This article is a shining example why I’ve always been unhappy with the intersection of faith and politics. Among other things, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson accuses former Tennessee senator and current Law and Order actor, Fred Thompson, of not being a Christian. As further explanation, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family states when they refer to Christians they mean Evangelical Christians! That statement alone speaks volumes about the kind of “christian” James Dobson is, and the kind of bigoted religion he promulgates. Volumes! I’m no fan of Fred Thompson. I don’t like his politics and I’ve never liked him on Law and Order, but these kinds of attacks by supposed leaders of the Christian faith are wrong and the polar opposite of what Jesus Christ stood for.
You have to wonder just what the hell is up with Iran. This whole international waters issue seems like the stupidest reason provoke an incident, not to mention piss off one of the few countries pushing to normalize relations between Iran and the world. Moreover, they’re just playing into President Bush’s hands. Stupid, stupid, stupid! If Iran follows through with their threat to put British citizens on trial they are risking a lot, and no matter how much Russia may support Iran I doubt seriously if they will take their side if this escalates.
You have to give Democracts credit for sticking to their guns. Despite the president’s threat to veto any troop withdrawlk bill, despite waffling within the party, and most of al despite right wingers attempts to paint this bill as anti-troop the Democrats are not backing down. That is a big change from where the party was just a short while ago. Granted, Democrats have a vast majority of the country on their side this time, so that makes it easier to defy this so-called war president, and defy him they are. The bill make not even make it to the president’s desk to veto, but at least the Dems are finally standing up.
There are many reason someone might invoke the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Usually, it means you’ve committed a crime, but former Justice Department official Monica Goodling’s reasoning that Democrats have already drawn conclusion about what she did or did not do just doesn’t ring true for me. If you have nothing to hide, why invoke the fifth?
I’ve said this before, but it bears saying again: you have to feel just a little — a little! — sympathy for John McCain’s floundering campaign. Polls show him falling behind both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney, and now reports are surfacing his fund-raising goals will not be met. Granted, he’s raised somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million, no chump change that, but all anyone will remember is the less experience Romney beat him.
McCain blames the shortfall on getting in the race late, but I think it’s more than that. The voters attracted to McCain are those who believed in the image that McCain was this independent, bold maverick. What they’ve gotten however is an aging politician willing to sell himself to the devil, or at least far right, in order to get elected. Unfortunately for McCain, the far right isn’t buying into it and the those who liked his supposed independence are turned off. That’s not to say Romney and Guiliani have not back-pedaled, but neither has changed their underlying beliefs.
Nothing gets people going these days than the idea of teaching religion in schools; and most often what their talking about is teaching the Conservative Evangelical view of Religion in school. Time has an interesting cover story about this subject, but the what they discuss is the idea of teaching a Bible “literacy” course that discusses the teaching of the Bible in an historical context.
When I was in college I took an elective course called “Religions of the World” and simply loved it. It was taught by this former hippie history teacher and was my first introduction to other faiths. I enjoyed the course so much that I took two other electives just for the heck of it: “The Old Testament” and “The New Testament.” These courses were taught by a Baptist minister who would, in today’s terms, be defined as a Conservative Evangelical. The thing of it was, he never taught the class as a religion course per se; he taught the Bible from an historical perspective and he even exposed us to creation and flood stories that predated the Bible. I just loved these courses, and I really enjoyed the instructor.
I remember one time I was in his office discussing a paper I was writing comparing the Biblical flood story to other flood stories such as those mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Epic of Atrahasis. I asked him why he didn’t bring more religion into the course and said there were two reason. First, the university required that he teach the course in that manner. Second, while he would prefer to teach a course that was more faith oriented, the fact that he could discuss the Bible with young college students was good enough. Looking back, I have no illusions that he would have preferred a more faith-based approach to the class, but I respect that he never tried to push Christianity, never got all fire and brimstone, never made anyone who disagreed with him seem less of a person or less of a Christian. I know for a fact he never changed that way of teaching until the day he retired from the university about six years ago because both family and friends have taken his courses over the years.
Time’s article discusses this same concept, but in a new imitative to bring Bible literacy course to high schools. On the surface, I see no problem with teaching a course like this from a literacy, or historical, perspective as an elective course. I would prefer a curriculum that included other faiths, but this is a beginning. My concern is how these course will be taught. We live in a different time. It’s not easy to find Conservative Evangelicals who are even willing to discuss the Bible from an historical perspective, are even willing to compare and contract evolution vs. creationism in an intelligent manner. My concern is these courses would devolve into little more than proselytizing. Religion has become such a toxic subject these days, and I think we can blame Conservative Evangelicals for that. As a group, they can be so close minded to any thought or opinion that deviates from what they believe to be God’s word. No, not all Conservative Evangelicals are like and I’m lucky enough to call some them my friend, but it’s an unfortunate fact that too many are like that. Any course like this should be monitored closely.
I just don’t know what to think about this who U.S. attorneys firing scandal. On the surface it seems like yet another example of the Bush administrations willingness to sink to the lowest level in order to achieve their goals. I’m sure we’ll hear more.Â
I wonder how the president must be feeling these days, or if he even cares. After six years of blank check governing and a Congress willing to look the other way in order to secure power, the president must be getting sick of the constant bright light on his current and past decisions. Not that I really care.
So, I sat down last night to watch one of my favorite TV shows, Boston Legal. This show is often political and even when I don’t agree with the political viewpoint I always enjoy the hilarity that ensues. This is probably the best work William Shatner has ever done. However, last night the politics just annoyed me because a good chunk of the show was spent chastising Shatner’s character, Denny Crane, because he dared criticize Israeli political decisions, in this case the invasion of Lebanon. Denny’s girlfriend tells him that Israel is a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by people who hate the very fact that she exists, so no you can’t criticize Israel and if you do you’re an anti-Semite. Later in the show, as Denny and Alan (always played hilariously by James Spader) sit down for their usual end-0f-show cigar, Alan tells Denny that he has a Jewish friend who says that Jews often debate the politics of Israel, but they don’t feel non-Jews have the right to do the same.
Attitudes like this just piss me off! First of all it belittles the word anti-Semite to equate criticism of Israel with hatred of the Jewish state and all Jews. It belittles the millions of people who died in Hitler’s ovens. It belittles the thousands of Jews who lost their lives in the Warsaw Ghettos. It belittles the millions of Jews throughout history who lost their lives or saw their livelihoods ruined due to European pogroms. It is one thing to criticize Israeli political decisions because you don’t believe the state of Israel should even exist, that’s anti-Semitism; it’s another to intellectually discuss the pros and cons of Israeli politics, which can sometimes be very self-destructive. Just because Israel is surrounded by enemies doesn’t mean it’s exempt from making mistakes and having someone call them on those mistakes. To say otherwise is un-democratic and, damn it, un-American. It’s like saying I can’t discuss racism because I’m not a minority. It’s like saying I can’t discuss women’s issues because I have a penis. That’s kind of thinking is just backwards and unproductive.
Someone needs to send Alberto Gonzales some red, white, and blue carnations. He’s accomplished something no other Republican has been able to: a near unanimous vote on a bill in the Senate. Of course, that vote was a sharp slap in his face, but bipartisanship must be celebrated.