israeli deputy foreign minister is Danny Ayalon. He works under Avigdor Lieberman. According to him, it doesn't matter that the operation took place in international waters, because Israel is above international law. In response to the fact that Israel couldn't declare international waters as its own closed military zone, he said, "These accusations have no basis in reality nor in legality. Our judgments and needs overbear any other. The decision to stop the flotilla was the right one." [emphasis added]

It's neither new nor surprising for a nation to disregard international law. But as far as I know, only two nations publicly claim that international law does not apply to them: Israel and the USA. This may be worth thinking about for a few minutes during the weeks between Memorial Day and the Fourth of July....

Whatever Happened to "We the People"?

One of the most dismaying aspects of the year-long battle over health care reform, at least for me, has been the growing realization that more and more Americans are opposed -- noisily, angrily, violently opposed -- to having any of their tax dollars spent to benefit anyone but themselves.

Health care? Why should I pay someone else's doctor and hospital bills? Education? Why should I pay for someone else's kids to go to school? Housing? Why should I pay for someone else's grandparents to have a place to live?

Bottom line? If you can't afford it, you have no right to it. If you're broke, get a job. If you're poor, you deserve it.

More and more frequently, and more and more openly, I hear people saying such things. And this dismays me, not only because the ideas behind these words are ethically abominable, but also because they are un-American.

The republic created by the Constitution in 1789 was far from perfect, and we should never forget that it was created by an elite ruling class who were strongly opposed to democracy. And yet ... And yet, the preamble to that Constitution was written in the third person plural: "We the people of the United States ..." And although by "people" they may have meant free, white, property-owning males over the age of 21 ... still, they said "We."

All through the 221 years of our history since then, we have (mostly) expanded the notion of who is included in the "people" of the United States. But lately, it seems, the "we" has dropped out. Now it's "I" and "me" and especially "my" -- "my" tax-dollars, "my" freedom to do as I please, "my" right not to be offended by anyone or anything. Whatever happened to "we"?

Four of our fifty states use the word "commonwealth" in their official public documents. It's an old-fashioned word, and it describes an even more old-fashioned idea: the notion that there is even such a thing as the "common weal" -- the common welfare, the public good, the benefit of all.

But there was such a thing, or at least the idea of such a thing. It never existed, of course, and never will exist. But it has been, from time to time at least, a goal -- something we aspired to, an idea and an ideal we valued. Whatever happened to "we"?

Who Are You Calling a Judeo-Christian, Pal?

A reader of my local newspaper, in today's "Feedback" column, objected to the use of the term "Judeo-Christian roots" in a previous story. "I am a Christian," this reader wrote, "and I resent the fact that I am called a 'dash Christian.' That is a misnomer."

The editor patiently explained that, as a matter of history, Judaism and Christianity share certain basic principles that, whether one agrees with them or not, do underlie the dominant political and economic values of American life. It should not have been necessary to point out, though the editor did so as well, that the term "Judeo-Christian" was not meant to apply to the reader's personal faith.

It seems to me symptomatic of the self-centered culture we live in that the reader understood the term individually, not collectively, and asserted that "I am a Christian."

I should like to explain to the reader, perhaps not so patiently, that, as a matter of history, Christianity did arise out of Judaism; which means that if you claim to be a Christian, you are adhering to a faith that has, at least partially, a Judaic origin.

And if you are one of today's "literalist" Christians, whose religion involves nothing more than "accepting Jesus into your mind and heart," it should not be necessary to remind you that your "personal Lord and Savior," as you call him, was a Jew.

Government-Run Health Care: The Early Days

From the London Gazette of 18 November 1672....

"His Majesty [Charles II] has commanded that notice be given that no persons whatsoever do come to be healed of the King's Evil unless they bring a certificate under the hands and seals of the ministry and churchwardens of the parishes where they inhabit [stating] that they have not been touched before. [No pre-existing conditions!] And His Majesty requires that the ministers in their respective parishes keep a constant register of such persons to whom they give these certificates." [A clear invasion of privacy!]

England has the best health care system in the world! Write your Member of Parliament forthwith to protest against this unnecessary enlargement of government bureaucracy and unwarranted intrusion into the sovereign-subject relationship!

[The quotation above appears in Jeffrey Kacirk's "Forgotten English" calendar for 2009.]

Remembering Armistice Day

Before there was Veterans Day, there was Armistice Day.

That's what they used to call it when I was growing up, remembering the armistice that went into effect at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 -- the armistice that marked the end of the horrific four-year slaughter known as the Great War.

Now we call it Veterans Day, and it's a time for remembering and honoring not only all those who once served in our armed forces, but all those who are doing so now. The trouble with honoring our warriors, though, is that we end up honoring our wars as well.

I remember a scene from a 1964 film called The Americanization of Emily, written by Paddy Chayevsky: Charlie Madison, an American naval officer stationed in England during World War II, is having tea with his English girlfriend, Emily Barham, and her mother. Mrs. Barham seems to be in denial about her husband's death in the war, believing that he is still alive and nobly fighting on for God and country....

CHARLIE: I don't trust people who make bitter reflections about war, Mrs. Barham. It's always the generals with the bloodiest records who are the first to shout what a hell it is. It's always the war widows who lead the Memorial Day parade.

EMILY: That was unkind, Charlie, and very rude.

CHARLIE: We shall never end war, Mrs. Barham, by blaming it on ministers and generals, war-mongering imperialists, or all the other banal bogeys. It's the rest of us who build statues to those generals and name boulevards after those ministers. The rest of us who make heroes of our dead and shrines of our battlefields. We wear our widow's weeds like nuns, Mrs. Barham, and perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices. My brother died at Anzio.

EMILY: I didn't know that, Charlie.

CHARLIE: Yes, an everyday soldier's death, no special heroism involved. We buried what pieces they found of him. But my mother insists he died a brave death and pretends to be very proud.

MRS. BARHAM: You're very hard on your mother. It seems a harmless enough pretense to me.

CHARLIE: No, Mrs. Barham. No, you see, now my other brother can't wait to reach enlistment age. That'll be in September.

MRS. BARHAM: Oh, Lord.

CHARLIE: It may be ministers and generals who blunder us into wars, Mrs. Barham, but the least the rest of us can do is to resist honoring the institution. What has my mother got for pretending bravery was admirable? She's under constant sedation, terrified she may wake up one morning, and find her last son has run off to be brave. I don't think I was rude, or unkind before, do you Mrs. Barham?

I think it's important that we not "perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices." I think it's worth remembering that Veterans Day started out as the commemoration of the end of a war. If only it could be so again.

Are you opposed to Socialism?

If so, then you should immediately do the following:

1. Take your children out of public school.
2. Delete the police and fire department numbers from your speed dial.
3. Return all your library books.
4. Tear up your Medicare/Medicaid cards.
5. Stay off the public highways.
6. Refuse to pay your taxes.

OR... Disregard the preceding nonsense, and take a few minutes to find out what Socialism really is. Here's one of many places you might start:

Thomas Jefferson's Prophecy

Thomas Jefferson, who affirmed our "unalienable" rights on July 4, 1776, knew that those rights were not guaranteed. In 1781, while the war for independence was still being fought, he noted that although the present times were marked by an enthusiasm for the rights of the people, this would not be so forever. With an uncannily accurate look into the future, he wrote:

Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless.... From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

Many people will quote from the Declaration of Independence today. Most of them will stop after the phrase "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But it's what comes next that makes the Declaration one of the most radical political documents ever written:

... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....

Today, 233 years later, our rulers have become corrupt, our people careless, save in the sole faculty of making money. Will our rights revive, or expire in a convulsion?