The Meek Shall Inherit What's Left of the Earth the Mean and Dumb Destroy

For this year's Blog Against Theocracy, I wanted to revisit some infamous remarks by Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) during a set of March 2009 hearings held by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:



The key remarks are:

The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

Shimkus has said plenty of other dumb things. However, these particular remarks were both dumb and theocratic, and therefore of greater concern. They're problematic – or dangerous – for at least three reasons.

One, environmental and energy policies for the United States should not be dictated by any religious text. The same goes for all public policy, but the problem is especially glaring for any policy involving science. (We'll deal with some caveats in a bit.) Shimkus was pushing a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. Passing a law that said, "You can't regulate pollution because the Bible says so" would not pass constitutional muster.

Two, Shimkus is on shaky religious grounds as well. The passage he cites only refers to what the God of the Bible will or will not do - human beings are quite capable of destroying the planet all on their own. (More specifically, human beings are quite capable of destroying humanity, but the planet would survive.) Additionally, Shimkus is picking and choosing what he wants from the Bible in his Appeal to Religious Authority. He's not asking the Food and Drug Administration to ban eating shellfish, or asking Congress to abolish a few amendments to bring back slavery, or trying to outlaw certain types of clothing, or otherwise trying to enforce many other precepts in the Bible.

Three, assuming Shimkus is sincere in his stated beliefs, his religion makes him a less reflective, less responsible human being. He has spouted beliefs that dictate that he, and other human beings, and the government of the United States of America, do not need to act responsibly when it comes to energy and the environment, because God will sweep in to save the day.

Shimkus' views are not uniform among religious conservatives, but they are far from rare. At least one conservative pundit considers the global financial collapse a divine mystery rather than the completely predictable result of human skullduggery. Meanwhile, Ann Coulter has attacked environmental responsibility:

The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view.

Some biblical scholars argue that "dominion" is better translated as "stewardship," which better fits the spirit of many other Biblical passages (not to mention Adam's trade as a gardener or farmer). This is basically the stance of evangelical environmentalists, who oppose the views of Coulter and Shimkus. It's hard to imagine Jesus urging anyone to recklessly strip-mine, raze a forest or pollute the world. That fits better with the cult of Ayn Rand.

It can be useful to discuss religious beliefs, or atheism, less in terms of "What do you believe?" and "Why do you believe that?" and more in terms of "How do your beliefs shape your actions?" Some individuals approach religion in a way that makes them more reflective, more considerate of others, and more engaged in their communities. Many others approach religion in a way that makes them less reflective, less tolerant, and more reckless. I would argue that Shimkus, Coulter and their ilk on wrong on religious grounds, and it could be useful to challenge them in these terms. However, they're wrong for many other reasons, too. It's more important to note that, implicitly, they are preaching theocracy, religious rule – and even more importantly, to point out that they are preaching recklessness and irresponsibility. When some people say they believe "everything happens for a reason," what they really mean is, "you should try to make the best out of a bad situation." What others mean is, "you shouldn't question anything that happens, and you definitely shouldn't challenge the people choosing to screw you over"... or in this case, you shouldn't challenge the people despoiling the planet and polluting public air and water in the name of greed.

Public policy in the United States should not be dictated by any religious text. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate in government, nor does it mean they can never cite religious passages in public, but the manner in which it's done is very important. Consider Stephen Colbert's remarks in September 2010 on behalf of migrant farm workers:

CONGRESSWOMAN JUDY CHU: Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues, why are you interested in this issue?

COLBERT: I like talking about people who don't have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. And I know that a lot of people are the least of my brothers because the economy is so hard, and I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and they have no rights.

(Notice we're back to tilling the land and taking care of the planet again.) Colbert references a famous passage from the Bible here, but look how he does it. He never mentions the Bible, nor Jesus. It wouldn't be utterly horrible if he did, but it's notable that he's trying not to proselytize. Instead, he's invoking a principle, one of compassion and the social contract, that a particular passage happens to express. Compassion is not a religious idea – while some religions emphasize it, compassion does not depend upon religion whatsoever. Colbert's biblical reference might carry additional weight for Christians, and it might also turn off some other listeners. That's a rhetorical choice. However, his argument is hardly dependant on his audience sharing his religious beliefs. He's outlining a grander principle.

That's in sharp contrast to what Shimkus says – an Appeal to Religious Authority. Shimkus' argument cannot hold unless the listener both shares a) Shimkus' religious beliefs, and b) his particular, idiotic interpretation of the Bible. While that makes it a poor argument due to its limited appeal, the main problem is that it's a theocratic argument. Shimkus is asking us to obey rather than question or debate. We shouldn't look at the scientific evidence, because God – according to Shimkus – says we shouldn't. (Shades of the Catholic Church and Galileo.) Even if America didn't have a separation of church and state, that'd be a horrible way to run a country. Put another way, Colbert is asking us to be more thoughtful, while Shimkus is asking us to be less so.

This fits into a common pattern, both with conservative arguments in general and environmental issues specifically: climate scientists are asking us to be more thoughtful about the planet, global warming, and empirical evidence, while climate change deniers are seeking to sow confusion and obfuscate careful study and decision-making.

There are many ways to challenge someone like Shimkus, and there are many reasons to do so. It can be entertaining and effective to refute fools and scoundrels who cite scripture with scripture. However, the more important battle is to fight back against theocracy and authoritarianism in general. As we've examined in previous years, theocrats are not fighting for religious freedom, which they already possess – they are fighting for privilege, and power over others. Shimkus is an authoritarian, and in addition to shilling unchecked corporate greed and pollution, he's preaching unquestioning obedience, ignorance, recklessness and irresponsibility. That's standard for movement conservatism. However, since this is Blog Against Theocracy weekend, let's remember that it's no accident that theocrats often shill horrible ideas; that's a feature, not a bug.

Day of Shame 2010

Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy reminds me the February 5th is the Day of Shame, the anniversary of Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. Full of falsehoods, and not very convincing for all that, the presentation played a crucial role in selling the Iraq War to the American people. Most Americans didn't listen too carefully to what was said, but they trusted Powell. While Powell has since tried to portray himself as a dupe, he knew that specific charges were dubious or outright bullshit, and certainly knew that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were exploiting his credibility.

It's important not to let this go down the Memory Hole, especially when so many people in politics and the media are trying to pretend the Bush years never happened and/or no one's to blame. This was not an innocent mistake. It was deliberate deception. For the most part, those in power and influence who bought the case for war haven't truly acknowledged their error. Richard Cohen is a blithering idiot, but he's not alone in insisting that he was wrong for the right reasons, while those who saw through the bullshit were somehow right for the wrong reasons. Cohen is dead wrong as usual, and couldn't accurately describe the anti-war objections if his life depended on it. It's one thing to have been wrong, though, but it's quite another never to learn anything from such mistakes. Too many people with power and influence haven't, and that's what's dangerous.

I'd recommend, as always, the books Angler by Barton Gellman and The Dark Side by Jane Meyer for a good overview of the staggering abuses of power and horrendous mismanagement of the Bush administration. The Frontline specials on the Bush years, particularly "The Dark Side," "Cheney's Law," "The Lost Year in Iraq" or the compilation "Bush's War," are also excellent.

There's plenty more that needs to come out, though, and among other things, the Justice Department should be doing a full investigation of the torture regime. The Obama administration has in some cases borrowed from the Bush playbook. Granting prisoners due process is a strength, not a weakness. Meanwhile, the number of people running around casually or emphatically endorsing torture – despite its immorality, illegality, ineffectiveness and endangerment of Americans – is truly disturbing.

The Day of Shame website has more, and links to other posts. My most extensive post on the subject is this one from 2008. Peace.

Delurking Week

Blue Gal is spearheading this one, and has more about its origins. The idea is just what the picture above says - bloggers should thank their readers, and readers - particularly lurkers (people who read but don't comment) - are encouraged to leave one.

So readers of this blog - thanks again! The format of sporadic, long-form posts ain't for everyone. However, I thought the latest blogiversary roundup featured some variety, and personally, I'm glad to have finally finished a set of posts for 11/11 Armistice Day I'd been kicking around in my head for 1-2 years now. It's a big blogosphere, with room for all sorts of pieces and plenty of new bloggers to discover, and I'm grateful for that.

On the gratitude front - I mentioned it last week, but with hunger on the rise in America, and Thanksgiving coming up, it's a good time to consider giving time or money to one's local food bank. Not everyone can afford to, of course, as it's been a tough year for many people. But most food banks make a little bit go a long way. Thanks.

Independence Day Food Drive (Second Refrain)

Following up my earlier plugs, here's another reminder about the Independence Day Food Drive, or "Million Can March," organized by Revphat at Les Enragés. This post gives the details, and a follow-up is attempting a can count, but the basic idea is to donate some time, money or food to a local food bank. Blue Gal added a good post at C&L that provides some other resources, including a useful food bank locator.

I donated $50 to a local food bank organization earlier this week, and likely will donate more time or money later this year. California is going to get hard hit. DDay and Digby have some harrowing stories about targeting the elderly, blind and disabled – and Arnie's stogie in the Jacuzzi. Likely, it's only going to get worse, and as usual, it won't be the scoundrels who suffer.

On a related note, there's a Blue America campaign pressuring politicians to provide a public health care option. The more pressure, the better.

If nothing else, there's writing your politicians, signing petitions and keeping these issues alive on behalf of the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free in our own country. Providing health care for everyone – and at least a meal – is a revolution worth fighting for.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Independence Day Food Drive

There's another round of teabag parties scheduled for July the 4th. Revphat at Les Enragés is organizing the "Million Can March" food drive as a conscientious alternative. The basic idea is to donate some time, money or food to a local food bank some time before Independence Day, and then blog about it. Conservative bloggers are welcome to participate as well. See the above link for more details.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Day of Shame, 2009

I've been reminded that today marks the Day of Shame, when Colin Powell spoke to the United Nations, and played a crucial role in selling going to war with Iraq - less so to the world than to the American media and public.

Here's my post in three parts from last year's blogswarm (this post is somewhat related). Over at the Day of Shame site, Vast Left has a good post for the occasion.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Obacalypse!

Doctor Biobrain - or rather, his evil alter ego, Doctor Snedley - included a VS post in the latest Carnival of the Liberals, and subjected it to the ridicule it justly deserved. Do check out the other posts, entertainingly skewered, in the "Obacalypse!" edition of CotL.

I'll add that Carnival of the Liberals is always looking for volunteers to host it, and hosting and/or participating is very much in the spirit of Blogroll Amnesty Day.

Blogroll Amnesty Day, 2009

It is time once more to observe Blogroll Amnesty Day, a celebration starting today and going through Tuesday, February 3rd - typical liberal excess. Thanks to skippy, Jon Swift and Blue "2000th Post" Gal for spearheading this once again, to skippy for the graphic, and to all bloggers who make a habit of linking more than the usual suspects (take a bow, Mike Finnigan).

Backtrack through the above links for the background on this event, or head over to Shamanaqua for an entertaining, fantasy-themed retelling. Last year's post here went with a "gigantic mutant lizards breathing nuclear flame" theme. And that gives me an excuse to re-run this graphic from one of those pesky blog meme posts:


(Click for a larger view.)

Because it's all about the mix, folks. The cool thing about the liberal blogosphere – or blogtopia (yes, a certain kangaroo coined that phrase!) – is that you can find brilliant essays, original muckraking, conscientious fact-checking, policy discussions to make a wonk's heart flutter, cathartic rants, witty satire, and general silliness. On the blogtopia side of things, is there anyone who's been doing this for a while who hasn't experienced a flash of insight reading someone else's work, or learned something new in the course of researching a post, or come to a better understanding of his or her own position arguing in a comment thread? The internet tubes encompass a wide range of opinions and many communities, and we have seen extreme ugliness from some of them. But it's also not hard to find positive communities and a degree of kindness that would shock the MSM scolds who rarely seem to bother actually reading those foul-mouthed bloggers they're so convinced are, ahem, undermining democracy.

Speaking of "the mix," with no slight to the fine bloggers I linked last year nor to the many others on my blogroll, may I suggest you check out:

Daily Dorkmonger. Kristen writes: "I am bitter and elitist! I like to read and I like to write about what I read." Well gosh, Kristen, that's redundant - elitist, reading, and talking about it?!? Jeez, as if we'd like to hear what you have to sa – wait, what was that about lewd Russian jokes, and supervillains?

Tales of Brave Sir Robin (a.k.a. Sir Robin Rides Away): Blogging from a "proud Liberal" and "a prouder Dad" who features off-beat music selections and other interesting takes. (Plus, I'm happy somebody else also refers to it as "Roast Beast.")

Impolitic Eye: "Parenting, advertising, graphic design, food, politics and whatever else catches my attention."

Media Bloodhound. MBH probably doesn't need my help, and his "ranking" is deceptive as he's another inveterate cross-poster, but I have to give a shout-out to this level of media analysis.

Comrade Kevin's Chrestomathy covers a wide range of subjects including politics and music, but make sure to scroll through and read through Kevin's reviews of classic films.

Atomic Romance: It's supervillains again, as Swinebread does comics! Even if you're not a comic books geek, I think it's hard not to appreciate this level of dedication. There are few loves as pure as unadulterated geek love - and it makes the world a better, more pleasant place. (Like a few other activities we could name.)

Thanks, and make sure to check out skippy and Jon Swift's posts (linked at the top), since they'll be compiling links to participating bloggers.


(Cross-posted at Blue Herald, for even more linky love. Ha! Just try and stop me!)

Blogrolling 'Round the Bend…

Blue Gal has the video…



…and skippy has the graphics and the background - for Blogroll Amnesty Day. This year, we're having an extended celebration, running Saturday, January 31st through Tuesday, February 3rd.

Participate in Blogroll Amnesty Day – It's Really Something Other Than Else!

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Alternative Invocation

Quaker Dave has kindly organized a Alternative Invocation blogswarm for Inauguration Day. It's a great exercise. With a formal occasion in D.C. in mind, I'm afraid my imagination runs to the, ahem, flowery. In any case, while the following might not exactly be an invocation, here's my entry:

In 1776, in Philadelphia, our Founding Fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, not far from here, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of a beautiful dream, and also said:

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

America was founded on wonderful ideals, but our reality has not always matched them. We can forget the freedom, fairness, justice and generosity that have formed our best moments. In the past several years, we — and the world — have not always seen America at its best. Once again, it is time to change that.

Faced with great challenges, we cannot afford to be less than our best selves. We cannot afford fear or selfishness. It will require great courage to look at what we have done, great wisdom and spirited discussion to chart a new course, great industry and patience to effect meaningful change, and great kindness and listening to rebuild and re-energize our communities. We must all think not only of ourselves and our well-being, but also of our neighbors. We must all of us — citizen, politician, influential, unheard, rich, poor and all those in-between — all of us think of the public good and how we can better honor it. Helping the least of us helps us all. Helping the country as a whole helps ourselves. To lead is to serve.

Over the years, America has made progress, and ours is a nation of striving, of improvement, of ingenuity and optimism. It is time to remember the national ideals of our Founding Fathers, to honor that promise spoken of by Dr. King, and to celebrate and share that enduring dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all women and men. Going forward, may we remember the wisdom of the past, ponder and discuss the future we would like to see, and form new friendships as we work together to build a better America for us all. Thank you.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

The Truth By Any Other Name

(Graphic by Tengrain. Head to the Blog Against Theocracy website for more posts. And thanks again to Blue Gal.)

I've written far more about religion and for the previous Blog Against Theocracy blogswarms than I would have anticipated when I started blogging. I want to take a different tact this time, and won't recap all of those previous pieces, but there are some line-in-the-sand issues that bear repeating.

As First Freedom First puts it, the First Amendment provides for "the freedom to worship, or not." The Constitution is religion-neutral. The separation of church and state protects religious folk and atheists alike. Freedom of religion does not allow one to violate civil law; religious people have the same rights everyone else has in America, they just don't have privileged rights and greater legal power due to their professed faith. For example, science curricula should be decided by science teachers, who should not have to please one religion's adherents, who in turn are free to teach their religion's creation story in their places of worship. The United States can be called a Christian nation by demographic, but by demographic only. Not only was it not founded with a state religion, it was deliberately founded not to have a state religion, hence the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and the later popularity of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Opposing theocracy is not anti-religious. Theocracy is in fact, anti-American, and opposing it is patriotic.

That said, I wanted to move toward an issue that I was reminded of by the ongoing holy wars between Clinton and Obama supporters. I'm being slightly facetious, and the subject's redundant for many Blog Against Theocracy participants, but I wanted to explore issues of respect and tolerance for both belief and non-belief. One tool for this is noting the differences between one's own personal experience, the climate in a given community, and what occurs on the national stage.

I'm writing this because I know devout friends, family and liberal bloggers who have expressed frustration with feeling their faith was denigrated, to their minds, in places where they worked or communities where they lived. Not the type to proselytize, for them faith is a quiet and personal matter. They've complained of an attitude that holds that religious faith denotes a lack of intelligence.

Here I feel I must distinguish between people of faith in general, and religious authoritarians, who are generally politically conservative. Most importantly, there's a huge difference between people of faith in general and scriptural literalists, who are far more likely to be dogmatic, to be theocrats, and to push an authoritarian agenda of social control. This doesn't describe all religious conservatives, but it does describe the key players in the "Religious Right" of movement conservatism.

Assuming one isn't a scriptural literalist, there's no necessary contradiction between being a person of faith and one of reason, since they're very different paradigms. Consequently, I'm sympathetic to my devout friends and family in their complaints, and do not doubt the truth of their personal experience.

However, I also know that dynamic is hardly the norm on a national scale, where theocrats and political conservatives have unfortunately dominated discussions of "faith" as if they were its true and only representatives. Every year, Fox News and other conservative outlets launch faux alerts about a "War on Christmas" or even a "the cultural obliteration of Easter." Wails about how Christians are persecuted in America and Christmas is disappearing must strike American Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists as rather funny. And then there's atheists. The occasionally eloquent crackpot Christopher Hitchens is hardly the model of diplomacy in either his imperialist politics or his atheism, but he certainly isn't representative of atheists in that respect. The vast majority of non-believers simply want to be left alone, thank you very much, and allow others to live the lives they want within the bounds of Constitution. In contrast, theocrats insist that they should be able to dictate how others should live and effectively seek to overthrow the Constitution. When it comes to Christian Dominionists and other theocrats, they are the persecutors, not the persecuted.

On the national scale, national politicians pander to the religious all the time, and feel comfortable denigrating atheists. Mitt Romney's anti-JFK speech is the perfect recent example, where he said:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The above-linked post delves into this in more depth, but I hold no sane, honest intelligent person could sincerely utter such statements, given how even a casual knowledge of history, philosophy, anthropology or current events shows otherwise (not to mention common sense). There's nothing wrong with taking pride in one's religion, of course, or even in stating "I believe my faith makes me a better person." But freedom and morality are not dependent in any way on religion, which has in fact often opposed both. Some accounts of Romney's speech thankfully picked up on his pandering and bigotry, but other outlets, such as the AP, presented his speech as an affirmation of his supposed beliefs in the separation of church and state and religious tolerance. The MSM is often shallow, but long-time news viewers will be familiar with many a pander to the religious, many a slam against atheists, and many instances where it's simply a given for all the talking heads involved that religious people are more "moral" or that non-religious people are not. Ridiculous straw man representations of atheists are sadly acceptable even among people who should know better, perhaps out of the tired false equivalency that everyone's equally to blame, or the silly narcissism that holds that secularism is a religion and all forms of belief are the same.

So, I am sympathetic to the devout who feel insulted or are lumped in with the theocrats, especially the devout who oppose theocrats. But I'm frankly more sympathetic to the atheists on the whole, and hold that tolerance of atheism and protection of and respect for non-believers is the most important gauge of America's observance of Freedom of Religion. Politically speaking, theocrats should always be challenged, but since they will always squawk (falsely) that religion is being attacked, it's prudent to critique them without bashing religion as a whole. Most theocracy opponents handle this distinction pretty gracefully, in my experience, and an anti-theocracy minister or two out there explaining the difference certainly helps — especially with our shallow media.

I've written about this in other posts, and I didn't originate the idea, but literature classes may be one of the best methods for combating scriptural literalism and religious intolerance. Studying literature can teach a tolerance for ambiguity and an understanding that words may be symbolic, a story may be an allegory, and an image may be a metaphor. While we're sadly always likely to have authoritarians around, a good lit class or two might decrease their ranks. As Karen Armstrong points out in this interview, widespread scriptural literalism is a relatively new development in religion, dating back to the 18th or 19th Centuries. Prior to that, it was much more common for religious folk to view their scriptures and stories as allegories and metaphors, expressing a spiritual truth rather than a literal one.

This brings me to back to my religious friends and family, who approach scripture in terms of spiritual or metaphorical truths versus hard facts. I used to joke that King Lear was my Bible, because it contains many truths about the human condition, about good and evil, false and true loyalty, political power, suffering and redemption, and virtue in the face of harsh realities, among many other things. Similarly, when someone who isn't a scriptural literalist says he or she believes in God, even if I disagree with some of their religious precepts, typically I find that declaration encompasses a set of beliefs with which I can agree: one should be kind to others, one should be honest, and so on. I'm interested in finding out what he or she really means by declaring a belief in God, since Jerry Falwell's view is certainly very different from that of Barry Lynn or some liberal bloggers of faith. "God" can be their the word for "truth" and an entire philosophy.

Obviously, the Constitution prohibits any religious test for office, and some people would prefer to keep such matters private in any case. However, for those who do want to have such discussions, it's certainly possible to do so respectfully, finding points of contention as well as common ground. In my experience, one of the best methods involves stating one's beliefs and how those beliefs affect one's actions. Socrates famously quipped that "The unexamined life is not worth living," and no one can accuse our nation of too much reflection.

Let me close with a section from Chapter 1, "Myth and the Modern World," from The Power of Myth, a conversation between Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell:

MOYERS: I came to understand from reading your books — The Masks of God or The Hero with a Thousand Faces, for example — that what human beings have in common is revealed in myths. Myths are stories of our search through the ages for truth, for meaning, for significance. We all need to tell our story and to understand our story. We all need to understand death and to cope with death, and we all need help in our passage from birth to life and then to death. We need for life to signify, to touch the eternal, to understand the mysterious, to find out who we are.

CAMPBELL: People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experience on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That's what it's all finally about, and that's what these clues help us to find within ourselves.

MOYERS: Myths are clues?

CAMPBELL: Myths are clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life.

MOYERS: What we're capable of knowing and experiencing within?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

MOYERS: You changed the definition of a myth from the search for meaning to the experience of meaning.

CAMPBELL: Experience of life. The mind has to do with meaning. What's the meaning of a flower? There's a Zen story about a sermon of the Buddha in which he simply lifted a flower. There was only one man who gave him a sign with his eyes that he understood what was said. Now, the Buddha himself is called "the one thus come." There's no meaning. What's the meaning of the universe? What's the meaning of a flea? It's just there. That's it. And your own meaning is that you're there. We're so engaged in doing things to achieve purposes of outer value that we forget that the inner value, the rapture that is associated with being alive, is what it's all about.

MOYERS: How do you get that experience?

CAMPBELL: Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts — but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. It tells you what that experience is.

None of this post is likely to be revelatory to most Blog Against Theocracy participants. And my view of religion is not one that dogmatists will accept. Yet while fighting theocracy involves defending empiricism, accurate history, the Constitution and Enlightenment principles, another method for fostering greater understanding is through a deeper appreciation of the many different choices people make in their metaphors for living.

(Revised slightly for typos and clarity.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Stop Loss

The Freeway Blogger has more of these (via Skippy).

As we discussed in "The Poetry of War," our "Deciders" do not understand sacrifice. As Garry Trudeau put it, they believe we must "stay the course. We cannot dishonor the upcoming sacrifice of those who have yet to die." Death is a tragedy, but an unnecessary death is an atrocity. Stop loss, indeed.

(This week marks the fifth anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq. This post is for the Iraq War Blogswarm and as part of a ongoing Series on War. Cross-posted at The Blue Herald.)

Soldiers of Humanity

From Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, translated by Paul Reps:

Once a division of the Japanese army was engaged in a sham battle, and some of the officers found it necessary to make their headquarters in Gasan's temple.

Gasan told his cook: "Let the officers have only the same simple fare we eat."

This made the army men angry, as they were used to very deferential treatment. One came to Gasan and said: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers, sacrificing our lives for our country. Why don't you treat us accordingly?"

Gasan answered sternly: "Who do you think we are? We are soldiers of humanity, aiming to save all sentient beings."

(This week marks the fifth anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq. This post is for the Iraq War Blogswarm and as part of a ongoing Series on War. Cross-posted at The Blue Herald.)

The Poetry of War

(This week marks the fifth anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq. This post is for the Iraq War Blogswarm and as part of a ongoing Series on War.)

There is no poetry to war itself. There is, however, some famous poetry about war, some of which depicts it as glorious, while other pieces capture its horror. Let us begin with:

The Charge of the Light Brigade
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson

1.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

2.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

3.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

4.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

5.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

6.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Tennyson was a fine poet, but he never saw war. His account, stirring though it may be with its evocation of loyalty heedless of the dire consequences, actually glosses over a key aspect of the real incident. The actual charge was a completely unnecessary loss of life, cavalry charging across a long stretch of open ground exposed to over 50 pieces of artillery, all due to a poorly-communicated order. It is, in fact, a cautionary tale taught in some military schools about the important of being clear in orders. (For more on the actual Charge of the Light Brigade, see the Wiki entry, NPR, the BBC and the U.K. National Archives.)

"When can their glory fade?" That line brings to mind the attitude recently shown by President Bush (emphasis added):

In a videoconference, Bush heard from U.S. military and civilian personnel [in Afghanistan] about the challenges ranging from fighting local government and police corruption to persuading farmers to abandon a lucrative poppy drug trade for other crops. […]

“I must say, I’m a little envious,” Bush said. “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.”

“It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks,” Bush said.

Romantic? Bush's comments are all the more despicable because he could have served in Vietnam, but thanks to family connections instead spent his time in a cushy "champagne unit" in the air national guard and didn't even complete his service. It's also not the first time he's said something like this. It's one thing to receive preferential treatment, but when Bush is also sending others to die, without an exit strategy and while undermining long-term prospects for peace, Dante's Inferno seems more appropriate than even the harsher words.

Let us move to the next poem:

Dulce Et Decorum Est
By Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

As the British website War Poetry explains:

DULCE ET DECORUM EST - the first words of a Latin saying (taken from an ode by Horace). The words were widely understood and often quoted at the start of the First World War. They mean "It is sweet and right." The full saying ends the poem: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - it is sweet and right to die for your country. In other words, it is a wonderful and great honour to fight and die for your country.

Wilfred Owen, one of the most famous of World War I poets, saw war firsthand, and his poems (and those of his friend Siegfried Sassoon) are decidedly unglamorous. Tragically, Owen died shortly before the war's end. But "Dulce Et Decorum Est" will never be used for any recruitment drives any more than Stanley Kubrick's scathing film Paths of Glory.

It's obviously not necessary to experience war personally to understand that it is indeed hell and something to be avoided if at all possible. But it's sadly far easier to hold the dangerous view that war is glorious and romantic when one hasn't experienced it firsthand, or doesn't speak with veterans, or doesn't study the subject, whether through good history books, novels, poems, theater, documentaries or narrative films. Unnecessary war is far more likely when our leaders have a view of war far closer to Rambo than Saving Private Ryan or All Quiet on the Western Front.

It's easier to sell an unnecessary war when pundits as loathsome, bloodthirsty and unrelentingly and unrepentantly wrong as William Kristol are given such a large microphone. It's all too simple to repeat the same mistakes when such knaves are given prominent platforms not only by right-wing outlets, but also Time magazine and The New York Times. Never mind Kristol glorying in Bush's disdain for expert advice and overwhelming public opinion, accidentally inveighing against his own side's position, celebrating unnecessary cruelty on the domestic front, and urging yet another unnecessary war, this time with Iran (for but a small recap). He should have been laughed at and shamed off the national stage long ago, but instead, he's been financially rewarded. Kristol brings a distinctive smug grin, I suppose, but the absurd truth is that, inside the Beltway, such immoral, reckless stupidity as his is considered "Serious."

Nor was Kristol alone in his hawkishness, his lack of military service and knowledge, or how seldom he was challenged by the press. Most of the key players in the Bush administration, certainly the Cheney "cabal" of neocons and other hawks, were firm believers in American imperialism, and shared the delusion that America lost in Vietnam due to a "stab in the back" by liberals and the press. Not coincidentally, they're trying to sell the same crap all over again.

Let's turn to another WWI poem:

Break of Day in the Trenches
By Isaac Rosenberg

The darkness crumbles away -
It is the same old druid Time as ever.
Only a live thing leaps my hand -
A queer sardonic rat -
As I pull the parapet's poppy
To stick behind my ear.
Droll rat, they would shoot you if they knew
Your cosmopolitan sympathies
(And God knows what antipathies).
Now you have touched this English hand
You will do the same to a German -
Soon, no doubt, if it be your pleasure
To cross the sleeping green between.
It seems you inwardly grin as you pass
Strong eyes, fine limbs, haughty athletes
Less chanced than you for life;
Bonds to the whims of murder,
Sprawled in the bowels of the earth,
The torn fields of France.
What do you see in our eyes
At the shrieking iron and flame
Hurled through still heavens?
What quaver - what heart aghast?
Poppies whose roots are in man's veins
Drop, and are ever dropping;
But mine in my ear is safe,
Just a little white with the dust.

I had a teacher who felt that the key irony of the piece is that the soldier plucks the poppy with the idea of protecting it, but as soon as he does, it will begin to die as well. It's similar to the dreadful irony captured by Garry Trudeau when he had Bush say, "Again, we'll stay the course. We cannot dishonor the upcoming sacrifice of those who have yet to die." Admitting personal error is far more costly to these leaders and pundits than the lives of others.

A similar irony is at work with the larger "War on Terror." Jim Henley (via Jonathan Schwarz) is one of many bloggers to note how our invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped Al Qaeda accomplish what it never could on its own:

Another way of putting it is, "So, did Bin Laden win then? Did we bankrupt ourselves on an insane and criminal war in half the time it took the Soviets, in response to his ever-so-helpful prodding?"

Still, my favorite lines of Rosenberg's poem may be "Droll rat, they would shoot you if they knew / Your cosmopolitan sympathies." As in Jean Renoir's La Grande Illusion, class and power may more important than even nationality in a war. The grunts on the front line on either side have far more in common with each other than they do with the men who send them to die. History shows that, sadly, even veterans who should know better have occasionally made stupid and reckless generals, but nonetheless, imperialist chickenhawks remain extremely dangerous in positions of power. Consider the following passage from chapter 1, "A Bad Ending," of Thomas Ricks' Fiasco, discussing 1991 and the first Gulf War (emphasis added):

Former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, who has worked closely with both and who has been an ideological ally of Wolfowitz but a close friend of [then Marine brigadier general Anthony] Zinni, when asked to compare the two, said, "They have more similarities than differences." Both are smart and tenacious, and both have strong interests in the Muslim world, from the Mideast to Indonesia — the latter a country in which both have done some work. "The main difference," Armitage continued, "is that Tony Zinni has been to war, and he's been to war a lot. So he understands what it is to ask a man to lose a limb for his country."

Wolfowitz would later say that the "realists" such as Zinni did not understand that their policies were prodding the Mideast toward terrorism. If you liked 9/11, he would say after that event, just keep up policies such as the containment of Iraq. Zinni, for his part, would come to view Wolfowitz as a dangerous idealist who little about Iraq and had spent no real time on the ground there. Zinni would warn that Wolfowitz's advocacy of toppling Saddam Hussein through supporting Iraqi rebels was a dangerous and naive approach whose consequences hadn't been adequately considered. Largely unnoticed by most Americans during the 1990s, these contrasting views amounted to a prototype of the debate that would later occur over the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It would be nice if more people who made life and death decisions made those decisions as if their own lives or those of their loved ones were at risk, but sadly, it's often not the case. Our current scoundrels suffer delusions of grandeur, celebrate inhumanity as boldness and fantasy as grim realism, and do not understand sacrifice. The surge is still not working, but still the administration will send out its apologists and delusionists. Despite many a Lost Year in Iraq, there's still No End in Sight, and tragically, we're likely to write much the same things next year.

I've written it many times before, but I'll say it again: regardless of the rightness or mendacity of a given mission, a trooper's service can be honorable or even heroic. But their virtue does not necessarily ennoble the mission itself, nor does any heroism they show transfer to those making the decisions, no matter how many times those bold, intuitively brilliant, God-touched Deciders don a flight suit and show off their genitals.

Again, there is no poetry to war itself, but the depths of war (and WWI especially) have been explored by many superb poets. NPR also compared Tennyson and Owen's poems along with some others back in 2003. The website War Poetry features some pieces from the book Minds at War: The Poetry and Experience of the First World War. And although I've recommended it before, The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry is outstanding. (Other recommendations are always welcome.)

Let's close with one more poem. To quote a previous post: There are many concepts, analogies and events Bush evidently doesn't understand, from (as a [then] recent post explored) Vietnam to World War I to a "Pyrrhic victory." But Pyrrhus at least saw the cost of war, and it doesn't take a Cassandra to see that while Bush thinks he's King Leonidas, in truth he's much more like vain Narcissus, petulant Ares, and Wilfred Owen's bloody Abram:

The Parable of the Young Man and the Old
By Wilfred Owen

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
And builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an Angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him, thy son.
Behold! Caught in a thicket by its horns,
A Ram. Offer the Ram of Pride instead.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

War! Huh! Theocracy! What are They Good For?

...Okay, the scansion on that absolutely sucks.

Nevertheless, I did want to sound the call on two important blogswarms this week.


This Wednesday will be the March 19th Iraq War Blogswarm. The site has suggestions and several badges you can use, but the key idea is that "This blogswarm will promote blog postings opposing the war in Iraq and calling for a full withdrawal of foreign occupying forces in Iraq."



Meanwhile, this upcoming Easter weekend will be the third Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, celebrating the First Amendment and "the freedom to worship, or not." Go here for more information, suggestions, and an online submission form. (The graphic is by Tengrain).

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)