How We Die

"My death; is it possible?"--Jacques Derrida

"Death is the only experience that is not lived through."--Ludwig Wittgenstein

revenant, commenting below, has it exactly right:

RMJ: I commented at Atrios yesterday about my first wife's death when I honored her wishes to remove life support. Not a choice I ever hope to face again. The ethical difference is the persistent vegetative state. My wife had no frontal lobes left after 2 major CH's..she was no longer there, period. A shell was all that remained My wife was already dead. She had become a Catholic a few months previous, after suffering a stroke at the age of 36...mostly because of a very good man who was also a priest. Another priest, probably in his 60's, who didn't know us, stood at the foot of her bed with me as the supports were removed. He said one of the most profound things I heard during her very long illness: "We have a responsibility to prolong life; we do not have a responsibility to prolong death". That's what it would've been Again, I have the deepest respect for her husband.

I hope none of you are ever faced with this situation as more than a theoretical construct

We do not have a responsibility to prolong death. And it's a great and terrible burden to be the one to decide when "life" has become "death." But since our technology has made us as gods, we'd better learn to address the situation.

What is death, really? We can examine it empirically: define it as cessation of brain activity, heart motion, lung movement. Basically no more advanced than our ancestors, we can say death is the absence of animation in a previously animate body. But we do not see death. We see only the dead. That is the philosophical question. The physical question, paradoxically, actually leads us into our problems:

By and large, dying is a messy business. Though many people do become "unconscious and unconcerned" by lapsing or being put into a state of coma or semiawareness; though some lucky others are indeed blessed with a remarkably peaceful and even concsious passage at the end of a difficult illness; though many thousands each year quite literally drop dead without more than a moment's discomfort; though victims of sudden trauma and death are sometimes granted the gift of release from terror-filled pain--conceding all of these eventualities--far, far fewer than one in five of those who die each day are the beneficiaries of such easy circumstances. And even for those who do achieve a measure of serenity during separation, the period of days or weeks pr~ the decline of full awareness is frequently glutted with mental suffering and physical distress.--Sherwin B. Nuland, How We Die, (New York: Vintage, 1995, p. 142)

That is the emotional part of the problem. "Life is messy," one of my wisest seminary professors used to tell us, to remind us there were no easy answers, no bright lines that could be drawn. Life is messy, and death is a part of life. But what part? And how do we admit it?

Because all of our medical technology is turned toward avoiding death. And yet we cannot avoid it; at some point, we have to recognize that prolonging life, is actually prolonging death. But when do we make that decision? On what basis? Uncomfortable questions, but less discomfiting than having the doctor walk into the room where you are waiting at the hospital and asking you for permission to remove the life support, because there is no reason to sustain the loved one: the father, the mother, the wife, the husband, the child; on life support. Remove it, and they will surely die. Keep it attached, and only the machine will simulate the conditions we call "life." That is the even more uncomfortable question, and it is literally "life or death," and you are literally unprepared for it, and in that moment of decision (because no decision is also a decision; the refusal to choose is a choice) you realize you have more power than you ever wanted, or ever should have, and you don't know what to do with it. And it will shake you right down to your soul. That is the mysterium tremendums, the great mystery that makes you tremble not just physically, but existentially. And no amount of brave conversation about "easy death" and "pull the plug on me" can prepare you for it. Because it's not you, that you are thinking about.

I do not base that knowledge on what revenant said. I base it on my experience as a pastor, in hospitals, with church members who have turned to me when the doctor asked the question they'd never prepared themselves for, and said: "Pastor, what do I do?"

"Death is the only experience not lived through." Not by us. We live past it, beyond it, after it. We don't live through it. Someone else does that, and at some point, sometimes, we have to decide for them what their experience will be.

Anecdotes are one thing: they are like hard cases; they make bad "law." But they are instructive: at some point, we must choose, and we must choose for another person. The question for us, before we face that choice, is: on what basis do we choose? What are we choosing? The priest would understand death as the separation of soul and body, but if it isn't that, what is it? If the body contains no soul, when and how do we decide the person we know physically, is now the person we can let die? On what basis do we make that decision? We can give directives to our family, but does that mean we think our death is possible?

Sherwin Nuland wrote his book for a reason:

No matter the degree to which a man thinks he has convinced himself that the process of dying is not to be dreaded, he will yet approach his final illness with dread. A realistic sense of what is to be expected serves as a defense against the unrestrained conjurings of warrantless fear and the terror that one is somehow not doing things right. Each disease is a distinctive process-it carries its own particular kind of destructive work within a framework of highly specific patterns. When we are familiar with the patterns of the illness that afflicts us, we disarm our imaginings. Accurate knowledge of how a disease kills serves to free us from unnecessary terrors of what we might be fated to endure when we die. We may thus be better prepared to recognize the stations at which it is appropriate to ask for relief, or perhaps to begin contemplating whether to end the journey altogether. (p. 143)

But we still cannot expect to be so clinical, so clear and cogent, about such a messy business. There are consolations of philosophy (which Boethius connected with his impending death), but the questions of philosophy are always social, never wholly individual. How do we decide what to do, and what to advise others to do? What do we think death is, such that we can decide how best to approach it?

It's a response, not an answer; but the "Death Dirge" from the Carmina Gadelica has always seemed one of the most compassionate answers:

Thou goest home this night to thy home of winter,
To thy home of autumn, of spring, and of summer;
Thou goest home this night to thy perpetual home,
To thine eternal bed, to thine eternal slumber.

Sleep thou, sleep, and away with thy sorrow,
Sleep thou, sleep, and away with thy sorrow,
Sleep thou, sleep, and away with thy sorrow;
Sleep, thou beloved, in the Rock of the fold.

Sleep this night in the breast of thy Mother,
Sleep, thou beloved, while she herself soothes thee;
Sleep thou this night on the Virgin's arm,
Sleep, thou beloved, while she herself kisses thee.

The great sleep of Jesus, the surpassing sleep of Jesus,
The sleep of Jesus' wound, the sleep of Jesus' grief,
The young sleep of Jesus, the restoring sleep of Jesus,
The sleep of the kiss of Jesus of peace and of glory.

The sleep of the seven lights be thine, beloved,
The sleep of the seven joys be thine, beloved,
The sleep of the seven slumbers be thine, beloved,
On the arm of the Jesus of blessings, the Christ of grace.

The shade of death lies upon thy face, beloved,
But the Jesus of grace has His hand round about thee;
In nearness to the Trinity farewell to thy pains,
Christ stands before thee and peace is in His mind.

Sleep, 0 sleep in the calm of all calm,
Sleep, 0 sleep in the guidance of guidance,
Sleep, 0 sleep in the love of all loves;
Sleep, 0 beloved, in the Lord of life,
Sleep, 0 beloved, in the God of life!

"I only want to say..."

Holy Week is coming; and if this blog abandons politics altogether for awhile, this (via Atrios) can stand as one of the reasons why:

The latest Pentagon report on the abuse of captives, delivered to Congress last week by Vice Admiral Albert Church III, doesn't point a finger of blame at Miller or any other high-ranking official. It concludes that while detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere were brutalized by military or CIA interrogators, there was no formal policy authorizing such abuse. (On occasion it was even condemned -- in December 2002, for example, some Navy officials denounced the Guantanamo techniques as ''unlawful and unworthy of the military services.")

But surely, Church was asked at a congressional hearing, someone should be held accountable for the scores of abuses that even the government admits to? ''Not in my charter," the admiral replied.

So the buck stops nowhere. And fresh revelations of horror keep seeping out.

The fundamental principal of a legal system, is that everyone is held accountable for their actions. Commit a crime, the state prosecutes you. Injure another person through negligence or even intent, and the judicial system provides civil remedies. You are responsible for what you do, and held accountable when what you do is considered wrong; when it improperly costs someone else in either property, liberty, personal injury, or loss of life. As small a thing as an offensive contact, or even an offensive word; as great a thing as death, dismemberment, or grievous suffering before dying.

That fundamental principle is being ignored. Again. Ask the Indians. Ask the blacks, the Mexicans, the Chinese, the Irish, what have you. We've done it before, we'll do it again.

But this time it's on my watch, so to speak. And I can't stand it anymore. As Dirty Harry wisely said: "Man's got to know his limitations."

I know mine. It's almost Holy Week. There are other things to contemplate. Outrages, some of them, anyway, will have to wait awhile.

Husband and Wife

"And a man shall leave his mother,
and a woman leave her home,
They shall travel on to where
The two shall be as one."--Paul Stookey

The irony of the House vote to allow the parents of Terry Sciavo to intervene in her care via the Federal courts, is that it undermines precisely the "sanctity of marriage" that supposedly won for the GOP in November. Not that this is noticeable on the face of the matter, of course; but it is true.

The legal issue in the Sciavo case, as I understand, has always been a simple one: who decides when Terry Sciavo cannot decide for herself? Her parents? Or her husband? As expressed in the words of "The Wedding Song," and as generally enshrined in the law of 50 states, upon marriage a woman and a man become adults, and become responsible for each other's care. This is generally considered under the rubric "the sanctity of marriage." The husband is held liable for, and responsible for, the wife's care, and vice versa. Terry Sciavo's husband has, unfortunately, had to fight her parents to assert that right, largely because they don't like his decision. As lawyers say, hard cases make bad law. This is a hard case; and the law the House of Representatives has approved, is bad law.

But bad law is not the only issue here. The real issue is one of treatment, is one of "euthanasia." The real question here is: is this how we treat human beings?

It isn't a simple question. I started thinking about it when I read this post, by Majikthise. What I didn't even realize was that Ms. Sciavo's "cerebral cortex [has] been destroyed and replaced by fluid." Which puts her, clearly, in a persistent vegetative state. And the courts have found that this is not a condition she would want to endure. So I suppose we should all feel comfortable with that; comfortable enough to let her starve to death.

But the uncomfortable questions are not so easily dispelled. How did Terry Sciavo come to be in this state? Is it humane medical practice to keep people alive in such a condition? Is it humane medical practice to kill them? Hard cases make bad law. And we are making a lot of hard cases these days.

We are making hard cases because, as the Last Whole Earth Catalog put it, "We are as gods." Except we aren't getting good at it. This whole issue of "life" and "death" seems to have us bamboozled, still. The underlying issue here, it seems to me, is a simple one, but a very Western one. We are still caught on the horns of the "mind/body" split.

This one is so fundamental to Western thought that thinking about it is very hard, indeed. But the mind/body hypothesis says that "we" are mind, and only tangentially "body." Our "soul," our "essence," is somehow contained in this "vessel," this "container." And when the vessel is damaged beyond repair, it seems only "humane" to us to release the "soul," or "essence," if you prefer, from it's prison. "She wouldn't want to live like this," we say, presuming that "she" is somehow no longer "here," because we cannot communicate with her. And so we consider it more humane to starve her to death, than to keep her alive.

It isn't easy, and I don't mean to draw a bright line or even infer the answer is clear, if obscured by poor reasoning. It isn't clear, and the reasoning commonly used isn't poor, for the most part. What it is, is difficult. What we have to decide is: when is a human being no longer a human being? When is it justifiable, in other words, to kill someone, whether killing means actively ending their life, or passively withdrawing the means for their life?

We don't do this with infants, even infants who are brain damaged. Withdrawing the feeding tube form Terri Sciavo is no different than leaving an infant on a rock to die of "exposure." Both will simply starve to death, because they are unable to feed themselves. On the other end of the scale, we have nursing homes where we care for people who can no longer shop for their own groceries, cook their own meals, in some cases feed themselves or even clean up after themselves. But we don't starve them to death. We may be inhumane to them in other ways, but we don't starve them to death.

In general, we don't starve humans to death at all. We intervene in hunger strikes, or even acquiesce to the demands of the striker. We intervene in countries where people starve, or use it as a motivation to intervene. Starvation is cruel and unusual and a punishment we don't wish on our worst enemy. It's inhumane. So, does the lack of a cerebral cortex mean Terri Sciavo is no longer human?

She is suffering, we say. Or she wouldn't want to suffer. But we intervene to prevent suicides, whenever we can. We alleviate suffering as much as we can, but we also accept it as part of life. This kind of suffering is different; without medical technology, it would be impossible. The cutting ethical question, the one no one really wants to answer, is: who is suffering more? The patient? Or the family who wants to "pull the plug"?

That's the nettlesome issue with "euthanasia." For whom is the death "easy"? Don't rule out that it is easy for the family, even if the patient is cogent and can ask for the end to be hastened. The patient may be less selfish than the family, in that case. How do we tell?

We give husbands and wives a great deal of privilege over their spouses, and we should do so. The House should not intervene in this matter. But should the courts support such an action? They do now; but is the jurisprudence of that theory sound? Is the ethical base for it so clear? Is the body merely the receptacle that, when damaged enough, releases the soul? Is that what death is, and we should not stand in the way of it? This is the philosphical (and theological) question our medical technology forces us to face.

It's time we got down to it.

St. Patrick's Breastplate

After all, what could be more appropriate for the day?*

I arise today through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, through belief in the Threeness, through confession of the Oneness of the Creator of creation.

I arise today through the strength of Christ with his Baptism, through the strength of His Crucifixion with His Burial through the strength of His Resurrection with His Ascension, through the strength of His descent for the Judgement of Doom.

I arise today through the strength of the love of Cherubim in obedience of Angels, in the service of the Archangels, in hope of resurrection to meet with reward, in prayers of Patriarchs, in predictions of Prophets, in preachings of Apostles, in faiths of Confessors, in innocence of Holy Virgins, in deeds of righteous men.

I arise today, through the strength of Heaven; light of Sun, brilliance of Moon, splendour of Fire, speed of Lightning, swiftness of Wind, depth of Sea, stability of Earth, firmness of Rock.

I arise today, through God's strength to pilot me: God's might to uphold me, God's wisdom to guide me, God's eye to look before me, God's ear to hear me, God's word to speak for me, God's hand to guard me, God's way to lie before me, God's shield to protect me, God's host to secure me: against snares of devils, against temptations of vices, against inclinations of nature, against everyone who shall wish me ill, afar and anear, alone and in a crowd.

I summon today all these powers between me (and these evils): against every cruel and merciless power that may oppose my body and my soul, against incantations of false prophets, against black laws of heathenry, against false laws of heretics, against craft of idolatry, against spells of witches, smiths and wizards, against every knowledge that endangers man's body and soul.
Christ to protect me today against poisoning, against burning, against drowning, against wounding, so that there may come abundance in reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ in breadth, Christ in length, Christ in height, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me, Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, through belief in the Threeness, through confession of the Oneness of the Creator of creation. Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is of Christ. May Thy Salvation, O Lord, be ever with us. Amen.

I bind unto myself today the strong Name of the Trinity, by invocation of the same, the Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this day to me forever, by power of faith, Christ's incarnation; His baptism in the Jordan River; His death on the cross for my salvation; His bursting from the spiced tomb; His riding up the heavenly way; His coming on the day of doom; I bind unto
myself today.

I bind unto myself the power of the great love of Cherubim; the sweet "Well done" in judgment hour; the service of the Seraphim, Confessors' faith, Apostles' word, the Patriarchs' prayers, the Prophets' scrolls; all good deeds done unto the Lord, and purity of simple souls.

I bind unto myself today the virtues of the starlit heaven, the glorious sun's life-giving ray, the whiteness of the moon at even, the flashing of the lightning free, the whirling wind's tempestuous shocks, the stable earth, the deep salt sea, around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today the power of God to hold and lead, his eye to watch, his might to stay, his ear to hearken to my need. The wisdom of my God to teach, his hand to guide, his shield to ward; the Word of God to give me speech, his heavenly host to be my guard. Against the demon snares of sin, the vice that gives temptation force, the natural lusts that war within, the hostile ones that mar my course; or few or many, far or nigh, in every place, and in all hours, against their fierce hostility, I bind to me these holy powers. Against all Satan's spells and wiles, against false words of heresy, against the knowledge that defiles, against the heart's idolatry, against the wizard's evil craft, against the death wound and the burning, the choking wave and poisoned shaft, protect me Christ, till your returning.

Christ be with me, Christ within me, Christ behind me, Christ before me, Christ beside me, Christ to win me, Christ to comfort and restore me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love me, Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself the Name, the strong Name of the Trinity; by invocation of the same: The Three in One, and One in Three, of whom all nature has creation: Eternal Father, Spirit, Word, praise to the Lord of my salvation, salvation is of Christ the Lord.
Amen.


*The Guinness comes later!

"God made us the boss/God gave us the cross!"

"We turned it into a sword
To spread the Word of the Lord!
We used His holy decrees
To do whatever we pleased!
And it was good! (Yeah!)
And it was good! (Yeah!)
And it was goddamned good!"-from Mass, by Leonard Bernstein

More on the topic of salvation, which even one very lengthy post cannot hope to exhaust. This is actually in answer to a promise I made at L'esprit d'escalier. A quick, Biblically based explanation of why most "evangelicals" (an umbrella term, here, for fundies and their conservative brethren and sistren) are so anxious after the state of your soul.

Begin with scripture, because ever since Martin Luther, non-RC churches have espoused sola scriptura. And the scripture they all prefer, again looking to Luther for guidance, is John 3:16: "God loved the world so much that he gave the world his only son, so that whoever believed in him would not perish, but would have everlasting life." (My rough paraphrase). Now, as is typical in these matters, it's all a matter of em-pha-sis. Rather than focus on the first half of that verse (God+love+world), all attention focusses on 3:16b: whoever believes in him will not die, but instead live forever. Now, "life into the ages" (the direct translation of the NT Greek usually rendered "eternal life") was a slippery concept, and became more slippery when Messiah left after the resurrection and didn't make the expected re-appearance. One interpretation of that phrase then became "life after death," which is how Neo-Platonism got into Christian doctrine (another story entirely), but it also quickly attached to "life in heaven, not hell," or, in short, salvation from damnation. And this was all you had to do: believe in God's son.

Okay, so now you are taken care of. What do you care about everyone else?

Well, of course, Christianity is supposed to be about everyone else, but we're dwelling on scripture alone here; we need a Biblical warrant for caring about others, and we get it in Matthew 25. Before we get there, though, we have to go to the end of Matthew, to the last words of Jesus on earth (according to Matthew), which many learn as the "Great Commission." (Connections to sales and commissions which salespeople both have and earn, and the fundamental culture of America as all salespeople, are not accidental, but won't be remarked on further, here.)

The Great Commission, again in rough paraphrase, is Jesus' command to his disciples to "go into all the world, and make disciples of all nations." Well, that naturally comes down to the present day, in an unbroken chain of discipleship without which we would have no access to salvation (i.e., would not be spared from damnation), so right away we have an obligation to pass it on. But what do we have an obligation to pass on? The message of salvation? Is that the only message of Christianity?

According to some, yes, it is. That's why John 3:16 is so central. It is the clearest statement that some are saved, some are damned. And the clearest teaching on that point (salvation v. damnation) is Matthew 25. Or, at least, it's interepreted that way.

In Matthew 25 Jesus describes the final judgment, when all the believers come before God, who tells them that they saw him hungry and didn't feed him, naked and didn't clothe him, in prison and didn't visit him. Those who failed, are sent to the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth (there isn't a fully developed theology of hell in the NT). Those who did those things to the least among us, and served God without knowing it, are welcomed into the eternal kingdom of Heaven (it is significant that Matthew calls it the "kingdom of heaven," while Luke calls it the "kingdom of God." One is clearly on earth, the other clearly not. Sorry about the digressions.)

Now this is clearly a radical teaching, but it is in line with the Jesus of all four gospels, who doesn't condemn people because society thinks they have sinned and deserve their punishment: he radically overturns that opinion, and cavorts with prostitutes and tax collectors (Jews working for the hated Rome) and beggars (who sinned, that this man was born blind?), etc. Too radical, in fact, and since, as Michel Foucault has noted, "Society Must Be Defended," society cannot allow its carefully arranged structure to be so easily undone. So the clear command to physically care for the homeless and the prisoner (who belongs in prison, don't they? Would God have us comfort the criminal, in the face of the victim?) becomes a spiritual command. After all, what does it matter if you save the whole world, and lose your own soul? Which, in the end, is more important? A comfortable life here, or salvation in the next life?

This decision, by the way, is usually settled in favor of those with a comfortable life, which would be made uncomfortable if they really had to clothe the naked, and visit the prisoner, etc.

So Matthew 25 becomes a command to care for the "least of these," but "the least of these" is interpreted spiritually, not physically (Jesus didn't really want us to consort with prostitutes as if they were like us, did he?). And spiritually, what we need to do, then, is follow the Great Commission, and make them disciples. Because if we don't, they will perish. And we will stand before the king on the last day, and be judged and divided, sheep and goats. And if we haven't saved the souls that came our way, we will be sent to the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I mentioned that this theology gets ugly, and it does. It is predicated, for one thing, on the very theology Jesus rejected: that a difficult life in this world, is a result of sin which God is punishing, either in you or in your ancestors. It also draws sustenance from the "Doctrine of the Elect," which Jean Calvin, ironically, formulated in order to humble believers, but which, in typical fashion, Christians have used to justify their righteousness, and condemn others. The Doctrine of the elect was Calvin's attempt to explain both why salvation was necessary, and why some people would never get it. If salvation is not essential to all, the doctrine of atonement (Jesus died for your sins) falls apart. But if it is essential, and yet (per Luther) we cannot earn it (grace by faith, not works), then why can't we all just get it, and go do what we want? If we have to do what God wants, doesn't that mean we have to earn grace? (which puts us back to works, and undermines grace.) So Calvin said God had elected some from the beginning of time to be saved; but you don't know who you are, so you have to live as if you needed God's salvation. It's still arbitrary, but the problem is less in Calvin's solution than in the doctrine itself.

And Christians use this to justify themselves and condemn others on the socioeconomic grounds Jesus rejected. It works largely like this: I am well off because God loves me, but you are poor because He can't stand you. Now once I save your soul, I can continue to enjoy what is rightly mine, and you might hope for amendment of life which might save you. Or might not; it's all been decided by God beforehand, but just to be sure I don't slip up, I'll make sure your soul has a chance at salvation.

Jesus says all the law and the prophets hang on two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor. But preferring to be in charge (since love puts us distinctly NOT in charge), we come up with reasons why we should run things, or at least be able to control things in the short term, and secure ourselves a place in heaven, in the long term.

At least, some of us do.

The Origin of Fire

[Ed. note: Blogger finally wakens from its slumber. This was written last night, but wouldn't post until today. Anyway....]

Robert, my lapsed Catholic self has always interpreted the focus on the cross, the suffering, the death, as a means to frighten or guilt the faithful into behaving properly. I am unworthy of this, we declared at each Mass, Jesus died for me and I am not worth that kind of trouble.

I began to feel rather defensive of humanity, after a while. I wanted to give examples of ways we were worthy. Bach concertos, or a well-made batch of chocolate chip cookies.

Your final question is intriguing. Do we need salvation? Does it exist outside of our need for it and our idea of attainment?--A

Listening, as I type, to music by Hildegard von Bingen, sung by the quartet Anonymous 4. Their last album together (maybe), “The Origin of Fire.” It’s a perfect metaphor for the Spiritus Sanctus, the Heilige Geist, the pneuma agion. Listening and thinking about Athenae’s question. It was the “Bach concerti” that got me; but Anonymous 4 is my latest obsession, and it is a worthy substitute.

Do we need salvation? As always, there is a question behind any question, another question to be asked and answered first. In this case, the question is: salvation from what? What is "salvation"?

The term was in common usage in first century Palestine, and came to them from Rome. The Caesars were regularly presented as saviors. They saved their subjects from barbarism. By force of arms and organization of government, they saved the world from violence and for civilization. No mean feat, either. The Romans built roads and buildings that stand to this day, and brought literacy and learning to corners of the globe that had not known it before. But the people under Roman rule, especially the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., had reason to ask: salvation from what?

It became a term attached to Jesus of Nazareth, which is probably why he was crucified. The term had political meaning (clearly), and Rome jealously guarded its political power (witness Jerusalem, in 70 C.E.). But what did Jesus save people from? Rome?


God is named as savior, too, in the Hebrew Scriptures. This appellation has a different root, however. God's covenant was with Abraham, and the children of Abraham, throughout time and space. God created Israel, and named it, through Jacob. God made a promise, one God would not break. So God was both creator and preserver, savior, in that sense, of Israel. But that was so that Israel could be a light to the world, could be an example to the nations, could show all of humanity to "Be still, and know that I am God." But through example, through witness, not through evangelism.*

So God was savior of Israel because God was creator of Israel. God saved Israel from Egypt, and later from Babylon, and still later, was to save them from Rome. This was the expected promise of the Messiah. This is why Jesus was called the one who would come to set his people free. But free from what? Free to what? After the crucifixion, and in spite of the resurrection, or perhaps more clearly because of it, that freedom had to be re-identified, had to be spiritualized. And it has been a difficult matter ever since.

But it was not autmoatically a spiritual salvation from sin and depradation of the spirit. There were many doctrines in the early church, and the Augustinian one won out over the Pelagian one. One out, but didn't eliminate the more austere, but more hopeful, Pelagian "heresy." That tradition was represented in the Celtic church, the one which, ironically, saved the church as the Empire fell into barbarism; came from the edge of civilization back toward the center, bringing the church with it. It is too simple to say one was good, one was bad. It is certainly true that "salvation" became caught up, in the Roman church, with guilt and punishment and abasement and the absolute horrors of sin. But it didn't have to be that way. And salvation didn't have to be about the either/or of death, or life.

Salvation was real, to the first audience, the audience of Jesus. It was the revelation that God cared for the poor, and the widow, and the orphan, and the blind and lame and halt, and God wanted everybody else to, also. That was salvation. Salvation from misery, from outcast, from being marginalized. But that meant the rich were not in need of salvation, were not even offered it; and so they had to become poor in spirit, in order to become rich in the kingdom. That, at least, is what they thought; that is what they decided. And the richer they became in the kingdom, the more they wanted to insure poverty of spirit in everyone else. Because misery loves company; and human nature loves power, especially spiritual power. And the idea that the creation is good, but that people are bad, set up a contradiction they couldn't reconcile. The idea that people were good was anathema; it went against the Neo-Platonist leanings of Augustine; as did the idea that creation was good. Despite the first creation story in Genesis, it was the second story that was emphasized: the second, with its depiction of selfishness and greed and arrogance and punishment. Maybe good is harder to portray, and evil, since it's repetitive, is just easier to write. So creation could not be good, and humanity could not be good. All was tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve.

Because if creation was good, and humanity was good, what need did they have of a church? Much need, of course, if the church was to be a place of hospitality. But if it was to be an institution, it needed power first, so hospitality could be granted second. So the emphasis was on sin, and evil, and it was such an inspiring picture, that it took over.

Jesus teaches his followers humility; something that would have been second nature to most of them. But he knew that such humility would easily turn to arrogance, given the chance. We don't like humility, though; especially those of us who have never had to be truly humble; so we easily turned that into the mea maxima culpa of the breast beating and the flagellation and, when that went out of style, of the guilt and despair and unworthiness we didn't feel, but were told we must feel. We have never quite trusted grace by faith; we've always preferred it have some works involved in it, the better to secure our salvation, ourselves. If we left everything to God, how could we be sure we were saved?

And so guilt and despair and dismay, became institutional concerns. It resonated from the Catholics to the Protestants, until all shouted "Enough!," and threw out the baby with the bathwater. Even the most conservative of large churches today, doesn't preach the "hell fire and brimstone" of a generation ago. Even the most virulent of Catholic priests, I'm sure, doesn't preach the doctrine of damnation that Frank McCourt grew up with in Ireland, with the image of eternity in hell where one burns and burns and burns without being consumed, and eternity is so timeless that after a million years there you've only begun to spend one second of the endless, timeless time, you will spend in such agony. From one extreme to another we go, still chained to the shibboleth of "salvation," because, we fear, without it, we lose our Christianity.

And yet, most modern theologians will tell you the central doctrines of Christianity are the Incarnation and the Resurrection; that these are the distinctly Christian attributes that must be confessed in Christian doctrine. About salvation there is more to say, in connection with the American mania for evangelism. But in the answer to A's question (she of the lovely superfluous vowels): no. We don't "need" salvation. It does not exist outside us, for our attainment. It is given to us, in the peace of God which passes all understanding. In Bach concerti, or beautifully sung music; or even chocolate chip cookies (and if you can cook a good batch, send me some; I'm never happy with mine). It comes to us in the quotidian mysteries, as Kathleen Norris calls them. It comes in other people, and we know it in faith, and in prayer, and in spiritual discipline. And yes, even in worship, if we are capable of it. Which is another kind of spiritual discipline.

And three or four other topics. But salvation: that is about the origin of fire. And why we are so afraid of it. And why we erect such elaborate doctrines, to protect ourselves from it. When it is really as simple as acceptance. We don't need it. But it is nice to have it.



*(This touches on a different topic, which I'll post on before the night is over, hopefully).

Just because it' s my blog, and just because I can!

left revsquito, courtesy, again, of watertiger's comments (the link is below; what, you think I'm shillin' for her twice in one day?) gives me the best bumpersticker I think I've ever heard of.

Or maybe I'm just tired.

"God WAS my co-pilot. But we crashed into the side of a mountain, and I had to eat him."

Maybe it's funnier as a Eucharist joke.

Of Levinas, and mythology, and others....

This is not in anyway new, except to me. Chasing down Haloscan trackbacks, I found some made to me back in December (ah, halcyon days!), and that alone lightens the gloom of Lent. But I found this particularly interesting, even though I haven't done enough reading in Levinas to undertake the task.

Most of the substantive stuff in Bultmann's thought seem closest to Levinas, who, like Bultmann, is a thinker of the Radical Other. For both, the source of ethics and religion is the call of the Other. In other words, I don't act ethically toward you because you're similar to me; I act ethically because of your difference from me. This notion underpins Bultmann's theory of the "kerygma" of the text, which he defines as an existential relation to the text, which calls to me (to simplify: it resonates in my soul. The Bible isn't a set of propositions which are true or false, but something that calls to me from a distance and stirs me).

For what it's worth, merging Levinas and Christian theology got kind of hot in the 80s, so a resurgence of Bultmann, read through Levinas, is possible and would be kind of neat to see. That would require reading him against the grain of the conventional wisdom, but it's definately do-able.

Bultmann's great work, actually, is not Jesus Christ and Mythology, which he wrote trying to explain his "demythologizing" theology to the laity; his great work is his magisterial study of The Gospel of John. It's true Bultmann was friends with Heidegger (they were professors together at the time), but he read John's gospel side by side with Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments. The existentialism is much more Kierkegaard's than Heidegger's, who is, in fact, more of a phenomenologist anyway (the difference is hair-splitting, actually), and where Bultmann can't avoid it, he includes long footnotes quoting Kierkegaard's pseudonymous work (so it is, and it isn't, Kierkegaard's, at one and the same time. Paradoxes abound).

The idea of charging theology by reading Bultmann through Levinas is a profound one, for the reasons JPE gives here. Conventional wisdom in ecclesiastical circles today is all about "community," but "community" is all about the Other. And that, as Derrida says, puts us face to face with the mysterium tremendums, that which always makes us tremble. It is, in fact, an existential trembling, a terror in one's being, a fear of eradication. Which all springs from Romanticism, actually, which will always be with us, now. As Kierkegaard understood, his philosophy and theology being wholly a product of Romanticism.

Much to do, and so little time to do it all....

Can we leave out the nuts?

Maybe blogging is about nothing more than pet peeves.

But watertiger over at Dependable Renegade got me started on this rant, and as poorly thought out as it still is, I'll bring it over here to complete.

Of course, the first thing to be said is that every pastor knows these recipes, in one form or another. Probably only the Unitarian Universalists are spared someone in the congregation bringing something like these up as a way to "teach the children" (and why, oh why, do we insist on infantilizing the Gospel stories and all the Bible stories? Don't get me started on "Jonah." I was in seminary before I found out that book wasn't about a whale and God taking care of people who get swallowed by fish.) But that's another matter.

As I mentioned at watertiger's, this recipe lost me at "Fold in the broken nuts." My mind simply wandered off to a field replete with sarcastic replies, and refused to come back. But what really sets my theological teeth on edge is not the attempt to make an object lesson out of clearly abstract concepts: "So far, the ingredients are not very appetizing. Add 1 cup sugar. Explain that the sweetest part of the story is that Jesus died because He loves us. He wants us to know and belong to Him. Read Psalm 34:8 and John 3:16." Equating blood with sugar is quite a stretch, but no more so than equating the Psalms with atonement theology. Still, as I say, if you're going to take this line, you have to make some effort to get the object lesson into the abstraction. As a pastor, I have a lot of sympathy for this effort. Preaching from the gospel stories is ever so much easier than preaching from the letters of Paul. Jesus tells stories. Paul invents theology on the spot. One flows naturally into illustration; the other begs for a lecture series, not a sermon. It ain't easy tryin' to preach.

Which is why, of course, so many preachers fall back on pop psychology trends, business management theories du jour, or anything else that's part of the public disourse without being political or personal (don't want to offend anyone!). It makes so much more sense than the obscure Jewish references in Paul, or explaining to people that the mustard seed grows into a pesky weed, not a towering tree. (Many of the parables are really dark jokes; it's part of their staying power.)

But the issue of soteriology is central to Christianity: indeed, it is the source of Christianity's exclusionary streak, and no gospel is more seemingly exclusionary than John's. So it is the favorite of churches large and small that wish to justify their own demands for salvation, and for the preference for their group. That's just one reason I'm uncomfortable with John's gospel.

(Actually, I admire John, but because of it's clever exploitation of the "signs," or miracles, that Jesus performs. In John, those signs that are aupposed to point toward the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, actually lead away from it. It's too subtle a point to do justice to here, but I admire John's gospel more than I dislike it. As I say, I dislike the way it is used.)

So, back to these cookies. What do they teach? A child's version of The Passion of the Christ, apparently. Certainly a child's version of the resurrection, the most central and most difficult concept in Christianity. When Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected, what happened, exactly? The gospels themselves are unclear. Mark seems to have originally ended without a resurrection, just a hint of one. Matthew has Jesus appear, and leave quickly. Luke has Jesus linger a while, but he's mysterious: he's disguised, and then revealed and vanishes; finally he ascends into heaven. In John, Jesus has hands and feet with scars, but appears magically in locked rooms. There is no body in the tomb, but does Jesus have a body after the resurrection? No one is sure. But does the story center on the brutal death from crucifixion? Or is it about something else?

Certainly most church goers today want to skip from Christmas to Easter with no spiritual discipline of preparation, but in the case of children, that is hardly a fair expectation. Still, is this how we teach them that violence is good, and bloodshed redemptive, and pain is the path to salvation?Those have become identified as Christian themes, but they are all attempts to make sense of the cruelty of the death of Jesus, to find an explanation for everything that happened, and a reason that justifies everything.

Personally, before this runs on to five pages and still no conclusion in sight, I have completely rejected the "atonement" theory, the idea that Jesus had to die in order for God to forgive the sins of mankind. It's a theory of God as sacrificial lamb to God, an idea that never made much sense to me, and that still sounds like cosmic child/self abuse (given the doctrine of the Trinity). Which is why I truly find "recipes" like this appalling. It connects blood and bones and death and pain, with pleasure. One reason the elements of the eucharist are seldom sweetened, I suppose. But the soteriological question is the real issue: what is salvation, and why do we need it?

That one, I will definitely have to come back to.

Laurie Garrett and Newsday

Democracy Now! directs me to this: Laurie Garrett has resigned from Newsday, and on her way out wrote a memo (scroll down) that blasts the idea of journalism as a profit center:

Ever since the Chandler Family plucked Mark Willes from General Foods, placing him at the helm of Times Mirror with a mandate to destroy the institutions in ways that would boost dividends, journalism has suffered at Newsday. The pain of the last year actually began a decade ago: the sad arc of greed has finally hit bottom. The leaders of Times Mirror and Tribune have proven to be mirrors of a general trend in the media world: They serve their stockholders first, Wall St. second and somewhere far down the list comes service to newspaper readerships. In 1996 I personally confronted Willes on that point, and he publicly confirmed that the new regime was one in which even the number of newspapers sold was irrelevant, so long as stock returns continued to rise.

The deterioration we experienced at Newsday was hardly unique. All across America news organizations have been devoured by massive corporations, and allegiance to stockholders, the drive for higher share prices, and push for larger dividend returns trumps everything that the grunts in the newsrooms consider their missions.

Firesign Theater once released an album: "Everything you know is wrong!"

This time, unfortunately, something we know is right.

The Weapon Shops of America

This is not generally in my line, but I heard this story on the radio just now, and it's very disturbing:

A toddler remained in critical condition at the Ben Taub General Hospital on Sunday, a day after he was shot in the head by his 4-year-old brother.
......

The shooting was sparked by an argument that erupted after the 2-year-old threw a toy at his older brother.

The 4-year-old told police he shot his brother in the head with a .32-caliber semiautomatic pistol he found in his mother's purse.
......

[CPS spokeswoman Estella] Olguin said the boy has been asking for his younger brother. "He probably doesn't realize the consequences of his actions," she said.

Because he is under 10, the boy will not be charged in the shooting.

However, Olguin said he will need counseling in the future. "You can imagine the guilt he's going to feel," she said.

Their mother was in a bedroom when she heard the gunshot. She told police she had the gun to protect her family because of a rash of recent burglaries in the neighborhood.

Police said the case will be referred to the Harris County District Attorney's Office. The children's mother could face criminal charges for making the weapon available to a child, police said.

I know the proper snark would be to label this "Bobo's World," but that's not why I couldn't shake this case. This incident is a result of many things, not the least of which is our society's totally insane idea that guns = "magic crime shield."

When I first heard this story, I figured the mother had the gun in her purse because of Texas concealed handgun law, and this was an example of the bad reasoning behind that law. Guns kept at home should be protected with a trigger guard, especially when there are children this young in the house. But a trigger guard on a concealed handgun sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? (We'll get back to the legitimacy of the "purpose" in a minute.) Now, the Texas law requires a license, and that license requires training. But whether or not this woman had a license to stick that gun in her purse, she certainly didn't understand much about gun safety.

Because most of us know about guns from TV and the movies, we imagine bullets are things that hit bad guys and walls; we never imagine they hit children, or pierce walls and go on to the house next door, or the apartment beside ours. And we seldom like trigger guards and other safety devices because, well, it sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

This notion of guns as benevolent and secure runs deep in our culture. There was a science fiction novel, The Weapon Shops of Isher, based on this fantasy. In an America of the future, guns are intelligent enough to be defensive weapons only. They somehow divine the intent of the attacker, and leap to the owner's hand and discharge only in self-defense. This insures, rather than destabilizes society, because every gun owner is a good-hearted person who only wants to be left alone by the criminal element and, not coincidentally, the government. It's magical thinking, of course, the purest kind imaginable. It's a vision of technology as that which will save us from ourselves. It's a powerfully alluring idea that modern society has adopted even as it abandons, by and large, any faith in deity. As the Last Whole Earth Catalog put it: "We are as gods. We might as well get good at it."

But we aren't; we aren't in the least. We are still as children; very foolish children, in fact. Even apes don't threaten the existence of their own kind as much as we do. Even animals don't put their children in harm's way as willfully as we do. This woman imagined that a gun would be a magic device that would protect her from harm. Instead, she has brought a snake to the bosom of her family. Now we can only pray for her, and for her children, and for the life of a two year old boy; and of a four year old boy, who may grow up on day to realize what he has done, and wonder and worry and despair over the many variations of the question: why?

Society has an obligation to answer him. How long can society continue to say: not our problem?

Fifth Sunday of Lent

My throat is dried up like baked clay, my tongue cleaves to my jaws; to the dust of death you have brought me down.--Psalm 22:16

QUARTADECIMA die ad vesperum Pascha Domini est: et in quintadecima solemnitatem celebrabitis altissimo Domino.
Fourteen days from now the Pasch of the Lord will begin, and on the fifteenth you will celebrate the great solemnity in honor of God Most High.--Monastic Liturgy

YOU, neighbor God, if sometimes in the night
I rouse you with loud knocking, I do so
only because I seldom hear you breathe;
I know: you are alone.
And should you need a drink, no one is there
to reach it to you, groping in the dark.
Always I hearken. Give but a small sign.
I am quite near.
Between us there is but a narrow wall,
and by sheer chance; for it would take
merely a call from your lips or from mine
to break it down,
and that without a sound.

The wall is built of your images.

They stand before you hiding you like names,
and when the light within me blazes high
that in my inmost soul I know you by,
the radiance is squandered on their frames.

And then my senses, which too soon grow lame,
exiled from you, must go their homeless ways.--Rainer Maria Rilke

FOR a brief moment I abandoned you,
but with great compassion I will gather you.
In overflowing wrath for a moment
I hid my face from you,
but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,
says the LORD, your Redeemer.--Isaiah 54:7-8

WITHOUT the sense of God's will we narrow down our lives to the material world. We are like misers crouching over their hoards and never seeing the skies; indeed we may narrow our prison still further, seeing in everything only the image of ourselves.
But once we are made aware of the greatness of events as expressions of God's love, once we see and live their sacra-mental value, then we are liberated into a greater life; the winds of eternity blow about us, and the infinite skies are our home, and we too walk the eternal hills.--Gerald Vann

I look at the hills, and wonder
From where will my help come?
My help comes from the Lord,
The maker of earth and sky.
May God not let you stumble;
May God your protector not sleep!
Truly God never rests or sleeps,
Protecting Israel.
The Lord is your protector,
The shade at your right hand.
The sun will not strike you by day,
Nor the moon at night.
The Lord protects you from every evil;
God protects your life.
The Lord will protect you, coming and going,
Now, and forevermore.--Psalm 121

To each one of us Christ is saying: If you want your life and mission to be fruitful like mine, do as I. Be converted into a seed that lets itself be buried. Let yourself be killed. Do not be afraid. Those who shun suffering will remain alone. No one is more alone than the selfish. But if you give your life out of love for others, as I give mine for all, you will reap a great harvest.--Oscar Arnulfo Romero

WE plough the fields and scatter
The good seed on the land,
But it is fed and watered
By God's almighty hand;
God sends the snow in winter,
The warmth to swell the grain,
The breezes and the sunshine, ~
And soft refreshing rain:
All good gifts around us,
Are sent from heav'n above,
Then thank the Lord,
O thank the Lord
For such great love.--M. Claudius

PERISH the sword,
Perish the angry judgment,
Perish the bombs and hunger,
Perish the fight for gain;
Hallow our love,
Hallow the deaths of martyrs,
Hallow their holy freedom,
Hallowed be your name.--Frances W. Davis

On the legal front

"Terrorist" continues to mean what we want it to mean, and our response continues to be violence.

A federal judge on Saturday prohibited the government from transferring 13 Yemeni prisoners from the military's detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, until a hearing could be held on their lawyers' fear that they might face torture if sent to another country.

[snip]

The government argues that all the prisoners were members of the Qaeda terrorist network or the Taliban in Afghanistan, or have ties to those groups. Mr. Falkoff said that after talking to his clients during two weeklong visits to the detention center and reviewing government documents, he did not believe they were terrorists.

He said he believed one was an aid worker, another was a medic and a third was a 17-year-old who had traveled to Afghanistan to teach children the Koran. He acknowledged that he did not have independent corroboration for their stories.

"The disappearance of such equipment, may be of proliferation significance."

Res ipsa loquitur

In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

[snip]

"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Apparently the "WMD" were spirited out of Iraq; or at least the equipment capable of making such things. But it wasn't before the invasion; and we still don't know where it all went. Why did this happen? The official line is that we didn't have enough personnel to both invade, and protect weapons sites. So, tell me again, what was this invasion for? And will this make a difference now? The White House, contacted for this article, considered it old news. To this White House, it's all about accountability, which is all about: who's got the power now?

Perhaps we will be assured by Bush supporters once again that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Even though we've created chaos in Iraq, and a nuclear proliferation issue that didn't exist before. Now, precisely how that equation balances, is a bit beyond my skills to deduce. Because, the looters "knew what they were doing."

But obviously, we didn't.

"But every error is due to extraneous factors..."

(such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err."--Kurt Godel, 29 November 1972

This raises an interesting issue, not the least of which is related to the hubris of the neoconservatives and the Bush Administration (who are firmly convinced their reasons are sound, and extraneous factors alone render their conclusions less than clear at the moment; although that is a perversion of both reason, and Godel's meaning, but then....).

Are "emotion" or "education," or any other like factors, really "extraneous" to "reason"? If they are, aren't we simply defining reason (since no one can bring "reason" into the laboratory and examine it, or even place it within the domain of logic and mathematics, to validate it) as a product of human imagination, because we define it by excluding whatever one wants to consider 'extraneous'? And yet reason is a product of those 'extraneous' factors (as it is the product of imagination, itself a product of emotion). Can it be a product of them, withot partaking of them?

Presumably we could recognize reason without these "extraneous factors:" we call it logic and mathematics, Godel's fields of study. But, as his famous Incompleteness Theorem shows, such formal systems are capable of producing statements they are not powerful enough to validate (a theorem that gave Wittgenstein fits, by the way, and which he refused to accept as valid). But the interesting question is this:

Is reason a human creation (i.e, a product of human imagination?), or does it exist apart from human understanding, as an entity in the universe? The inquiry would begin here: is "thinking" recognizable apart from education and/or emotion? Because surely thinking, while it involves reason, also involves imagination. And which is greater: imagination, or reason? Which gave birth to which, in other words?That is, could an emotionless computer with no education, but merely input programming and data, ever do anything recognizable as "thinking"? Can we, in other words, ever "reason," without "thinking"? And can we accurately say that reason is never wrong? Even if we postulate it, can we ever show it to be true? Or is this the statement our formal system of reason (whatever it is) is not powerful enough to validate?

If reason doesn't exist apart from us, how can it ever be free of error, free of "extraneous factors"? And if it does exist apart from us: where is it?

Paradoxes abound.

"Return to me with all your heart, with fasting, weeping and mourning"

At what point is it ridiculous to speak of "military discipline" at all? When soldiers frag officers? Or when they beat prisoners to death?

Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports that have not yet been made public.

One soldier, Pfc. Willie V. Brand, was charged with manslaughter in a closed hearing last month in Texas in connection with one of the deaths, another Army document shows. Private Brand, who acknowledged striking a detainee named Dilawar 37 times, was accused of having maimed and killed him over a five-day period by "destroying his leg muscle tissue with repeated unlawful knee strikes."

The attacks on Mr. Dilawar were so severe that "even if he had survived, both legs would have had to be amputated," the Army report said, citing a medical examiner.

The chief military intelligence officer reported that chaining prisoners to the ceiling was intended to protect interrogators. The report says it was merely intended to do harm. But wait, there's more:

John Sifton, a researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said the documents substantiated the group's own investigations showing that beatings and stress positions were widely used, and that "far from a few isolated cases, abuse at sites in Afghanistan was common in 2002, the rule more than the exception."

"Human Rights Watch has previously documented, through interviews with former detainees, that scores of other detainees were beaten at Bagram and Kandahar bases from early 2002 on," Mr. Sifton said in an e-mail message.

We have not reached the bottom. There is no bottom. What we have to do, is to take the shovels away, because they will not stop digging.

Odd, from an Administration that professes so much faith in the Creator. Consider these words, from Isaiah:

You, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
the offspring of Abraham, my friend;
you whom I took from the ends of the earth,
and called from it's farthest corners,
saying to you, "You are my servant.
I have chosen you and not cast you off";
do not fear, for I am with you,
do not be afraid for I am your God;
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.
Yes, all who are incensed against you
shall be ashamed and disgraced;
those who strive against you
shall be as nothing and shall perish.
You shall seek those who contend with you,
but you shall not find them;
those who war against you
shall be as nothing at all.
For I, the Lord your God,
hold your right hand,
it is I who way to you, "Do not fear,'
I will help you." (Isaiah 41:8-13)

Triumphalism? The song of God leading a nation to battle? A rallying cry for vengeance? No. Those words came to Israel through Isaiah in Babylon, when the nation of Israel no longer existed. The people of Israel had no military power left, no hope of victory on the battlefield, no means to inflict pain on their captors. This is the song of a people whose faith in their God will sustain them and provide for them. It is not the faith of George W. Bush or of most of his "faith-based" base.

True faith in God is without fear about the world, because the believer knows God is in charge. George Bush is afraid, and he leads by fear, and he projects and depends on fear. You want to understand George Bush, watch the movie "Friday Night Lights." Pay attention to the violence inherent in the structure of west Texas small town society. Pay attention to the message: winning isn't everything; it's the only thing. Pay careful attention, and you will undestand that George W. Bush could hear these words of Isaiah, and apply them to himself, and decide he was God's agent for triumph. When God is the sole agent of salvation and victory, and needs no one to act for God. The teachings of the prophets are clear: God will act, and human beings will not be needed to make God's actions manifest. God is Creator, and active in Creation. The perversion of that decree, of that kerygma, is that God needs us in order to fulfill God's promises.

That is the diminishment of God's promises that George W. Bush has turned into America's foreign policy. And we are just now seeing the results of that arrogance. The violence is not inherent in the words of the prophets, or in the actions of God. The violence is in the people who decide God needs a hand, or isn't acting quickly enough, or can't do it without them, and that is why they are here. The Christian profession is that God acting once, directly and completely, through a human being, and hasn't done so or needed to do so again. But the Christian action, too often in history, and repeated again today in this Administration, is that God acts only through us. It's convenient, and comforting, to think we can control God that way. It is also, of course, arrogant, to think we are that important, and God is helplees unless we respond.

We fail, over and over again, to understand the power of powerlessness. We fail to understand the distinction between accepting powerlessness, and being powerless. It is being powerless that tortures people. It is true impotence that beats the prisoner to death. It is complete helplessness that can only respond to an event like 9/11 with violence and more violence, and still more violence. Spain and Europe, having suffered wars and terrorists for decades, seeks answers. America seeks to turn the world upside down, and to extend the boundaries of "Fortress America" just as far as it can.

We are the weakest country on earth. We are the most helpless country on earth. We are the most frightened country on earth. People of faith are never so frightened. People of strength and resolve are never so easily turned into monsters. If we had the relationship to God of the children of Abraham the prophets today would be denouncing us for our fear and terror and destruction. Having never suffered a major war by foreign powers on our soil since our founding, we don't know how to respond, and so we respond like frightened children; but children armed to the teeth, and willing to blindly kill, secure in our one true belief: that winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Closed. Retired to Bedlam

So, Condi Rice (on NPR just now) continues to sound like she's sabre-rattling in Iran's direction (I thought the Secretary of State was supposed to be in charge of diplomacy), and yet the German diplomat who speaks for the Europeans says that, after a great deal of pressure exerted on the Bush Administration, they have finally agreed with Europe, to give peace and diplomacy a chance.

Why was that so hard?

Is Iraq going so well? Is the lesson we've learned from that little adventure that this is fun, and let's do it some more? That it was easy, and knocking over another country will be a walk in the park? That if we aren't tough now, Lebanon might decide to embrace the Syrian army after all (oops! too late!)?

Or is it all about bluster, and no one really knows what they're doing, but heaven forbid they admit it? I think that's the only explanation for the Bolton nomination.

Speaking of abuses of power

It was good to learn yesterday that the military commander in Iraq has issued definitive rules about how to treat captives in American prison camps. Unfortunately, that was about the only good news in the newest Pentagon report on prisoner abuse, actually a 21-page summary of a larger, classified study by the Navy inspector general of interrogation rules in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just consider that it took more than a year after the military says it first learned of the nightmare at Abu Ghraib to issue the new rules. And don't ask what they are, because they're classified. The report spoke of the regulations approvingly. But its author, Vice Admiral Albert Church III, now director of the Navy staff, admitted yesterday that, well, he had not actually read them.

But everything's fine, it's just fine! Trust us. After all, we're from the government.

Good grief.

It seems Jon Stewart is right...

And the purpose of this Administration's foreign policy is to spread irony around the world, not democracy.

Democracy Now! brought this to my attention this morning.

Apparently, since the Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo prisoners having a right to access to American courts, the Pentagon has sent no more prisoners to Gitmo. (This despite the fact the prisoners there have been denied access to courts via administrative procedures that undoubtedly violate the Court's ruling. Contempt of court is one thing; contempt for the rule of law is what we used to call a "constitutionaal crisis. But that was then, this is now.). While this is opposed by the CIA and the State Department, Rummy backs it; and we all know where the center of power is in this Administration:

The proposed transfers would represent a major acceleration of Pentagon efforts that have transferred 65 prisoners from Guantánamo to foreign countries. The population at Guantánamo includes more than 100 prisoners each from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a senior administration official said, and the United States might need to provide money or other logistical support to make possible a large-scale transfer to any of those nations.

Although the article draws a distinction, this is clearly just an extension of the theory of "extraordinary rendition." The reasons for this are clear, and have nothing to do with the reasons given by the White House. Indeed, the Pentagon has now said so:

Defense Department officials said that the adverse court rulings had contributed to their determination to reduce the population at Guantánamo, in part by persuading other countries to bear some of the burden of detaining terrorism suspects.

Not to be overlooked is that the special review boards themselves have been declared unconstitutional by a trial court. That, of course, is on appeal. But the Pentagon is now quite upfront about what they are doing, and why. "Rule of law" is so damned inconvenient, they are doing all they can to avoid its application.

Irony has often been declared dead. When do we just admit that "rule of law" has been tossed on the garbage heap of history as "quaint"? And when do we then decide, that might not be such a good thing?

In Defense of Ludwig

More than sentries for dawn
I watch for the Lord.

Isn't this the answer to Wittegenstein?

Watching, listening for the dawn, the presence of God, you feel more than can name in the moment of such Presence. Much time spent thirsting, hungering craving that presence; and sometimes, waiting quietly, listening beyond words, you feel the warmth of sun even if weakly, warming the earth, warming your life, turning your heart to Spring.

Wittegenstein, actually, would probably agree.

Wittgenstein is directing himself against those who would say that what you experience is delusional, because it is not expressible in terms that "they" understand. That is, you are using language differently than "they" are, and therefore your use of language is incorrect. Wittgenstein's point is that, actually, no particular use of language is privileged above another, and that we engage in "language games" when we either try to "purify" the language (one of Eliot's aims), or limit its application to, say, only the vocabulary of Empiricism or, in his case, the more extremely refined vocabulary of Logical Positivism.

Which is why Wittgenstein would say something like this:

If I even vaguely remember what I was taught about God, I might say: "Whatever believing in God may be, it can't be believing in something we can test, or find means of testing." You might say: "This is nonsense, because people say they believe on evidence or say they believe on religious experiences." I would say: "The mere fact that someone says they believe on evidence doesn't tell me enough for me to be able to say now whether I can say of a sentence 'God exists' that your evidence is unsatisfactory or insufficient."

...

Suppose there is a feast on Mid-Summer Common. A lot of people stand in a ring. Suppose this is done every year and then everyone says he has seen one of his dead relatives on the other side of the ring. In this case, we could ask everyone in the ring. "Who did you hold by the hand?" Nevertheless, we'd all say that on that day we see our dead relatives. You could in this case say: "I had the experience I cna express by saying: 'I saw my dead cousin.'" Would we say you were saying this on insufficient evidence? Under certain circumstances I would say this, under other circumstances I wouldn't." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Lectures on Religious Belief," Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief, ed. Cyril Barrett (University of California Press, pp. 59-60).

The point is not that reality is relative; but that what we say about reality, is really quite slippery. More slippery than we usually acknowledge. And while Eliot's phenomenology via F.H. Bradley, and his theological leanings via the Anglican Church, combine to create a dynamic poetry that express a truth, Wittgenstein defends the validity of that "truth" against the complaint that it is not conducted in the language of Logical Positivism or of Empiricism.

Which, as Wittgenstein shows from within those disciplines, have no greater privilege to "truth" than Eliot's poetry does; and no lesser privilege, either. Which, when I can get to it, has some interesting implications for the practice of lectio divina.

Psalms 130 & 133

From the depths I call to you,
Lord, hear my cry.
Catch the sound of my voice
raised up, pleading.

If you record our sins,
Lord, who could survive?
But because you forgive
we stand in awe.

I trust in God's word,
I trust in the Lord.
More than sentries for dawn
I watch for the Lord.

More than sentries for dawn
let Israel watch.
The Lord will bring mercy
and grant full pardon.
The Lord will free Israel
from all its sins.


How good it is, how wonderful,
wherever people live as one!

It is like sacred oil on the head,
flowing down Aaron's beard,
down to the collar of his robe.
It is like the dew of Hermon
running down the mountains of Zion.

There God gives blessing:
life for ever.

Lawyers, Guns & Money

BBC World Service reported this morning (and unfortunately, I can't find it on their website), in a conversation with a BBCNews correspondent who has written several books on the Middle East, that Al Qaeda, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. The reporter noted that many feared, especially after 9/11, that Al Qaeda would prosper and spread, but that hasn't happened, in large part because the message of Al Qaeda simply isn't that alluring to that many Muslims around the world. Which implies that most of them, like most Americans, simply aren't blood-thirsty or power-hungry. What it doesn't explain, is why America, through its leadership, continues to act as if it is.

NPR ran a report this morning on the Supreme Court decision declaring capital punishment for juveniles (those under the age of 18 at the time the crime was committed) unconstitutional. The bulk of those juveniles on Death Row are, not surprisingly, in Texas, and the report focussed on one convicted killer, whose death sentence has been automatically commuted to life without parole. The DA who prosecuted the case challenged the Court's decision on the grounds that some 17 year olds are capable of thinking like adults, or at least being as responsible as adults. This lawyer ignored, of course, that 17 year olds cannot legally drink, cannot marry without parental consent, cannot enter into any contracts, or otherwise exercise the rights of adults. Are some 17 year olds mature enough to handle such responsibilties? Yes, but the law says (with rare exception), that none are so capable. Now the law says, without exception, none should be held responsible with their lives, for their bad decisions. But still, the DA declared, the law should be able to demand and eye for an eye, no matter how young the first eye is.

Are we a bloodthirsty people, or not?

Well, one does not speak for all, so the question in context is unfair. Still, we should feel sharply rebuked by the Club de Madrid and the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, which is meeting close to the first anniversary of Spain's "9/11", the 11 March Madrid train bombings.

"Only freedom can save freedom, and the struggle against terrorism can only succeed by the rule of law," say the summit organisers, the Club de Madrid - an independent body made up of more than 40 former heads of state and government from around the world.

The Club's purpose and priority is "to contribute to strengthening democracy in the world".

Funny, but I had heard that was "our" job. But the U.S. attacked Iraq with impunity, and on poor evidence of threat to us or the world at large, and with no justification in law. The March 11 bombing was one of the worst such incidents in Europe; would that we had heard these responses from our leadership:

"We owe it to the thousands of victims of terrorism to find better ways to stop terrorists from threatening our democratic way of life," say the organisers.

"For this reason, we will explore the most effective use of the police, the military, the intelligence services and other national and international agencies to prevent and fight terrorism."

The Club's secretary general, former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell, says one key aspect will be to "look very seriously at the roots of terrorism and locate the factors over which we might have some control".

"What, for example, might reinforce a sense of alienation, or a person's susceptibility to a belief system that justifies something which seems so horrible, such as the targeting of civilians and innocent people to make a political point?" she told openDemocracy.net.

Instead our leaders, not unlike that Texas DA, ignore the law and think only of retribution and revenge. Rather than address the problems of violence in the world, we add to it. Violence is all about power, but so long as ours is the greatest power, so long as we have the last word, violence isn't really a problem, is it? The 40 former heads of state and government from around the world meet to confer on ways to stop violence. Our leaders prefer to treat the world like a wasp's nest, while they play the role of the foolish child with a stick.

John Bolton's nomination to Ambassador to the UN is a middle finger extended to the rest of the world. Condi Rice was blustering so much in Europe one could be forgiven for thinking she was trying to pass an initiation into an exclusive fraternity. George Bush has done nothing since November except indicate he'd love the excuse to invade Syria or Iran, or maybe both countries. The world's response to terrorism is to seek answers. Our response, is to fall back on the solution of privileged Americans: send lawyers, guns & money.

And if that doesn't fix it, well, frankly, we don't know what to do. We don't really care about civil liberties, or freedom, or even security. What we care about is power; so long as we can project that, we think we will be safe. It's an idea that anyone except, apparently, an American, can see through:

Among the panellists [at the summit] is Middle East and international relations expert Fred Halliday, who told the BBC News website the summit was a chance to learn from different approaches to combating terrorism.

"We have to face the fact that all of us are flying blind as far as this new form of terrorism is concerned," he said. "There are a lot of questions to which we don't know the answers - such as how long this will go on."

...He said Spain was pushing the message that democracy has to defend itself against terrorism, but the defence of democracy is just as important.

He said it was a message to countries like the US and the UK that they cannot have a blank cheque to suspend civil liberties.

"Don't for heaven's sake, be afraid of talking nonsense.

But you must pay attention to your nonsense."--Ludwig Wittgenstein

Having wandered into the wilderness of Wittgenstein, let me dare wander a bit further, and delive into his position (a bit) on ethics and (logic) and language.this is, admittedly, heavy sledding. Even though the language itself is simple, the concepts behind it are so profoundly fundamental that trying to understand them can be like trying to chew rocks. The general topic is Ethics. Wittgenstein argues that, while Ethics surely exists, it is not a concept, perversely, that can be said to have meaning. That is, that can be said to have philosophical meaning.

And now I must say that if I contemplate what Ethics really would have to be if there were such a science, this result seems to me quite obvious. It seems to me obvious that nothing we could ever think or say should be the thing. That we cannot write a scientific book, the subject matter of which could be intrinsically sublime and above all other subject matters. I can only describe my feeling by the metaphor, that, if a man could write a book on Ethics which really was a book on Ethics, this book would, with an explosion, destroy all the other books in the world. Our words used as we use them in science, are vessels capable only of containing and conveying meaning and sense, natural meaning and sense. Ethics, if it is anything, is supernatural and our words will only express facts; as a teacup will only hold a teacup full of water and if I were to pour out a gallon over it.

The distinction here is a simple one: the distinction between words as used in a scientific discussion, and words as used in ordinary conversation. In this essay Wittgenstein distinguishes between "relative" and "absolute" usage. He gives the example of someone behaving badly and, when this is brought to their attention, the person says, "Yes, I know, but I won't change." Our response, he says, is not to say "Oh, that's all right, then." That's language used ethically, and in an absolute sense. But if you say I play piano badly, and I say yes, but I don't really want to play any better," you'd say "Oh, well, as you wish." The word "badly" is being used in a relative sense. But can language be used absolutely, across disciplines? And the clear meaning of the metaphors, is that an absolute in the presence of reality, would destroy all relatives. Which is, frankly, almost a Biblical view of the presence of God.

For it is clear that when we look at it in this way everything miraculous has disappeared; unless what we mean by this term is merely that a fact has not yet been explained by science which again means that we have hitherto failed to group this fact with others in a scientific system. This shows that it is absurd to say 'Science has proved that there are no miracles.' The truth is that the scientific way of looking at a fact is not the way to look at it as a miracle. For imagine whatever fact you may, it is not in itself miraculous in the absolute sense of that :om. For we see now that we have been using the word 'miracle' in a relative and an absolute sense. And I will now describe the experience of wondering at the existence of the world by saying: lt is the experience of seeing the world as a miracle. Now I am tempted to say that the right expression in language for the miracle of the existence of the world, though it is not any proposition in language, is the existence of language itself. But what then does it mean to be aware of this miracle at some times and not at other times? For all I have said by shifting the expression of the miraculous from an expression by means of language to the expression by the existence of language, all I have said is again that we cannot express what we want to express and that all we say about the absolute miraculous remains nonsense. Now the answer to all this will seem perfectly clear to many of you. You will say: Well, if certain experiences constantly tempt as to attribute a quality to them which we call absolute or ethical value and importance, this simply shows that by these words we don’t mean nonsense, that after all what we mean by saying that an experience has absolute value is just a fact like other facts and that all it comes to is that we have not yet succeeded in finding the correct logical analysis of what we mean by our ethical and religious expressions. Now when this is urged against me I at once see clearly, as it were in a flash of light, not only that no description that I can think of would do to describe what I mean by absolute value, but that I would reject every significant description that anybody could possibly suggest, ab initio, on the ground of its significance. That is to say: I see now that these nonsensical expressions were not nonsensical because I had not yet found the correct expressions, but that their nonsensicality was their very essence. For all I wanted to do with them was just to go beyond the world and that is to say beyond significant language. My whole tendency and I believe the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language. This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.

Now, there is a bit of a leap, there: the idea of "running against the boundaries of language" presumes that language contains, effectively, our "world," that language is, in the strictest sense, our "cosmos." And, for Wittgenstein, it is; but it also, isn't.

Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something that actually takes place in human life. For 'consciousness of sin' is a real event and so are despair and salvation through faith. Those who speak of such things (Bunyan for instance) are simply describing what has happened to them, whatever gloss anyone may want to put on it.--Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Ethics, Life and Faith," The Wittgenstein Reader, ed. Anthony Kenny (Oxford, Blackwell Press 1994).

Now this is where things get really curious, and Wittgenstein bends back around and touches existentialism (especially the ethics of Sartre). "Consciousness of sin" is, he says, a real event. The doctrines of Christianity arise from human experiences. But do those experiences transcend, "go beyond," the world? What sense does it make to say so, except from a perspective of faith, or belief in such a possibility? But if we do not say so, is it because those experiences are not real, do not happen? Can we say your experience is false, only mine is true? It is not true that a paranoiac is suffering persecution, but it is true he is suffering. Because we do not share the cause, we call his suffering delusional. But we do that primarily because it is suffering. I have somewhere on my shelves a book by a woman who describes an experience of the ineffable that she had, an experience she was convinced was the presence of God. Most of us would envy her, but it has brought her nothing but suffering, as if someone flashed a bright light into absolute darkness, illuminated a world of spectacular beauty, and then switched it off forever, denying her both the light and a life in that world. Mother Theresa went to Calcutta following the last in a series of visions she said were from Jesus the Christ. In all her long life afterward, she never had another one, and never stopped longing for another one.

These people suffer, too, but obviously to a very different degree. It may be these things can be explained scientifically. But would that not mean only that we cannot express what we want to express? And what has changed? Our language? Or our shared assumptions? And is the world richer, or poorer, for that change?

That's really scratching the surface of this, and probably scratching in the wrong way. Maybe we can come back to it, in smaller doses.

Imponderables 101

So, what I want to know is, now that I have this great new 19" flat screen attached to my computer (as of today; Happy very early birthday to me!)...

...why aren't there more interesting things to look at?

Is there some immutable law of the universe at work here?

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

Here, (thanks to Holden at First Draft)is Giulian Sgrena's version of what happened on the road to the Baghdad airport. Her report on the incident itself speaks volumes:

The driver started to yell that we were Italians, "We are Italians. We are Italians..." Nicola Calipari threw himself upon me to protect me and immediately, I repeat, immediately, I felt his last breath as he died on me. I must have felt physical pain, I didn't know why. But I had a flash. My mind went straight to the words my kidnappers had pronounced. They had declared they were committed to letting me free but I had to be wary "because there are the Americans that don't want your return". Then, when they had told me that, I had judged those words as superfluous and ideological. In that moment they risked giving me the taste of the bitterest of truths.

The rest I still cannot tell.

This is clearly becoming an international incident, perhaps the first serious one this Administration has faced. It would seem that, while this Administration cares not two pins for the United Nations, it doesn't want to anger an ally.

In an indication of the political sensitivities here, several Bush administration officials have called the Italian authorities to express their condolences regarding Mr. Calipari's death, and these included a call from Mr. Bush to Mr. Berlusconi on Friday.

A Pentagon spokesman said on Sunday that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had called his Italian counterpart, Defense Minister Antonio Martino, over the weekend to express his condolences. The Italian Defense Ministry said Mr. Rumsfeld had expressed "the sorrow of the American administration, and his own personal sorrow for the death of Nicola Calipari."

The Pentagon has pledged a thorough investigation of the shooting.

And here's why:

Sergio Romano, a former Italian ambassador to NATO and columnist with the influential newspaper Corriere della Sera, said the episode might nonetheless harden the desire for Mr. Berlusconi to move slowly toward a concrete withdrawal plan, especially given that Italy holds general elections in the spring of 2006.

"I think Berlusconi would want to have begun the withdrawal, at least, if not completed it," by the elections, Mr. Romano said.

No confirmation in this about the 300-400 bullets being fired on the vehicle, but that kind of specificity won't be available this soon. This looks like it will heat up, and won't go away because of "a few bad apples." If the Administration takes that route, it inflames the American people. But if it satisfies Italians, it has to admit responsibility.

For the first time ever.

All Along the Watchtower...

An update on the Sgrena shooting case, this time from AP. It's worth noting that what AP considers most important in this matter, is that Sgrena is identified as "left wing," that the paper she writes for is Communist, and that she's written articles critical of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Which, I guess, makes her allegations about the reasons for the shooting suspect. It seems we must protect American sensibilities at all costs. We are always the victims, and our accusers must always be portrayed in the least favorable light possible.

Setting that aside, this article adds a bit more to understanding what happened, but not too much. Sgrena contradicts stories that the car was speeding, or was warned, or that there was even a floodlight trained on the car before the shooting started. She also claims the Americans didn't want her to leave Iraq alive, because it would prove negotiations "with terrorists" would work. That claim seems dubious, at best, but then again, everything about this case seems dubious. But, for now, it is the last two paragraphs of this article that are the most chilling:

Her editor, Gabriele Polo, said Italian officials told him 300-400 rounds were fired at the car. Italian military officials said two other intelligence agents were wounded in the shooting; U.S. officials said only one other agent was hurt.

Sgrena, who was abducted Feb. 4 by gunmen outside Baghdad University and later pleaded for her life in a videotape, returned to Rome on Saturday. She said she had no intention of going back to Iraq. Her captors, she said, made it clear that "they do not want witnesses, and we are all perceived as possible spies."

Time May Be Considered As A Helix of Semi-Precious Stones...

...but reality must be considered as a Moebius strip.

It is a morning for random thoughts.

I first had this realization about reality, when a mother came into the bookstore where I occasionally work, looking for a book for her high school student. Well, not a book, actually, but the Cliff Notes for the book, that bane of every English teacher that we all know the students use whenever possible. And still not a book, or even the printed version of the Cliff Notes of the book, but the audio version of the Cliff Notes of the book. And the book her daughter was avoiding reading, at all possible costs?

Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury.

The news reported the next day that irony, already having been imprisoned by reality, was caught trying to hang itself in its cell. Although cut down in time, it was inconsolable, and has since been on suicide watch.

And that's when I knew reality was really just a Moebius strip, twisted back upon itself, and having only one surface....

Of Checkpoints and Dominoes

If this is true:

"The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming," Pier Scolari said on leaving Rome's Celio military hospital where Sgrena is to undergo surgery following her return home.

"They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."

Then this may be true, too:

The shooting late Friday was witnessed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's office which was on the phone with one of the secret service agents, said Scolari. "Then the US military silenced the cellphones," he charged.

"Giuliana had information, and the US military did not want her to survive," he added.

Are these things right, or wrong? The damning thing will be the location of the shooting: was it approaching a checkpoint, or the airport, having passed all checkpoints?

Look for these kinds of questions to get lost in a fog of excuses, such as "the fog of war" and "the dangerous situation," or the "speeding car" (blaming the victim is a favorite excuse of those who abuse their authority) or the latest variation on "support the troops," "Don't blame the soldiers."

Well, we'll see.

And in other news, we are working the domino theory in reverse. It seems the latest saber-rattling against Syria (can anyone seriously doubt this is what Condi Rice has been doing, in all her comments in Europe?) is to try to establish a nexus between Syria and the insurgency in Iraq. But, as this article points out, it ain't necessarily so.

But, then, some said that about Iraq and WMD, too. Simply refuting it, unfortunately, doesn't stop the momentum.

The "Hell, She Looked Sixteen" Defense

a/k/a "As Long As We Don't Do It, It's Okay To Do It"

Yes, we are sending suspected terrorist to foreign countries where they can be tortured without getting our hands dirty, under "Double Secret Probation." But, according to the NYT, it's okay, because we've always done it this way, and besides, 9/11 changed everything. Even Dean Wormer wasn't this mendacious:

Administration officials have said that approach is consistent with American obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the international agreement that bars signatories from engaging in extreme interrogation techniques. But in interviews, a half-dozen current and former government officials said they believed that, in practice, the administration's approach may have involved turning a blind eye to torture. One former senior government official who was assured that no one was being mistreated said that accumulation of abuse accounts was disturbing. "I really wonder what they were doing, and I am no longer sure what I believe," said the official, who was briefed periodically about the rendition program.

Oh, and lest this be confused with legitimate counter-terrorism efforts:

The officials said that most of the people subject to rendition were regarded by counterterrorism experts as less significant than people held under direct American control, including the estimated three dozen high ranking operatives of Al Qaeda who are confined at secret sites around the world.

There are reasons torture is not allowed in this country, and it isn't just because the practice is cruel and unusual punishment. Evidence gathered under torture is notoriously unreliable. Which means this activity isn't about gathering evidence, even if the authorities say it is (and they don't, in this article). As the listed of people in the article shows, the practice of rendition is about terrorism. It is about interdicting terrorism with...greater terrorism. It's about who's the bigger terrorist: them, or us.

That which you most oppose, you most come to resemble.