Salt

Search Engines as the Ear of God

I've found the discussions about AOL's releasing search data fascinating.  It is as if we are reading modern psalms, cries into the cyber-wilderness.   Of course, there are those who seek to satisfy their desire; who seek for financial security, for love, to find old friends.  Search Engines have become the ears of God. 

I'm reminded of "The Listening Post" a fascinating exhibit worth recalling. 

The Guns of August

If there is a world war, you can't blame Clinton.  Note, however, the revealing "consultation" with Israel, as if Israel wags the Dog.  Richard Holbrook prints something that conservatives won't admit.

But the United States must also understand, and deal with, the wider consequences of its own actions and public statements, which have caused an unprecedented decline in America's position in much of the world and are provoking dangerous new anti-American coalitions and encouraging a new generation of terrorists. American disengagement from active Middle East diplomacy since 2001 has led to greater violence and a decline in U.S. influence. Others have been eager to fill the vacuum. (Note the sudden emergence of France as a key player in the current burst of diplomacy.)

American policy has had the unintended, but entirely predictable, effect of pushing our enemies closer together. Throughout the region, Sunnis and Shiites have put aside their hatred of each other just long enough to join in shaking their fists -- or doing worse -- at the United States and Israel. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, our troops are coming under attack by both sides -- Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. If this continues, the U.S. presence in Baghdad has no future.

President Bush owes it to the nation, and especially the troops who risk their lives every day, to reexamine his policies. For starters, he should redeploy some U.S. troops into the safer northern areas of Iraq to serve as a buffer between the increasingly agitated Turks and the restive, independence-minded Kurds. Given the new situation, such a redeployment to Kurdish areas and a phased drawdown elsewhere -- with no final decision yet as to a full withdrawal from Iraq -- is fully justified. At the same time, we should send more troops to Afghanistan, where the situation has deteriorated even as the Pentagon is reducing U.S. troop levels -- which is read in the region as a sign of declining U.S. interest in Afghanistan.

Forgiveness as Foreign Policy

What if diplomats and countries began offering apologies to one another for their mistakes.  Who would start?  If we apologized to Iran for overthrowing a secular, democratic regime they would be in a bind:  the current government is firmly anti-secular, but they rely on the familiar Iranian suspicion of our support of brutal dictators.  An honest act of contrition on our part for overthrowing Mossadegh would divide Iranian society, but most important open up room for a conversation.  They might then have to respond outside the typical bluster that is a consequence of dis (or mis) engagement.  The question is: does repentance and forgiveness truly work?  If God can make it work in our private lives, he can surely also command our public attention.

Dr. Lehmann writes the Financial Times: 

Sir, With respect to the interesting correspondence on the Middle East, while there are many disagreements, I think all would agree that (a) the roots of the crisis go quite far back into history, and that (b) the interventions and impositions by the "west", both Europe and the US, in the Middle East have been almost invariably negative, both in their motivations and in their consequences.

While we (rightly) urge the Japanese to apologise to the Chinese, Koreans and other victims of the Pacific war and Japanese imperialism, the west owes profound apologies to Iran, the Iranians and the Arab people and societies of the Middle East. Specifically, while the Bush administration sermonises about freedom and democracy to Iran, should it not, at the very least, acknowledge that democracy in Iran was aborted by the UK and the US in 1953 with the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh.

The US-UK then imposed and strongly supported the dictatorial monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as shah of Iran until he was finally overthrown by the Iranian people in 1979. Whether from the viewpoint of human rights, the post-1979 Islamic regime is better or worse than that of the shah is somewhat of a moot point.

What is important is that the current regime was chosen by the Iranian people and ultimately it is up to the Iranian people whether it wants to maintain it or not.

This is not to deny that Iran is somewhat of a problem. But surely the first step would be for the US and the UK to accept responsibility for all the political turbulence they caused in Iran in the previous century, proffer profound apologies, preferably with some important compensation, especially to all the families with members who died or were tortured by Savak, the shah's notoriously brutal secret police.

The Mossadegh affair is emphatically not water under the bridge. It is one example out of so many in this tragic region where history lives on (as it does between Japan and China and Korea) and determines the present and the future, because the past has not been properly addressed.

Ideally, Mr Blair and Mr Bush should go to Tehran, ask the Iranian people for forgiveness, and then, as they say, take it from there.

There are many other cases for the west to seek forgiveness in the region, but the Mossadegh issue has the advantage of being quite clear-cut and could go a long way to providing a solution for the current Iraniancrisis. This will be infinitely more effective than sanctions, let alone warfare.

Jean-Pierre Lehmann,

Professor of International Political Economy

Lamont

Ever since Lieberman defeated Lowell Weicker [who gave a 1% chance of running against him again],  I've been a stauch antagonist of everthing Lieberman has said.  Today is the primary. Slate follows the important bloggers.  Lamont is running a strong campaign.  I've mentioned before that I am a Weicker Republican.

And of course, I believe we should get out of Iraq.  Immediately.  Let Iran fail miserably.  As it is, they are the only nation that's succeeded in getting what they want.

Update:  Lamont Won! 

Of course, Lieberman will continue to be the opportunist that he is - move to the right and start scurrilous rumors about his opponent.  He will get a lot of support from the Republican party.

Drinkin'

So last night I am hanging out with a friend from my undergraduate days.  We also both lived in Chicago afterward.  He was now visiting NYC.    Two of his friends, a married couple who are amateur bikers, are deeply anti-religious in fairly predictable ways - the man was English and the other was American, but I had no concrete sense of her upbringing.  It seemed vaguely culturally Christian.   They were in their 30s. 

Next to me was a Very Hot Episcopalian.  And smart, too - Harvard undergrad, NYU PhD, blonde and cute and witty.  Her parents were prominent fundraisers, who had also done work for big Episcopal organizations.   The conversation turned to religion when it was revealed I'm an episcopalian.

The questions and assertions were standard:  Religion has done far more harm than good [so you think people are not tribal, territorial creatures naturally?]; People shouldn't be motivated by the fear of God [so you don't think fear is rational sometimes?]; People need to update their thinking with science and progressive thinking [well, do you think theologians and lay people weren't aware of the French Revolution, the Steam engine, germs, the revolution of 1848 and the Paris commune?  Secular thinking has been around for ages! Hasn't the church has been engaging it].  It's the fear of death that is the problem [well, isn't that a natural emotion?  Is it really possible for human beings to conceive of their own death?  Not really.  You can't turn your brain off.].   

"Why should I go to church?" my friend asked. 

"Well, perhaps there is no reason to go to church," I said.  "But like any perspective, thinking about God takes practice and attention.  One goes to church for mutual support - and to learn the language of faith.  And this faith is useful and and accurate way of comprehending the world.  It makes our lives better."

Now there was some resistance to this.  My Episcopal friend echoed me during the discussion, saying that it was only because we were in the first world that we could address faith so dismissively.  She did confess that she was a "Christmas and Easter" Christian, but that she did love the Episcopal Church. 

The man would say "Religionists should be more humble!"  Well YES, I would claim.  That is exactly what scripture says.  "Religion should be about moral progress."  Well, of course!  He would assert, I would parry and retort.  I just wish I was a bit wittier. 

Many of the people I'm trying to reach are at completely different places than where the church is.  They don't know the story of Jesus Christ.  They can't even think of a good reason for religion.  Their Sundays are liberated for coffee and bicycle rides. 

They are immersed in their own power, their own ability to shop and choose and make good.  Their ethic is simple and unvarnished:  "Do unto others."  For them, to speak of Christ is supernatural mumbo-jumbo, or an example of emotional abuse.  What will the church offer them?  Or do we simply shake off the dust from our shoes?   

My friend Imara says to one of them, "I know God.  I've met him."  Perhaps that is where we begin.

Israel-Lebanon like US-Canada?

Green Knight beheads that analogy.  Quebec separatists cross into Maine, kill three American soldiers and kidnap two others in a bid to negotiate a prisoner exchange, a demand rebuffed by the USA. Another five American soldiers are killed after the ambush. The USA responds with a naval blockade and by bombing hundreds of targets in Canada, including Ottawa's airport and the separatists' headquarters in Montreal.

M. I. A.

I found a new obsession:  M. I. A.  - and her album Arular.   Sri Lankan rapper, bringing punk, bangra, hip-hop together.  Amazing.   

I'm clearly late to this.

I'll be listening to this album for a while.  Rolling Stone reviews this album saying, "M.I.A.'s long-awaited full-length debut, Arular, is every bit as stunning as "Galang": weird, playful, unclassifiable, sexy, brilliantly addictive."  No, I don't understand all the lyrics, but the beats are amazing.  If you see a cleric in his new Honda Civic listening to loud beats [the windows will be closed, I promise], this is the album in his CD player.

Israel and Lebanon

As Israel bombs Lebanon, and Hizbollah bombs Israel, I consider how Jesus also brought a sword; how he warned of brothers and families dividing.

Seeking peace doesn't end conflict - it just changes the location.  Those who seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians, for example, end up engaging their own brothers and sisters who need outside enemies.   Arabs who seek peace with Israel will have to face conflict in their own societies.  In contrast, countries who seek war with Israel can keep internal peace more consistently.  Iran's president, for example, is able to suppress dissent more easily due to his anti-Semitic ravings.  And Israel's victim complex it allows them to continue justifying their activity.  And many Arabs see he existence of Israel - as the west being unwilling to fact its own Semitism.  You take the Jews.  We don't want them here. 

Jesus is also aware that war creates meaning, and in parables he is implicitly revealing the consciousness of war.   War is a lot like a mass crucifizion.  To enter war, simply honor the common, human and pagan (or the religion of empire) ethics of loyalty, honor, pride, victory.  We hold close our friends, cheer our soldiers, protect our babies and curse our enemies.  It is in these relationships we have what is meaningful. 

But this is not God. 

Hizbollah might have a story:  they protect Lebanon from invaders; they protect the Shia from Sunni oppression;  they build infrastructure where the government cannot.  They are the only international force that cares for Palestinians, and has resisted Arab complicity in keeping Palestininans weak.  But they are not the party of God. 

And we might support Israel - a country that is perpetually victimized and insecure; that cultivates its identity by having the entire world as an enemy; that insists it is perpetually misunderstood.  We know, also, because they are westerners that they care for their own, their sick, and their weak.  They pray for justice, and hold their children tight. 

Jesus simply says that we do not determine what is good or evil in war - God is the source of that.  Jesus instead reveals how we are held hostage by our own tribalism, the plain sense of attacking and responding because of our own needs, desires and fears.  It's cloaked in words of security and justice, but these are our own delusions, our own arrogance at thinking that our side holds the only story God hears. 

War is simply us loving our families and hating our enemies.  And if that's all we can do, then war is what we'll get.  The cross implies that whatever victory Hezbollah and Israel are seeking will be temporary.  Hezbollah's victory will never overcome the power of Israel; and Israel can't expect that its bombs will garner sympathy.    

We probably know what Jesus would do.  I think Jesus would probably protect Israel.  He'd return the soldiers.  He'd stop Hezbollah from bombing Israel.  He'd allow Palestinians to travel freely between the borders of Israel and Jordan.  He'd have the Arabs promise not to attack Israel and vice versa.  And he would expect that Palestinians would have their own place in the land.  But he would also know that peace would create other conflicts, but perhaps those conflicts would bring us closer to the Kingdom than lead us to Armageddon.

But our own lies just reveal how deep is our sin.  All the conflict has demonstrated is how well we love our friends and hate the enemy.  Yes, we love our families, and pray for our children.  But it is our mistake to think that we are the only ones who pray thus. 

Our delusion that this war is God's war, God's family, God's life and God's victory gets nailed upon the cross.  And what is revealed is that war is about our families, our lives, and finally, our failures. 

I might Support Israel (in the most general sense - I think their excuses about civilian bombings are specious and incredible).  But I can give no theological or Christian reason why, for there is none except they are friends.  In the end, I have my tribe, and so be it.  Still, I pray for peace.  But that is about all I can do, knowing that I, too, am a sinner.  And as a sinner, I want my side to win.

And in humility, I also know that my own side might not be God's.

I end with the prayer that Mark Twain wrote.

A response to the Email box

My question is, why do people who hold these views feel it is OK to change other elements of the religion (e.g. stoning people who commit adultery, not allowing divorce, etc...). I'm just wondering how someone with the anti-gay viewpoint, based on their reading of scripture, would rationalize/justify holding opinions that are antithetical to a strict reading of the bible on these other topics.

I'll try to answer, but as I don't think I've ever gotten a really good response myself [and I'm in CONSTANT communication with conservatives].

I'll give a general explanation.  There are two pieces:  what is, I think, in fact happening and how they describe it themselves.

I personally don't think that the issue is really about homosexuality.  I think that it is more about security in an age of instant communication, and the anxieties of cultural change that piggy back upon capitalism. 

Global communication allows for signs and symbols to be sent worldwide, but meaning is still "constructed" locally (for example, what western progressives might say, gets understood in the south as another example of imperialism.  Homosexuality, is just an example of us giving it to Iraqis, so to speak).  The anxieties that people have about the market and their own relationships gets projected into a very simple issue:  homosexuality. 

I don't think the presenting issues are particularly new.  The big shifts happened when sex, death and property became divorced, in part, due to economic changes (that allowed some women to live independently) and technological advances (birth control). The consequences of sex [a child, or death from childbirth] have changed, and alongside, the choices of women.

Birth control essentially gave women an immense amount of individual power, the consequences of which are still being discovered.  It's clearly good for individual women, but since then, the complexities of sexual desire have still not been discerned well by the church.

As women became more powerful, it was a matter of time when gay men found that they had more liberty.  By and large, the Episcopal church has essentially moved along with the culture on this - and the Episcopal church represents, I think, a pretty good example of the confusions that people have.   Most people (and I think this means the entire culture, actually) haven't figured out exactly what these changes mean for us.

It coupld be a cultural divide.  My Indian  mother- who was both an aristocrat and a communist, had lots of gay friends.  But she said to me, once, "I just could not live with you being gay.  Its probably my last inherited bigotry from my Indian culture."  It was interesting that she recognized it.   There are about 7 Indian pastors in the diocese, and one of them said to me last year, "I just don't understand homosexuality.  I just don't get it.  I don't know what to make of it."  Simply put, the cultural divide is just too vast.   We should respect that.

I often hear the following:  Conservatives point out that the "plain text" says that church tradition has been unanimous that male gay sex is an "abomination" or unnatural.  They then argue that scripture has the tendency of becoming less rigorous liturgically [thus Christians give up many of the Jewish rituals] but more rigorous regarding sex.   This argument allows them to avoid the more serious issues in the OT like Usury or keeping the Sabbath. 

When a conservative says "2000 years" he is just repeating a fact - yes, the church has pretty much objected to homosexuality.  But there are couple reasons why this isn't good enough.  Hearkening to the past is a bias rather than a truth.  There is no reason to assume that older is better: it is simply a perspective that most people, before capitalism, had.  But in the end" we've always done it that way" is a mediocre way to begin an ethic. Scripture seems to offer a better way:  is it beneficial [as Paul noted - all things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial]?

Of course, there are numerous arguments also why the liturgical / moral distinction is incorrect, and the argument about sexual ethics being "more rigorous" has more to do, I suspect, with record keeping and the need of the state to have an easy welfare system [a good idea, perhaps, but very utilitarian].  Jesus was strengthening the marriage vow because he was reminding the people that men had hard hearts when they discarded women. 

But the crucial reason conservatives offer - the "best" one - has to do with primacy and idealization of the unity and difference of two sexes.  Scripture and church tradition seem to have a fairly consistent metaphor about the bride and bridegroom being symbols, for example, the people and the land, or the church and Jesus Christ. To dismiss this metaphor is to trivialize what God intends [which is for us to procreate and have children] for us, and the wisdom of most humanity regarding the natural use of our genitalia.

This is the theological standpoint of the most credible biblical scholar, Robert Gagnon, who opposes homosexuality.  Scripture does assume, as does anyone who lives, that male and female are pretty important parts of human identity. 

The best response to this is, "No shit." 

Personally, I think that the description of church tradition being uniformly anti-gay is probably correct - to a certain point.  This is probably because homosexuality was conflated with sexual greed and exploitation.  The question then is, what is the purpose of our desires? Christian evolutionists like Joan Roughgarden are challenging the notion that our genitalia are made for procreative purposes first - they might be made, for example, for joy (as, actually the Archbishop of Canterbury argues in one of his earlier essays titled, The Body's Grace).

The other sense by conservatives is that the Episcopal Church, generally, has abandoned something called "The Faith Once Delivered."  I can't really explain it to you,  because I don't quite understand it myself.  It seems to have a very supernaturalistic, puritanical understanding of what the church is for (say, "saving souls" - admirable, but highly reductionistic).  It might be that the Nicene Creed seems to be said, but not literally believed, by most bishops or priests. What is true is that the church has decided that the creed has nothing to do with sexuality.  They might be right  that most bishops and priests interpret scripture in a fashion that would be unrecognizable to those in the first century.   

What they err about is that bishops and priests are saying things different than what was thought 100 years ago.  The church has had a "liberal" theology for at least 70 years. Perhaps what is changing is that now lay people are reading the same things that I am. 

My own view is that the battle for full inclusion of gay and Lesbian people in the Episcopal church has been won by progressives.  Most dioceses in the Episcopal church ordain competent gay clergy, quietly.  Our actions - distressingly for most conservatives - have moved much faster than our theology.  Unfortunately, this tends to also irk liberals who get upset when most bishops are simply trying to hold their diocese together.  Of course, as conservative priests get a lot more nasty and start challenging moderate bishops, these same bishops will realize that they have to draw a line somewhere. 

As the men in the Anglican tradition dissolve, an interesting counter current is happening.  The women from all 38 provinces of the Anglican church are regularly meeting.  If you follow the work of the Anglican women, you'll note that they are talking about other issues.  And they have said very clearly that homosexuality distracts us from issues of poverty.   

"Why does the west want to do this to us"

Robert Fisk reports: 

But they may be correct. The Hezbollah are firing missiles from villages in southern Lebanon, just as, for example, when the Israelis entered southern Lebanon and go into places like Bent Jabail, they're using civilian houses as cover for their tanks, so the Hezbollah use houses as cover for their missile launching. But the odd thing is the idea that for the Israeli military that somehow it’s okay to kill all these children; if a missile is launched 30, 90 feet from their house, that's okay then. We’ve got some film to show the missiles were launched; that's okay then. I mean, did the aircraft which dropped this bomb, a guided weapon, by the way -- they knew what they were hitting. It’s a guided weapon. We know that because the computer codes have been found on the bomb fragments. Did they say, “Oh, well, then, the man who launched the missile is hiding with the children in the basement of the house we're going to hit”? Is it the case now that if you happen to live in a house next to where someone launches a missile, you are to be sentenced to death? Is that what Israel thinks the war is about?