« Kerry and Gingrich get a big raise | Main | Touring the Blogosphere with THK »
When Democracy Becomes Theocracy
We here at the DCP aren't anti-religious -- far from it, actually. We're well aware of the spiritual aspects of living a creative and meaningful existence. We regularly reflect upon the Tao of politics in this space. We acknowledge the faith-based principles underlying many of the peace movements happening in America today. And we're certainly not anti-Christian here, even those of us that aren't Christians ourselves.
But we are opposed to erasing the lines of separation between church and state. We agree with the framers of the Constitution that a political theocracy has no place in American society. And that means we're increasingly concerned about the unparalleled degree of overlap that exists between the Bush administration, the neoconservative movement, and the overtly Christian right wing of the Republican Party.
That's why we're going to turn today's DCP blog threader over to NY Times op-ed contributor Paul Krugman, in the form of excerpts from a column of his titled "For God's Sake":
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement —- the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right —- suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. "Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure," he wrote, "and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order."
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide "Christian leadership to change the world," boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda -— which is very different from simply being people of faith -— is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state." And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
[...]
And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.
Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of "intelligent design by a creator." He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
[...]
And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show "The 700 Club." Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians," not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. "Well, I totally concur," said Mr. Robertson.
The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Thank you for this great thread topic, Rick.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will once again stress that fundamentalist Christianity has a firm grip on many of our ethnic communities, and white liberals ignore that at their peril.
Here in Koreatown, a community owned by the Dominionists, 9/11 being the wrath of God is taken as an immutable fact, and the Earth is literally 5,000 years old. If there is any worry, it's all about the "secularization" of America through legalized abortions and gay marriages.
The Christian Right may be down, but they certainly are NOT out.
"Mr. Sampson proposed that Ms. Chiara’s replacement would be Rachel L. Brand, the 33-year-old head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, a graduate of Harvard Law School who has little litigation experience. In many ways she is typical of the young lawyers with conservative political pedigrees who have flourished in the Bush administration."
"Ms. Brand was active in the Federalist Society, the association of lawyers that serves as kind of a talent pool and credential for young conservatives who are interested in appointments to legal slots in the Republican administration.
"At her confirmation hearings in May 2005, Ms. Brand told the Judiciary committee that, despite a brief stint as an associate at a Washington law firm, she had never tried a case before a jury. In fact, she said she had never been in court or, as a lawyer, been involved in a criminal matter."
It sure is comforting to know that this Adminsitration is appointing the most talented lawyers in this country to determine who should be imprisoned for federal crimes. Never tried a case, never beem in court and yet appointed to one of the highest positions in this country's legal system. Brownie is starting to look pretty good by comparison, at least he trained horsies.
I kinda like the saying "Religion is the opiate of the people." I'm not saying I always agree but it could be an interesting point of departure for debate. Was it Karl Marx who said it? What else could be the opiate of the people? (Unless we're considering Afghanistan, where Opium is probably the opiate of the people - and possibly some of the troops).
Remembering Kurt Vonnegut:
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/features/article2445103.ece
To participate in our tribute, click on my name.
http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2007/04/041307_stemcell_bush.html
I've seen that picture at the top of the thread header before.
Q: How does the person who made the sign KNOW that God wants anyone to vote Republican? She has not broadcast Her wishes on Lamestream Media Tee Vee, so how does that person KNOW what the hell God/Goddess wants?!?
I'm a hopelessly disgusting pacifist, but I'm SO tired of having religion combined with politics shoved down my throat that the next time someone comes up with the topics combined I may smack 'em!
That sign could be Photoshop. There was a site on-line for awhile where you could come up with your own church marquees.
A church near my house said "Who would Jesus bomb?" and they put that up right after 9/11.
They put that sign up for real.
So there is definitely potential in that marquee business.
NonnyO
It's not just pacifism or combining religion with politics. I have never found the Bible logical or possible, literally or metaphorically and can say the same for what I know of some of the other "holy" books. It can not all be true along with what is known of science.
If there is a God, it must encompass much more than what the religions so far on earth postulate. Most of them have very limited explanatory value. Of course, they depend on "childlike faith," as my grandmother used to point out, during our many theological arguments during my childhood.
In 5th grade, a boy proposed to me and he was Catholic, so started to take me to Catechism with him. I soon got into it with the Priest about who was here before God and he said that God "just was." I would not start arguing with the man.
I once brought my father to tears because I insisted that if we lived in India he would be telling me Hinduism was the true religion and if we lived in Egypt it would be Islam, and so on. I think that when I heard about Noah's ark it was about the last straw. Two of everything - two fleas? two viruses? What kind of virus? What about dinosaurs? Ridiculous!
Then just learning about Hiroshima and Auschwitz destroyed any faith I still had.
There may be a God but it would have to be nondenominational and not organized by man, not a champion of one people or country over another, not incompatible with science and certainly not a determinor of earthly politics.
Religion as we know it is institutionalized narcissism.
Strike me down!
In These Times has a cool compilation of writings & art Kurt Vonnegut contributed to their site.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/archives/vonnegut/
BEWARE OF "FREEDOM SCHOOLS"
This schools - summer schools for black/urban kids - are being set up in various cities in the U.S.. For some odd reason the schools are run out of churches. In my city, Freedom Schools just got a big grant from Kellogg (btw it is not a violation of the separation of church and state to run a public school program out of a church) :
$627K grant to fund Freedom School
Katie Oliveri
The Enquirer
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070330/NEWS01/703300320
The Battle Creek Area Educators' Task Force, a group of local educational leaders, has received a three-year, $627,627 grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for the Community Freedom School summer program.
For 2007, Freedom School , a literacy-rich summer program, will expand to three sites, giving more students the opportunity to participate in the six-week program.
Battle Creek Public Schools, which offered a pilot program to more than 50 area students at one site last summer, will be the fiscal agent for the grant.
The 2007 Freedom School , a partnership between the Children's Defense Fund and local community organizations, schools and churches, will be available to 150 students, about 50 at each site.
It's open to any student who lives in greater Battle Creek , grades K-8.
The program integrates reading, conflict resolution and social action in an activity-based curriculum that promotes social, cultural and historical awareness. Students also take field trips and participate in other activities.
Kathy Griffey, assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction for BCPS, said Thursday the grant money will support staff training, books, programming, field trips and other areas for Freedom School .
She said by local school districts coming together on the summer project, and learning, for example, how they will merge transportation and staff for the program, the work will enable schools to develop future collaborations.
"The major focus is to an absolutely wonderful program to work together so we can improve on our cross-district processes and procedures and build those at a deeper level," Griffey said.
Second Missionary Baptist Church , Trinity Lutheran Church and Calvary Baptist Church will serve as the three sites for 2007, according to Griffey.
It costs about $55,000 to run each Freedom School site, officials said.
Bob Long, director of greater Battle Creek programming at the Kellogg Foundation, said a large reason for making the investment is in support of the spirit of cooperation among the schools.
There may be a God but it would have to be nondenominational and not organized by man, not a champion of one people or country over another, not incompatible with science and certainly not a determinor of earthly politics.
Posted by: not my president at April 13, 2007 05:15 PM
That's been my conclusion too. God/Goddess is too broad to be understood in petty human terms, and I certainly don't expect an old book, Bible or otherwise, to be the satisfactory explain-all.
I've also decided that a divine being that meddles in human politics, be it favoring one nation over another in a war or a political faction over another in domestic politics, cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing. Sure, the Greek pantheon meddled in wars and politics, but they were deities with limited power and human dimensions, not the all-powerful One that today's monotheistic religions teach.
NonnyO: No, you haven't seen that sign before. I just made it fresh this afternoon when I posted the thread.
not my president: It's not PhotoShopped; but yes, you'll see right there on the sign the web address of the site that it was generated by.
If it helps explain the sense of familiarity, I also used that same church sign generating site to make a thread header illustration some months back when I posted "Your W Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore."
On the other hand, it may also seem familiar because we've heard real people in real places and real positions of influence say essentially the same thing that you see on the faux church sign at the top of this thread. Which was, of course, the point of generating the faux church sign in the first place.
It's not PhotoShopped; but yes, you'll see right there on the sign the web address of the site that it was generated by.
Posted by: Rick Albertson at April 13, 2007 06:00 PM
And that website address was the only thing that kept me from going ballistic. :)
Seriously, I've seen quite a few "Real Christians Vote Republican" bumper stickers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070413/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc_3
Rove in new controversy over e-mails
Too good to miss these comments at Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/4/13/162931/928/60#c60
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/4/13/162931/928/84#c84
Posted by: Rick Albertson at April 13, 2007 06:00 PM
If not that particular sign, then something identical or very similar has crossed my computer screen a few years ago. If it comes from a web site, then perhaps it's been online a while and someone sent it to me in an email.
~~~~~
Posted by: not my president at April 13, 2007 05:15 PM
With knowledge comes skepticism. Religion is illogical (well, in my brain it is illogical; it seems to make perfect sense to many others). The stories with a moral to the tales are nice (and I have read the book twice), but when it comes to a supreme diety, A+B does not equal C (per the logical equation we were taught in a college Logic class). When the premises of A or B are wrong (or illogical), then it follows that C cannot be correct because one or both of the premises are incorrect. The artificial spiritual premises that overlap into the current political spectrum make both the premises of A and B incorrect, which makes C nonsense (and wrong).
But then, I'm not a man wandering in the wilderness who is delusional from thirst or hunger, so perhaps that's why much of the religious things don't make any sense to me. Nor am I an egomaniacal man wanting to have power over others or make a profit from gullible sheeple searching for spiritual meaning in modern political realms where none exists. It is completely illogical to take a 2000-or-3000-year-old allegorical tale and superimpose ancient meaning into modern political context. It defies all logic and common sense.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/13/the-daily-show-reverse-progress-in-iraq-vetoes-and-war-czars/
The Daily Show: “Reverse Progress in Iraq,” Vetoes and War Czars
Why do you people continue to talk about religion over and over again? The sophistication and knowledge of many of the comments here resemble those of fundamentalists with no science education talking about evolution. I started lurking on the Kerry blog within a few weeks of its inception, and I've kept lurking here, and I love you all, think you're wonderful, appreciate all your great work, and your very informative links. But many of you simply DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT when talk about the conventional religions. You have given up trying to understand the perspective of people in America's traditional religions--an understandable response to the onslaught of the last few decades by the religious right, but not a very informed or intelligent one. Increasingly, many of you just sound bigoted. You are willing to give a "pass" to Wicans or astrology or Hinduism or Buddhism--some respect and tolerance (ignoring, for example the Dalai Lama's comments against homsexuality)--that you have stopped giving to any monotheistic, traditional religion. What ever happened to liberalism? You are beginning to make the religous right's stereotypes of you true. Of course, I'll grant you, they asked for it.
Rick Albertson
churchsigngenerator.com
I guess I am blind! That's what I get from quickly reading at work.
skeptica, that comment is quite impassioned but not very clear or informative. What is it that you are advocating?
Skeptica
I was raised a Methodist and have lived in this country all my life. My mother is organist in a Episcopal church. I have worked in faith-based organizations. Churches are all around me. I have read the Bible.
I know that there are people in every religion who think that their religion is the true religion. They have not been able to stop the slaughter. Do not tell those of us who are critical of convention religion that we know not whereof we speak. One of us has read the Bible through three times.
It's my personal decision to be a global citizen and respect only a god that is above all organized religions and transcends them. Why take sides? I do make local choices that respect the environment and try first to do no harm. I do not choose to attend church (which one would be better?) or pray to a specific human-named God (whch one would be better?)
No conventional religion's God has been able to prevent war, cancer, autism, disasters - humankind feeds into these and it may be our nature. No amount of fasting, praying, negotiating, proselytizing has made a permanent impact - not in thousands of years.
Tell me how this is something that I should worship. I choose to follow a new paradigm. I am not telling others to do the same, just as I am not telling them not to watch tv news when I say that I do not.
Why would a loving God allow there to be war?
"Why do you people continue to talk about religion over and over again?"
Posted by: skeptica at April 13, 2007 09:46 PM
Hurt. And anger. People who are not fundamentalists have felt attacked by people who thump Bibles and threaten Hell to those who disagree.
Many of us here are traditionalist, such as average "Christians" or Jews or even just a regular ole Atheist or such.
But all of us, despite where we stand on a religious standpoint, care deeply about morality and ethical behavior.
And for some of us, who have actually been persecuted by people of one fundamentalist religion or have lost 1/2 their family members to the Holocaust, it's terrible to see one party insisting that they are "the party of God" and the other party is "the party of Heathen." And we recognise the danger when the state forces a specific religion or even a lack thereof, such as the USSR did.
I fully believe in the editorial that Monkey posted on the blog the other day. Basically that article spoke about religious people coming together and working towards the Biblical goals of peace, safety, food, nourishment, etc...for all. (That equates to ending the war, providing jobs, healthcare, education, etc...)
And further, skeptica, I am finding myself feeling rather insulted by your sweeping accusations of advanced fuggheadness here. I happen to be quite familiar with America's classic religious traditions, members of America's subgroups, etc. -- and especially with those who are based in flyover country and the non-urban South. If you've been lurking around the edges of the DCP for so long, then you've had ample chance to add your voice to the ongoing discussions here. Yet, from what you say, you have not. If you think we're so blind and ignorant, than why not make an effort at opening our eyes and educating us before you just drop out of the blue to deliver a rant that alternates so confusingly between handing out compliments and sounding like it should be on a Fox News talk show instead?
Here it is skeptica :
Commentary: What would Jesus really do?
By Roland Martin
CNN Contributor
Editor's note: Roland Martin is a CNN contributor and talk-show host on WVON-AM in Chicago, Illinois. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith."
NEW YORK (CNN) -- When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant only caring about two issues, abortion and homosexuality?
Ask the nonreligious what being a Christian today means, and based on what we see and read, it's a good bet they will say that followers of Jesus Christ are preoccupied with those two points.
Poverty? Whatever. Homelessness? An afterthought. A widening gap between the have and have-nots? Immaterial. Divorce? The divorce rate of Christians mirrors the national average, so that's no big deal.
The point is that being a Christian should be about more than abortion and homosexuality, and it's high time that those not considered a part of the religious right expose the hypocrisy of our brothers and sisters in Christianity and take back the faith. And those on the left who believe they have a "get out of sin free" card must not be allowed to justify their actions.
Many people believe we are engaged in a holy war. And we are. But it's not with Muslims. The real war -- the silent war -- is being engaged among Christians, and that's what we must set our sights on.
As we celebrate Holy Week, our focus is on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But aren't we also to recommit ourselves to live more like Jesus? Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?
As a layman studying to receive a master's in Christian communications, and the husband of an ordained minister, it's troubling to listen to "Christian radio" and hear the kind of hate spewing out of the mouths of my brothers and sisters in the faith.
In fact, I've grown tired of people who pimp God. That's right; we have a litany of individuals today who are holy, holy, holy, sing hallelujah, talk about how they love the Lord, but when it's time to walk the walk, somehow the spirit evaporates.
A couple of years ago I took exception to an e-mail blast from the Concerned Women for America. The group was angry that Democrats were blocking certain judges put up for the federal bench by President Bush. It called on Americans to fight Democrats who wanted to keep Christians off the bench.
So I called and sent an e-mail asking, "So, where were you when President Clinton appointed Christian judges to the bench? Were they truly behind Christian judges, or Republican Christian judges?
Surprise, surprise. There was never a response.
An African-American pastor I know in the Midwest was asked by a group of mostly white clergy to march in an anti-abortion rally. He was fine with that, but then asked the clergy if they would work with him to fight crack houses in predominantly black neighborhoods.
"That's really your problem," he was told.
They saw abortion as a moral imperative, but not a community ravaged by crack.
If abortion and gay marriage are part of the Christian agenda, I have no issue with that. Those are moral issues that should be of importance to people of the faith, but the agenda should be much, much broader.
I'm looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, " Patriot Pastors" and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy, our sorry education system.
If they all say they love and worship one God, one Jesus, let's see them rally their members behind one agenda.
I stand here today not as a Republican or a liberal. And don't bother calling me a Democrat or a conservative. I am a man, an African-American man who has professed that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that's to whom I bow down.
If you concur, it's time to stop allowing a chosen few to speak for the masses. Quit letting them define the agenda.
So put on the full armor of God because we have work to do.
I started lurking on the Kerry blog within a few weeks of its inception, and I've kept lurking here, and I love you all, think you're wonderful, appreciate all your great work, and your very informative links. But many of you simply DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT when talk about the conventional religions.
@@@@@
Please explain "conventional religion" in America to me. From what I see of it in my community, it has lost - almost entirely - its emphasis on the teachings of Jesus. Most "Christians" in my town:
1) support the war unquestioningly
2) hate homosexuality
3) hate Mexican immigrants
4) find the poor a big annoyance
5) have become surprisingly greedy, materialistic and selfish for "religious" folks
6) dislike/distrust the African American folk...
7) are very intolerant of other groups of people, other cultures, other languages etc..
I believe the point of the thread came from the Krugman article - Bush stacked his government with 150 fundie graduates of the same university. Is this theocracy or democracy? The marquee on the church is designed to complement that article.
I reread it after someone else sent me the Krugman article just now.
I also read every single letter, instant message and email contained in the April 4 Newsweek from the fallen in Iraq just now (at the gym) and on the way home from work I heard the "Fresh Air" segment on a documentary about a military hospital in Iraq.
If God answers prayer, He certainly has a sadistic way of doing it. I have heard hellfire preachers such as an African at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park who did maintain that we are born sinners and that God is an angry god. He said that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for the sins of the people of New Orleans.
This is where I lost it, which I don't usually do.
You tell 'em Ted Kennedy!
"With this warped philosophy of government, truth is taking a beating," said an advance text of Kennedy's remarks. "That kind of skewed thinking has spread like a cancer in our current administration, inflicting every policy decision they make."
"What's the scientific or moral significance of that date? Nothing," Kennedy said. "It's simply the date the president first addressed the nation on the subject of stem cell research."
"There is a strong consensus that global warming is being accelerated by the burning of fossil fuels," Kennedy said. "But, with the backing of its cronies in the oil and gas industry, the administration decided to create its own reality on global warming. We now know from whistleblowers and investigations that scientific conclusions that did not match the administration's political agenda have either been rewritten or ignored."
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action. The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," the senator said.
Kennedy added: "This manipulation of governmental institutions for political gain not only breeds cynicism and erodes trust, but it also threatens the very foundations of our democracy."
(excerpts from article http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/04/13/kennedy_accuses_bush_of_favoring_ideology_over_evidence/
Go there if you want to read Bush's rep's defensive rebuttal.
ACLU and Human Rights have obtained some data on civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the US has been doing with compensations and reparations (which is impossible).
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/f177e900d0ab45e9fd04bbfe4ba719a8.htm
The senselessness of all this death is unfathomable. When I read the writings of the fallen, I read over and over how they believed they were fighting over there so they wouldn't have to fight terrorists in the streets of America. The brainwashing was sad. My own dad was similarly brainwashed and justified to me the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying it stopped the war and if it hadn't been done by us, the "Japs" would have done it to us. I never bought it, even as a child.
Can we just keep the argument to politics? Let's argue for separation of church and state--PLEASE! But stop the generalizations about Christians that are based on what the religious right and fundamentalists claim is Christian. I'm a "practicing Catholic" and want nothing, nothing, to do with those people, and I'm really tired of your slandering people like me--and Kerry. Nonny, how do you know I'm a narcissist because I go to church? I grew up in the South as an outsider because I was Catholic-when Catholics were about 1% of the state's population. I share nothing in common with the Falwells and Robertsons who have taken claim to the "Christian" brand. And they would have nothing to do with us then. Pleaee stop the generalizing about what you neither care about nor understand: stick with the Constitutional principles of freedom of religion AND separation of church and state. I support freedom of choice, etc., etc., because I believe in both. But what is gained by generalizing here about how you feel about the stupidity of religious people?
Nonny, how do you know I'm a narcissist because I go to church?
Posted by: skeptica at April 14, 2007 01:02 AM
I didn't say that. Read the thread above. That was nmp's response to me.
I refuse to quarrel about religion. If you've been lurking on this blog for a long time you know I adamantly advocate a total separation of church and state along Jeffersonian lines. I have no quarrel with people who follow their religion and do not proselytize.
However, there seem to be two distinct types of Christians in this country nowadays. The ones who follow the peaceful route and live as an example without preaching (they are the ones I like)... and then there's the kind that sours people like me on all kinds of religion. The reich-wingnuttia hypocritical types who cram religion down our throats while inserting themselves into politics, all via Lamestream Media.
Religion is a personal choice. As such, it belongs in houses of worship and/or in homes, as people choose... Religion most definitely does NOT belong in politics.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_re_us/anti_terror_dolphins
Navy shows off anti-terror dolphins
{{{And this is something else I strenuously object to.... It is a crime against nature, IMHO.}}}
Posted by: NonnyO at April 14, 2007 01:46 AM
Nonny that is horrible! I had no idea this was happening. It doesn't surprise me, considering the damage we're allowing to be done to others and our Mother Earth, intelligent mammals everywhere are exploitable. No wonder the navy kept media attention away from them.
Can we just keep the argument to politics? .......
...... But what is gained by generalizing here about how you feel about the stupidity of religious people?
Posted by: skeptica at April 14, 2007 01:02 AM
Skeptica, in this blog we're ALWAYS on topic. At least we are on topic every now and then. You will have noticed this in your lurking. As the topic is When Democracy becomes Theocracy, all comments and personal views about Democracy and/or Theocracy are relevant. Theocracy isn't democratic. If it were, we would see women at all levels of all the Christian churches and indeed all levels of all religions.
Religion is male dominated. So, it follows that it cannot be democratic. The political hierarchy of democratic countries was also male dominated, and still is in a very large part. You cannot be democratic to one half of the constituents and autocratic over the other half. Now we are seeing women Prime Ministers and Presidents. When do you think we will have our first female pope, Skeptica? Or our first female lesbian Archbishop?
Our countries insist on bullying smaller wealthy countries that adhere to strict religious principles and practices, into accepting our democracy. Why do we do this? Because we're greedy. It will never work. It can't work. By it's very nature, holding a gun to the head of an Islamic country and ordering them to become a democracy, is undemocratic. We don't practice what we preach - either in church or out.
What binds Islamic nations is Islam. What binds our countries is diversity, and sadly, the greed of the powerful.
Posted by: woz at April 14, 2007 02:08 AM
I know. Besides all the other damage humans have done to the earth, I read stories like that and tears of immense frustration come to my eyes. I just can't stand it...!
Posted by: Ralpheh at April 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Interesting, because the fundamentalists in my neck of woods either (1) love foreign folk who suck up to them, or (2) are foreign themselves.
I have heard hellfire preachers such as an African at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park who did maintain that we are born sinners and that God is an angry god. He said that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for the sins of the people of New Orleans.
This is where I lost it, which I don't usually do.
Posted by: losing my religion at April 14, 2007 12:05 AM
Your example of the African is proof that hatred, and fundamentalism, come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.
Another front where religious conservatives' plans didn't work out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6554743.stm
Students of abstinence-only sex education were just as likely to have sex as those who had comprehensive sex education.
So much for "teaching contraceptives and safe sex encourages sexual behavior."
Bomb kills 40 in shrine city
April 14, 2007 - 5:49PM
A car bomb killed at least 40 people in a shopping area near the Imam Hussein shrine in Iraq's Shi'ite holy city of Karbala today, a medical source said.
The medic from the local hospital said many of the victims were women and children, adding that the bomb went off at a bus station which is surrounded by many shops.
A security official earlier said that the blast ripped through the shopping area at about 9.15am (1515 AEST).
The bomb went off about 200 metres from the revered Imam Hussein shrine.
- AFP
Posted by: skeptica at April 13, 2007 09:46 PM
OY, the fun I've missed on this thread!
First of all, thank you Rick for your very well written and explanatory (on many levels) thread header.
And, Skeptica, Welcome.
I am a person who has been educated at this site and grown to love and trust the people here since before the '04 election, and believe me, they are caring folks here.
I am also what some might consider a very "religious" person. I consider myself to be a spiritual person whose faith is non-denominational Christianity.
Skeptica, I understand where you are coming from. I understand your frustration, because I have, at times, felt the same frustration from the left who are not, as you say, liberal. But what I would lovingly like to suggest is just that we are all so close together in many issues that sometimes I think part of the problem is that each side doesn't fully understand the other, as you say, Skeptica. I understand what you are asking, you are asking for more open mindedness, which is what the left or liberals have been asking for from the right. You are asking for there to be less venting about feelings towards labeling Christians as being narcissists or crazed men wandering in the wilderness. You are asking that rather people wouldn't be narrow minded and lump all Christians in a group of "crazed men and narcissists". And it is something I have longed for, too, but I have come to know the intent of the people here, and it is an intent to do the very best they can with the information they have.
I have posted here for two and a half years, and many of my posts have been from a view point that stems from my base of faith, and everyone here has been tolerant of me 99.999% of the time. I have taken an opportunity here at the DCP to work out some of the issues I have had with "liberals", and found that as I was forced to work through them I grew alot. I had to learn to be tolerant of others who criticized not me, but others like me who have the same faith base, but have been used and manipulated by the government as a block of voters for power purposes, and (a very good point, Rick) on this thread header, with Rick's explanation, I am able to understand now how the religious right has used the Republican party, which I had never really seen before. It's like I am seeing the whole thing as a new side of a prism.
No one but me and my God will ever understand the process I have gone through to arrive at my decision to be committed to my faith. They can call people like me "delusional, weak, stupid, sheeples, unlearned, etc. etc." but I think over the past two and a half years I have had to review my own beliefs each and every time I read something like that, and after two and a half years I still believe in my faith, and in my moral compass. My commitment to my faith has stood the test of time and open-mindedness, only to grow stronger.
This is not a do or die situation here. We don't have to (any of us) give up our religion or faith, or lack of such. We just need to learn how to bridge the small gap of understanding that is lacking between us, if we can. If we can't, then we can each do the best we can to contribute to a solution to the world's woes in our own unique ways.
We come here to learn, to teach, to inspire, to join other souls who see through the spin and hype and propaganda. We come here to help one another, to grow from one another's contributions. We have each grown here from every contribution as we learn how to coexist on a blog as we do out in the world and in our nation and our communities.
I get a chance to talk to what the left calls "fundies", after being educated to some realities on this site. Doesn't mean I have to flush my God or my beliefs down the toilet, and I wouldn't if it did. I don't have to give up one iota of my personality or belief system to learn here (and these people are great teachers, and have great big souls). I can take what I learn here and adopt it to my circumstances.
There is blindness and bigotry on both sides, honestly there is. Hopefully that will wear thinner as we all seek to educate one another. I know the DCP folks have opened my eyes and my mind and taught me alot.
One of the members here I have grown to know and love dearly, and on a couple issues we just have had to agree to disagree. Doesn't mean we can't appreciate and care about one another. (And we do.)
And, as a religious, or spiritual person, you are not alone here at the DCP!!!
Again, Skeptica, welcome!!! I am glad you felt free enough to speak up!!! That's what this is all about!!!
Beautifully put, TSP. Thanks. I am not of any religion but that does not suggest that I am not deeply spiritual. I don't feel compelled to reveal any more than that. But I have no problem answering questions and criticisms if I'm asked for them. In terms of Democracy and Theocracy, history is full of wars from the beginning of time. The origin of almost every one was the sense of superiority of one faith-base over another.
That's an excellent essay, TSP. Thanks for sharing it with us.
For the record, many of Skeptica's points are well taken. It is true that many members of the groups we too-casually label as 'fundamentalists'and 'evangelicals' and even 'the religious reich' are strongly biased towards the right-wing side of politics. But not all of them. And, depending on which particular subgroups it is that we're lazily lumping together under one loose-fitting label, not even most of them.
People with strong religious faith most often define their lives in terms of that faith. They are by definition eager to accept things without skepticism and without rigorous requirements of proof. This is not a bad thing, in and of itself. But it does tend to make them easily manipulated by those who would cynically twist the tenets of their faith for personal and/or political gain.
Someone like Pat Robertson is, to my mind, such a cynical 'leader' who is deliberately manipulating the faithful to achieve his own ends. So is Moqada al-Sadr. Not that I'm conflating Robertson's fundamentalist-linked politics of domination through F.U.D. with al-Sadr's gruesome terrorism, of course -- the two could hardly be more diametrically opposed on practically all levels. They do share one key element in common, though -- they use faith and acceptance as tools with which to manipulate their followers.
Again, though, it would be a canard (and a particularly skewed one) to imply that all persons of faith in our society are de facto right wingnuts and blinder-wearing hate monkeys. That is just not so, period. Some may be, but most are not. (Some pantheistic 'progressives' I know are pretty extreme left wingnuts and blinder-wearing hate monkeys too.)
Several posts upthread, Ralpheh pointed out seven criteria by which he judges the majority of those who espouse Christianity in his town as being measured and found wanting. While I might question the assumed majority percentages, not knowing the particular makeup of the town where Ralpheh lives on a factual level, I have to agree that those seven traits do seem to be distressingly common among those who self-identify as traditionalist Christians.
In the town where I live, many of the more rigid Christians exhibit those same seven traits. So, though, do many of those who do not claim to share their traditionalist Christian beliefs. The cynical, manipulative politics of F.U.D. may latch onto those beliefs as a convenient smokescreen, but that doesn't mean the faith itself is at fault. As Ralpheh pointed out, the rampant excitation of those seven traits is actually in direct conflict with the real tenets of traditional Christianity.
Since Skeptica is by his/er own accounts a practicing Catholic, s/he would probably rather live in my town than the one that Ralpheh described above. It's a rather small city in the heart of the long-declining Rust Belt flyover region, one that in many ways fits the same stereotypes of small-minded bigotry that Skeptica decried in his/er posts.
But Sister Joan Chittister calls this town home, as do many of her equally-dedicated peacemongering Benedictine sisters. Pax Christi's national organization is headquartered here. The Sojourners have had a very strong presence here from their original beginnings.
The many people I've worked with from those groups are, by anyone's definition, traditionalist Christian in their beliefs. But they are anything but the kind of bigoted reactionaries that Ralpheh described above.
That doesn't mean that reactionary bigots cloaking themselves in the flag and waving the flaming sword don't exist, of course. They definitely do. And thanks to the neocons' masterful use of wedge issues as manipulative political tools, they have a much higher profile in the public eye today than they otherwise might or even should.
Fundamentalist Christians as a group are neither better or worse than non-Christians from a social standpoint as far as I'm concerned. I respect their values and honor them for their faith (at least the non-reactionary, non-bigoted ones.) As the thread header indicates, though, I do believe that relative religion and personal beliefs have no legitimate place in the official workings of government.
The deliberate long-term infiltration of governmental positions and the direct manipulation of governmental policies by specific groups such as Robertson's Regent University crowd and their collective ilk are, to me, the very antithesis of what our representative democracy was conceived to achieve.
Great comments to read! I respect and do political work with people of faith such as the ones who posted and enjoyed the comments of all. Now off to an all-day class and glad I stopped in to read this. I agree about separation of church and state and we shouldn't have to be talking about religion alot, or war either, but we have ended up in circumstances we shouldn't have had to be in.
Can we just keep the argument to politics? (snip)
But stop the generalizations about Christians that are based on what the religious right and fundamentalists claim is Christian. I'm a "practicing Catholic" and want nothing, nothing, to do with those people, and I'm really tired of your slandering people like me--and Kerry. (snip) I support freedom of choice, etc., etc., because I believe in both.
Posted by: skeptica at April 14, 2007 01:02 AM
It's almost impossible to 'just stick to politics' when as the Krugman article points out, some people intentionally made people believe that if they're Christians then they're Republican. It's not the liberals or the left who attacked people like you and Kerry by saying "You can't be Catholic and pro-choice." I still see those bumper stickers out here.
And it's not the liberals who have said that you must only believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible or you're not Christian.
The way I view this issue is that religious people want to do the right thing. They want to have their faith and believe in God, but also they are trying to improve their own behavior and so when the church has been usurpted by the Republican party and by their own leaders, then it makes it difficult for people like you or Truth Shall Prevail to feel a part of the Democratic party and a part of their church at the same time.
Honestly, TSP and you have views that are not that much different from most liberals. But what you are feeling is attacked when a word like "fundy" is used. I can understand that. And it would never be my intention to attack anyone for their religion or faith. By way of explanation, when I use the word "fundy" I am speaking of family members or fellow church goers who have behaved in that way. But as a lurker, you may not understand my reference.
I think your comment is a good reminder to me to make sure that I don't become the reverse 'rascist' against religious people and discriminate against them the way some of them and the way the higher-ups like Dobson and Roberts have attacked 'the left'.
As it is, I have a wonderful Christian friend who goes on missions each year. When I speak to her about my use of the word "fundy" she now knows that I'm not referring to her. But furthermore, while we were discussing politics and my intent when I use the word "fundy" we were able to see that she is every bit as dedicated to feeding the poor, love thy neighbor, etc. And that when we discussed 'wedge issues' she was not anti-gay (because God loves all of us) and though she definately leaned anti-choice more than pro-choice, she was able to agree with me that you can't eliminate abortions but that you had to prevent unwanted pregnancy and you had to regulate the clinics that perform them so that a safe abortion could be attained if needed.
And I could agree with her that I'd rather there be no abortions but that it wasn't really feasible in the world we live in. Therefore my compromise was that ultrasounds be available for those women to see the fetus if they chose before they have an abortion. And that the same ulstrasound be available to poor women or middle class women who would normally spend 500-1000 for the ultrasound. We both agreed on this because those who are already 'keeping the baby' deserve access to the same high tech medical treatments as someone who is considering an abortion!
We both agreed that adoption would be preferable over an abortion if at all possible.
What I'm saying is that we discovered that my use of the word 'fundy' was not accurate. And her thinking of 'liberals' wasn't really accurate either. We both agreed that we actually agreed more with each other than disagreed.
So now as a result of this heart to heart, I have tried to be more selective in my use of the word 'fundy' but also in trying to understand that not all religious people are like my inlaws. Or not all religious people are hypocrites. I try very hard to react or think about religious people (or non-religious people) in terms of who I specifically know or have been in personal contact with. I try to base it on personal experience not an over generalization.
So if my words on this blog (or anywhere else) have come across as anti-religious (with venom!) then I apologize.
As I said before, the DCP has people of many creeds here: Christian, Born-again Christians, Jews, Converted-to-Christianity-Jews, Athiests, non practicing religious people, and so on...
But as you and TSP have pointed out, we push people away when we don't limit our argument to the separation of church and state and the abuse of power or the abuse of the religiously faithful and when we start name calling too.
skeptica
Thanks for popping in and coming out of lurking status.
Your comment has generated a good discussion but also generated a great opportunity for reflection and re-evaluation.
Thanks. Please join our discussion again.
Posted by: skeptica at April 13, 2007 09:46 PM
To my way of thinking, the problem is one of absolutes, and the mind's need to hold on to them. It strikes me that we human beings have trouble accepting the idea of provisional understanding or even provisional revelation.
So we must continue to pretend that our view MUST be the truth, so we can feel secure in an often terrifying world - even if we offer weak toleration to those who think differently.
I'd argue that we all do this - believers, non-believers, Christians, Jews, Deists (which is how I describe myself as nowadays), Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, etc. We all do it. We all profess "faith" in the validity of our truth - and maybe that's the problem in a nutshell.
Most people feel this need to believe that they have found the truth - even though all human experience teaches us that today's truth is likely to be transformed, if not completely eclipsed, by the truth of tomorrow.
Newtonian physics no longer represents the cutting edge of the scientific paradigm, yet it still has utility in real world applications. I'd argue that so many of the basic concepts that are enshrined in the world's great religious and philosophical traditions continue to have value, and should be considered, if also balanced by the light of human reason, and the body of provisional facts offered by contemporary science. The problem arises in my view when advocates for these traditions refuse to acknowledge that there is no objective basis for claiming that their view must be the correct one - and that to impose it, even via the force of strong moral persuasion, is to advocate a form of intellectual (and I'd argue spiritual) tyranny.
To return to my analogy with Newtonian physics, one of Newton's laws proposed that for every force exerted, there is an equal reaction. As one side distorts the role of religion or science, the other reacts, and often categorically rejects.
If you study the Founders, you discover that someone like Adams was reading Cicero every bit as much as he was reading the Bible. Yet, I never hear any politican argue that Americans should begin heeding the wisdom of Cicero - even if a credible argument could be made that the experience of the Greeks and Romans were as much a guide to what was set in motion in 1776 and 1787 as anything in the Bible. Perhaps when one side admits its authentic place in what Oxford professor Daniel Robinson has described as "the great conversation", then the other will feel empowered to participate more openly in that other vital national conversation.
IS GONZALES DOOMED???
With the second, huge uproar regarding White House/RNC emails, White House/RNC email accounts, possible violations of the Hatch act, violation of document preservation law, missing emails, recovery of lost emails, redacted documents etc...
does Al G. have any chance of surviving???
You know, this is one of those situations where I can't agree with sparrow.
skeptica, if you've been lurking for this long without participating or contributing to the ongoing discussion, then you've got a lot of damn gall suddenly dropping out of the blue and ranting away at us about how annoying un-liberal we are.
If you want to share in the ongoing discussions as part of the community, fine. If not, then you've got no right to attack us and our ideas simply because we don't match up with your own poorly-defined standards.
Drive-by rantings are bullshit.
Posted by: Otter at April 14, 2007 10:01 AM
That's ok to disagree with me. I guess in my mind, it's not necessarily a 'drive by ranting'.
I'd like to see how skeptica responds to some of the thoughtful responses (s)he received. I think that will tell us more about her/his intent.
And I guess based on some discussions with other friends, I can see how the specific use of the word 'fundy' can push people away when instead we have more in common than we realize.
But, skeptica, we have a discussion here. If you want to join our discussion, I hope you will consider Otter's words too. "... you've got no right to attack us and our ideas simply because we don't match up with your own poorly-defined standards.
Drive-by rantings are bullshit."
Excellent article about Kurt Vonnegut.
Vonnegut sought reason over baloney
Terry Lane
April 15, 2007
KURT Vonnegut died last week. He was 84 and, I suspect, out of fashion as a writer. But while he was in fashion he had a lot to say in his books, particularly about war.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/vonnegut-sought-reason-over-baloney/2007/04/14/1175971412837.html
List of Endangered/Threatened Republican Bushies:
Alberto Gonzales
Paul Wolfowitz
Karl Rove
GSA Chief Lurita Doan
Posted by: Ralpheh at April 14, 2007 11:28 AM
On my list of need to know... Does the Rico Act cover any of this regimes crimes and activities?
...now I'm on my way to watch Fahrenheit 9-11. I've never seen it before.
Wow! I now understand why the msm refused to air F-9/11 in 04. This documentary is easy to understand and is just shows the connections. Doesn't do that much personal commentary.
Wow!
12:06
I think there's a Rico aspect to the voting machines, but our accessibility and disability lobby, People for the American Way, bought into the promise of secret electronic voting (and who cares about the result, if that group can vote in secret like everyone else) and knowingly is not letting new information about HAVA's consequences get in their way of helping to co-write Holt and Clinton's bill with the same vulnerabilities for everyone else.
PFAW favors DREs, electronic touchscreen, with the paper trail, knowing the audit trail never gets audited. So it's a problematic first, secret vote, and we'll never know if gets counted.
So whatever the GOP long term business and takeover idea, our civil rights advocates are the willing and complicit patsies.
(Many of the accessibility and language communities can see both sides, as well as wanting access and security. The PFAW lobby is ignoring the facts, and pretending we will get audits on that flimsy paper trail to the touchscreen voting machines.)
Posted by: sparrow at April 14, 2007 12:58 PM
I bought a copy when it came out and it's in my media library.
Yup. Wow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6554841.stm
Prince William splits from Kate
...Announcing the next Lamestream Media infotainment diversion (to replace Imus and Baby Smith and Rutgers jocks from this past week) so that no "journalist" or "political analyst" has to do any background research on war crimes or the high crimes and misdemeanors of Bu$hCo or any of their cohorts and report FACTS to us.....
Sigh....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6553219.stm
Termites are 'social cockroaches'
More nothing to do with anything and totally OT, but the face of someone who resides in a very old house in our nation came to mind as I was reading this. {Shudder....}
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/us/14attorneys.html
E-Mail Identified G.O.P. Candidates for Justice Jobs
WASHINGTON, April 13 — A Justice Department e-mail message released on Friday shows that the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed replacement candidates for United States attorneys nearly a year before they were dismissed in December 2006. The department has repeatedly stated that no successors were selected before the dismissals.
The Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail message, written by D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned last month as the top aide to Mr. Gonzales, identified five Bush administration officials, most of them Justice Department employees, whose names were sent to the White House for consideration as possible replacements for prosecutors slated for dismissal.
The e-mail message and several related documents provide the first evidence that Mr. Sampson, the Justice Department official in charge of the dismissals, had focused on who would succeed the ousted prosecutors. Justice officials have repeatedly said that seven of the eight prosecutors were removed without regard to who might succeed them.
Some of the new documents show the department’s acute awareness of individual United States attorneys’ political and ideological views. An undated spreadsheet attached to a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message listed the federal prosecutors who had served under President Bush along with their past work experience.
The chart included a category for Republican Party and campaign work, showing who had been a delegate to a Republican convention or had managed a Republican political campaign. The chart had a separate category indicating who among the prosecutors was a member of the Federalist Society, a Washington-based association that serves as a talent pool for young conservatives seeking appointments in Republican administrations.
Taken together, Democrats asserted, the e-mail supported their contention that the ousted prosecutors were dismissed to make room for favored candidates who were chosen on the basis of their political qualifications as much as prosecutorial experience.
The latest collection of documents, the sixth batch produced by the Justice Department in recent weeks, also cast further light on the frantic scramble by the Bush administration since January to contain the public relations damage caused by the ouster of the eight.
The electronic messages, some written as recently as last month, offer a rare and almost contemporaneous account of the tactics used by a sitting administration trying to manage a political firestorm.
~~~~~
At one point in the hearing, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, asked Mr. Sampson, “Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. attorneys before they were asked to resign on Dec. 7, 2006.”
Mr. Sampson, testifying under oath, replied: “I personally did not.”
{{{More on link.}}}
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/washington/14assess.html
Wolfowitz Fight Has Subplot
At its core, the fight is about President Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world.
Excerpt:
At its core, the fight about whether Mr. Wolfowitz should stay on at the bank is a debate about Mr. Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world, particularly the bank, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which have viewed themselves — at various moments since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — as being at war with the Bush White House and its agenda.
As finance ministers gathered in Washington on Friday for the bank’s weekend meeting, Mr. Wolfowitz worked behind the scenes, seeking support for keeping his job. But there were few endorsements of his leadership beyond those offered by the Bush administration.
In foreign capitals, and among the bank’s staff members, it has been noted that Mr. Wolfowitz’s passion for fighting corruption, which he has said saps economic life from the world’s poorest nations, seemed to evaporate when it came to reviewing lending to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three countries that the United States considers strategically vital. Some longtime bank staff members complained that Mr. Wolfowitz relied too little on experts in international development and too much on a pair of aides who served with him in the administration.
Members of the bank’s board from around the world began comparing what they called the murky way in which the bank made some policy decisions to the secretive habits of the Bush administration.
~~~~~
“There is a sense that we’re finally at a moment when Bush needs the world more than the world needs Bush,” said a senior foreign official who flew into Washington recently for the annual meeting of the bank and the International Monetary Fund. “And there’s more than a little of that mixed in this whole argument over Wolfowitz’s fate.”
{{{More on link.}}}
On my list of need to know... Does the Rico Act cover any of this regimes crimes and activities?
...now I'm on my way to watch Fahrenheit 9-11. I've never seen it before.
Posted by: sparrow at April 14, 2007 12:06 PM
@@@@@@
I would charge the Bushies - Cheney, Rove, Libby, Cathy Martin, Rice, Fleischer, Bartlett - with conspiracy in the outing Valerie Plame... it is pretty clear that this operation was well-planned (talking to no less than 6 high-level reporters). Both Fleischer and Bartlett hinted at the Plame/CIA angle to Time reporter Dickerson. I even wonder if Fleischer was specifically advised NOT to mention Plame's name but to identify her in other ways - that she worked at the CIA... in counter=proliferation etc.. I also find it hard to believe that Richard Armitage (#2 at the State Department) did not know that Plame was covert or that he was not directed by someone (Libby? or Cheney?) to whisper about Plame to reporters..
Also, Gonzales is in EVEN MORE trouble with the White House/RNC email system: I think I read that Gonzales had been the legal advisor when they set up the system - because of the Hatch Act and the 1978 Document Preservation law.
Oh and BTW: Alberto - the tricky lawyer that he is - apparently covers up his footprints by not leaving any written documents of meetings/discussions and not using email to communicate to other staff..
Posted by: Ralpheh at April 14, 2007 03:09 PM
I'm sure that the emails related to their Plame treason may have been destroyed. Like others I hope Fitzpatrick is investigating these recent developements and looking for similar tie-ins.
nonnyo,
I've turned off the movie when it was showing the war scenes. My head is hurting just wondering how so many of us got taken in. The propaganda in the beginning and the whole year of buildup....it just made my head explode to remember how I and so many others believed that our press was giving us the truth and so was our government.
If there's anyone who hasn't watched f-9/11, and is only now seeing the light, or is willing to see the light, they better go rent it now. Nothing like seeing the evidence of f-9/11 to make you feel such incredible horror at the people and their ties that sucked you in.
Posted by: sparrow at April 14, 2007 04:08 PM
I have the DVD but haven't had the heart (or guts) to watch it. I know the story all too well. Maybe some day...
Two other movies that are very important to see:
Iraq for Sale: http://iraqforsale.org/
The Ground Truth: http://thegroundtruth.net/
They're being shown around here in local libraries from free.
Posted by: madame defarge at April 14, 2007 04:26 PM
I've had the dvd for at least a year now and didn't have the heart or guts to watch it. I could only make it through the very beginning portion where it deals with the Saudi, Baker, Bush, Arbrusto, ect ties.
These were all things we learned on the John Kerry blog. But it's presented very well for nonbloggers or nonreaders.
And it had the same video clips we've seen at the jkblog too. The deer in the headlights look, the press conferences, etc...
But as stated...at the first war scenes I had to turn off the movie. If I weren't already fighting for peace, I might make myself watch but they don't need to convince me so I turned it off.
I think I will ask family or friends to watch it though. Especially those who have teased me about being anti-Bush.
Chicago is U.S. candidate for 2016 Olympics. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing yet... The IOC will select the 2016 host in October 2009.
Posted by: Ralpheh at April 14, 2007 11:28 AM
It would be interesting to know if there is any way to track use of email and search engines created by a pc once the pc is destroyed. I'm not a techie. Because I was thinking that they may have had to destroy histories by destroying the pc's, and they may be irretrievable.
Does anyone know?
All,
Senator Barack Obama's words on religion and politics....(best to read all for full context, but here are a few snippets~).....
"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html
or small URL: http://tinyurl.com/gbmyn
Another relevant snippet from Obama on religion in community and politics.....
"That is why, if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at—to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own—then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome—others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends."
Again, should be read in entirety for full context.
http://tinyurl.com/gbmyn
Sorry, didn't see that needed a bit of clean up before hitting post.
Posted by: madame defarge at April 14, 2007 05:04 PM
Hubby was in Atlanta during the Olympics. (Obviously pre-9/11) So I'd consider it a bad thing knowing what he went through there!
Posted by: Ralpheh at April 14, 2007 11:28 AM
It would be interesting to know if there is any way to track use of email and search engines created by a pc once the pc is destroyed. I'm not a techie. Because I was thinking that they may have had to destroy histories by destroying the pc's, and they may be irretrievable.
Does anyone know?
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at April 14, 2007 06:05 PM
@@@@@
Certainly the FBI has an internet crimes division which tracks (I believe) the "footprints" of a particular computer - what sites the computer has visited and perhaps the email traffic.
Law enforcement seems to be pretty good at tracing computer viruses.
Radack was able to recover the emails she sent to her superiors regarding Walker-Lindh. Radack blogged about this at the Kos site.... I will have to read it more in depth.