|
Christopher's rantings and ravings |
|
|
|
Commentary III (2005) The Lessons of Hypocrisy Evident
displays of hypocrisy are enlightening because they give us insight into people’s true agendas. To understand this,
one must remember that inconsistency and hypocrisy are not at all the same thing. Inconsistency occurs when one chooses to
depart from both one’s normal reasoning and one’s true agenda. Hypocrisy, however, occurs when one is forced to
appear inconsistent while in fact adhering to the same consistent – but hidden
– reasoning and agenda. Keeping this in mind, what do recent displays of hypocrisy teach us about the true nature of
the radical theocrats in States’
rights. No other tenet of the American right is more deeply held that that of states’ rights. Or so we are told. Yet
whenever these pesky little rights get in the way of their underlying agenda or lust for power, the radical theocrats
happily dismiss them. Case in point: a consistent advocate for states’ rights would have been appalled at the very idea
of taking the 2000 recount issue to the Supreme Court. Both Article II and the Tenth Amendment would seem to suggest such
a case should never have been decided outside the borders of Full-Senate
votes on judges. Was it really just a couple of months ago that we were seeing constant, daily harangues from the radical
religious right on the need to stop committee delays and filibusters and allow the full Senate to vote on judicial confirmations?
Their hypocrisy was already evident to those who knew a bit about the history of these proceedings: from Nixon to Legal
constructivism. Nothing provokes a member of the radical religious right more than the idea of judges using their own interpretations
of law to create new precedent. According to the stated principles of the faux-conservatives,
judges must interpret the Constitution exactly as written, making no attempt to divine any unspoken intent. This is an inviolable
rule when it comes to this, their second-most cherished document. How odd, then,
that when it comes to their most cherished document, the Bible, constructivism
is not only allowed but is mandatory. Take abortion, for example. There is not a single word on this issue to be found in
either Testament. However, the religious right starts with the injunction against murder, liberally inserts its own objections
to abortion, then insists abortion is in fact murder and voila, suddenly God hates
abortion. This same type of sophistry – combined with an uncanny ability to invoke Biblical laws clearly superseded
by Christ’s teachings – allows the radical right to pick, choose and even construct laws to their own suiting.
And yet strangely, an earthly, temporal document must be held to a higher standard. So what
do these inconsistencies with their stated agenda tell us about the real agenda of the radical theocrats? It should be obvious: they don’t give a two-penny damn about states’
rights, fair judicial confirmations or methods of constitutional interpretation. Those are issues for true, principled conservatives.
All that interests the radicals is power, power to be used to enforce their own theocratic views on governance.
So next time some self-proclaimed conservative bleats about his or her so-called traditional, conservative agenda, dig a little
deeper. You may find that the real agenda has nothing to do with traditional Republican values. …………………………………………………………………………. Debating the debate The debate over the Iraqi war has focused on why we are there, how to win it and when we should end it. Valid questions all. The why
is certainly suspect, given the faulty, perhaps even falsified, evidence for war. The how is frustrating because the only
clear answer – making an all-out attempt to win by assigning all the necessary resources – is assiduously avoided
even - nay, especially - by the conflict’s supporters. Indeed, as we have seen, even asking the question imperils one’s
political or military career. The when is addressed through knee-jerk, dogmatic responses: on the left, it is ‘get out
now’, regardless of the consequences for the region; on the right, it is ‘stay until the job is done’, though
no one wants to define what a real ‘mission accomplished’ truly entails
in Iraq. We have thereby guaranteed failure by not giving any meaningful definition to the word ‘success’. What have these questions yielded? To date, nothing of value. Asking why is important, but it does not address the
current situation. Asking how and when is relevant only if we are willing to act on the conclusions we reach. In short, we
are asking a lot of questions but getting few answers and ignoring the ones we do get. So what can we do to ensure fruitful discussions that might lead to a positive outcome both for us and the people of
Second, both sides must cut loose their more extremist positions. For the left, that means acknowledging that while
yes, it was a mistake to go into For the right, it means stop trying to get away with ‘War Lite’. The Republican strategy has been to maintain
support for militarism by limiting the sacrifices to the troops alone while reducing patriotism at home to bumper stickers
and yellow ribbons. If the domestic involvement in World War II had been limited to such shallow jingoism, we would never
have defeated the Axis powers. We need twenty-first century equivalents to victory gardens and ration books. That means making
sacrifices. It means, for example, that we must eliminate our reliance on Middle-eastern oil, thereby obviating the Carter
Doctrine, which has apparently been expanded to include interference from domestic
powers, not just foreign ones. It also means being honest with ourselves about the nature of the regimes in our so-called
allied countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Egypt, regimes that are little better than that of Saddam and, for
our own interests, perhaps even worse. Finally, it means being honest about the very nature of war. Stop hiding the coffins,
shielding us from the maimed and shying away from the reality faced by our troops and the Iraqi civilians. If we are too cowardly
to look war in the face, we have no business waging it. There is a common thread here: honesty, above all towards ourselves. Without that, we will fail and the roughly 30,000
American, coalition and Iraqi lives lost to date will have been for nothing. So let’s debate this conflict honestly
and in good faith, find some workable solution, then have the courage to act on it. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Religion
in Politics After yet another year of religion
in politics, I think it's time to turn back and look at some of the internal inconsistencies offered up by many who seek to
justify their political views through the Bible. First there is the issue of
abortion. This all comes down to how we define life, I suppose, but many fundamentalists believe life must begin at conception
because of two particular verses, though I have yet to understand their relevance to abortion (see Jeremiah
1:5 and Psalms 139:13-14), especially when one reads them in modern translation. From an historical point of
view, it is worth noting two things: 1) abortion is not a modern technique, far from it; 2) for most of our own nation's history,
its legality has been the rule, not the exception. It was only banned from the 1870s (and not immediately in all states) to
the early 1970s. That means that for well over half the life of the Republic (and counting), abortion has been accepted. As a nation, I think we must
compromise on this issue by deciding together when life begins. For me, it is when the fetus is capable of being taken as
a separate form from its mother and hence the earliest moment of viability. Therefore, it is not rational to consider a fetus
to be a separate life form before the beginning of the third trimester. But I guess my favorites are
the reminders that stances against homosexuality and for the death penalty are supported directly and explicitly by the Bible,
particularly the book of Leviticus. Absolutely no way to argue with that. Leviticus specifically outlaws homosexuality and
decrees the death penalty (by stoning) for murder. But if these fundamentalists/literalists wish to follow the Bible, or even
Leviticus, in all its holy detail, they might try reading a little less selectively. Here’s a summary of the rules,
not including dietary and sacrificial guidelines: A woman is unclean during
her period and for seven days after birth of a son, fortnight after daughter; do not engage in intercourse with her. Adultery not
allowed Bestiality
not allowed Death penalty
for murder, adultery (both parties), cursing parents, having sex with father's other wife/wives or your daughter-in-law, homosexuality,
marrying a woman and her daughter (all parties), bestiality (animal and person) Do not allow
daughters to be prostituted Do not commit
perjury Do not gossip Do not mistreat
foreigners Do not seek
revenge Do not show
favor to the rich in justice Do not taunt
the disabled Do not worship
or seek to communicate with the dead Don't lie,
cheat or steal Exile for marrying
siblings or having sex with a woman on her period Homosexuality
not allowed Incest not
allowed Males shall
be circumcised No disabled/disfigured
person may be a priest Not allowed
to marry aunts/uncles (by blood or marriage) or sister-in-law Not allowed
to marry prostitutes or divorced women Pay your workers Personal injury
to be repaid in kind (eye for eye, etc) Polygamy allowed Respect the
Sabbath Respect your
elders Respect your
parents Slavery allowed Now a lot of these seem reasonable
(don't lie or cheat, don't commit perjury, don't have sex with animals or siblings/parents, etc., etc.), but how many of our
Bible-quoting friends on the right are going to speak out in favor of slavery? In favor of polygamy? In favor of the death
penalty for adultery or for cursing one's parents? Exile for people having sex while the female is menstruating? But perhaps
these Bible-quoters just get to pick and choose in line with their own prejudice and bloodlust? Another ‘issue’
of late is this nonsense about 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. This is risible for reasons of history, not religion.
Like Southerners who claim some ‘great tradition’ for the Confederate flag, this is a case of people inventing
(or, more innocently, just assuming) history to back their own beliefs, pretending that those who object are trying to trample
on some long American heritage. The fact is that the phrase ‘Under God’ was added by Congress in 1954. Eisenhower had
suggested its addition after a talk with his own local reverend, who in turn had gotten the idea from the Knights
Columbus.
|
|
|