Not Just a Political Philosophy — A Way of Life!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


Denial.

For Republicans of all sorts, it's more than a rhetorical strategy to deflect empirical facts. It's more than a political philosophy that ignores the reality of others' experiences. It's a way of life, dammit.

Not that Republican pundits have ever clamored to recognize the suffering of the poor, or are in the habit of arguing honestly — but it's hard to ignore that a sizable portion of the Republican party is just not part of the reality-based community. And just like the kid who brags about not reading any books, they're awfully proud of it.

Consider, for example, Robert Novak still insisting that Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert CIA agent, even though she testified under oath that she was, she was a NOC, CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told Novak not to reveal her identity, and the current, Bush-appointed head of the CIA Michael Hayden definitively stated she was covert (Novak even tries, laughably, to assert that Hayden is a Democratic stooge). Of course, Novak is a vile, partisan hack — but he's also been horribly reluctant to admit that the Republican's growing unpopularity might have something to do with a little thing called Iraq.

As Glenn Greenwald demonstrates, the National Review's Cliff May repeatedly denies objective reality — and Instapundit Glenn Reynolds decides to ignore the evidence as well. As Greenwald remarks:

Just think about that: the lesson which right-wing, Bush-following war supporters drew from the mountain of empirical evidence in this post, as well as from this entire day-long exchange with Cliff May (to say nothing of the November, 2006 election), is that Americans support the War in Iraq and do not want to withdraw the troops. That is beyond jarring.

I suppose it's academic as to whether they're hacks or delusional, but it's likely some special blend of the two.


Meanwhile, Oliver Willis weighs in with "The Deniers." And he doesn't even hit the frightening statistics on evolution deniers (48% of Americans, according to Newsweek), or the creationist Christians who have built a museum teaching kids that dinosaurs and humans coexisted — that would be roughly 6000 years ago, when God created the world.

Please, Republicans — for the sake of the children, the poor, innocent children — stop the insanity. You cannot show us fear in a jar of peanut butter, only your own painful stupidity. Please. Put down the Kool-Aid. Take the Red Pill. Cast off your shackles and emerge from Plato's cave. There's a whole, wonderful world out there waiting for you.

Bogus Letter Became a Case for War

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

The Washington Post's Peter Eisner reports on the front page today (4/3/07):

It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous -- later retracted -- 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush's remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa?

Burba felt uneasy because more than three months earlier, she had turned over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome documents about an alleged uranium sale by the central African nation of Niger. And she knew now that the documents were fraudulent and the 16 words wrong.

Nonetheless, the uranium claim would become a crucial justification for the invasion of Iraq that began less than two months later. When occupying troops found no nuclear program, the 16 words and how they came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war.

Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable.

Some of the information in the article is not new, but the piece does fill in many details. Seymour Hersh reported some of the core information in his 10/27/03 article "The Stovepipe," one of the first major post-invasion pieces on the Bush's administration's cherry-picking of intelligence. Blogger Josh Marshall also covered several aspects of this story over at Talking Points Memo (here's parts one, two and three). In a previous post we mentioned some of Slate's coverage on then DCI George Tenet being asked to fall on his sword for false tales the CIA had debunked (here's Jack Shafer, here's William Saletan, and here's John Dickerson). Then there's this section from Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctine, occurring after the CIA had debunked several pieces of "evidence":

Relentless pressure is a strategy. Usually quite successful. It was employed both in the "war on terror" against al Qaeda, and by the White House against the CIA.

[...]

Libby and Hadley, meanwhile, continued to push, and push hard, on the analysts, asking the same question Tenet was often asked in high-level meetings. Aren't these potential threats precisely why an invasion is necessary? Is there even the slimmest possibility—a one percent chance—that uranium was bought in Niger, that the aluminum tubes were usable in uranium centrifuges, or that Mohammed Atta managed to meet with an Iraqi, any Iraqi, in Prague?

The thing to watch out for with a program of relentless pressure is the blowback.

On Friday afternoon, January 10, Jami Miscik, the head of the DI walked down the hall on the seventh floor shaking with rage.

Josh Moseman, Tenet's chief of staff, saw her as she passed his office.

"You okay?"

"No, I'm not okay. I'm definitely not okay!"

A moment later, she'd made it to Tenet's suite.

She barely could get out the words. Stephen Hadley, Condi's second, has called from the office of "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

They wanted her down at Libby's office in the White House by 5 p.m. At issue was the last in an endless series of draft reports about the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. How many drafts? Miscik couldn't remember. The pressure for the White House—and from the various intelligence divisions under the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense—had started a week after 9/11.

Cheney's office claimed to have sources. And Rumsfeld's, too. They kept throwing them at Miscik and CIA. The same information, five different ways. They'd omit that a key piece had been discounted, that the source had recanted. Sorry, our mistake. Then it would reappear, again, in a memo the next week. The CIA held firm; the meeting in Prague between Atta and the Iraqi agent didn't occur.

Miscek was no fool. She understood what was going on. It wasn't about what was true, or verifiable. It was about a defensible position, or at least one that would hold up until the troops were marching through Baghdad, welcomed as liberators.

A few days before, when she had sent the final draft over to Libby and Hadley, she told them, emphatically, This is it. There would be no more drafts, no more meetings where her analysts sat across from Hadley, or Feith, or the guys in Feith's office, while the opposing team tried to slip something by them. The report was not what they wanted. She knew that. No evidence meant no evidence.

"I'm not going back there, again, George," Miscek said. "If I have to go back to hear their crap and rewrite this goddamn report... I'm resigning, right now."

She fought back tears of rage.

Tenet picked up the phone to call Hadley.

"She is not coming over," he shouted into the phone. "We are not rewriting this fucking report one more time. It is fucking over. Do you hear me! And don't you ever fucking treat my people this way again. Ever!"

They did not rewrite the report.

And that's why, three weeks later, in making the case for war in his State of the Union address, George W. Bush was not able to say what he'd long hoped to say at such a moment: that there was a pre-9/11 connection between al Qaeda and Saddam.

One down. But two salient points—wobbly, but still standing—on the heart-stopping issue of nuclear weapons remained in the text: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Both statements were crafted to carry the clarion ring of proof, and both were known, by people inside the CIA and the White House, to fall short of that standard.
(pp.189-191, hardcover edition)

Then there's all of Plamegate. This was not some innocent, bureaucratic snafu, and that's the one aspect of this article I don't trust — not that bureaucratic gaffes might not have complicated matters. There are dozens of stories and incidents like the one Suskind relates, but the key element never changes: the Bush administration acted in bad faith. They never sought an objective threat analysis on Iraq. They wanted to go to war, and dug and scrounged for justification, not proof. They didn't care if Iraq was an imminent threat or not (or, for some, they were so certain it didn't matter). They were interested in what would sell. Iraq was never a challenge of national security for the Bush administration. It was a challenge of PR.

There are folks out there that know this material backwards and forwards, and I'll be interested to see what they make of this new article. Yet to my mind, its main value is that this is The Washington Post, front page, confirming earlier reports and filling in some details. Even more importantly, more people seem willing to speak out now. This is nothing for the Bush administration to celebrate. These sort of issues tend to build up a critical mass (witness all the peripheral scandals the Attorney scandal has started to flush out). As the saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and with this administration, there can't be enough of it.

Update: It's no surprise that TPM weighed in on the Eisner article, and they offer a valuable perspective.

Also today, Eisner discussed the article online with readers, and clarified several points. Apparently, he's got a book coming out on this whole deal.

April is National Poetry Month!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


The Vagabond Scholar poetry category isn't as large as I'd like, but I wrote a fairly extensive post for National Poetry Month last year. I've also added a few poetry sites to the VS blogroll since. They can be found on the bottom left. Get yer verse on!

If political poetry is your thing, it's hard to keep up with the creative output over at Poetic Justice.

I will be adding a few more poetry posts this month, and please feel free to link or add any favorite poems. But to kick things off properly, here's one of my favorites:

This Is Just to Say

I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

— William Carlos Williams

Blog Against Theocracy

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


(Graphic by Tengrain of Mock, Paper, Scissors.)

This weekend, Friday April 6th through Sunday April 8th, there's a Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm in support of the separation of church and state and the First Amendment. I can't speak for all the participants, but I view this as both pro-religion and pro-atheism. There's at least one minister already slotted to participate.

If you'd like to participate, write a post, then e-mail Blue Gal the url when the post is done (and a big thanks to her for spearheading this!). She's going to try to link all the pieces on the website linked above. The address to use is bluegalsblog AT gmail DOT com.

If you'd like a few ideas on the myriad of angles possible, check out the website, or some of these:

First Freedom First, an organization "safeguarding separation of church and state, protecting religious liberty."

First Freedom First is a collaboration between America United for Separation of Church and State and The Interfaith Alliance.

I recently linked the On Faith site.

There's also Talk to Action, which follows religious activism, particularly the religious right.

Theocracy Watch has some valuable material.

I also found this discussion between atheist Sam Harris and Christian pastor Rick Warren over at Newsweek pretty interesting.

Finally, courtesy of a post by Blue Gal, here's a short video from First Freedom First that really captures what this is all about:

Rightwing Cartoon Watch #17 (3/26/07—3/31/07)

This installment of Rightwing Cartoon Watch covers - gasp - a single week, from 3/26/07 to 3/31/07. (I know, I know, I'm shocked too.)

This week, Iran capturing British troops was easily the hottest issue - but poisoned pet food and dastardly Dems made appearances as well! Head on over to the Blue Herald to check it out!

Big Brother and You

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Sir Percy Browne (Head of Security): One day, Mr. Fiennes, you will have the entire British population under permanent 24 hour surveillance — will you be happy?

Mr. Fiennes: Happy? No — Satisfied.

— A Very British Coup (TV adaptation)

The British Evening Standard reports:

The Big Brother nightmare of George Orwell's 1984 has become a reality - in the shadow of the author's former London home.

It may have taken a little longer than he predicted, but Orwell's vision of a society where cameras and computers spy on every person's movements is now here.

According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4.2million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.

[...]

One fear is a nationwide standard for CCTV cameras which would make it possible for all information gathered by individual cameras to be shared - and accessed by anyone with the means to do so.

(Hat tip to Drew for the article.)

The short article doesn't fully discuss the major difference between CCTV systems installed by shop owners, which are much more defensible, and CCTV installed by the government, which are much less so. Security and discouraging shoplifting is one thing. Acquiring information mostly just for the sake of it is another. There is a potentially chilling effect, and there have always been authoritarian government officials in every government eager to pursue precisely that. Britain may exceed the U.S. in its use of CCTV and other surveillance cameras, but the U.S. Government's budget for surveillance is second to none, and the impulse is all too familiar.

Here in the United States, we've recently had confirmed that the FBI abused the use of National Security Letters, and that abuse was widespread. The only surprise is that anyone was surprised. It's hardly been the only instance of such behavior. In the past two years alone, both the Pentagon and the FBI were found to be holding onto records they were legally obligated to destroy. Once agencies have information, they are loathe to give it up, and rarely do so voluntarily.

Sadly, regardless of the country involved, there's always been a significant portion of law enforcement personnel that don't care about the law regarding civil rights (in countries that have civil rights). The reasons vary, none of them mutually exclusive. Some of these people might mean well but simply don't value civil liberties and privacy rights as much as national security and law enforcement. They think they're going after bad guys, and any means necessary are valid. Thus, we have former NSA head and current CIA head Michael Hayden arguing that the 4th Amendment doesn't require warrants for searches and surveillance, when of course he knows better. Some want all the data they can get, and lying about "expediency" and "urgent need" with a national security letter is a means to that end. Some like the rush of power. J. Edgar Hoover abused his power to blackmail politicians. Then there's the Bush administration's secret black ops prisons and NSA programs. Ostensibly these tools are used to "fight terrorists," who knows the full extent of what they've been up to, and how they've abused their power? The central lie is that if we just give up this one more freedom or level of privacy, then we'll be safe. Certainly the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated they cannot be taken at their word and cannot be trusted to do the right thing by conscience or even the law alone.

Entire books and blogs are devoted to this sort of thing, but the Blue Herald FBI category features a number of relevant stories, as does the Vagabond Scholar surveillance category, especially the posts "The Iceberg Cometh" and "Reporters' Phones Tapped?" because they link several related stories. Then there's stories in the vein of FBI agent James Wedick, who tried to halt what he viewed as serious misconduct and misjudgment by his colleagues in pursuit of a suspected terrorist.

For that matter, consider the story of the FBI trying to get the papers of reporter Jack Anderson shortly after he died, worthy of a feature article on its own. As covered by NPR, CBS, and The Washington Post, the FBI had no qualms about deceiving Anderson's 79-old widow in pursuit of information it wanted. The FBI wanted to track down leakers from a decades-old incident, and swooped in after Anderson died, because where he had denied them they thought they could snow his family and friends. There was no pressing "national security" issue. The crime at that point was that some FBI bigwigs had been embarrassed long ago. That's holding grudges for a long time. The Bush administration has sought unprecedented levels of secrecy over even trivial matters. The Office of the Vice President has engaged in fierce battles not to share information even within the Bush administration. Secrecy can be its own aim, to cover up wrongdoing and in a shocking number of cases, to prevent embarrassment. But as Sissela Bok has shown in Secrets and Lying, "lies for the public good" are almost always rationalizations by those in power to protect themselves, and not in the public interest.

It's hard out there for an honest cop, and it can be an extremely tough gig. However, those who "protect and serve" would do well to remember that they "serve" the public, not the other way around, and every abuse against civil rights and privacy laws is an assault on the public. If those in positions of power want our trust, they must act in a trustworthy fashion. No one forced the FBI agents to act as they did with national security letters, and they violated the law and their own consciences. What is the point of fighting for "freedom" abroad or domestically if we're willing to strip it away ourselves?

The saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is true. Oversight is an necessity. Unchecked power will always be abused eventually, as Orwell knew all too well. The phrase from Juvenal goes: Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen?

Fox News' Progressive Attitudes on Race

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

If there's anything Fox News loves more than liberals, it's black liberals, not to mention African-Americans in general. The same goes for gays, Muslims, and all God's Children™. Overall, the Fox News crew are a credit to their... profession.

Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars posted on some news from New York Times blog The Caucus on 3/29/07:

Fox News Channel is announcing today that it has cut a deal with the Congressional Black Caucus Institute to sponsor two debates, one with Democrats and another with Republicans in the 2008 presidential race.

As many of you might remember, Nevada Democrats and Majority Senate Leader Harry Reid were slammed by liberal blogs for agreeing to a Democratic debate with Fox News a few weeks ago, and backed out of the deal under pressure. Liberal activists complained that Fox News was slanted toward Republicans, would distort the debate, and should be shunned. The breakpoint occurred when Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, in a joke at an an awards dinner, poked fun at President Bush for confusing Senator Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden. (Mr. Obama later said he didn’t take offense, but many in the blogosphere did.)

As Crooks and Liars notes, the group Color for Change is not happy with this development, and has issued a statement:

"The CBC Institute's decision is shamefully out of step with most Black voters, and we will continue to push on the CBC Institute to drop this deal." Rucker goes on to say, "Every presidential candidate now must decide whether to legitimize Fox - a network that calls Black churches a cult, implies that Senator Barack Obama is a terrorist, and uses the solemn occasion of Coretta Scott King's funeral to call Black leaders ‘racist.' We will be launching a petition at www.ColorofChange.org asking presidential candidates to attend the CBC Institute's CNN debate and reject the Fox debate."

Here's that petiton.

Blue Herald covered several of these developments previously (Here's the BH Fox News category). Predictably, the Republican pundits accused the Democrats of being cowards. But, as we noted in Rightwing Cartoon Watch #16:

Yeah, we all know how John McCain and George W. Bush have lined up to be interviewed by The Nation, Air America, and Keith Olbermann on Countdown.

In "Playing to the Freepers," Digby examines the crackerjack coverage Fox News provided for a 2003 Democrat debate. In "Legitimate Beef," Digby did a nice summing up and linked many of the best pieces on the defeat of the debate proposal, including this piece by Matt Stoller:

We argued that Fox News is not a news channel, but a propaganda outlet that regularly distorts, spins, and falsifies information. Second, Fox News is heavily influenced or even controlled by the Republican Party itself. As such, we believe that Fox News on the whole functions as a surrogate operation for the GOP. Treating Fox as a legitimate news channel extends the Republican Party’s ability to swift-boat and discredit our candidates. In other words, Fox News is a direct pipeline of misinformation from the GOP leadership into the traditional press.

Thankfully, Fox News immediately proved our point with a press release after the debate cancellation that made the following remarkable claim: "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic caucus which appears to be controlled by radical, fringe, out-of-state interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party."

We luv you guys, too. Good riddance.

In case you missed it, Jurassic Pork assembled a great collection of Fox News screenshots, showing their fantastic, unbiased reporting (previously featured in The Bullshit Matrix).

Still, there's a special love for African-Americans over at Fox News. Thanks to Jesus' General for the tip — here's "Fox Attacks — Black America":



Fox Attacks is maintained by Robert Greenwald, who made the invaluable documentary Outfoxed.

Yup, fair, balanced, enlightened, and progressive on racial attitudes, that Fox News! Of course, what can one expect from people who blithely reveal their homophobia while running with a manufactured scandal on Hillary Clinton's accent? (A scandal further debunked in RWCW #16.) Why not question why no major Republican presidential candidates or politicians saw fit to celebrate the civil rights movement, as did Obama and Hillary Clinton?

As Fox Attacks shows, it's not as if bigotry and bias on Fox News comes down to one isolated incident. Then there's how they handled Bill Bennett's controversial comments back in Fall 2005 (covered here and here). You can always count on Brit Hume to thunder and bully his way about racial issues, because, as we've noted several times before, remember, the problem is not racism, it’s the damn left making a big deal out of it. Or as we also noted, in regards to Hume and Bennett:

I have to say, nothing eases my mind more than a rich, middle-aged white man assuring me that the comments of another rich, middle-aged white man were not in fact racist. Pass another wine cooler and the clam dip.

On Faith and PostGlobal

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

The Washington Post and Newsweek have been running debate and discussion sites for several months now.


Running since November 2006, On Faith is "an interactive conversation on religion moderated by Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post."

Categories

• Interfaith Issues
• Morality
• Personal Religion
• Religion and Leadership
• Religion and Politics
• Religious Conflict
• Spirituality
• Theology



Running since June 2006, PostGlobal is "an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post."

Categories

• America's Role
• Business and Technology
• Culture and Society
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Iran
• Iraq
• Islamic Movements
• Israel-Palestine
• Reader Views
• Rule of Law
• Security and Terrorism
• The Global Economy
• The New Asia


The sites still need work. They both badly need some sort of search function. Still, the aim of both sites is admirable, and reader response and participation are heavily encouraged. It's nice to see a place where religion can be discussed from a variety of perspectives, and it's valuable to read about some of the trouble spots in the world from multiple viewpoints.

Update: David Waters, the publisher for the On Faith site, reports that website should be receiving an upgrade in the next few months, which should include adding a search function. He adds: "By the way, many of our non-panel pieces can be found on the Guest Voices Archives link on the main page. Links are at the bottom."

The Case for Writing More Accurately About Religion in America

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


(Click for a larger image.)

A recent "Holy Crap" installment of Mike's Blog Round-Up links the Time magazine cover story, "The Case for Teaching The Bible," by their senior religion writer, David van Biema. (The cover, as you can see above, says "Why We Should Teach the Bible in Public School (But very, very carefully).")

To expand on my comments in the post thread, the article was actually better than I expected, but reminded me of why I cancelled my subscription to Time as a teenager (heading to college) after trying it for a year. I remember a piece on religion they did back then that simply assumed that a decline in church attendance was a bad thing, that outward displays of religiosity actually meant those people were spiritual, and that morality could not exist separate from religion. In another piece, it was an unchallenged given that getting a tattoo was scandalous — that was in fact the article's entire point. A film review condescendingly derided the 'cesspool that is the teenage mind' (not a great way of winning over a teenager reader, and surely written by a out-of-touch parent). If van Biema's Bible piece is representative, sadly not that much has changed. Time does occasionally feature some good articles, but as a rule it's shallow and frankly, bourgeois. The perceived social norm and conventional wisdom are the guiding lights, not accuracy. False or misleading assumptions are deep-rooted and rarely examined. The point-of-view is relatively fixed and unreflective, with dismissive, inaccurate and imprecise characterizations the rule rather than the exception. (Hehe. I realize the Time rant belongs in its own post, with more detailed examples.)

Here's what David van Biema does well. He tries to be even-handed, and spends a great deal of time with teacher Jennifer Kendrick and her high school Bible literacy class. While most of the article is anecdotal, the main point of the piece is to show how the Bible can be taught in an educational, non-proselytizing manner. None of this is news to those in the teaching profession, but it may be useful to his readers.

Of course teaching the Bible is fine and legal in a public school, in an elective course or as part of a comparative religion course. (I wouldn't think that would be news, either.) Frankly, if you're an English major in college and don't have some basic knowledge of the Bible, you're going to be at a disadvantage. (I knew an English major in college who was advised to read the Bible by a professor, because her only knowledge of Genesis came from Paradise Lost!) A basic knowledge of mythology, particularly Greek, is also pretty important in most of the arts. However, courses involving the Bible need to be designed for non-Christians and in a way that does not entail proselytizing. Jennifer Kendrick really seems to do a fine job (but then, teachers almost always do a better job than the people so intent on telling them what and how to teach).

Sadly, van Biema also goes seriously off-track. He first quotes Stephen Prothero, "chair of the Boston University religion department" and author of a new book, Religious Literacy. Shortly thereafter, van Biema writes:

HERE IS ONE OF PROTHERO'S FAVORITE stories of Bible ignorance. In 1995 a federal appeals court upheld the overturn of a death sentence in a Colorado kidnap-rape-murder case because jurors had inappropriately brought in extraneous material--Bibles--for an unsanctioned discussion of the Exodus verse "an eye for eye, tooth for tooth ... whoever ... kills a man shall be put to death." The Christian group Focus on the Family complained, "It is a sad day when the Bible is banned from the jury room." Who's most at fault here? The jurors, who perhaps hadn't noticed that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus rejects the eye-for-an-eye rule, word for word, in favor of turning the other cheek? The Focus spokesman, who may well have known of Jesus' repudiation of the old law but chose to ignore it? Or any liberal who didn't know enough to bring it up?

Van Biema then rattles off poll numbers about Americans and their professed love for, yet demonstrated ignorance of, the Bible. All that's fine, but his ability to breeze over this incident and completely miss the central point is astonishing, and frankly, troubling. Whatever its faults or merits, Time has a large readership and this is their cover story (in the United States).

Where to begin? First of all, van Biema should have written "any non-religious person who didn't know enough to bring it up." His use of "liberal" betrays a false assumption that liberals don't know the Bible! It also suggests, falsely, that all atheists are liberals, that atheists don't know the Bible, and that liberals are non-religious while conservative are. Sloppy, prejudicial, and typical of Time. "Know enough" also assumes that there's some moral, cultural or intellectual failing in not knowing the "turn the other cheek" phrase. (I actually agree most people should know Jesus said to "turn the other cheek" as part of their cultural literacy, but van Biema's assumptions are interesting.)

I agree that's it's very sad if a group of self-professed Christians, both the jurors and the Focus for the Family spokesman, aren't familiar with "turn the other cheek," and rather than turning to the Gospels, they're digging into Exodus. I have to wonder if the Focus spokesman is just taking a bloodthirsty stance, or raising a groundless stink about the Court being anti-religious for political effect.

However, the big, blatant issue is staring van Biema right in the face, and he even reports the crucial elements before traipsing right past them. America is not a theocracy. Jurors are supposed to render judgments based on the law, not a favorite religious text. What van Biema bemoans as a lack of knowledge of the Bible is actually a much more troubling lack of knowledge about our legal system, as well as a failure of civic duty. No juror should have to refute a religious argument with another one in any relation to a court of law!

Van Biema also ignores another glaring point. Even if the jurors knew the Bible passage in question, the appeal would still have succeeded. The grounds for appeal were not "They quoted Exodus, not Matthew!" It was that they violated the law, and I would presume, directions from the judge. Even assuming that the death penalty is preferable (and that's an awfully big assumption, and a whole other discussion) this kidnapper-rapist-murderer was spared the death penalty not because of ignorance of the Bible, but because some religious people decided to inject their religion into the legal process. Why is it that van Biema doesn't consider this central, dangerous issue for even a second?

This is precisely why I don't like Time as a general rule. Van Biema is trying to be a peacemaker, and that's fine, but boy, is he stuck in his own bourgeois sensibilities. Religion's role in our society is primarily a social issue or challenge. The legal issues are pretty much settled, and the existing laws are quite sensible. The educational issues are pretty much settled, and sensibly handled. I suspect van Biema is trying to make Christian folks comfortable that not everyone hates the Bible or something, and is trying to make the folks who value our society's laws about the separation of church and state (that includes many Christians) comfortable with the Bible being taught in public schools. That's a worthy cause, but you know what? I really don't care, if he can't be accurate and pertinent first, last and always. This isn't "let's chat about religion with Uncle Fluffy" time, after all. Van Biema is a reporter for one America's major newsweeklies, writing a cover story. America is not a theocracy. Nowhere does van Biema state that, or anything approaching that. To his credit, he does mention the Constitution, and case law, but presents the separation of church and state more as part of an ongoing legal and social dispute than as a defining characteristic of our nation's founding. If van Biema were more responsible, he would write something such as:

America is not a theocracy, was expressly founded not to be one, and the separation of church and state is inviolate. However, America is a predominantly Christian nation by demographics, and recent polls show that for all their professed love of the Bible, the majority of Americans are startlingly ignorant about its contents. Because the Bible has played such an important role in Western Civilization, some organizations have suggested an increased emphasis on teaching the Bible in a non-sectarian way in public schools. This raises pedagogical challenges — and strong emotions.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Van Biema has decent ideas about guidelines for teaching the Bible, but then ends the piece by writing:

And, oh yes, there should be one faith test. Faith in our country. Sure, there will be bumps along the way. But in the end, what is required in teaching about the Bible in our public schools is patriotism: a belief that we live in a nation that understands the wisdom of its Constitution clearly enough to allow the most important book in its history to remain vibrantly accessible for everyone.

Who, exactly, is preventing "access" to the Bible? Anyone with an access to a library or the internet can read it. Many organizations offer free copies, and most hotels and motels have them. You can find fellows on street corners will give you one.

Digby recently considered the whole "Bible literacy" issue in the post What's Wrong With This Picture?

I agree that it's a little bit odd that the vast majority of people in a country that prides itself as the most religious in the world can't name the writers of the gospel, but really, whose fault is that? The last I heard, there were tens of thousands of churches in this country. Is it too much to ask that they be in charge of religious instruction? Isn't that their specialty?

I know that many of the conservative mega-churches spend most of their time instructing their parishioners on Republican politics and holding Christian rock extravaganzas so they don't have time for actual religious teaching. Understood. But maybe they could send their kids to the mainline and liberal churches once a month so they can get some actual Bible teachings. With all the pressure on public schools to find a way to teach biology that doesn't offend the Christian Right, they just don't have the resources to spend on special classes about Biblical references in pop songs and presidents 'n stuff.

I'm sure there are many churches that would be happy to accommodate those who want their kids (or themselves) to learn about religion.

Really, if the public schools are teaching kids how to read, write, perform mathematical equations and develop critical thinking skills, can't the churches do their part? Especially if religious folk are unhappy with the state of "Bible literacy" or what not.

For what it's worth, I certainly received plenty of Bible study in Sunday School as a kid, and also had an excellent, highly educational unit on comparative religion in the 6th grade (we studied the Five Pillars of Islam and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism, and had to demonstrate knowledge of all five major world religions, along with some knowledge of a few smaller ones such as Taoism, Zen Buddhism and Shinto). I haven't seen anyone rail against a comparative religion unit (except perhaps the religious right!) or an elective on the Bible. Even Van Biema can't seem to find any "secularists" who do so (he cites some folks' "concerns," but does not cite a single instance of someone challenging such a curriculum).

Really, who is trying to deny anyone's "access" to the Bible? I suspect van Biema is a well-intentioned Christian trying to play peacemaker, but he completely ignores the glaring theocracy issue of the court incident he cites, and also declines to give any larger context for the American theocracy movement lead by religious authoritarian conservatives, no doubt to avoid "offending" someone. However, the context remains essential. As we explored in The Social Tolerance Charts and The Religion-in-Society Charts, it's important to remember that in American culture, members of the religious right are the aggressors, not the other way around. The religious right is not interested in better cultural literacy. They have the ability to pursue that, easily, if they want. They're interested in social control.

What rankles me is that this article touches on line-in-the-sand issues, but van Biema is either ignorant of the line or happy to ignore it. Why then does he deserve any trust? In this respect, I really can't view him much differently than the reporters who refused to ask the Bush administration tough questions in the run-up to war, or all the chattering idiots in the MSM who prefer gossipy (and often inaccurate) coverage over factual, accountability reporting. These avoidable failings hurt our national discourse.

You know what's even more important in America than knowledge of the Bible? Some basic knowledge of the United States Constitution.

Update 4/14/07: "Some religious people decided to inject their religion into the legal process" is imprecise on my part, although I would hope my meaning was clear in context. There's nothing wrong per se about bringing religion into a jury room. Of course a juror can say, I'm opposed to the death penalty, or I'm in favor of it, and I feel this way because of The Bible or some other holy text, just as someone can favor or oppose the death penalty for non-religious reasons. What's not cool in the jury room is saying, "We must execute this man because the Bible says so," or that he must be allowed to live or even be freed for similar reasons. The Bible may be the ultimate authority in an individual's life, but part of jury instruction is that jurors will render their decisions according to the law. There's a difference between one bringing one's religious beliefs into a jury room and bringing in a theocratic value system that (however well-intended) supplants our civil justice system. There's a frustrating lack of detail in van Biema's piece, but it's an anecdote versus the main focus of his article. I would imagine (or hope) Prothero's book offers more context, since I have many questions after van Biema's account.

The Conservative Brain Trust Takes On: Freedom of Religion!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


HTML Mencken at Sadly, No! has a great post from 3/10/07 called "Gaywads Want to Persecute Religious People!" While his post is pithier and funnier than this one will be, its substance directly relates to The Chart Project, most specifically The Social Tolerance Charts and The Religion-in-Society Charts, so I felt compelled to take another look.

Again, I’d read the Sadly, No! post first. But here are the key points of a little discussion over at the Corner at the National Review Online.

In a 3/9/07 post, ”Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?” David Frum argues that:

There is a widespread view that gay liberation is a movement toward greater freedom. Up to a point, that was true. That point, however, is now receding in the background. The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow.

Andrew Stuttaford, who HTML Mencken describes as “a libertarian and frequently an adult voice in contrast to the Corner’s playground cacaphony,” replies (also on 3/9/07):

Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation

That's the question David Frum asks over on his blog. Sure it can.

The more interesting question however is the extent to which religious belief should be privileged above all others. You can, quite legitimately, question the range and definition of anti-discrimination laws, but once a democracy has put those laws in place, I can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law, simply on the grounds of religion. To do so is to say that religious belief is somehow more deserving of special protection than other (perhaps no less deeply held) ideologies, an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.

Stuttaford is being fairly polite, but he’s really stating the obvious here. Frum updates his original post to note Stuttaford’s “excellent point” then exclaims:

And of course he is right! When general laws are passed, they must apply to all.

That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society's majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

That was (or should have been obvious) from the start. And it's the reason for the question posed in the title of this post - a question Andrew dismisses with uncharacteristic glibness.

Umm, at this point I’d be tempted to ask, okay, kids, who can spot the glaring logical fallacy Frum just made? (I'm reminded of a student engaged in an oral defense of a paper on a novel. When a central passage of the book that directly contradicted his thesis was politely pointed out to him, his response was, "Exactly, that proves my point!") But let’s continue.

As HTML Mencken astutely notes, Frum’s “reasoning here is identical to that which he used to justify the teaching of ‘intelligent design’. Participating in a 2005 phone survey of conservatives and their views on evolution, Frum stated:

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I do believe in evolution.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “I don’t believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. … Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. … I don’t believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle.”

Wow! If Frum were arguing that teachers should show a social sensitivity toward their students, realizing that there may be a few who might be upset by the idea of evolution (age and maturity being factors), I’d say he had a point. However, most teachers do show such sensitivity. (The “offensive” standard would also preclude the Socratic method of teaching, which depends at stages on making students uncomfortable.)

Frum is instead arguing that the majority rules. He's further arguing, at best, that the majority is entitled to ignore empirical truth, and at worst arguing that they determine empirical truth (shades of the faith-based community). It’s rather alarming that he argues in this direction, and can’t see the obvious problems with it. Science is not a matter of a vote. It’s about fact. A science curriculum is based on accuracy, to the best of the scientific community’s knowledge at that time, and centers on a process for determining accuracy. Frum further ignores that not all Christians are Biblical literalists who refuse to believe in evolution. Granted, this was a phone interview, perhaps Frum was merely pandering, but his is a profoundly stupid, dangerous argument. Logically, then, considering the Frum pieces we’ve sampled, if the majority are anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise bigoted, that would be fine with David Frum. (Of course, Frum doesn’t want this. As Stuttaford pointed out already, Frum is essentially arguing for a ‘homophobia exemption’... and, apparently, a ‘creationism exemption.’)

Then the mighty Jonah Goldberg weighs in with ”Religious Freedom.” He first tries to advance a version of the “secular humanist” argument we’ve already covered, but after a few digressions, eventually states:

I should also note that our constitution actually gives very wide berth to religious freedom. So while your discussion with David Frum about England is an exception, when you write that "once a democracy has put those laws in place, I can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law," you run into the problem of the US Constitution which guarantees the free-exercise of religion in the Bill of Rights. And, as you surely know, the whole reason we have a bill of rights is to protect us from democratic laws which are unjust and illiberal despite being supported by the majority.

Yes, you read that right. Jonah Goldberg just invoked the Constitution, and protection for the minority from the tyranny of the majority (incidentally, the exact opposite of what Frum was arguing in relation to teaching evolution) — to justify discrimination. Huh?

Oh, but it gets better. Then Jack Fowler weighs in, writing:

Andrew Stuttaford writes earlier here (“Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?”) that he …

can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law, simply on the grounds of religion. To do so is to say that religious belief is somehow more deserving of special protection than other (perhaps no less deeply held) ideologies, an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.

Err, there is indeed a “particular reason,” sorry to mention it: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (it’s located in a thing called the Bill of Rights). Damn that “free exercise thereof” – now there’s a well-intentioned notion that, when you think about it, is irrational at best, and maybe even dangerous.

It’s really breathtaking. Fowler’s so completely, astoundingly wrong here, yet he’s so very smug. (Shades of Bill Kristol back in 2003 dismissively talking about there being no sectarian conflict between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites.)

Not covered by HTML Mencken was Stuttaford’s response the next day (3/10/07):

Jonah, Jack, two quick points.

I wasn't looking to address the question as to whether such laws are right or wrong (on small-l libertarian grounds, I'm often fairly skeptical, at least about the reach and scope of many of them), but, rather, how they are drawn up. Laws should be imposed on all citizens equally, regardless of their religious affiliation. If you like, I'm generally in favor of 'religion-blind' legislation (there are some exceptions to this in a country with a state church, but you get my drift).

US/UK: Yes, I agree with you about the distinction between the US and the UK. I was, of course, writing about the UK.

As far as I could tell, the discussion ended there. I can only imagine Stuttaford was astounded by his cohorts’ arguments, and was trying to be polite. Still, “religion-blind” is a useful phrase.

I understand the basic, social interaction level of saying, “you’ve got your opinion, and I’ve got mine,” but not all ideas are created equal. Not all arguments are based on facts, let alone sound reasoning. I understand these are quick blog posts. But when Right Wing News announced 2006’s favorite columnists of right-of-center bloggers, Goldberg came in a strong fourth and David Frum was one of several pundits who tied at sixteenth. Plus, this is the National Review, for goodness’ sake. Supposedly, Goldberg and Frum are leading luminaries of the right, part of the conservative brain trust! How the hell can they not understand the fundamental issues here?

We covered the core relevant issues in The Social Tolerance Charts and The Religion-in-Society Charts. But let’s tackle the conservative brain trust’s misunderstandings graphically:


(Click for a larger image.)

Basic anti-discrimination laws and civil rights apply to everybody. That includes both homosexuals and homophobes. (Obviously there are anti gay marriage laws on the books in some states, some of which are being challenged. Frum's post began by discussing anti-discrimination laws in Britain. Regardless, certainly no one in America has seriously argued that gays can’t vote, or don’t possess First Amendment rights, for example.)

According to the First Amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and freedom of religion (with both the exercise and establishment clauses), David Frum is free to be a homophobe, a racist, a sexist, an Islamophobe and an anti-Semite. However, he is not similarly entitled to act on those beliefs in a manner that breaks the law. Let’s consider the most blatant counter-example to the conservative brain trust’s arguments:


(Click for a larger image.)

According to the logic of Frum, Goldberg and Fowler, if they were to join the Cult of Kali from the film Gunga Din, their religious belief in murdering others would make murder legal.

America is not a theocracy, and was expressly founded not to be one. Overall, America is legally a tolerant society, and was founded as one. A tolerant society allows for intolerant people with intolerant beliefs, but that is not the same thing as allowing intolerant people to act on all of those beliefs. Intolerant people cannot legally strip others of their civil rights, such as denying someone the right to vote based on their race, gender, religion or sexuality.

Since conservatives like hierarchies, let’s look at this another way as well:


(Click for a larger image.)

An individual belief is a far different matter than a legal and social system that allows for different beliefs. The two are not equivalent, and exist on different planes. Again, being a homophobe might carry a social penalty, but it’s not illegal. But believing that gays should be persecuted doesn't automatically make discriminatory or violent action legal (and it remains immoral). This really comes full circle to Frum's anti-evolution teaching argument of majority rule. Belief does not change reality. As we discussed in "The Social Tolerance Charts":

If we believe that society should benefit the majority of people, but also protect the rights of minorities (in any sense), there’s simply no question that a socially tolerant society is superior to an intolerant one. (Put another way, the American system of equality for all people is superior to an authoritarian hierarchy of superiority for a few.)

Authoritarian religious activists can argue that they want America to become a theocracy. Some have even attempted historical revisionism, claiming America was founded as a theocracy, when it explicitly was not. However, it's simply false to say that America is a theocracy. Freedom of Religion does not mean a religious person is entitled to break the law, and to argue otherwise is profoundly silly.

I'm not trying to be mean, and anyone can make a mistake, but I remain astounded that Frum, Goldberg and Fowler don't get this. They misunderstand (or misstate) core concepts of American democracy. Yet in the conservative movement, Goldberg and Frum in particular are supposed to be among the best and brightest, and certainly are among the most popular. As far as I know, all of these gents are college grads (I couldn't find Fowler's bio). Yet I can't imagine that some of the issues that HTML Mencken points out, or I've pointed out, wouldn't come up in the course of a decent high school classroom discussion about Freedom of Religion, social tolerance or anti-discrimination laws. I can't remember being shown charts about this sort of thing in high school, but certainly a little debate and discussion would have elucidated these issues. Even in elementary school, I remember all of us understanding the basic concept of fairness in the Constitution and the First Amendment, even though "establishment clause" might have been over our heads. In point of fact, the mistakes of the brain trust survive an extended discussion — despite one of participants pointing out the obvious! It's also not as if this sort of lapse is a rarity for this crew. (Actually, as I was completing this, I noticed the commenters on HTML Mencken's post made quick work of the conservative brain trust, and the very first commenter brought up the murder counter-example! This seems to be less a problem of ignorance than obstinacy and obliviousness.)

The bottom line is that Frum, more than the rest, is trying to justify homophobic bigotry. He's free to hold this belief (offensive though it may be), but his justification is laughable.

I've said several times before that I'd enjoy finding some thoughtful, honest conservatives. A handful of conservative-leaning libertarians and socially moderate, fiscal conservatives are out there. Yet sadly, almost every major conservative pundit I've seen offers disingenuous arguments.

Perhaps Frum, Goldberg and Fowler are simply so used to tossing out shoddy, disingenuous arguments that, from force of habit, they can't switch gears and discuss the matter honestly with Stuttaford. They grab for something that sounds good, even if doesn't pass serious muster (a classic bullshitter's move). Perhaps they just don't understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very well. Perhaps they simply don't think things through thoroughly, think before they write, or consider counter-examples. Or perhaps they're simply dumb.