Current Events

From a list compiled and published by Molly Ivins in September, 2003.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -George w: Bush, September 12, 2002

"The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -Bush, October 7,2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." -Bush, October 7, 2002

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' -his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past." -Bush, October 7, 2002

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." -Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as five hundred tons of sarin, . mustard, and VX nerve agent." -Bush, January 28,2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently autho¬rized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons-the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -Bush, February 8, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -Bush, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical, particularly." -Fleischer, March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." -General Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." -Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." -Bush, May 3, 2003

"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." -Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction." -Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." -Rumsfeld. May 27, 2003

"We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the-our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." -Bush, July 17, 2003

To quote Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, "And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he had noth¬ing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." -March 18, 2003

So, when the President says:

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know?

Well, I still have to say: "Huh?"*


*and you really have to watch the video at that site to appreciate the fully surreal nature of that answer. But not to worry: David Broder assures us this means Bush is making a political comeback.

An effort worth making

I mentioned that I was listening to Molly Ivins' last book (see? everything connects!). I recommend the experience as a sure cure for blog wars.

It's a retrospective, a collection of columns presumably left out of her first three books. I have to admit I started reading the book when it came out, but simply wasn't that interested in such recent history at the time. Not all that recent, in blogistan terms, because her essays in this book go back to the end of Reagan's second term. In print, that seemed overwhelming to me at the time. In audio form, with Ms. Ivins' matchless delivery, it is a tonic.

She reminds us, without meaning too, that the lunatics have always been with us, and that they have always been in charge of the asylum. Is blogistan truly the answer, or at least the counterweight, to right wing radio? If so, we've come late and have yet to garner the audience (I suspect) of Michael Savage, much less of Rush Limbaugh at his height (I hear he's been in decline lately. I like to think that's because I don't listen to him anymore, but I started my boycott more than a decade ago, so that seems unlikely, indeed). So, probably not. I think the decline in the influence of the GOP is more attributable to them (in one column from almost 20 years ago Ms. Ivins' notes the rise of Newt Gingrich to majority whip of the House in almost an aside. Only with the benefit of history do we see how truly important, and revolting an emblem of his party, Mr. Gingrich would become, but Ms. Ivins, in just a few choice words, makes it clear that was visible ab initio.)

It helps, in other words, to take the long view; to hear what may have been the first public references by Molly Ivins to Karl Rove (as Shrub's campaign manager for his first run for Texas governor), to hear her calling W. "Shrub" long before he had any political ambitions (when he publicly signed on to help Poppy try to win re-election against Clinton), to be reminded once again that politics has always been a messy and farcical business, whether the politicians are in D.C. or in Austin, and to be reminded that she started writing about politics because journalists simply weren't telling the truth about what was going on in "our" Legislatures. It helps to go back to why she wrote, as she explained it (and the title on that first column is a delightful reference to a memoir by Willie Morris, now better known for a movie about his childhood dog). Laughter, in the end, is good; really good. As Pogo famously explained it: "Don't take life so serious; it ain't nohow permanent." Laughter is good, and so is hope. And these words are worth keeping in mind:

But I believe that in the kindness of Texans, evidenced in their everyday courtesy toward one another, is a mine of civilization which can be worked to make this, at last, a place where people can grow up gentle. It is an effort worth making.

My further two cents

Blog wars are all about power. That's the only reason people invest so much personal energy in them. Bill Donahue is a despised figure because of what he represents and how he represents it. More than that, he's a despised figure because he wields power. Not much, really, but enough to get two bloggers fired. Nobody really cared about the insane ideas of Timothy McVeigh until he wielded enough power to invest them with real damage. Of course, Donahue is not McVeigh, and Marcotte and McEwan are not victims of a bombing. But they have generated real emotions in left blogistan for much the same reasons: they are victims of reprehensible individuals who still manage to have enough authority to make things happen in the "real world." Marcotte and McEwan lost jobs in meatspace. They didn't get flamed, suffer server attacks, or even lose advertisers at their blog: they lost jobs. Why does that matter to anyone else in left blogistan, especially people who know them largely because of their blogs?

Power. Bill Donahue has proven he has it. And many of us in left blogistan don't like what Bill Donahue advocates, what he stands for, and the fact that he is, if only occassionally, effective. But he has power, and we don't. And we resent the hell out of that. It's so unfair!

So the animosity is because he can do something we can't: he can make things happen. But the truth is, we are not in control, and we are all beholden to someone else. Somebody writes your paycheck, whether it's an individual, a corporation, an institution, a congregation, or just the customers of your mom & pop shoppe. We all depend on others for our livelihood, and our "rugged American individualism" teaches us to dislike that, at some level. We all want to imagine that we're the hero of our own action movie, that we're "Dirty Harry," the no-nonsense individual who doesn't play by the rules because there are bad guys to route and we have to fight on their terms in order to win. Except the only thing that happens when you fight "on their terms" is that you become a criminal, too. Or, as the saying goes, if you're gonna wrestle with pigs, you're just gonna get dirty.

So Marcotte and McEwan lose because they said the same things other people said, and that's not fair! Or they lose because Donahue has power they don't have. Either way, it's about power.

Perhaps it's the influence of Voltaire on me. But Candide's advice, after his picaresque adventures, still seems right to me, if only because it reflects the wisdom of the Desert Fathers: "We must tend our own garden." Not the advice political activists want to hear, but when I reflect that Reinhold Niebuhr ended his days lamenting the return of the Republicans to the White House, I can only consider: what else do you expect in politics? It is, after all, about nothing but power. And power simply is not the ultimate.

Powerlessness, is.

And in this vision he showed me a little thing, the size of a hazel nut, lying in the palm of my hand, and to my mind's eye it was as round as any ball. I looked at it and thought, "What can this be?" And the answer came to me, "It is all that is made." I wondered how it could last, for it was so small that I thought it might suddenly disappear. And the answer to my mind was, "It lasts and will last forever because God loves it; and in the same way everything exists through the love of God." In this little thing I saw three attributes: that first is that God made it, the second is that he loves it, the third is that God cares for it. But what todes that mean to me? Truly, the maker, the lover, the carer; for until I become one substance with him, I can never have love, rest, nor true bliss; that is to say, until I am so bound to him that there may be no created thing between my God and me. And who shall do this deed? Truly, himself, by his mercy and his grace, for he has made me and blessedly restored me to that end.

--Julian of Norwich

Blog Wars! Those crazy Blog Wars!

olvlzl warned me:

Prepare yourself, RMJ, for you have broken two of the china figurines of the code of liberal ethics. You have actually looked at this situation in its complexity and you have sinned against the "more speech" doctrine.

Worse than that: I gave my opinion about someone else's position.

I really should know better by now.

Murphy was an Optimist

Surfing past C-SPAN last night, I heard a great deal of nonsense about "Muslims" who want to "kill us all for not being Muslim" and many equally ignorant references to a "Sunni-Shi'ite split" that "goes back for centuries."

I've mentioned before (somewhere, I know) about the peculiar form of American exceptionalism which imagines "tribalism" and "factional strife" are products of "the Old World," a term vaguely defined as any country across the Atlantic, preferably a European one, but more recently expanded to include both Middle Eastern and African countries. (Our own racism and general fear of immigrants, of course, has nothing to do with such ancient, primal passions.) Of course, part of that ignorance, as NPR has previously pointed out, is simply ignorance of American history and involvement in creating the idea of nations in the Middle East (few Americans even realize that nationalism is a 19th century idea, one this country largely grew up with. Like all adolescents, we imagine the world that created us is the world as it had always existed, and to the extent that isn't true, then people who lived under other conditions are a sadly benighted folk).

But now NPR is running a commendable series aimed at, of all things, putting the issues of the Middle East in context. Today, for example, we learned that the Sunni-Shi'ite split currently plaguing Iraq is actually a product of the law of unintended consequences, not centuries of animosity. As I've said before: the times, they are a changin'. Changing back, for the most part, but changing, nonetheless.

"Jesus loves me, but he can't stand you..."

This is why I've stayed away from the controversy in left blogistan stirred up by the hiring and now the resignations of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Because no matter how much it is called a front in the war on religious intolerance, I just have a hard time buying into it.

Let me say that, based on blog-links alone, I started here with my opinion on this:

But I shan’t belabor the point. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the hate mail the Bill Donohue’s “Christian” campaign against me has inspired. This is all stuff from days ago—I’ve gotten more than 100 since. Hell, from the looks of my email from last night, I’ve had more than 100 in the past 12 hours from self-proclaimed Christians who want me to know that I have hurt their feelings and this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with their own misogyny and tendency to witch hunt.

And I went here, from that:

It is, of course, all about hurt feelings. It's all about me, and my personal thoughts, and what it means to me. Because if it isn't, then what's the point?

This is the dark underbelly of what Bill McKibben described when he studed TV ads and determined the common denominator among them was that the individual on the couch in front of the screen was being told that he/she was, indeed, the moral center of the universe and the reason for the existence of the entire industrialized society: to provide him/her with all the conveniences, comforts, and pleasures he/she could imagine. After all, "This Bud's for you!" Or "We Believe in You!" It's all one, in the end.

And it's all about me, and what matters to me, and I should be wound as tight as a drumhead at all times so that I respond as tensely and loudly and resonantly as possible to any thought, opinion, or public expression which strikes me, and especially which strikes me in the wrong way.

After all, that's what blogs are about, right?

Romanticism has reached its bitter, painful end. What is going to replace it, and how long do we have to put up with this over-weening navel gazing until it is gone?

Good, philosophical, high-minded stuff, the kind of thing you've come to know and love from this place. But then I went looking for something I saw on Huffington Post last night, and I found this, which made me realize I'd never actually read what McEwen and Marcotte had actually said:

In one posting, McEwan described Christian supporters of President Bush as his "wingnut Christofascist base." Marcotte once posed a mock question-and-answer session in which she speculated what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive.

"You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology," came the answer.

Now, Bill Donahue is a "brash and frequent critic of those who speak out against the church, as well as homosexuals and Hollywood's control by 'secular Jews who hate Christianity.' " And that's putting it mildly. Clearly he thinks that, if you are not with him, you are against him. But that doesn't relieve you from the fact that you're gonna dance with the one what brung ya, and if you want to fight foul ideas with foul ideas well, expect to come out just as covered in mud as your opponent. And I see that topic, too, is already being discussed in left blogistan.

There are several answers to this situation. Frankly, Faithful Progressive gets it right. But this is the problem of left blogistan. Having decided freedom of speech should always be free, left blogistan is still slow in catching on to the idea that freedom of speech does not mean speech, like the mythical Western mustangs, is wild and free.

Words, in other words, have a purpose. When you call someone a "Christofascist" (which I imagine most people have to puzzle over for a while before they get the meaning, although it was a popular blogistan buzz word once upon a time) or mock the Virgin Mary (who is also a standard of Protestant, not just Roman Catholic, doctrine), you've stopped lobbing verbal hand grenades and gone nuculear. Or at least "postal." And while relatively few people (let's be honest) are listening to you in left blogistan, people are listening. This is more, frankly, than a matter of "having a paper trail."

By odd coincidence, I've been listening to Molly Ivins read her last book, Who Let the Dogs In? It was my good fortune to acquire a copy, and I slipped it into the car CD player last night. It's a "retrospective" of her work, as she notes, but it opens with her comments on the current political situation. She notes that, in the 19th century, politics in America was entertainment. It took the place of what wasn't there (so it "took the place" on anachronistically, but still....), such as movies, TV, even "Friday Night Lights." Ms. Ivins notes that politicians used to give "lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng speeches" (and it'a a delight to hear that in her twangy Texas drawl) that people listened to, as she says, "as if their lives depended on it." Of course, she points out, it did; it still does.

I've mentioned before that in Jules Verne's novel Around the World in Eighty Days, Phileas Fogg travels across the American West on his way back to England, and comes upon a frontier town in the midst of a small riot in the streets. It turns out not to be a riot, but a political campaign, which apparently is for an important office, such as governor, because it arouses such passions. It turns out the election in question is for dog-catcher. Verne could mock our political passions 100 years ago. Today our passions are turned against each other still, but with no real effect on the political process.

Ms. Ivins,' of course, never tired of telling us not to take politics too seriously, all the while treating it as if our lives depended on it. It's good advice. As she says, being a liberal in Texas teaches you that you might as well laugh, because you sure aren't going to win.

This isn't a "limits on free speech" issue. We've done crossed that line, and the criminals who made death threats against Marcotte and McEwen get no sympathy from me. But the answer to offenseive speech isnt' always the simple Jeffersonian response of "more speech." Part and parcel of that idea is the Jeffersonian assumption that all those engaged in public speech are gentlemen; are, in fact, as the Constitutiona intended it: landed gentry. When Jefferson imagined a nation of farmers, he imagined a nation of gentlemen farmers, of Wendell Berrys perhaps, not of hard-bitten hard working ranchers; not even Joe Aguirre, much less Ennis and Jack. Gentlemen settle matters like gentlemen; working class people tend to use other means, and that history, not the one Jefferson imagined, has been the reality of American politics. It still is.

Where are we on this, then? All over the place, to judge just from Pastor Dan's comments. Here he defends the posts by Marcotte, here he agrees they were offensive. Free speech, it seems, simply is not free. And Heraclitus was right: we never step twice into the same reaction to someone else's words. The simple fact is, we're all navel gazers. We all think our words are vitally important, and everyone else's words are irrelevant guff and nonsense. That much hasn't really changed. You have to demonize your opponent in order to take a swing at him. And American politics has always more resembled "The Gangs of New York" than it has "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." While we lovingly cling to the idea that "the answer to free speech is more speech," we also live assured that our speech can't possibly be offensive, and other people who "get their feelings hurt" simply need to get over it. Until, of course, they turn into Timothy McVeigh. And I suspect some in left blogistan would vigorously defend Amanda Marcotte while just as vigorously condemning The Turner Diaries. We do have to take the bitter with the sweet. But we also have to realize that, while we write in left blogistan, and imagine there is a line between our "virtual reality" and "meatspace," the line exists only in our imaginations, and in our awareness of reaction to our words based on those who post comments for us. I learned as a pastor that what I said was heard by people in ways I never imagined and never intended. Sometimes that was good; sometimes that was bad. But the hardest lesson I learned was realizing that, unimportant and insignificant as I thought I was, simply by being the individual willing to step into that pulpit in front of even a handful of people, made me responsible for what I said, and for what they thought they heard, even if it was not what I meant. I never had death threats, but I had the next best thing, or maybe worse, since it truly affected my life: I had my jobs threatened, and I finally lost them both. Because of what I said? No, not entirely; but because I was accountable to a lot of people who didn't exactly have my best interests at heart. And that kind of accountability begins the minute you imagine you have something to say that other people should listen to, and especially when you set yourself up in opposition to Conventional Wisdom. In an obituary by one of Molly Ivins' editors at her last paper, he recounted that colleagues in the newspaper business warned him against hiring her because she was coming from the Dallas Times Herald (the people who ran billboards promoting her: "Molly Ivins can't say that, can she?"). The allegation was that she'd shut down that paper, and she'd shut down the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, too. Just because Molly was jolly, doesn't mean she was universally respected, or accepted; or always enjoyed full employment.

If you want to engage in politics, truly engage in it rather than snipe at it from the sidelines like the Washington pundits and talking heads and columnists across the country and political spectrum, you have to take responsibility for what you say. If you want to engage in public life at all, beyond shouting opinions and spouting your preference and gathering to you people of like mind who nod at your "sage" pronouncements, you have to take responsibility for what you say. It doesn't mean "they" get a free pass for threatening your life or simply your job; but it does mean they get to swing back, and you can't retreat behind complaining about their "hurt feelings." If that's the best you've got, the kitchen's gonna be too hot for you.

Send in the Clowns*

"There is no question that the war in Iraq has been difficult. All Americans are frustrated we haven't seen more success more quickly," [John Boehner] conceded. Pivoting quickly, he called the Iraq War the latest in a string of conflicts dating to the founding of the nation more than two centuries ago.

"Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of freedom and liberty — from the American Revolution to this very moment — is for nothing if we are unwilling to stand against this threat," he said.

Don't bother, they're here.

*with deepest apologies to Stephen Sondheim

Signs of the Times

Three items:

1) The driving force behind the "punishment" of the Dixie Chicks was Cumulus Media, which lifted the ban in April, 2003. Being the biggest fish in the pond, Clear Channel Communications still gets the lion's share of the blame for that black-eye on radio broadcasts (and some of its stations did ban the Dixie Chicks), but it is only fair to point out that their finger-pointing is backed by the public record.

Still, their victories at the Grammys are another indication that there are other "power centers" in this society, and they want the boundaries respected. I think this is a lesson from last November that some political leaders have learned, and that some have yet to learn.

And it may also indicate the power of "NASCAR" voters was highly overrated.

2) NPR, bless 'em, is turning a critical eye on the reports of munitions from Iran being used in Iraq in a straight up interview with someone willing to put his voice behind his skepticism. As the New York Times reports, he is not alone:

The response from Congressional and other critics speaks volumes about the current state of American credibility, four years after the intelligence controversy leading up to the Iraq war. To pre-empt accusations that the charges against Iran were politically motivated, the administration rejected the idea of a high-level presentation, relying instead on military and intelligence officers to make its case in a background briefing in Baghdad.

Even so, critics have been quick to voice doubts. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the White House was more interested in sending a message to Tehran than in backing up serious allegations with proof. And David Kay, who once led the hunt for illicit weapons in Iraq, said the grave situation in Iraq should have taught the Bush administration to put more of a premium on transparency when it comes to intelligence.

“If you want to avoid the perception that you’ve cooked the books, you come out and make the charges publicly,” Mr. Kay said.

The NPR report is actually more skeptical than the NYT article. The latter bends over backwards to give the Administration more than it is due, even ending with this thoroughly pathetic plea:

“People have lost their moorings,” Mr. Zelikow said. He said the administration was trying to overcome public distrust by asking, in essence, “Don’t you trust our soldiers?”

Which can only be summed up as: "CLAP LOUDER!"

Bruce Reidel is not shrill, but he cuts the issue down to size: it's a question of evidence, and there simply isn't any. One of the three great lies is: "We're from the government. Trust us." Looks like a healthy skepticism has returned in some areas of public life.

Turn out the lights, George, the party's over.

3) NPR, again, is keeping track of the "toll of war."

One can certainly take one lesson from Karl Rove: stick to principle. Or at least, return to them when you stray. Which, yes, is what the Administration is still doing. But it is the principles they are sticking to which are failing them.

A Demon Haunted Science

I think I would agree with Carl Sagan at least in part, at least this far:

I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship,

Although I'd already have to object to the inference that religious worship is "uninformed." Such epistemological arrogance simply won't do. It is, however, par for the course as people continue to divide the world into religious fundamentalists and those who oppose them. The lesson Nietszche continues to hold true: "The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself.” We don't need any more fundamentalists. We certainly don't need a kinder, gentler Richard Dawkins.

Carl Sagan's widow has published his last book: The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. Sagan's original title was better: The Search for Who We Are. The name is "a nod to William James, whose Gifford lectures in 1901 and 1902 became the basis for his book The Varieties of Religious Experience." The major difference, of course, is that James actually studied the topic of his lectures. Sagan, like Dawkins, can't be bothered to do more than disavow ideas he is quite sure are, in Dawkins' words of praise for Sagan's book: "Bronze Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking." Consider, for example, this "insight" by Sagan:

Ever the questioner, Dr. Sagan asks at one point in his lectures why the God of the Scriptures seems to betray no apparent knowledge of the wider universe that “He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is” allegedly created. Why not a commandment, for instance, that thou shalt not exceed the speed of light? Or why not engrave the Ten Commandments on the Moon in such a way that they would not be discovered until now, à la the slab in “2001: A Space Odyssey”?

If such an inscription were found, people would ask how it had gotten there, Dr. Sagan writes. “And then there would be various hypotheses, most of which would be very interesting,” he adds dryly.

Obviously Dr. Sagan never read Isaiah:

64:1 O that you would tear open the heavens and come down, so that the mountains would quake at your presence--

64:2 as when fire kindles brushwood and the fire causes water to boil-- to make your name known to your adversaries, so that the nations might tremble at your presence!

64:3 When you did awesome deeds that we did not expect, you came down, the mountains quaked at your presence.

Besides, you know, that is what God is all about: proving God's existence to us. That's certainly the story of Abraham (from Genesis 12):

1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

4So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

After, of course, checking God's references, getting a blood sample, and checking God's fingerprints. Because Hellenistically based empiricism is the only legitimate form of human thought, after all.

Then there is this thought, which Dr. Sagan seems to think is both novel and insightful:

It’s curious, he says, that no allegedly Christian nation has adopted the Golden Rule as a basis for foreign policy. Rather, in the nuclear age, mutually assured destruction was the policy of choice. “Christianity says that you should love your enemy. It certainly doesn’t say that you should vaporize his children.”

It's equally curious, Dr. Sagan, that you could give a series of public lectures and yet you've never heard of Reinhold Niebuhr. A pity it's too late to introduce you.

And, of course: "9/11 changed everything:"

In the wake of Sept. 11 and the attacks on the teaching of evolution in this country, pAnn Druyan, Sagan's widow and editor of the book] said, a tacit truce between science and religion that has existed since the time of Galileo started breaking down. “A lot of scientists were mad as hell, and they weren’t going to take it anymore,” Ms. Druyan said over lunch recently.

Really? So Dr. Sagan published A Demon Haunted World five years after his death? A book which every review or mention Google shows me says critiques pseudoscience, UFO's, the occult, the "paranormal," and religion? Although Wikipedia tells me it contains this quote, a sentiment I can only hope finds an echo in his posthumous volume:

Honest religion, more familiar than its critics with the distortions and absurdities perpetuated in its name, has an active interest in encouraging a healthy skepticism for its own purposes. ... There is the possibility for religion and science to forge a real partnership against pseudo-science. Strangely, I think it would soon be engaged also in opposing pseudo-religion.

It isn't that I object to the ideas. It's the ignorance that annoys me:

About a year ago, Ms. Druyan went looking for Dr. Sagan’s lectures, eventually finding them filed under “Ethos” in his archive at Cornell, which occupies 1,000 filing cabinets and includes things like his baby pictures and report cards.

Rereading them, she said, “I couldn’t believe how prophetic they were.”

Good grief. These people really need to get out more.

Does the name "Judith Miller" mean anything to you?

So Deborah Howells slaps William Arkin's hand for this blog entry, while the New York Times runs this thoroughly bizarre piece:

After weeks of internal debate, senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war. They said those weapons had been used to kill more than 170 Americans in the past three years.

Why is this bizarre? None of the "officials" at this "public" presentation would allow their names to be used. Why?

The officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of American and Iraqi troops. A senior United States military official gave a partial answer, saying that without anonymity, a senior Defense Department analyst who participated in the briefing could not have contributed.

But that's not really important, because:

Whatever doubts were created about the timing and circumstances of the weapons disclosures, the direct physical evidence presented on Sunday was extraordinary.

And we know the evidence is "extraordinary" because, not only did the reporter see it with his own eyes!, but because these anonymouse officials told him so:

The officials said the E.F.P. weapons arrived in Iraq in the form of what they described as a “kit” containing high-grade metals and highly machined parts — like a shaped, concave lid that folds into a molten ball while hurtling toward its target.

For the first time, American officials provided a specific casualty total from these weapons, saying they had killed more than 170 Americans and wounded 620 since June 2004, when one of the devices first killed a service member.

But then the officials went much further, asserting without specific evidence that the Iranian security apparatus, called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force controlled delivery of the materials to Iraq. And in a further inference, the officials asserted that the Quds Force, sometimes called the I.R.G.C. - Quds, could be involved only with Iranian government complicity

But their from the government, right? So trust them!

Which is not to say the New York Times entirely does. But in law, there is a concept called "chain of custody." If the state comes to court with a murder weapon and a dead body, they have to establish that this weapon belonged to or was used by that defendant in the commission of this crime, and they have to do all the tedious proving of custody of said weapon from the time it was picked up by the police, until it got to that courtroom. And then they have to establish all the tedious connections between the defendant and that weapon, not to mention the connections between that weapon and the death of the poor murder victim.

So why is this group of anonymous sources with munitions that could have come from anywhere and been used by anyone, allowed access to the front pages of the NYT, even if the reporter expresses his skepticism about their claims? Why is William Arkin's statement beyond the pale, while these statements are given the gravitas of the front page of the nation's premier daily newspaper? Because the sources are "government officials"?

Isn't that what Judy Miller claimed?

Is our media learning?

Do You See This Woman?

I've posted my thoughts on this before, but Google on shows me two posts where I've mentioned it (here and here). It comes to mind because of the discussion over at Fr. Jake's place, again around the exclusion/acceptance of TEC PB Katherine Jefferts Schori so maybe I should just take the time to start over from scratch, and put this in context. As I've said before, the issue for the Primates is not really Bishop Robinson (the "gay bishop"; and as PB Schori tells the New York Times, the real issue over the Rt. Rev. Robinson is that we've violated the 'don't ask, don't tell' rule of Xianity, not that we've elevated a homosexual to the level of a bishop); the issue is that she's a woman. Ironically, that's always been the issue.

This is a controversy with deep roots in the Church. It had deep roots in Jesus' time, too. Women in 1st century Palestine, even wives in their own homes, could not be in the company of men to whom they were not married. A wife who entered the room where her husband was entertaining guests, would be considered a whore. This notion of separation didn't begin with Christianity, then, but it certainly was continued by it. I've pastored churches where the members could remember the days when men sat on one side during worship, the women and children on the other.

Which brings us, abruptly, to Luke 7:36-50. There are four anointing stories in the Gospels, as there are four Crucifixion stories. It is one of the few stories common to all four gospels. Jesus doesn't establish the "Last Supper" in John's gospel; Jesus isn't baptized in John's gospel; only Matthew and Luke have versions of Jesus most famous sermon; and only Matthew and Luke have birth stories of Jesus. But all four gospels include some variation on this anointing story. And there is a clear influence in the transmission of the stories between the four gospels, one that helps establish a time-line for their respective composition.

Here is the story:

One of the Pharisees invited him to dinner; he entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. A local woman, one who was a sinner, found out that he was having dinner at the Pharisee's house. She suddnely showed up with an alabaster jar of myrrh, and stood there behind him weeping at his feet. Her tears wet his feed, and she wiped them dry with her hair; she kissed his fee, and anointed them with the myrrh.

The Pharisee who had invited him saw this and said to himself, "if this man were a prophet, he would know who this is and what kind of woman is touching him, since she is a sinner."

And Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."

"Teacher," he said, "Speak up."

"This moneylender had two debtors; one owed five hundred silver coins, the other fifty. Since neither one of them could pay, he wrote off both debts. Now which of them will love him more?"

Simon answered, "I would imagine the one for whom he wrote off the larger debt."

And he said to him, "You're right." Then turning to the woman, he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I walked into your house and you didn't offer me water for my feet; yet she has washed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You didn't offer me a kiss, but she hasn't stopped kissing my feet since I arrived. You didn't anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with myrrh. For this reason, I tell you, her sins, many as they are, have been forgiven, as this outpouring of her love shows. But the one who is forgiven little shows little love."

And he said to her "Your sins have been forgiven."

Then those having dinner with him began to mutter to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"

And he said to the woman, "Your trust has save you; go in peace."

Luke 7:36-50, SV

The scene is one straight out of 1st century Greek erotic literature. There are numersous attributions of "feet" as a euphemism for genitalia, and foot-washing was such a demeaning act (and so is still John's "sacrament that wasn't"), and yet an intimate and humble one, that it quite naturally became a subject of erotic imagination and even activity. We who are accustomed to women's unbound hair (and still misunderstand and revile Paul because of it) can no more grasp the eroticism of a woman letting her hair down than we can the Victorian obsession with a well-turned ankle, but we can imagine the effect. Tears, of course, have always had a sense of intimacy to them, related as they are to our weakness, our vulnerablity, and our willingness to be exposed, to feel safe enough with one other person to show our pain in such a physical way. So it isn't hard, upon reflection, to imagine this is a sexually-charged scene, even if it hardly seems to so us today.

But examine the scene in that light, and Jesus's statement about "love" being shown is practically ironic. Who says Jesus doesn't have a sense of humor? The men at that table all understand that woman's actions in only one way: the heart may be deceptive above all things, as God told Jeremiah, but that only reaffirms that actions speak louder than words. What we are willing to enact physically always means more than what we are willing to say, and here she says a lot without saying a word, and the message cannot be mistaken.

Imagine a woman walking up to your pastor or priest at a dinner party in a restaurant, and giving him a lap-dance, and you understand the scene in Simon's house that evening. Then imagine the pastor or priest, rather than being embarassed, thanks the woman for her attention; and you understand why everyone is grumbling about what Jesus has to say to her.

The fact is, must as we talk about the bounty of God's grace, and how we cannot pay for God's redemption, how Jesus had to be the sacrifice with atoned in blood for our sin in some cosmic scheme of economic salvation (the gift that is not a gift but merely part of a cycle of exchange), we still cannot grasp the idea of gift, and insist some exchange must be made, some acknowledgement must be offered, some contract must be formed. Basic contract law is that consideration is given in exchange for the offer; it is this consideration which "seals the deal" and makes the contract enforceable. An unenforceable promise is no contract at all. The consideration can be almost beneath consideration, but it must be something, or there is no binding the offeror to the offer. We have to have boundaries to our actions, certainty, something which marks a beginning and a reason for a change in circumstance, and so we look always to some kind of exchange, however insignificant, to conclude the transaction.

But Jesus refuses to work that way. We insist all those who were healed or blessed repented of their sins, or at least showed their faith by coming to the teacher. But we strain the stories to reach that conclusion; we twist them out of shape to continue that perception, and we insist on it because it puts us in control, gives us permission to judge who is, and who is not, with in the charmed circle of those whom God has smiled upon. (Notice, in that story, that Jesus says her "outpouring of love" shows her sins have been forgiven; but she can't know that until he tells her, and he doesn't speak the offensive words until he's through explaining his parable to Simon.) Rather than reflecting on the first being last and the last first, we continue to insist that we must be the one who do the inviting to the basiliea tou theou, that we must validate the tickets of others before they can be permitted entrance to the cosmic Disneyland of God. And the more Jesus refuses to work that way, the more we insist that we must do it for him.

"Do you see this woman?" Indeed, Simon has been struggling hard not to, and ever since Simon, we have refused to. Luke goes on, in Chapter 8, to name the women who traveled with Jesus (it's in keeping with his narrative, not a direct connection to this story), and the first he mentions is "Mary, the one from Magdala." Legend and custom have it that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute ("I Don't Know How To Love Him," Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Weber had her sing); that legend undoubtedly began with this scripture, as many an interpreter of the final story of Luke 7 have decided that unnamed woman was the woman named a few verses later. And why was she a prostitute? Well, because she was a "sinner." And what did "sinner" mean to Luke? Not the generalized "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" forumlation that would come about centuries later, but the specific label of a notorious woman, a woman beyond the pale of her society, indeed of almost any society (my daughter's friends, who are almost all as innocent as lambs about the real ways of the world and as inexperienced as kittens, regularly call other girls "whores" who seem to flirtatious, who go beyond the accepted boundaries of social behavior established by 14 year olds. 'Twas ever thus.). This was clear to Simon when she walked in the door, soliciting business, as was the common practice of the day, and probably the very practical reason why women did not consort with men in public or even in private. Today we can't imagine anyone walking into our house uninvited. Even in the days of open doors and open houses, crossing the threshold was an act so unimaginable that only children and thieve would do it. In 1st century Palestine, however, it was far more common, and social mores arose to control such uninvited visitors. But with no sidewalks to stand on, prostitutes had to do what they could to attract a customer's attentions. So Simon and Jesus and everyone at the table, knew what sort of woman this was.

And she proceeds to solicit business from Jesus. Is she, indeed, showing great love? Perhaps; but clearly not the love we think of as spiritual. That would fit the stories in Mark, Matthew, and even John, where the woman is finally named as Mary, sister of Lazarus, whom Jesus raises from death (she is unnamed in the synoptics). There Jesus' feet are anointed, but with a towel and ointment, not hair and tears; and it is clearly meant to be a sign of her love for her Lord and the savior of her brother. In Mark and Matthew, the woman pours myrrh on Jesus' head, a clear foreshadowing of his coming death, as both anointings take place in "the upper room," and myrrh was commonly used to cover the stench of death decaying bodies quickly gave off in the Palestinian climate. No, the erotic intention of her action is clear in Luke's account. He doesn't hide it for a moment. Having taken this story from Mark, as Matthew did, or having gotten it from some other source, Luke clearly has his own intentions in it. But still, it is one of the stories every Gospel tells; it is one of the central stories of Jesus. So there can be no question Luke thinks it important, and isn't just tweaking it to outrage his audience, or perplex them; this story is central to Luke's understanding of Jesus' ministry, as it was central to all four Gospel writers.

And it is central because the story is about the basiliea tou theou, not about salvation. Salvation is a later church doctrine, not a teaching of the gospels. It is an inescapably Platonic notion that "true" life aims at reconciliation with the "Good," except in Plato's philosophy the Good has no will and does not draw us to it because, being perfect, it has no need to add to itself. The very idea of God as "perfect" is a Hellenistic gloss on Hebraism. God's perfection, in the Psalms and the scriptures, simply sets God up as far superior to humanity. God's perfection in Hellenistic thought must be measurable, and the truly perfect is arguably so complete that any addition to it would mean imperfection. The very notion of "salvation" as being invited to live with God in heaven for eternity is taken, not from the Gospels (where you'll never find a detailed working out of this scheme, and really on a mention of "many mansions" in John's gospel, in many ways the most Greek of all four gospels), but from Plato's Phaedo. Socrates, before he dies, elaborates on the afterlife, establishes by argument the immortality of the soul, and from that establishes a theory of reincarnation (since the soul is immortal, it is not "born," otherwise it would "die." This would become a central issue of Christology, too, hence the elaborate language in the Nicene Creed about the nature of the Christ: "Begotten, not made; being of one being with the Father; light from light; true God from true God.") which leads to the soul slowly recovering its perfect knowledge until it is purified enough to dwell eternally in the presence of the Good. Read Dante's entire Divine Comedy to get the Christian picture of this Platonic cosmology. Salvation, then, is a later addition, a graft on the trunk of the tree, at best. To read a soteriology into this story is to retroject an anachronism into Luke's narrative.

What Jesus gives her is not life into the ages, but life here and now; he offers her the invitation into the kingdom of God where it will do her the most good: in this life. He does not offer her peace in the bye and bye, which would be a cruel reinforcement of the system she lives and suffers under. He tells her that her faith has saved her, and while she wonders, perhaps, "What faith?", he tells her to go in peace. I cannot help but think those simple words from a truly holy human being would mean more to her, and do more to give her peace and even change her, than any theory of christology or soteriology, or any schema of explanation and justification, ever could.

But maybe that's because I'm a hopeless romantic and sentimentalist.

When it changed

Thinking about the war this morning, hearing news of the House debate on a resolution to oppose the troop surge, the NPR story on Hillary Clinton's campaign and the shadow of war (can she justify her vote, or can't she?), Twain's War Prayer suddenly sprang to mind.

But in contrast, not comparison. Twain focussed on whipping the people into a froth to support a war; but no such froth was ever really whipped up over the invasion of Iraq. Millions turned out world-wide, indeed, to protest that war; they were ignored. Today, almost 70% oppose the war in this country alone; and still, it seems they are ignored. A curious factor: for all its bloodiness and bloodthirstiness, which Twain documented as well as anyone, the 19th century, by contrast with the 21st, seems to have been a model of democracy in action. As Twain told it in his War Prayer, unless the people were enthusiastic about war, war would not commence.

Today, it seems, even when the people are opposed to war, war cannot be brought to an end. Today, as The Daily Show often labels it, we are seeing democracy inaction.

I don't know precisely where it changed; but change it certainly did.

Life really is like high school

and the GOP is not at the cool table:

Nancy Pelosi has been struggling to explain her need for a big Air Force jet to fly nonstop to her home district in San Francisco. She says she is only following the policy of her predecessor, Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who flew home regularly on government aircraft for security reasons. Pelosi says she needs a bigger government jet than Hastert did because she has a lot farther to go, and, besides, the security requirement was imposed by the House sergeant at arms. Otherwise, she says, she'd fly commercial.

But Pelosi has been attacked by GOP legislators for extravagance and hypocrisy, since she has criticized Republicans for taking too many perks when they controlled Capitol Hill.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has sided with Pelosi. But GOP insiders say the issue has a lot to do with Pelosi's work-week requirements, which many legislators consider a PR stunt that imposes a real burden on them getting home to be with their families and constituents.

That said, the aircraft fuss has become "an irresistible target" for the GOP legislators, says a Republican insider.

"Struggling" is very much an overstatement, as even the White House has declared this a non-issue, and NPR called it a "kerfluffle." Still, it's funny the GOP thinks they are fighting a PR stunt with, basically, a PR stunt.

The Schiavo debacle taught them nothing except how to shoot themselves in the foot. In such a case, what can you do except hope they keep it up?

When will they ever learn?

Ret. Gen. William Odom speaks:

As Congress awakens to these realities -- and a few members have bravely pointed them out -- will it act on them? Not necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

Will anyone outside of left blogistan (where these arguments have been made for years) listen?

No one likes us, I don't know why...

One is tempted to respond, "Consider the source:"

Rubble from the Berlin Wall was “hauled away as souvenirs” to countries that praise openness and personal freedom, he said, but “now there are attempts to impose new dividing lines and rules, maybe virtual, but still dividing our mutual continent.”

The world, he said, is now unipolar: “One single center of power. One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign.”

With the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and a Congressional delegation sitting stone-faced, Mr. Putin warned that the power amassed by any nation that assumes this ultimate global role “destroys it from within.

“It has nothing in common with democracy, of course,” he added. “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations — military force.”

“Primarily the United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every area,” said Mr. Putin, who increasingly has tried to re-establish Russia’s once broad Soviet-era influence, using Russia’s natural resources as leverage and defending nations at odds with the United States, including Iran.

Those contextual observations about Mr. Putin's national interests are appropriate there. But surely there's a better response than one blind to irony:

The comments irritated some European leaders and prompted sharp criticism from the Americans in attendance. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican widely expected to make a bid for the White House, made a rebuttal that began, “In today’s multipolar world, there is no place for needless confrontation.” He said that the United States won the cold war in partnership with powerful nations of Western Europe, and that “there are power centers on every continent today.”

Like Jordan, Syria, and Iran, Senator?

Putin may have his own ends in mind, and may feel they are being thwarted, or at least challenged, by the US. But that doesn't make him wrong in his charges, or his analysis. As David Kurtz says of the US Administration over at TPM: "Besides, do these clowns still deserve the benefit of the doubt?"

"When did we see you in prison....?"

I could make a mini-career off this one parable, I'm beginning to think.

Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.

Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole hearts,
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry, and we humbly repent.
For the sake of your son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in your will,
and walk in your ways,
to the glory of your Name. Amen.

Kyrie eleison
Christe eleison
Kyrie eleison

Pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death..

Lord, when did we see you?

A hospital van dropped off a paraplegic man on Skid Row Thursday, allegedly leaving him crawling in the street with nothing more than a soiled gown and a broken colostomy bag, police said.

Several witnesses who saw the incident wrote down a phone number on the van and took down its license-plate number, which helped detectives connect the vehicle to Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site.

Police said the incident was an outrageous case of "homeless dumping" and were questioning officials from the hospital.

"I can't think of anything colder than that," said Det. Russ Long. "There was no mission around, no services. It's the worst area of Skid Row."

Just read the rest. I can't add anything to what you're already thinking.

By the way, we may be moving closer to seeing this never happens again:

Wal-Mart – the nation’s largest retailer – has formed a coalition with labor unions and other larger corporations to call for quality affordable health coverage for all Americans by 2012. The coalition includes AT&T, Intel, Kelly Services, the Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of America. Three public policy groups are also backing the campaign, dubbed Better Health Care Together. Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott said “Our current system hurts America’s competitiveness and leaves too many people uninsured.”

Although I certainly agree with Marilyn Clement:

Well, we welcome Wal-Mart and other large businesses and SEIU into this struggle for a national healthcare system. We think 2012 is way too long from now. We need healthcare now. People are desperate. Desperate. And 18,000 people are dying every year, simply for lack of healthcare coverage of any kind. And so, think about how many thousands of people will die between now and 2012. So we're putting forward a single-payer national healthcare system for everybody that would cost a lot less money. Think about every dollar you spend on healthcare: one-third of it now goes to the insurance companies for their profits, their administration, their advertising, their lobbyists, so if we take that one-third that we’re now spending on spurious -- we don't need them, we don’t need the insurance companies --and that would cover literally everybody who is uncovered in the United States for a lot less money and provide for the kind of system that most countries in the world, most of the advanced countries in the world, enjoy. So we're saying, join us. We've got the plan. We love having businesses come on, and major labor unions. Actually, SEIU's very large union in Chicago yesterday joined our campaign, Local 73. So we're looking forward to having everybody join us.

It is absurd that it has to happen this way. But at least, it's now more likely to happen.

Don't ask; don't tell

This all comes from Street Prophets, but I have rather a different take on it than is taken there (which is neither here nor there, except to justify this post).

Once again we are back to the real issue here: why do we identify with our sexual preferences? Perhaps we should start with the interview with Mike Jones. Mr. Jones is the man Ted Haggard had sex with for over three years. Jones also says that he knows of two other men Haggard had sex with, but those two men fear for their jobs and so prefer to remain anonymous. The counselors for Haggard say, not unreaonably:

''If we're going to be proved wrong, somebody else is going to come forward, and that usually happens really quickly,'' he said. ''We're into this thing over 90 days and it hasn't happened.''

So those allegations must be taken with a grain of salt. Still, Jones is convinced Haggard is a gay man. And what does Haggard say? Nothing.

KUSA - 9Wants to Know has learned the New Life Church in Colorado Springs has reached an agreement on the conditions of Pastor Ted Haggard's relationship with the church.
...
The agreement calls for Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor at the New Life Church, to not rejoin the ministry at New Life, for him and his family to relocate from Colorado Springs and requires Haggard to refrain from speaking publicly about the scandal.

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Well, Haggard built that church from a basement Bible study to a claimed 14,000 members. But the institution has it's own interests, and an agreement has been reached. Silence is golden, especially when it is purchased with hard cash.

Interestingly, I haven't found any story indicating the allegations of drug use were taken seriously by the counselors. Jones said Haggard used meth in his presence at least once a month for two years, but the most recent articles I can find make no mention of any drug rehabilitation, or any indication Haggard's denial of drug use was ever challenged. Jones makes two good points:

“Until he’s honest with himself, he’ll never be happy.”
...
In an e-mail to some church members that surfaced Sunday, Haggard wrote that while he was in Phoenix, “We all wanted to know why I developed such incongruity in my life. Thankfully, with the tools we gained there, along with the powerful way God has been illuminating His Word and the Holy Spirit has been convicting me and healing me, we now have growing understanding which is giving me some hope for the future.”

Jones said his writing schedule “may be stretched out the more Ted Haggard talks. Every time he opens his mouth I have to add another chapter.

“I know him well enough by now, and you know what he’s doing when those letters come out? He’s playing the sympathy card. He’s saying, ‘Please feel sorry for me.’

“What I’d like to hear is an apology to the gay community.”

Which is yet another problem: how does a public figure atone for their mistakes? How do you begin to make amends.

And yet, if you don't....

"So, even if you happen to be offering your gift at the altar and recall that your friend has some claim against you, leave your gift there at the altar. First go and be reconciled with your friend, and only then return and offer your gift."

It isn't about you, in other words; it's about the other. Is God illuminating God's word to you? And what are you doing with that illumination to reconcile with those you have hurt, those who have a claim against you? Isn't that where this should go? Not toward issues of sexual identity, but toward issues of honesty and humility?

Inside/Outside

Items from our catalog (actually, The Other Press catalog; this book is due out in June 2007) :

"For nearly four centuries, religion and capitalism have been the central values of the American way. Most Americans have made of this national legacy a force of inclusion in a land shaped by successive waves of change and immigration. But others have chosen to define their nation's values by exclusion, within a Republic to be sure, but within a democratic polity that was also constrained by race, class, and gender. In consequence, America has often been deeply divided--as during its terrible Civil War--but it is also the only country in the world where Left and Right have had and still have so broad a common origin. Anticlericalism and anticapitalism, which are the cornerstones of European leftist thinking, have never secured a broad audience in the United States.

Throughout the nation's history, unforseen circumstances have often decided which of these two themes--inclusion or exclusion--will prevail. Hence the power of America's presidents to push their country toward either human libertarianism--as did Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt during America's darkest hours--or toward racism, imperialism, and war--as did Jackson with the expulsion of the Cherokees, McKinley with the Phillipines in 1898, and George W. Bush with the whole world today.

Catalog description for Attendant Cruelties, by Patrice Higonnet

"He is 'completely heterosexual' "

I must admit, this leaves me wondering what "completely heterosexual" means:

One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is ''completely heterosexual.''

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday's edition.

''He is completely heterosexual,'' Ralph said. ''That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing.''

Ralph said the board spoke with people close to Haggard while investigating his claim that his only extramarital sexual contact happened with Mike Jones. The board found no evidence to the contrary.

''If we're going to be proved wrong, somebody else is going to come forward, and that usually happens really quickly,'' he said. ''We're into this thing over 90 days and it hasn't happened.''

As I've said before, I'm less troubled by Ted Haggard's sexual preferences, or even his sexual identity, than I am by his ecclesiology. Indeed, I'm still not sure why we make so much noise about sexual identity, if we are indeed spiritual, not sexual, creatures. There's a question of morality in sexual practice, and for me the issue with Pastor Haggard is more the matter of an extra-marital affair, rather than the gender of the other person in the affair. Our emphasis on sexual preference as a marker who identity is ultimately an emphasis on the material, not the spiritual. "He is 'completely heterosexual'" is a statement of identity, implying some kind of "clean slate" for Pastor Haggard, or at least fitness to be a minister of the Word.

But what does sexual identity have to do with one's humanity, with one's relationship to God? That's still the issue. Am I who I have sex with, who I desire in my sexual appetites? Or am I a creature of spirit and body? Which defines me? More and more, we prefer chasing the reductio ad absurdum which gives us a claim to power over someone else.