Gonna take a break from politics for a day or two.  I just wanted to wish my little Xanga family a very happy Thanksgiving...at least those of you who are in America and who celebrate it.    In a relatively short time I have grown quite fond of some of you.  I consider you like family in many ways - particularly, perhaps, since I don't have a biological family to speak of - and I look forward each day to what you have to say, both on your own blogs and here on my site.  Thank you for that, and just for being you.  You know who you are.  God bless you.

Arthur Poindexter Lunch has posted some sobering information about a new virulent strain of STD known as "Gonorrhea Lectim".  It's important for you to be aware of it.  But if you go to Arthur's blog and leave a comment, for God's sake don't smile.  Arthur doesn't like smileys or what he calls "ell-oh-ells", particularly when appended to poorly-honed thoughts.

Meanwhile here's the article I came across that compares the present political climate to the McCarthy era.  The Limbaughtistas among us won't see the parallels, of course, but in both cases fear of a REAL enemy was blown out of proportion and exploited to serve a politican or politicians' personal agenda.

I tend to give a slight bit more credence to a Republican who is levelling the charges against Bush, Inc.

**********

November 14, 2005

AMERICANS ARE RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE WITH THEIR 'WAR PRESIDENT'

Even as the House of Representatives passes its version of the budget reconciliaton bill, taking yet more money from the poor and giving it to the rich (see BugGirl's blog for details), and even as those fascist pigs in Washington continue to bluff and bluster while prosecuting the war in Iraq and decimating the Constitution here at home, articles like the one below give me a tiny ray of hope that a few more Americans are beginning to awaken from their lethargic slumber and dimly recognize that the country they thought they were familiar with has been hijacked.

Incidentally, I saw a newspaper headline the other day indicating that OVER FIFTY THOUSAND PEOPLE are being held without legal recourse in the American gulag that stretches around the world.  I thought maybe a few hundred, maybe a thousand.  But over 50,000????  When will they come for you, gentle reader, and for me?

I saw another article somewhere the other day, whose last paragraph suggested that the day will come when we will remember this era in American history with as much shame as we now remember the McCarthy era.  Truer words have never been spoken.  If you didn't see the original article, remember that you heard it here first.  I just hope that most of us will be ALIVE to remember this shameful era, period.

**********

Today I don't feel like thinking too deeply, or rather trying to write something profound (since I ALWAYS think deeply...hahaha).  I just wanted to say "good morning" to you all, and wish you a good day today - better, in any event, than the day I'm going to have.  As Marla/Sizoda always says, I love you all.  Even the knee-jerk no-thinking right wing nut jobs who go around pretending to be Christians. 

"Stolen" from justpeachy607's blog.  I though it was extremely well expressed, and highly pertinent to this debate I've been having, spanning BOTH of our blogs, with claire_chenault.

**********

Onward, moderate Christian soldiers
By JACK DANFORTH

It would be an oversimplification to say that America’s culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues such as stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God’s truth and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God’s kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors’ lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment might be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God’s side and you are not, that I know God’s will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God’s kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God’s work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree and to overcome the meanness we see in today’s politics.

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord’s table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.

Jack Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri. This commentary appeared in the June 17 edition of The New York Times.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jun/20050626Comm006.asp

Just in case claire_chenault deletes my comment, here's the long and rather rambling reply I posted over on his blog.  I don't expect the "debate" to last too long, because neither of us will probably change the other's mind an iota.  But I will feel I have succeeded if I can get a single individual reader to expand his or her mind, and cease conflating Christianity with "Americanism", whatever exactly that is.

**********

I've been debating whether to attempt the unthinkable...try to argue both religion and politics at the same time, in an attempt to respond to claire_chenault's right-wing "Christian" world view, which unfortunately is all too prevalent in the United States, in as comprehensive a manner as possible.  It seems like a daunting task, and probably not worth the effort if my purpose is to change claire's mind even one single milimeter.  While I continue to ponder it, here are the last two quotes from Randall Robinson's marvellous book:

Excerpts from Defending the Spirit: A Black Life in America by Randall Robinson, 1998

            …Arthur Ashe, a member of TransAfrica Forum’s board of directors and co chair of Artists and Athletes Against Apartheid, had great difficulty persuading black athletes to join the anti-apartheid campaign.  Most were effectively cut off from the black community by white agents who warned them that they would be putting their endorsement prospects at great risk should they associate with any undertaking that was even vaguely controversial.

            In 1990 Harvey Gantt, a black former mayor of Charlotte and North Carolina’s Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, had at least an even chance to unseat Jesse Helms, racial bigotry’s elected standard bearer.  When Michael Jordan, a godlike figure in North Carolina, was asked to endorse Gantt’s candidacy, he declined, explaining that “Republicans buy shoes too.”  Winning narrowly, Helms moved on in 1994 to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from which post he has done incalculable damage to the interests of Africa, the Caribbean, and the developing world in general.  Jordan’s involvement might have made the difference for Gantt and removed from power a man who makes little secret of his malignant hostility to black interests, here and abroad…

Page 273

           …Some months after returning from Haiti, Hazel and I attended a parent-teacher conference at Khalea’s school.  Khalea attends Beauvoir, a highly-rated private school situated on the well-manicured lush grounds of the Washington Cathedral.  She had tested as a gifted child, and we were not surprised to learn that she was doing well in class.  Everyone associated with the Beauvoir family was warm and friendly.  Andrea Bowrie, Khalea’s teacher that year, was no exception.  As our successful conference drew to a close, Hazel thought to clarify a  matter that had only just occurred to her.

            “What does this ‘time out’ mean?” Hazel asked.

            “Children are placed in time out for disciplinary reasons,” explained Andrea Bowrie.  “They go to a corner alone and remain apart from the class and quiet for a period of time.”

            “Khalea tells us that all of the black girls in her class have been put in time out and none of the white girls.  Is this true?”  Hazel asked.

            There were three black girls in the class in addition to Khalea.  One was Vanessa, whose mother, Gayle Williams, sat on the Beauvoir governing board.  Kristin was the daughter of Jack White, a columnist for Time magazine.  Erica was the daughter of Judge Eric Washington of the D.C. Superior Court.  They were well-behaved girls.  Kristin was so quiet, I’d not have known her voice, although she came to our home often to play with Khalea.

            “Yes, that is true,” said Ms. Bowrie.

            “How can that be so?” Hazel asked, more mystified than upset.  “I know these girls and they are well mannered.  Yet all of them have been isolated from the class and not one of the white girls has been disciplined in the same way.  Doesn’t that seem odd to you?”

            “No,” replied Bowrie.  “Studies show that black parents rear their children to be more aggressive.”

            Later, there would be profuse apologies from the school, copious tears from the teacher.  But the damage was done, mirroring in its particular and personal way the problems we face on a global scale.

            Where does a black soul go to rest?

Pages 284-85

Before I share a couple more excerpts from Randall Robinson's book, I thought I'd throw in this little spiritual nugget which I received in an e-mail:

"The moment you come to trust chaos, you see God clearly. Chaos is
divine order, versus human order. Change is divine order, versus human
order. When the chaos becomes safety to you, then you know you're
seeing God clearly."

—Caroline Myss, *Spiritual Madness: The Necessity of Meeting God in Darkness*

And here's a pertinent quote from the priest Daniel Berrigan:

Excerpts from Defending the Spirit: A Black Life in America by Randall Robinson, 1998

            …Which brings us to the sine qua non for effective outside-the-Policy-House advocacy: a gift for self-promotion, a gift used or, more appropriately, misused to its fullest by those self-seeking souls unburdened by any restraint of shame.  This is not to disparage self-promotion, especially when it is an inadvertent by-product of a public effort to alter wrongheaded public policy.  We have seat belts in our cars, and consumer safety standards generally, because of the public advocacy of Ralph Nader, whose formidable public stature has carried in its trail a salutary and major public policy influence.

            My academic friends and the foundations that fund their painstaking research appear to understand none of this.  For forty years of apartheid, the tenured opponents of that system won grants, did research, wrote monographs and books, gave testimony ad nauseam before Congress.  All to no effect.  American policy toward South Africa had been and remained one of de facto public and private embrace.  Few if any members of Congress felt compelled to read or listen to anything the academic community had to say.  Only when a campaign of massive civil disobedience was packaged for public participation in late 1984 did American policy begin to turn around.

            This is not the preferred way to make or influence foreign policy.  But in America, if you are outside the Policy House, a position to which virtually all blacks have been relegated, it is the only way to have impact.  We have won most of the battles in which I have fought.  But the price has been dear and I am tired and diminished by the process.  In all the years of meeting with presidents, secretaries of state, national security advisors, U.S. trade representatives, and members of Congress, I cannot recall a single change of policy course that resulted from any of the hundreds of discussions, the thousands of letters, the scores of presentations to perfunctory nods and courteous closings.  Like water off a duck’s back.  It never ever meant a damn thing…

pages 244-45

            …No such groundswell was developed for Rwanda.  The President was under no pressure to assign it priority.  No public accounting  would be required from him or Congress no matter the outcome on the ground in Rwanda.  After months of desultory low-level circular back-room White House discussion, serious prophylactic measures had not been taken.

            Rwanda blew up.  A half million people died.  The American people heard of Rwanda for the first time.

            By the time the killing had subsided, the United States had spent in excess of a billion dollars on relief efforts.  Had real attention been paid earlier, the crisis might have been averted, if not altogether then certainly in substantial part.

            If democracy, when healthy, is rooted in an enlightened citizenry, ours is in a perilous state.  This is particularly so in the way we make policy toward a world of countries we may have heard of but know nothing about or, I suspect, more often have never heard of at all.  We don’t require world studies in our schools.  We generally offer only the romance languages of  Europe in public school curricula, and teach even those languages in English.  Minds incubating in an American school environment know without knowing that if there is a world beyond Europe, it merits small respect and has no history.  From this pool of fools emerge those who comprise our national foreign policy leadership.

            Some years ago, when he was chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Howard Wolpe told me that he didn’t think there were twenty members of Congress who could name five African countries.

            The price of this ignorance is dear.  Americans end up believing that problems in the world begin only with their learning of them.  Even then what little we get to know is media-presented without historical context.  We can’t then hope to participate constructively in any policy debate.

            Our democracy is reduced thereby to the narrow stricture of electoral ritual.  A small homogeneous community of anonymous foreign policy professionals acts with impunity and without oversight or responsibility to account.  In cases like Rwanda, it acts hardly at all…

pages 252-253

            …I don’t know how to write this.  How to set my voice.  How to select the words.  I – we – black people globally – have become so accustomed to not being listened to.  The urge is to scream, but this irritates the uninitiated.  The lawyer in me subdues and pulls me within the rules, realm, and language of the rationalists who enjoy the perennial advantage in their court of discussion.  Emotion is off-putting when unshared, and I have no idea how the exterior side of my anger looks.  But what the United States has done to Zaire and much of Africa – done with gloves so as to leave no fingerprints – is unpardonable.  Zairians, Somalis, Liberians, Angolans, Sudanese, Kenyans appear to have destroyed their own societies without accomplices.  No news-account fingers point at the American partners who comment coolly and with reasoned detachment on the wreckage they have wrought.  Power means in the last analysis never having to say you are sorry – or acknowledge that there is even anything to be sorry about.

            Americans, black and white, have only gotten to see the mute husks of failed African nation states.  The viable states are never showcased for popular consumption.  Only the images of human misery.  Refugee tides.  Distended bellies.  Corrupt “big” men.  Racist assumptions supported, rationalized, deepened.  Never taking notice that so very many of the blameworthy were here – are here.  But their anonymous faces, smug with career progress, are never seen through the flames…

pages 277-78