RITN: ReligionInTheNews

Internet Darkness, Freedom

2012-01-19T00:20:00.000-05:00

Wikipedia, Google, Twitter--three Internet heavy hitters--staged a 'go dark' protest against proposed anti-piracy legislation. These sites receive and drive so much traffic, the protest was dramatic. Some worried about the entire Internet going dark--whether by design of accident. The Web has ensnared us, and we can longer easily free ourself from its orienting power.

It's worth pondering whether a sabbath, an intentional go-dark period each week, would be restful to our clicked-through, side-tracked, netted, webbed souls. The Internet must remain free? Yes, I suppose. Should we remain free? Surely.

Cyberwar! Be (Un)alarmed

2012-01-17T00:48:00.000-05:00

Image Courtesy
of Mingo.

At Matthew 24:6, Jesus darkly claims "And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that you be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." The context of these strange visions is hard to reconstruct, but the emotions--and the lordly transcendence over emotions--are timeless. Death is on the prowl. Be not afraid?

Isabel Kershner reports for the New York Times that a cyberwar is escalating in Israel. Israel, it turns out, is a formidable cyberattacker, but not very strong defensively.

The question may properly belong over at Theological Prescripts, but it's worth asking whether cyberwar should cause worry. How are we to be untroubled by such attacks?

When it comes to anxiety about war, nothing has changed. In the ancient world, war caused anxiety, the same as it does now. When it comes to methods, much has changed. Today's technologies of destruction are remarkably abstract, and it's hard nowadays to feel perfectly comfortable. Just as we're sitting down to a meal, our power supply might be cut by a variant of Stuxnet. If we invest through the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, oxOmar might succeed at shutting the exchange down. If not oxOmar, perhaps it will be the cyberattackers called Nightmare. All we have might disappear; all we need might be compromised. Our understandable (and in my view correct) reaction is to defend ourselves against such attacks.

But the strange world of the New Testament apocalypse--the vague allusion to Antiochus IV Epiphanies--offers counsel in these fearful times. Beware of false messiahs--those who provide overly neat answers to our worries and woes. Beware those who will set principles aside, or who will distort them to justify evil purposes. Be sure that messiahs of this sort will show 'great signs and wonders:' attacks on infrastructures, new forms of terror and new defenses against them, death by fear...

Our task is to see through the haze, to see matters differently. That is the challenging work of courage.

'Be not afraid' is a moral and existential claim, not a silencing of emotion. Get your bearings. Don't allow fear to limit your vision.

Dan Wheldon Tragedy

2011-10-17T22:06:00.001-04:00

Jerry Garrett reports for the New York Times about the 15-car Indycar crash that killed Dan Wheldon. The report is troubling, especially in that conditions for the tragedy were obvious. There were too many drivers; they were averaging laps of 220 mph; the speedway's banks were high and dropped into dangerous flats. The crash was dramatic, and terrible.

Other sports--football, baseball, boxing, etc--also entail serious risks, yet we are drawn to participate in and watch them being played. When children develop, they engage in play that is inherently dangerous--sometimes to the chagrin of their anxious parents. Dangerous play is true of human and non-human animals, and there is evidence that without this play, full development is stifled. A certain measure of risk taking is required as a part of healthy development.

We live in a time of heightened safety consciousness. Our cars have 12-15 air bags and computers that recognize danger. They tell us if our tires are running low. In order to enter an airport, we submit to scans, screens, and challenge questions--all to ensure safety. In national politics, safety and security predominate.

Yet in spite of these safety measures, we take risks. We drive faster than we should (at least at times), talk on cell phones in the car or text while driving, consume too much food and drink, smoke, exercise too little...

The Wheldon tragedy is saddest because its risks were known, and probably preventable. The full story--the Indy and Nascar struggle, the role of money, the clearly known risks--is still being investigated. But the tragedy illustrates a deeper conundrum, in which living requires taking risks--and pushing limits. Absolute safety would be stifling and soul destroying, and thus we celebrate those who push limits with skill and expertise. The best of them accomplish in maximums what the rest of us pursue in smaller ways as we live our lives

Anwar al Awlaki, dead after Hellfire missile attack

2011-09-30T10:10:00.000-04:00

Anwar al-Awlaki
courtesy, Wikimedia.

Laura Kasinof, Mark Mazzetti, and Alan Cowell report for the New York Times that American-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki is dead. A predator drone delivered a Hellfire missile killing Awlaki. RITN previosuly commented on the Awlaki case. Read here and here.

Check back later for further reflections on the significance of this successful strike against al Qaeda.

Health Care: The Bigger Questions

2011-09-28T00:27:00.001-04:00

Reed Abelson and Nina Bernstein report today for the New York Times that U.S. health insurance costs are rising sharply. In some respects, that is not news; health insurance rates have been rising sharply since the 1970s. In another respect, however, the news comes at a turning point in American history—and quite likely a chapter demarcation of world history. Arguably, we are at a moment of transition equal in significance to WWII and the Cold War. Obama was elected to office by calling for change, but the changes we face exceed those he promised.

Image Courtesy Pass3456, Wikimedia

At stake, as the Abelson and Bernstein piece illustrates, are the promises made by liberal states—the United States and Europe—about retirement benefits, health insurance, education, care for children, and the like. As these societies age, non-wage earners (retirees, the sickly, and children) burden wage earners to the breaking point. A worker who retires at 67 may live another 20 or 30 years, nearly equally to the time he or she worked. And the cost of providing healthcare in this period will be extraordinary. On the other side, each child leads to immense child care, educational, social, and medical and dental costs, further dampening the birth rate.

We have known for some time that the revenue model of liberal states would prove unworkable, but we have wanted to have it both ways: to give to those who need (education, health care, retirement) and to keep as much as possible for ourselves (low tax rates). Even as we projected revenue shortfalls, we became more and more convinced that corrupt government—rather than a dated model—was to blame. Along came calls for ever-reduced taxes, as if that would solve rather than exacerbate the revenue crisis.

These domestic issues are set within a context of massive changes to the global structure: the end of the Cold War, the rise of non-state actors (terrorists, most notably, but also powerful corporations, the denizens of social media sites, bloggers, and the like), and the quickly growing ascendancy of China, India, and other developing states. Just as the U.S. became most dominant with the former Soviet Union’s fracturing, our mode of dominance has proved unsustainable and increasingly irrelevant.

We have staggering military power at our behest, but we also fear that this power is not enough. Against this backdrop came the attacks of 9/11. The ‘war against terror’, fundamental compromises of our legal and human rights traditions, and the wars against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein that followed 9/11, however necessary they may have been in one respect, were driven as much by desire to assert our dominance (with the added consolation of proving it to ourselves) as they were to protect us from harm. What protected us in the short term may have redcued longer term prospects for meaningful revitalization.

Image: PD-USGOV, Wikimedia

Arguably, the Great Recession is a product of these changes, not their cause, but that is unknown. Whatever the causes of the recession—and one should not underestimate the ‘real estate bubble’ and dangerously overleveraged financial system—it is rendered more toxic by a sense of doom, that many of us fear America’s day in the sun is over. The Great Recession was prefigured by a period of orgiastic excess, and we have not yet fully grasped what went wrong.

One place to turn is core values that underlie the American Proposition, as it was called by the 20^th century Roman Catholic theologian John Courtney Murray. But the deeper strands of our culture—religious, philosophical, and historical—are inaccessible to many who hold anti-religious assumptions about how history works. Intellectuals such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens suggest that these deeper (religious) traditions are the primary source of our maladies.

The Tea Party may be wrong about many things (a tendency to anti-intellectualism, a penchant for stoking xenophobia, a fundamentalist impulse), but they have a keener sense of what has been lost, or is being threatened, than political aficionados, left and right, who want to play by the old rules. What we need is a thoroughgoing re-envisioning of America’s core purposes and fundamental values, but political stalemates in Washington suggest that we are not yet ready to hear articulated a viable forward-looking strategy.

The progressive impulse (Obama’s healthcare legislation, for example) has not asked, let alone demanded, shared commitment to fund its main initiatives. A progressive strategy requires increased revenue, or it is dangerous fantasy. The libertarian impulse (Ron Paul, for example) is guileless about unfettered individualism, but the larger issues we face outflank the nation as a whole, let alone individuals in their solitary, nasty, and brutish stations. The conservative impulse (Rick Perry, for example) wants to recover historically significant traditions but seems not to realize that such a recovery will require applying (and therefore altering) these noble traditions.

So what we have is an underfunded progressive impulse, an individualistic sense of accomplishment until someone ‘we’ love is in need, and a conservative strategy that stokes fears and harkens to yesteryear but fails to grasp the challenges of tomorrow. We do have something to fear besides fear itself. But do we have something greater? That’s the religious and social question being raised by the imperiled healthcare legislation.

The Dance of Reason and Unreason

2011-08-25T23:56:00.001-04:00

Gardiner Harris reports for the New York Times that MMR vaccine has once again been cleared as a cause of autism. Scientific studies of this sort will change the thinking of some some people, but a great many others will continue to believe that vaccines cause autism. Presumably this will lead to higher incidences of measles, mumps, and rubella but no decrease in autism.

image credit: 2over0, wikimedia

There are complex reasons for the lack of trust in scientific findings. People are ambivalent about the explanatory power of science, and autism, which is on the rise for poorly understood reasons, is so fearsome that unreason simply pushes reasoned explanations aside. Also, as the article shows, vaccines do pose risks; they simply pose fewer risks than going unvaccinated. Since being vaccinated has some adverse effects, there is a store of ready anecdotes to illustrate how dangerous and unworthy vaccines are. Human beings have difficulty remaining reason-oriented when the stakes are high.

image credit: ceridwen, wikimedia

Religions are human enterprises, and so they are tangled up completely within this dance of reason and unreason, between seeing straight and being caught in a web of fear.

Critics of religion like to point to the unreasonable elements of religion: the concept of revelation, for example, or the notion of resurrection from the dead; the idea of reincarnation or the belief in a loving God. How loving is God, they ask, when the world is a hellish and difficult place. Frequently, however, these critics err (as do some rationalist defenders of religions) in holding all religious claims to a standard of reason.

There are some human activities that are a work of reason (artistic work, love and family, for example), even though elements of them can be understood using the tools of reason. For example, a great painting (say Picasso's Guernica) is not produced as an act of reason. The painting is full of suggestions and 'ideas', but it is not an argument. The painting was produced through passion. Thus, it makes no sense to suggest that it is unreasonable. The painting is wondrous and terrible--those reactions can be understood using the tools of reason--but it is not 'against reason.'

Much of religion also is not against reason; it is drawing from and commending something quite different. Reason's defenders are right to worry when people doubt the work of reason proper, as for example when scientific studies are ignored or nullified by fearful reactions. Reason's defenders are on less secure ground when they mock the unreasonableness of something that is not a work of reason.

Camping Flabbergasted! Me, too!

2011-05-23T17:49:00.003-04:00

Will Kane reports for the San Francisco Chronicle that Harold Camping, whose rapture predictions proved premature, is flabbergasted. Me too.

To be clear I'm not flabbergasted that the earth remained intact and that Christians continue, like the rest of us, to be sojourners here below.

I'm flabbergasted at the economy, which remains broken; the climate, which is trending more than Bieber on a good day; the mean-spirited partisanship of Washington, with leaders on the left and right feckless in the face of our ills; the raging global war against terror, which is simultaneously hideous and necessary; energy crises in the Gulf and Japan, which show that we need to speed up and slow down, also simultaneously....

However much Camping believes he extracted his sense of doom from scripture and prophecy, like the rest of us, his insights were formed by this riptide of negativity.

Camping also could look abroad and see the growth of the Chinese and Indian economies, which are lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. He could focus on the upsurge of democracy in north Africa and the middle east. Such news could have leavened his sense of overt doom. But even these news items can be used to buttress a doomsday sentiments.

In fact, Camping's doomsday thinking is remarkable only for its oddity, its religious zealotry, and for the fact that most of us enjoy making fun it. That we do so to conceal our own sense of (secular) doom goes unnoticed; and for that, we owe Camping a big thank you.

Francis Fukuyama: 'The Origins of Political Order' - Newsweek

2011-04-12T00:33:00.000-04:00

RITN recommends Francis Fukuyama: 'The Origins of Political Order' - Newsweek

Libya, the Obama doctrine

2011-03-27T23:45:00.000-04:00

Obama's statement to the nation about actions in Libya are closely consistent with the overall Obama doctrine: it follows from a stance of multilateralism, is based on consultation, seeks to answer the call of a threatened people, and promises no American troops will be deployed on the ground. These seem like the right moves for now, though since the post on March 21, 2011, some have criticized Obama's actions.

Gaddafi has long been antagonistic to the U.S., but following 9/11 he appeared to realize that Islamist terrorists were as much a threat to him as they were to the secular governments of the West. What he must not have fathomed is how the U.S. will cooperate with someone of his ilk but turn quickly if a democratic tide pushes against him. This was the lesson from Mubarak, and it may yet be the case throughout the middle east and north Africa. The most interesting test case of American principles is Saudi Arabia. Will we continue to support its liberal monarchy for fear of its intolerant citizenry? Or will we allow a rising tide of democracy to push the monarchs aside, should it come to that? It is likely that they have grave misgivings about liberal Obama and wish for a return to the Evangelical Bush.

Woodrow Wilson
image: Wikimedia

Though it was but a few years ago, it seems a distant past when issues of this sort predominated in our relationship with China. Though we traded with them heavily, we insisted on making vocal claims about human rights violations. We have gone from being a major trading partner to being a major borrower, and the Chinese government seems more focused on economic growth than on political control. But what would our position be should there be a 'demonstration' followed by a 'crack down'? Of course, much would depend on the actual circumstances: some crack downs could be so grievous that we would need to say something, and some demonstrations could fail to gain our sympathy. But the deeper issue, as it is for Saudi Arabia, is independence of moral standing. Arguably, in both cases, our moral standing is compromised (or at least shaped) by our interests.

The realist position, the dominant U.S. approach to international relations, argues that interests must guide our work with and confrontation of other nations. Moral positions, the realists claim, are simply tools for advancing our interests. But the U.S. also has a strong sense of universalist mission, which is grounded in the common culture (various forms of Christianity) and is articulated in terms of liberal internationalism.

Arguably the Bush administration was as much guided by liberal internationalist views (of the President himself) as it was by hawkish neo-conservatives. In these dangerous times, let us hope that our actions afield are considered from many perspectives. This moment is pregnant with judgment. Much is at stake, and much could go wrong.

Obama, On Military Action in Libya

2011-03-21T00:24:00.000-04:00

Check out the text of Obama's statement in military action in Libya. RITN will comment in the next day or two.

History's Curveballs

2011-03-15T00:40:00.000-04:00

The upsurge of protest and rising tide of democratic revolution in north Africa and throughout the middle east reminds one of predictions made by neoconservatives in advance of the Iraq war. We would be greeted as liberators, and democracy would sweep the region, they said.

Image courtesy of Silver Spoon
by way of Wikimedia Commons.

In the early going, we were greeted by a few as liberators, but the nastiness of war eventually led many to conclude we were in fact enemies. About the transformation to democracy, a claim scorned by many (including me), history may have thrown one of its classic curveballs. The curveball is history’s answer to Hegel and Marx’s dialectic, which retains the linear and progressive features of liberalism, Christianity, and Judaism. History lurches, really quite haphazardly at points, and cannot be mapped out in advance.

The neoconservatives argued that there was an immense feeling of repression and suppression in the middle east—and larger Arab world. Toppling one sadistic potentate would destabilize every tyrant. The neocons, with their faith in humanity’s desire for freedom, apparently were right about that. Regardless antique traditions of servitude and cultures of submission, people want to be free, to choose their government officials, and to give shape to the political structure of their society. Repression is not made more palatable by government buy-outs and pay-offs.

The neoconservatives did not fathom the power of something such as Wikileaks. Nor did anyone else. The leaks showed abuses of power within these states to the world as a whole. The open secrets were now more open than secret; there was no denying mendacity and abuse. The political destabilization of the middle east—the toppling and execution of Hussein—may have been a necessary condition to broad-based revolution, but it was not sufficient.

Nor is history done throwing curveballs. The classic realist position would never have authorized destabilizing the region. Who knows what’s next? Will quasi-democratic revolutions lead to anarchy? Destruction? The toppling of Saudi Arabia? Will we see thousand dollar barrels of oil? Frankly, no one knows. According to some theologies, even God is unsure.

So back to the neoconservatives (and others, such as classic liberals, who share faith in humanity’s desire to be free): freedom is a right, but it is not a guarantee that all will be well. Freeing people may lead to anarchy, especially if structures to organize freedom are underdeveloped. More importantly, we do not know how newly won freedoms will interact with other elements of culture, structure, and process. The dominant post-Cold War paradigm, which was the Cold War paradigm, only with the US solely at the helm, is shifting.

The world is becoming something, but we are not yet sure what it will become. In some ways, these shifts might be as dramatic and destructive as the seismic shifts that have laid waste to Japan. Let us hope that is not so.

Wishful thinking, count me in

2011-02-28T23:48:00.000-05:00

"Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought...".

(Shakespeare, Henry IV, pt 2)

RITN recommends Scott Shane's news analysis in today's New York Times entitled "As Regimes Fall in Arab World, Al Qaeda Sees History Fly By."

Shane's thesis is that Al Qaeda's interpretation/construction of history is being mooted by the revolutionary changes in North Africa. The revolutionists have resisted religious fanaticism and senseless violence. They have embraced democracy. Thus, says Shane, expert opinion holds that "... the jihadists look like ineffectual bystanders to history while offering young Muslims an appealing alternative to terrorism."

image: public domain
wikicommons; photo by MC2 Jesse Awalt

Count me among those who hope that this analysis is correct, and though I have worries about implications for global and regional stability, count me also as a liberal internationalist who would support a targeted US intervention to even the playing field, and take the Colonel (and others of his ilk) down, at least if he continues to order strikes on his people.

The unknowns of history, of the future course of human affairs, should humble us. Who is to know whether Al Qaeda will be neutered by these acts? Who is to know whether long-term democratic stability will replace the secular autocratic regimes that have characterized much of the post-colonial Arab world?

Humility of this sort, however, ultimately cuts decidedly against the Colonel, the president for life, and other Pharaohs ancient and modern. Theirs was a usurpation of power that cannot stand the long test of time.

Much experience has shown, however, that the demos (the people) also is a threatening source of power. A liberal democracy, therefore, places limits on the power of the people, often through articulation or recognition of inviolable rights. Let us hope--a wish, with a dash of structure--that such a vision of rights guides a democratic renewal of the Arab world.

North Africa: Worry and Celebration

2011-02-26T02:28:00.000-05:00

The recent movement of the human spirit in North Africa is cause to celebrate. Profound religious, philosophical, and scientific insights combine to suggest that humans prefer freedom, though experience shows that freedom frequently is traded for goods of other kinds.

Juggling on the Berlin Wall
image courtesy: Yann Forget [cc by-sa 3.0]

So it is a miracle of sorts, when long-term freedom compromising calculations drop away all at once. The last time tyranny collapsed so quickly was in 1989 when the Wall of Shame was dismantled and then in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. The uprisings in North Africa are undoing strongmen who crafted a creed for permanent rule by combining secularism, self interest, ruthlessness, and a window dressing of religiosity.

No doubt, realists who favor stability view Egypt and Libya, and the rest of the region, with a jaundiced eye. That is not a foolish or inhumane position. A period of suppression may very well be followed by a period of wanton destruction. But the realists' larger worries are the unknown implications for regional and global security. How, for example, will Israel’s position be affected? Might religious fanatics seize power? Could a regional conflict be ignited? These questions are breezily dismissed only by fools.

So how should we read the news from North Africa? In a mood of celebration or worry? I propose celebration tinged by worry.

The celebration is for each individual whose life stands to be freer and more self-determined. This low-to-the-ground perspective sees the courage and aspiration of individuals who are undeterred by the force of thugs. Celebration also sees through governmental claims that a new order must lead to destruction. Concern resides in uncertainty: it is conceivable that everyone could be worse off, if things take a bad turn. However legitimate is this concern, it certainly does not justify governments threatening or killing their citizens.

The future is unknown to us, so principles and values have to guide us in each present. The liberal and Christian creed of the dignity, equality, and inherent freedom of people seem good ones to be relying on just now.

The Unrest in North Africa

2011-02-23T00:00:00.000-05:00

Over the next several days, RITN will be posting comments on the unrest in north Africa. Check out this graphic in the New York Times.

These are heady days for advocates of freedom and democracy; they are also days of peril.

Stuxnet, part II

2011-01-16T01:46:00.001-05:00

Courtesy Makki98
Wikimedia Commons

Back in December, I posted "A Theology for Stuxnet." Today, William J. Broad, John Markoff, and David E. Sanger report for the New York Times about the backdrop, technological capacity, development and testing (at the Dimona complex in the Negev Desert) of the Stuxnet computer worm. In brief, this worm was specifically designed to destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment facility. It seems increasingly likely the United States and Israel cooperated to develop this highly sophisticated cyberweapon.

There is an ethical dimension to this cyberattack. To be sure, any attack raises ethical questions. When, if ever, is it acceptable to take life? Under what circumstances might one justify targeted killings and assassinations? Is it ever acceptable to put civilians (non-combatants) in harm's way, or to view their harm as unfortunate but reasonable "collateral damage?"

Stuxnet's sophistication is revealed in how particular its intended target is. The worm was designed only to strike the particular conditions that prevail in the Iranian nuclear enrichment facility. It's as if a bullet could be designed only to kill a particular person; it could be fired into a crowd, since only its intended target would be killed.

Courtesy: Grixlkraxl (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0]
Wikimedia Commons

What's also clear, however, is that code for Stuxnet will be re-used and its possible targets will expand dramatically. When nuclear weapons were used to end WWII, the technology to produce the weapon was a secret; it's no longer a secret. In the case of Stuxnet, the worm was deployed (albeit with secretive elements, some meant to cover and erase their own tracks) into a public domain. We know that the code is being studied. The genie is out of the bottle.

Thus, it's too early to celebrate the attack on Iran, even though it appears to have been highly successful. The attack was a calculated move, one meant to prevent a nuclear standoff. That is arguably all to the good. Stuxnet may, however, be used to cause unforeseen harm. If it does, who shall we hold responsible? And what kind of celebration will then be possible?

Paul Krugman's Op-Ed, recommended reading

2011-01-10T23:36:00.000-05:00

RITN recommends Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece "Climate of Hate." Krugman argues that "eliminationist rhetoric"--inducements to eliminate political opponents--leads to a climate in which atrocities such as the shootings in Arizona occur. He further argues that such rhetoric is heard emanating from the Right (e.g., Beck, O'Reilly) but not the Left (e.g., Maddow, Olbermann). This may be an overstatement, but the right is angrier, more vocal about its anger, and more inclined to suggest that violence has a political place. Its aggressive defense of the Second Amendment is a not very veiled political statement. One doesn't need to consult Thortein Veblen to draw that conclusion.

Yesterday's RITN post argued, however, that there is a deeper, shared context that is provoking both the right and the left--and everyone else. That is, the world in which we live (our hopes, values, expectations, and the like) is radically changing, and we know that where it ends up is out of our control. We also know that the previous generation's political syntheses, the Democratic Party's liberalism and war on poverty and the Republican Party's war on liberalism and government-is-likely-to-be-evil philosophy, are incapable of leading us unto the twenty-first century. Whence cometh our help?

Th anger is rising, and we are living in the early throes of what could be a long, nasty, and brutish period.

For all this, it remains to be seen whether someone in either major political party can bridge the gaps and develop a new synthesis. Obama appears to be trying, but the gap may be too wide. It may also be that bridging Democratic and Republican positions is untenable, with compromises having the effect of denying the difficult choices that face us.

Political Debate and Violence

2011-01-09T02:31:00.001-05:00

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

Yesterday, I posted at Creedible.com on the importance of seeking reasoned public debate over matters such as the healthcare bill. In particular, I was responding to the Obama administration's on-again, off-again approach to the end-of-life counseling as a provision of healthcare legislation. Each time the administration tries to include this counseling as a provision of the healthcare bill, it is politically construed as sponsoring death panels. Whatever one thinks of healthcare legislation--good people are for it, and good people are against it--these claims deliberately misconstrue the law for political purposes.

In the post, I argued larger issues are at stake:

These debates reveal that as a people we are aware important things are changing—religion, politics, economics—and we are uncertain about the future. Thus, we want to get right what we’re doing now.

In itself that is a good thing for which to aim, of course. The question of our character is whether we can see that the views of our political, religious, and economic opponents are as thoughtful as our own. The tendency to demonize our opponents must be deliberately rejected. It may take an act of political faith, but I believe politicians who adopt thoughtful strategies of engaging the opposition will be honored by voters in coming elections. Whether that’s true is not really the point from a civic and moral point of view, for which doing the right thing is more than reason enough.

Let’s agree to try to listen to each other, and to reject false portrayals of our political opponents. Reasoned conversation is a key element of public theology. In the book of Isaiah, the Lord speaks to the people through the prophet to say, “Come, let us reason together.” Let’s follow this ancient counsel.

The shooting in Arizona of Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others shows how high the stakes are. The shooter--a disturbed youth, apparently--should not be our primary focus. Rather, we should think about our political problems with an eye to how each of the established political positions contributes to them.

As a nation, we consume more than we produce, want more than we are willing and probably able to pay for, live within a worldview that is dated, fear government intrusion in our lives but fail to see how much we rely on governmental structures, are less able than our Chinese and Indian counterparts to work together, and are prone to political childishness.

We really must work to renew our political culture and civic life and confront the larger problems facing us together. It's unclear at this moment whether we will be able to do that. The tragedy in Arizona should lead us to self-reflection--fear and trembling--but it is unlikely to do so.

Attacks Against Pakistani Sufis

2011-01-06T22:53:00.000-05:00

Islamic militants in Pakistan--hard liners, extremists, whatever term we might use--have over the last several years been increasingly attacking Sufi Muslims, Huma Imtiaz and Charlotte Bunchen report for the New York Times At War blog.

The Sufis are targeted for a variety of reasons, arguably the most salient of which is that they represent a variant of Islam unlike the monolith championed by the militants. The Sufis are especially inclined to singing and dancing and sharing God's love with others. That is a strong counterpoint to committing acts of terror as a means of waging jihad against the infidels. The Sufis also may be viewed as dupes of pro-Western Pakistani authorities, and indeed the report suggest that the United States is treating them as a political tool to be used against the militants.

The militants' decision to target such groups will in the long run--if not in the shorter term--further deligitimize their efforts, both within Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in the larger Islamic world. Insofar as the purse strings powering the terror movements extend across the Islamic world, this strategy will backfire.

It's sad that the Sufis are caught in this hellfire, and that they are used as pawns on the one side, and targeted for killing on the other. The true madness of this conflict--a madness only possible under the aspect of the divine--here shows its true colors. Yet in this saddest of realities, a glimmer of hope shines through. If we listen closely, the tinker of a Sufi bell can be heard beneath the din of war.

New Words, and Beyond Them (to Ecstasy)

2010-12-23T00:17:00.000-05:00

Sarah Palin refudiates and President Obama bemoans the shellacking his party took in the November elections. The nation is poutraged by the G.Z.M. and QE2. In the dark? Check out Sam Sifton and Grant Barrett’s New York Times piece, “The Words of the Year.”

These new words and turns of phrase illustrate how dynamic language is. The English language is especially so; each year countless words are added to the regime of the possible. Equally important are new ways of putting things. Sarah Palin may be maligned by the intelligentsia, but it’s worth noting that the Times word and phrase list includes several of her neologisms. She has an ability to put her finger on something nodal, a skill few people have.

The dynamic nature of language raises interesting problems for scriptures, which either must be translated or read in ancient tongues, and also for doctrinal statements, which have received forms. Arguably, if belief and creed are not adjusted over time, or at least explained in fresh and novel ways, they become obscurantist. The work of theology is to critically reconsider belief in light of new ways of comprehending the world, as they are brought to us in new languages and means of comprehension. This is a daunting task.

Religious communities constantly make ad hoc adaptations to new claims and ideas, simply as a result of meeting, engaging in discussion about current circumstances and the enduring meaning of their community’s claims, preaching sermons, and the like. Yet for all this, a frequent assumption—made equally by believers and religious detractors—is that religions don’t change. In fact, there are some religious critics—Sam Harris, among them—who hold that religions are most adequately represented by fundamentalists. Liberals, Harris holds (and he has most thoughtful believers in mind), confuse the issues by rethinking the core claims of faith. Better he thinks to have absolutist shout-outs with ‘true believers.’ From the standpoint of religious history, this sort of criticism makes very little sense. Even fundamentalists constantly alter their religious views in light of new claims and circumstances; they frequently fail to realize how derivative their formulations are, how yoked to contemporary motifs.

Recognizing the power of words and ideas commends the vigilant study of new ideas, means of putting things, and new values. They determine how we think, live, and act. They provide us with the primary means of experiencing the world. They are the lens through which our identities are expressed and develop over time. Religious traditions as various as Theravada Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have argued for the importance of words and languages. Their combined insight shouldn’t be lightly dismissed.

God help us if we become beliebers.... But this raises the question of music, one of the powers of which is to unshackle us from ‘words,’ ‘concepts,’ and ‘ideas.’ Music trades on a deeper, more intuitive and emotional plane. Arguably, this realm derives from a more ancient part of mind, one that forms the basis of reason, logic, and words but is itself not them. We also should get to know this realm of non-word and pre-word, this realm of transport and ecstasy. To take a few steps in this direction, get to Jeffrey Johnson’s Sonic Labyrinth.

Join me at Creedible.com

2010-12-22T00:37:00.000-05:00

What's really at stake in the Stuxnet cyberattack? Join me in discussion at Creedible: A Theology for Stuxnet

Mike Wallace Interview of Reinhold Niebuhr (1958)

2010-12-20T22:52:00.000-05:00

Check out this 1958 Mike Wallace interview of Reinhold Niebuhr. One of the primary issues was communism, which is no longer the issue it was in 1958.

On the other hand, Niebuhr's responses are perfectly applicable to Al Qaeda, the war on terror, contemporary discussions of atheism, and the like.

We need another Reinhold Niebuhr.

Theology of the Amygdala?

2010-12-20T01:34:00.000-05:00

We tend to avoid situations that provoke fear. Exceptions, such as when we ride a roller coaster or plunge headlong off a bridge to experience a bungee jump free fall, show that we know we benefit from fear and that we want to master it. These actions reveal that fear is not a product of ‘mind’ reflecting on the ‘body,’ but something far more integrated—a bodily reaction registered in the mind.

The Hebrew Bible and New Testament frequently invite us to fear of the Lord. The phrase ‘fear of the Lord’—as the beginning of wisdom, and related notions—is a recurring theme of the Proverbs. Whatever else you do, the Proverbs suggest, be sure to fear the Lord. In fact, make it the basis of everything else you do.

Image courtesy of
Life Science Databases.
CC-BY-SA-2.1-jp
via Wikimedia Commons

Scientists have long known that fear is a function of the amygdala, a ‘mass of nuclei’ in the temporal lobe of the brain, part of the limbic system. If the amygdala is destroyed, animals become fearless. Sindya N. Bhanoo reports today for the New York Times that a study recently published in Current Biology suggests (as was long assumed to be the case) that the same is true of human beings. In the study, scientists investigated patient ‘SM’, whose amygdala is damaged by lesions. Indeed, SM experiences very little or no fear, even when the situation she is in would demand it.

The implications of this finding for religion and belief are clear enough. Can an amygdala-damaged person experience ‘fear of the Lord?’ Leaving aside that some who wish to defend biblical doctrine will argue that such ‘fear’ is not emotional, we should ask, are we human beings simply the product of our brain activity? Is religious language that claims our bodies and souls are distinct mistaken? Is the term ‘soul’ merely a poetic way of expressing brain-powered human potential? Are we, when all is said and done, merely brain/body? Is materialism the proper creed?

Christianity long ago turned from its Hebrew roots, which are less ‘dualist’, to embrace the categories of Greek philosophy. For many ancient Greeks, not only were body and soul distinct, the body was a ‘prison house’ of the soul. Much of Christian thought has been built on these views. Most Christians nowadays take the duality of body and soul for granted.

Insofar as Christians (not to mention Muslims and intellectuals shaped by post-Christian Western philosophy) continue to embrace body/soul dualism, contemporary neuroscience will prove increasingly problematic. Many sacrosanct views of human life—that we have souls and free wills (in some quasi-divine fashion), that our identities are ours to make—will prove increasingly less likely. One by one, concepts of identity will be related to brain states and functions.

Does this mean that Christianity and Western philosophy are mooted and irrelevant? Surely not, but it does mean that they need thorough recasting in light of contemporary findings in neuroscience. Philosophers such as Richard Rorty, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Pinker have contributed substantially to this project; each, be it noted, is an articulate atheist. Theologian Nancey Murphy also is a contributor to this project. Murphy uses the phrase nonreductive physicalism to indicate that she rejects dualism but also rejects materialistic reductionism. She holds that we human beings are strictly physical, but that God meets us in and through our physical beings. Freedom is real, not illusory, she argues.

Whatever one makes of the differences of Murphy, Rorty, Bennet, and Pinker, together their work is beginning to revise time-honored constructs of body, self, soul, and identity. That’s a good thing to do, and we should try to join it, or follow along. We should do so, arguably, with the aid of the limbic system.

Christians Fleeing Iraq

2010-12-17T23:51:00.000-05:00

Since 2003, Christians, Jews, Mandean Sabeans, and Yazidis have been forced to flee Iraq. Muslims also, of course, have suffered terribly. Though some strides in the direction of security have been made, the country has not yet established a reliable, clearly sustainable peace.

Whether a truly peaceful pluralism will ever exist in Iraq remains to be seen. Those who live in liberal societies may have learned to take religious freedom and pluralism for granted, but that is a significant mistake. On the whole, history shows that human beings are bigoted and fearful, prone to demand adherence to a single mythos or at least that the political structure rest upon and defend a single worldview.

Liberalism suggests (not quite consistently) that worldview and 'really basic needs' can be separated, as if really basic needs can be fully known apart from worldview. Liberalism proposes that so long as we agree to limit politics to really basic needs (e.g., physical security, and the like), we can allow it to possess the magistrate's power. So long as religionists do not seek to seize power, we can tolerate a plural multitude of believers.

This sort of liberalism is a creature of Christianity and is most coherent when the 'plural throngs' are various kinds of Christians, with a few unbelievers and even fewer 'pagans' on the periphery.

What to do when the plural throng entails struggle between two dominant factions of Muslims, neither one of which (on the whole) really wants to embrace the liberal notion of religion/politics, even though their US-influenced Constitution requires them to do so? What to do when Christians, Jews, Mandean Sabeans, and Yazidis are under the threat of death merely because of their religion? What to do when the liberal solution is intermixed in the Constitution with illiberal notions?

Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution synthesizes a liberal and Islam-based concept of state:

Article 2: First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam

B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.

C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious belief and practice of all individuals such as Christians, Yazidis, and Mandean Sabeans.

Article 3 addresses the issue of pluralism directly:

Article 3: Iraq is a country of multiple nationalities, religions, and sects. It is a founding and active member in the Arab League and is committed to its charter, and it is part of the Islamic world.

Article 43 guarantees religious freedom:

Article 43: First: The followers of all religions and sects are free in the:
A- Practice of religious rites, including the Husseini [i.e., Shiite] rituals.

B- Management of religious endowments (waqf), their affairs, and their religious institutions, and this shall be regulated by law.

Second: The State shall guarantee freedom of worship and the protection of places of worship.

What to do when these guarantees are not working? If history is guide, we can expect religious persecution in Iraq to be vexing for many years into the future. Thus, we will need to mix patience and impatience, support Iraqi sovereignty, and simultaneously pressure Iraqis to realize ideals entailed in their Constitution. Would that we consistently realized ideals set forth in our own.

Christians in Iraq

2010-12-14T01:12:00.002-05:00

Join me later this week for a reflection on Christians and Christianity in Iraq.

Wikileaks, Al Qaeda, and UltraProtestantism

2010-12-09T23:41:00.000-05:00

We have become very accustomed to worrying about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is especially menacing because it's a non-state actor. If it commissions a strike, the enemy against which to direct a counter-strike is hidden, like a virus, among non-combatants.

Wikileaks shows that a non-state actor need not be a 'Muslim' terrorist. In this case, Julian Assange has created a global scourge. The upshot may turn out to be as ruinous and menacing as anything Al Qaeda has done.

The most recent news in this growing story is that a wave a counterattacks is being directed against ISPs that have denied service to those who make the Wikileaks available. An 'army' of hackers is being formed (apparently now at least 30,000 strong) to punish the service providers, and they also are taking aim at the global commercial establishment, seeking to collapse key parts of the Internet in the holiday shopping season.

This is very troubling news indeed, and it shows how powerful non-state actors can be, especially when they join in anonymous ad hoc global alliances. Each member of this group is a sheer individual (an ultraprotestant) and simultaneously a member of a collective of unimaginable strength. The 'group' is protean, and there is nothing to limit the causes it may pursue. Centralized authorities (governments, armies, corporations) are more powerful than any individual, but may also prove to be more vulnerable than all of the individuals combined.

The weapons of the First and Second World War, and also the Cold War, are increasingly irrelevant, and the enemies of our time will be shape shifters. How to provide the deepest account of this? Undoubtedly we will be seeking to answer that question far into the future. The proposal of RITN is that a religious analysis is essential part of understanding such dynamics.

Will God survive Afghanistan? Reply to Cummings and Johnson

2010-11-17T00:20:00.002-05:00

When the Buddhas in Bamyan were destroyed in 2001, dynamited by the Taliban, there was a legitimate outcry. But the war in Afghanistan is, year by year, death by death, destroying the image of ‘God’ in the minds of many people, service members among them. The question is whether anything of this image will remain by the time peace comes.

Continued at Creedible.com: Will God survive Afghanistan? Reply to Cummings and Johnson

Exorcisms Revisited

2010-11-14T01:17:00.000-05:00

Laurie Goodstein reports today for the New York Times that the Roman Catholic Church is training more of its clergy to perform exorcisms when necessary, and also to discern whether a person would be better served with psychiatric care. Much of the Western world is quite secularized, and many Christians no longer believe in possession. I authored a post related to this theme over at Creedible the day after Halloween.

Fundamentally one needs to make a choice whether to believe in possession, demons, and the like. In most places and times, the view that there are malign spiritual presences and energies has been dominant. Since the sixteenth century Reformation and seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenment, the West has tended to dismiss such forces, and to view exorcisms as superstitious and demon possession as a psychiatric malady. Yet there are some who remain convinced of the reality of sinister forces.

Apart from whether demons exist, it also is interesting to ponder why belief in them may rise and fall. Why do some church communions see need, at times, to reawaken interest in these forces? Do these movements do so to solidify their positions as spiritual guardians, as places of true spiritual power? Do they remix the spiritual cocktail of the opiate of the masses in order to ensure that the masses remain addicted? Does a declining belief in sinister spiritual forces send a 'good' signal that positively inclined spiritual ideation is increasing?

A more or less unplanned and nonconscious kind of reaction may account for increasing attentiveness to negative spiritual forces It may be that religious groups constantly assess and recalibrate their message as parishioners bring concerns and sources of contentment and happiness into their congregations. If there is an upturn in sources of anxiety, these may be thematized as malign spiritual forces.

It's worth noting that the Roman Catholic approach is a partly secular one. There is a discernment about whether spiritual forces are involved. On this interpretation, usually there are not. Only in extraordinary cases are spiritual forces deemed to be at work. That sober approach contrasts starkly with what many imagine to be the 'religious' approach to these issues.

Whatever one thinks of these questions, everyone faces negative experiences. Everyone must have some means of explaining them. Strict secularists are somewhat rare, and that too is worth pondering.

Worries about the Awlaki Case

2010-11-09T01:14:00.000-05:00

Back in May 2009, RITN commented on Anwar Al-Awlaki. This case continues to fascinate and provoke worry.

Awlaki is the New Mexico-born Muslim now hiding in Yemen who produces web copy justifying jihad against the United States. He is not a typical militant, but he does represent a profound danger: that well educated, affluent, well-spoken, 'Western' Muslims will be radicalized. Al Awlaki’s case is especially intriguing since he is a U.S. citizen and yet the Obama administration has authorized killing him.

Scott Shane and Robert F. Worth report today for the New York Times that Nasser al Awlaki, the father of Anwar, has filed a lawsuit (with the help of the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights) to prevent the government from killing Awlaki without first seeking court approval. The government has asked that the suit be dismissed on procedural grounds: that the father has no legal standing to bring the suit, and that President Obama alone has authority over the killings since they are framed by secrets of state security. Whatever one thinks of the constitutional watchdogs, they are forcing consideration of questions of rights and due process.

Apart from the legal issues, it’s worth considering whether someone such as al Awlaki should be subject to targeted killing. Is his support of al Qaeda sufficient to sanction his killing? Reasonable people may disagree. That the question can arise shows how extreme are the circumstances: that the U.S. is ‘at war’ with terrorists, and that words are one of the key weapons being employed.

Al Awlaki’s support of al Qaeda may lead to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent bystanders. But the targeted killing of Awlaki also may be used rhetorically to convince more young men and women to continue the jihad against the United States. Dead or alive, Awlaki is a menace, as is bin Laden. Anyone who has pondered the meaning of ‘resurrection’ will not be completely surprised by this claim. Religious meanings, whether redemptive or destructive, go beyond the grave.

As the U.S. wages war against the jihadists, this power of (weaponized) religious ideas is worth considering. It may be possible to kill enough jihadists that the cause dies with them. Such killings may also lead to a spiral of ever-renewed violence, the rhetorical glorification of martyrs, and the inadvertent justification of the jihadist’s cause. Since this is a real risk, the U.S. must continue to develop channels for positive dialogue with as many moderate and liberal Muslims as possible. In the long run, it is they who will need to convince their fellow adherents to practice the ‘greater jihad’ and to renounce ‘lesser jihad.’

Tariq Aziz, Iraqi foreign minister under Saddam Hussein, sentenced to hang - latimes.com

2010-10-26T22:59:00.002-04:00

The LA times reports today that Tariq Aziz, Iraqi foreign minister under Saddam Hussein [has been] sentenced to hang. Unlike the other Sunni members of Saddam Hussein's government, Aziz is a Christian. Aziz was like them, however, in his persecution of Shiite Muslims. The court found evidence that Aziz played a significant role in executing a large number of people.

It's worth pondering Aziz, and the world events that shaped the life he lived, gave urgency to the orders he followed, and justified heinous acts (at least in his own mind). Also worth pondering is the world that exists today, in which Aziz is likely to die by hanging. Max Stackhouse, Christian ethicist at Andover Newtown Theological School and later at Princeton Theological Seminary, used to quote James Luther Adams, to the effect that 'we should cultivate the capacity to be astonished.' The trial of Aziz provides an occasion for astonishment.

The trial--however foregone its conclusion may seem and may have been--was a trial under rule of law. It was not merely a staging to justify blood feud. Here is a Christian being tried in a country whose Shiite majority had been oppressed and abused a secular Sunni government, in which this Christian played a key role. In spite of these strange 'plot twists,' there is a reasonable measure of justice in the process and outcome.

On a larger scale, Iraq is a different country, top to bottom. However poorly executed the war under President Bush initially, and in spite of the fact that many mistakes were made, the surge appears to have worked, and the country is slowly beginning to move forward. It may, of course, still lapse back into chaos, but there is a chance that the country will move to legitimate self-rule. In thirty or forty years, if not sooner, Iraq may be a booming, cosmopolitan center.

Iran and Afghanistan represent deeper problems at this point, and it may well be that the global circumstance has been destabilized for years to come. It may also be that significant terror cells have been destroyed or neutralized in Afghanistan. The larger scale is impossible to fathom, but Aziz brings to light what is clearly the case: the history of the world, as it will be reviewed and known by future generations, is laying bear before us now. So close are we to it that we cannot quite bring it into focus.

The proposal of this blog is that we can gain some sense of perspective by paying attention to religious elements of history, as they give rise to profound acts of healing and love, and as they occasions wanton violence and bloodshed. Aziz is likely to die at the crossroads of these religious potencies; we should learn from them, and him.

Christine O'Donnell's separation anxiety

2010-10-21T01:54:00.000-04:00

Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate vying to be elected senator for Delaware, again makes news, this time by questioning whether the Constitution includes the ‘separation of Church and state.’ The charitable interpretation is that she meant these actual words do not appear in the Constitution; she’s right about that. Her detractors insist that she doesn’t even know that the concept is enshrined in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What’s more likely, I think, is that O’Donnell agrees with those who believe that this concept has been misapplied, and overextended, by the courts over the years. There are many people in this category, and many of them are not fools. This group holds that American history has a deeply religious—primarily but not exclusively Christian—dimension. And they also think that this religious history has been ignored or obscured, misunderstood and falsely maligned, by prominent secularists and elite members of society, the judiciary and Congress.

The media pounces on statements of this sort, hoping to gain a market share of the viral news climate. Thankfully, much of this reporting includes some analysis, but very little of it seems to be aware of the larger conflict brewing just under the surface. Whether it’s Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, and Christine O’Donnell, on the one side, or Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, on the other, interpretations of their statements and actions are situated within a conflict about the very basis of the American experiment. We disagree about our past and present, and we disagree about the future we should be seeking. The recession is lingering, in part, because we have not developed a consensus about our future.

O’Donnell represents the possibility that the two dominant political parties will be viewed as too similar to address the real crises and issues that we face—among the most problematic that we have become addicted to spending money we do not have. We want everything, except for the bills to become due. We want health care, but we are unwilling to pay for its true costs. We are unable to form a consensus on how to contain its wildly accelerating costs. We want absolute security but complete freedom. We want a free press and free speech, but never to be offended. Alas.

O’Donnell’s statement about the separation of Church and state may be most revealing for how it situates her within the religio-conservative base of the Republican Party. It will be interesting to see how O’Donnell continues to be received; it will be more interesting to see whether a fundamentally novel political approach is developed, if not by her and the Tea Party, then by whom.

The Politics of Sex and Salami

2010-10-14T00:40:00.000-04:00

Generalizations aren’t easy to make in the world religions. For example, some religions encourage adherents to pray to God; others deny that God exists. Some religions honor scriptures; some don’t. Some see nature as guide; some see it as morally fallen and whorish.

Here’s a generalization that, while not universal, is broadly applicable. The world religions teach that homosexuality is morally and religiously wrong—or, at the least, not helpful. Here’s another: the world’s religions tend to find sexuality problematical even when it is played according to Hoyle’s rules. Here’s a third: all religions have gay members, and each also has members pressing the case for equal treatment for gays. And finally, a fourth: many people caught in the moral eddies and currents of these disputes find themselves being inconsistent. They say one thing in one context, and then something opposed to it in another. Such is the case, apparently, of New York gubernatorial candidate Carl P. Paladino. Elizabeth Harris reports for the New York Times that Paladino denounced gays when he spoke before an Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn, being supported there (and in his gubernatorial bid) by Rabbi Yehuda Levin.

Later, under the media glare, Paladino recanted. Rabbi Levin, the more consistent of the two, was outraged and claimed that Paladino “folded like a cheap camera.” The rabbi’s endorsement of Paladino’s bid for governor also is off.

Sex and politics are strange but frequent bedfellows, and religion is the anxious innkeeper. One of the reasons for this is their centrality to life—personal/familial organization on the one side, collective organization on the other, separated and joined by the religious intermediary. In today’s political discourse, sexuality is often viewed or treated as a trope of the political. Have a nation under siege and threat? Author a defense of marriage act! See anomie as a problem? Seize upon homosexuality as especially wanton morally! Want to show you are a political straight shooter? Denounce gays and lesbians and reprehensible and vile.

Each day it seems that someone puts a strategy like this in play. Paladino and Levin are only the most recent. The rabbi’s own statements suggest a profound homophobia, rooted in what, one can only wonder. Upon hearing the news of Paladino’s political flip-flop, the rabbi said “I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich [when the news was announced]…. I almost choked on the kosher salami.”

Guilty nation?

2010-10-06T01:01:00.000-04:00

Check out this reflection on national guilt over at Creedible.com

Work of Satan revealed

2010-09-28T22:41:00.000-04:00

RITN readers, proof of the beguilements of the Dark One have come to light... Check out this recent entry over at Theological Prescripts.

No brainers

2010-09-26T23:19:00.000-04:00

Maureen Dowd today offers a punishing NYT op-ed: punishing, that is, to read since it reveals the anti-intellectualism to which America is pressed by the fundamentalist strain of Christianity... Here is a land of evolution denying souls, who find global warming to be a myth and strive to prevent advances in medical science. They do this in spite of high levels of education and significant affluence; these are not the poor and downtrodden.

The most virulent Christian fundamentalism is a modern reaction, with limited roots; it is not, as it claims, the historically deepest form of Christianity. Anyone who reads in the history of Christianity--alas, that is only a few people--knows that Christian thinking has through time wrestled with a range of philosophical, legal, scientific, and social scientific options.

Evangelicalism is considerably broader than fundamentalism, and there are many Evangelicals who are not fundamentalists. In fact, there are many Evangelical scientists who find no real conflict between practicing as a scientist (and seeing a plethora of evidence in support of evolution) and believing that Jesus is Lord, God is creator, and the like.

To be sure, there is a group of current intellectuals who deny that these Evangelicals can live coherently. There is, they insist, a conflict between the findings of science and the demands of faith. Here the fundamentalist Christians and au courant intellectuals agree. Should that not at least give the 'cultured despisers' of religion pause? Should it not equally give pause to fundamentalists?

The End of Tolerance, revisited

2010-09-11T02:31:00.000-04:00

In light of President Obama's call for tolerance, I am revisiting an earlier RITN post.

The End of Tolerance

Tanenhaus, Obama, and Religious Change

2010-09-06T02:40:00.002-04:00

Sam Tanenhaus opines today in the NYT Week in Review that President Obama, who once seemed capable of leading America beyond its culture wars, is now a party to, if not a hostage of, them. Instead of a president who can speak of faith without alienating the left, we have Glenn Beck denouncing Obama's "version of Christianity."

Obama failed to transcend this ideological struggle, says Tanenhaus, because it was falsely conceived--most memorably by Andrew Sullivan in a 2007 Atlantic essay--in the first place. "In retrospect," Sullivan's analysis

seems not only mistaken, but perhaps misbegotten, for it was premised on a misreading of America’s ideological warfare, in particular the influence of evangelical religion on the tenor of American politics.

Says Tanenhaus, the real ideological divide is not between the Vietnam and post-Vietnam generations but between the Religious Right and the secular naysayers of the left (including the mainline clergy). Obama's religious narrative ties him too closely to the left, with its overly intellectual 'faith.' Beck is simply a mouthpiece for a much broader suspicion of Obama's religious commitments--and those of the left more generally.

Tanenhaus helpfully sketches the larger religious and social context of the Obama presidency: Walter Rauschenbusch, the Social Gospel, Reinhold Niebuhr, liberation theology, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Religious Right, and the mainline churches. Tanenhaus' main point--that Sullivan's portrait failed to understand the power of Evangelical Christianity--is a good one to make. Tanenhaus also illuminates the enduring anger of the Religious Right; they were (and are) ridiculed by the secular left.

It's also worth remembering, however, that there is a growing group of Evangelicals who tilt left in their politics. They believe that the Christian faith demands compassionate politics. And there is among the Evangelicals a group of significant thinkers who know that evolution is not foolish or diabolical and that the Big Bang accounts for the physical genesis of the Universe. And there are Evangelicals whose faith draws from wells that go deeper than the late 70s alliance with political conservatism. This group is frequently chagrined by fellow Evangelicals whose positions are more well known.

The Religious Right (as an element within Evangelical Christianity) needs also to be understood in a broader social, political, and theological context, which would as a minimum include the Iranian Revolution, the rise of 'Islamism,' the fall of the Soviet Union, and (more recently) the emergence of globalization. We live in a time when the most important things seem to be, and are, changing.

The Religious Right was successful because it intuitively grasped--they would say the Holy Spirit revealed--the magnitude of changes that were merely tacit in the 1970s. The changing ethos made their high-octane religion more compelling than the comforting institutionalism of mainline faith. Meanwhile, the mainline churches, and their allies on the secular left, were too busy exercising influence in a world that was making them less and less relevant. (They did not for that reason lack spiritual power. Obama converted to Christianity under their auspices.)

The struggle between these positions, and the mixed types on both sides, continues today. Obama, like Bush before him, is seen through a prism not of his making.

Dialogue and Assembly

2010-09-02T02:10:00.000-04:00

Join me in discussion about discussion....Dialogue and Assembly

What language do you believe (in)?

2010-08-31T02:23:00.001-04:00

A recent Guy Deutscher New York Times Magazine article asks “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?” Deutscher considers whether Benjamin Lee Whorf’s once-highly-regarded-but-now-generally-dismissed theory of language (often called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has any remaining purchase. We’ve probably all heard that ‘Eskimos’ have many more words for snow than we do. Clearly their experience with snow is more sophisticated than ours! Alas, that’s an urban legend, but it nonetheless illustrates the significance of Whorf’s point. We nutmeggers have seven words for humidity and fifteen for traffic jam.

Whorf argued that the metaphysical implications of languages ‘picture reality’ and thus fundamentally determine how people experience the world. If your language has no future tense, Whorf argued, your sense of futurity is undeveloped or non-existent. Whorf’s bolder claims fell to the scrutiny of common sense and empirical examination, Deutscher reports. A language that contains no past tense does not prevent its speaker from thinking about the past, only from referring to it in language. Native hearers know the difference and can use locutions to communicate. The ancient Hebrew language lacks words to communicate comparative preference, and thus God 'loves' Jacob and 'hates' Esau. That is, he loves Jacob more. Still troubling, in some respects, but less so than God hating Esau.

Deutscher’s article explores linguist Roman Jakobson claim that “languages differs essentially in what ... [their speakers] must convey” to show that Whorf was onto something. A French speaker must reveal the gender of a companion to refer to him or her, whereas an English speaker does not. Speakers of the Guugu Yimithirr language have no equivalents for words to indicate spatial directions such as left, right, and behind. They still have to communicate about where things are and hence use cardinal compass points to refer to the location of objects. “Honey, where’s my sweater?” one might ask. “On the east side of the table, just south of the pile of books you left their last night, sweetheart,” could be the reply.

The late historical theologian George Lindbeck (of Yale Divinity School) referred to the “cultural linguistic” approach to religion. Lindbeck’s view, set forth in a 1984 volume entitled The Nature of Doctrine, is that religious experiences are secondary to doctrinal grammars, to cultural-linguistic codings. ‘Nirvana’ and the ‘Triune God’ are not the same thing and are not various ways of referring to an underlying common experience. Lindbeck’s approach takes differences among religions more seriously than experience-oriented liberals generally do. A similar line of thought is pursued in Stephen Prothero’s God is not One.

The work at RITN seems to vindicate the notion that religious languages fundamentally shape experience. That is, religious languages construe the world’s significance, tell us what to value, how to act, what sorts of consciousness are valuable, and the like. As such, religious languages contain the world. (One can consistently maintain that intense experiences lead to ‘doctrinal’ development. The point is that all future ‘re-experiences’ will be conditioned by, and indeed called forth, by doctrinal or cultural-linguistic precursors.)

The question, for deliberation in another evening’s blog post, is what to think about religion in the news if religious languages and their grammar’s fundamentally shape experience. Are translations possible? Are religious discourses essentially incommensurate? Are their bridge points between the various ‘language games’ that constitute the world religiously?

Let's prepare for this thinking by considering Friedrich Nietzsche's claim that

In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing."...

"Reason" in language — oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar (Twilight of Idols, "Reason" in Philosophy, 5).

'Ground zero mosque': Worldwide, Muslims bemused by mosque controversy - latimes.com

2010-08-22T23:30:00.151-04:00

The so-called Ground-Zero mosque is again in the news. The L.A. Times reports that 'Ground zero mosque': Worldwide, Muslims bemused by mosque controversy. The debate in the United States over our core principles is reverberating around the world. Some Americans, Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama among them, say we should hold steadfast to the idea of religious tolerance. Others say, not this time. The latter group sees Ground Zero as an open wound and Islam--more or less directly--as its cause. RITN commented previously on the issue of this mosque, first in May and then again in August. In this blog, we will consider a few more dimensions of this emerging conflict.

On the whole, Americans are a tolerant people, but American-style (liberal) tolerance requires the censure of absolutism, especially when it is politically or violently expressed. From the perspective of tolerance, it is perfectly consistent to denounce acts that too directly fuse religious and political actions. The events of 9/11 did that and thus outraged the deepest sensibility of Americans about religious truth. When considering how outraged Americans may be about the Islamic community center and mosque, it is worth remembering that in the wake of 9/11 America committed to two wars, at a cost now exceeding a trillion dollars. The shocking imagery of 9/11 was essential to gaining support for these wars.

Of course, not all Muslims share the guilt of the 9/11 perpetrators, but many Americans now see Islam through the lens of 9/11. Many good and tolerant Americans, who in the past didn't know anything about Islam, now believe it to be a major menace. Presidents Bush and Obama have tried to claim that the U.S. sees Islam as a peace-loving religion that was distorted by the perpetrators of 9/11, but most Americans view the matter much more simply. They find a poisonous fruit falling from a poisonous tree.

When a group is harmed, its memory of that harm becomes a new 'fact' in history. The 9/11 event forever changed the New York City cityscape, and it forever changes how Americans view not only Islamic radicals but Islam as a whole. Building this mosque and community center is likely to cause ongoing controversies, since it will provoke (and be used by some to provoke) memories of the 9/11 attacks.

On the other side, Muslims around the world feel the sting of American dominance. U.S. military might is a thumb in the eye of good Muslims who hold that God's sovereign power dominates history. God's providence itself is denied, in their experience, by the exercise of U.S. might in defesne of our interests around the world.

Further, Muslims are treated as aliens among the cultured secularists of Continental Europe. Turkey is held at arm's length. French Muslims are second class citizens. Yet here in America, Muslims tend to be well integrated and, by comparison to the rest of the world, wealthy and happy citizens. The events of 9/11 did significant harm to American Muslims, and building the mosque can be viewed as a sign of their confidence in being full participants in American life.

In spite of their successful integration, U.S. Muslims are a little understood minority. American Muslims are simultaneously at risk and viewed by many as a threat. With little imagination, one can sense Americans wondering what sorts of activities will be going on in the so-called Ground Zero mosque. In this context, even prayer is viewed as seditious, especially when it rings out in Arabic.

The more principled among us will wish these things were not true, but the pragmatists among us will realize that they are true for a lot of people. Building the mosque and community center near Ground Zero is a precarious and dangerous thing to do. RITN recently spoke with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and he opined that building this community center is unwise, since it is too near a place of harm. It will dishonor the families of the victims.

As we consider the proposed building of this mosque, that's worth thinking about. It's also worth thinking about the tolerance we can sponsor; it may be that we are unable to adhere to our highest values. If that is so, score a point for bin Laden.

Obama CSMonitor Reflection

2010-08-22T02:13:00.001-04:00

Why doesn’t Obama wear his religion on his sleeve? - CSMonitor.com

Here, if you needed it, is further proof that people broadly sense this recession is the result (not the cause) of a profound realignment of things we hold dear. Obama is thought to be a Muslim by some, the anti-Christ by others. To be fair, some also believe he's the messiah, or something quite close to it. He's none of these, of course, but he's all of them insofar as they represent the fears and wishes of many.

As the Monitor opinion piece points out, Roosevelt also was pegged as anti-Christian. He was a Jew, it was held, because of his social concern. The American anti-Semitism of Roosevelt's day was as or more powerful than the Islamophobia of ours. More importantly, Roosevelt presided over a profound change in the American social structure and the structure of global relations. From an American perspective, the outcomes were astonishingly positive. The middle classes grew. Organized labor claimed decency in work standards and pushed back against the overlords. Management itself gained in prestige and affluence. The USA became at first one of, and is now (however briefly) the sole superpower.

Obama, surely one of the most gifted politicians of recent memory, presides at a time when the global economy is in an upheaval. The deep recession illustrates that we are situated in an economy so large that we cannot control its outcomes. Some resurgence in spending here may simply create more production opportunities in China, leaving job growth flat or negative. Obama is in no position to fix that, and the never-ending Republican suggestion to cut taxes evidences no understanding of this larger shift in the global economy.

Obama also presides during a time of war, one in which the stakes are terribly high. On the one hand, non-state actors may gain weapons of mass destruction. If they gain these weapons, there is no leverage to prevent them from using them. Our attempt to eliminate that threat--our global war against terror--runs the risk of soiling our moral commitments. On the other hand, our struggle with non-state actors may be perceived by Muslims worldwide as an assault on Islam. This requires constant impression management.

How these issues will look in fifty years is anyone's guess. How we perceive them now--dimly, fearfully--registers in our varied impressions of President Obama.

Reverend Terry Jones and Rabbi Abraham Cooper

2010-08-17T01:02:00.001-04:00

Join me at Creedible, for a discussion of the Dove World Outreach Center's plan to burn the Koran....

Reverend Terry Jones and Rabbi Abraham Cooper

Pop Theology

2010-08-11T19:58:00.003-04:00

RITN readers,

Check out Pop Theology. This site contains an exciting and interesting array of topics. Highly recommended!

Mosque at Ground Zero, May to August

2010-08-09T00:45:00.000-04:00

Back in May, I posted a blog about plans to build a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. I saw storm clouds brewing on the horizon. Though we frequently claim that the role of religion in public life is a settled issue in America, clearly it is not. Since the attacks of 9/11, Islam has been a particular source of questions and worry for many and Muslims have been viewed with heightened suspicion.

Protests over the plans for Ground Zero have been loud and forceful. Even the Anti-Defamation League signaled its opposition.

Today, Laurie Goodstein reports in the New York Times that 'Across nation, Mosque projects meet opposition.' Mosques proposed for construction in Tennesee, Wisconsin, and California have been protested by Republican candidates for office, Christian ministers, and members of the Tea party. Some of the protesters fear that Muslims are trying to replace the Constitution with Shariah Law, though some (such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) have argued that building mosques is protected by the American way of life and the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This same Amendment protects the speech of those who are criticizing the plans to build mosques. Tolerance is required as a matter of fundamental law--the federal government must be neutral toward religions--but intolerance is a right of citizens.

The fight for religious liberty used to be more difficult to fathom. Michael Servetus and Jan Hus burning at the stake, the witches of Salem, the trials by ordeal, the silencing of dissent--those were conclusively behind us. Our traditions of free speech, tolerance, and pluralism settled the issue once and for all.

Now we can see that our traditions are not as robust as we believed. In part our traditions followed from our sense of invincibility and dominance. The fallen Twin Towers remind us constantly that we are not invincible. Freesom of religion has become a harder thing to support.

What is at stake is whether we prize freedom more than security, and whether we continue to recognize that freedom provides for more security in the long run than the suppression of freedom to enhance security. This is not to say that absolute freedom is desirable. To have more secure airports, it is worth taking our shoes off and having our luggage scanned for explosives. But the public square is served by articulation of multiple viewpoints: mosque, church, synagogue, ashram, meditation center, atheist think tank, and the like.

The cause of religious freedom is served when religious communities exercise discretion. (Read Paul's treatment of eating meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8.) If something is likely to be inflammatory, then it can (and should) be set aside, at least if something less inflammatory can accomplish the same purpose. It is worth asking whether building a mosque at Ground Zero is a provocation, but surely the proposed mosques in California, Tennesse, and Wisconsin are not. Those protesting these mosques claim to be defending America, but they do so by forsaking American values.

Age of the Demonic

2010-07-30T02:27:00.001-04:00

Earlier this evening I was reading Nicholas Kristof’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. It occurred to me as it has before that we are living in the Age of the Demonic. I’m using Paul Tillich’s definition here, which, for the uninitiated, means neither ‘demon spirits’ nor ‘personal demons.’ For Tillich, the demonic was an upsurge in destructive and ultimately irrational forces.

In our time, destructive forces have been unleashed to a hellish degree in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individual leaders have been targeted by drones and many hundred have been killed. Thousands of foot soldiers have been killed. Women and children have seen their husbands and fathers taken away, never to return. Civilian deaths are not widely reported, but they number in the thousands or tens of thousands.

All of this may be necessary to suppress the hideous violence that al Qaeda and its affiliates wish to perpetrate, but our military actions, our ‘taking it to the enemy,’ our ‘pursuit of justice’ also require violence. Our view--my view--is that we are morally required to engage in these acts, but this is another sense of the demonic. Our actions are not wrong, but they nonetheless are profoundly destructive. They aim to preserve life, but they do so at a staggering cost. The context in which we operate is a gloomy fate in which we are free to act or withdraw, but no possible action is free of dire consequences.

Most of this violence is presented to us in sanitized form. And rarely do we think of long-term moral and spiritual cost of the war on terror. More often we think of the cost in terms of money spent. The Kristof piece cites a study by the Congressional Research Service which shows that the war on terror is the most expensive war the U.S. has ever fought, with the exception of WWII.

Frequently we hear or ourselves utter bloodthirsty statements about the enemy, but we have very little idea of who they are. We will never meet them face to face. We do not have any sense of their motives. Yet we are committed to their destruction, as they are committed to ours.

Al Qaeda may be eliminated, and I believe it already is significantly weakened. But there is no end in sight, and no sight of the end.

Human Nature? Full of bugs!

2010-07-25T01:32:00.003-04:00

In Nature and Destiny of Man, his magisterial treatment of human nature, Reinhold Niebuhr avers that human beings frequently become anxious when their similarities to animals are noted. Imagine how many will feel when they read Carl Zimmer’s recent New York Times report on the role played by microbes in sustaining human life.

Human beings host colonies of hundreds of billions of little-understood microbes. No two humans are alike, not only because of our own separate genes but because the microbe colonies we host are unique. A baby born vaginally is different, at the level of microbial colonies, from a baby born by C-section. No two humans occupy identical environments, not even close family members. Apparently, even the right and left hands of any person have a very different set of microbes living on them.

Without these microbes we would die quickly. They help us digest food. They process waste. They protect us from other microorganisms. Many of their genes have become integrated into our own genome. These microbes contain genes that are separate from ours but without which we could not live; they constitute our unique microbiome.

This suggests a very different mental picture than the one many of us have. We tend to think of human beings as above it all. If we think of microbes--germs!--we almost reflexively want to be rid of them. Half of the hand soaps in my house contain bacteriacides.

The roots of contemporary religious thinking about human nature predate scientific knowledge. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism do, however, have greater awareness of interdependency. These religions, thus, teach non-violence toward other living things. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, on the other hand, tend to separate humans more completely from animals. Humans exercise dominion over animals, much as God exercises dominion over the earth.

If there is to be a credible twenty-first century account of human nature, it will need to include this sort of knowledge. A profound theological revision of theological anthropology is demanded. There will need to be greater stress on interdependency, life system, balance, and--quite paradoxically--a simultaneous reduction and increase of individuality. Human beings are not merely individuals; we are colonies! And yet no two of us are alike, since our microbial colonies are distinct one from another. Human dominance of and transcendence over nature, our ‘war’ with germs and bacteria, our confidence that we can master processes without causing more harm than good--each of these ethical ideas should be thought through.

None of this is to suggest that human life is unimportant. Rather it is to suggest that it is important in ways that we do not fully understand. These scientific findings issue a call to humility, but not a call to debasement. Here, too, Niebuhr’s Nature and Destiny suggests themes worthy of our consideration.

Atheism and Baptism

2010-07-24T19:38:00.002-04:00

Join me at Creedible for a discussion of atheism and baptism.

Nate Oteka Henn

2010-07-16T17:29:00.000-04:00

Tonight I am thinking about Nate 'Oteka' Henn. Join me in discussion at Creedible.com.

Indonesia at the Crossroads

2010-07-15T01:22:00.000-04:00

Tonight I am blogging on Indonesia, Democracy, and Questions for our Future over at Creedible. Join me.

Patheos

2010-07-11T01:08:00.002-04:00

Check out patheos.com. It's worth your attention.

Robert Wright on Afghanistan, etc

2010-07-04T12:25:00.000-04:00

From big think: Check out Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God, on Afghanistan and related topics.

Richard Rubenstein, Obama, and the state of Israel

2010-06-30T00:25:00.000-04:00

I posted recently on the topic of Israel and Iran over at creedible.com. In that piece, I argued that Israel is correct to fear Iran and wise to protect itself. Iran's current leadership has moved from the unsavory to the truly diabolical.

I sent that link to Richard Rubenstein, my distinguished senior colleague at the University Bridgeport, where he served as President from 1995-1999 and continues to serve as a Life Member of the Board of Trustees. Rubenstein taught for many years at Florida State University as the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Religion. He is widely known for his seminal works on the Holocaust, treatments of Freud, and interpretations of early Christianity. His recent research interests and publications have focused on roots and implications of Islamic radicalism, especially as they raise essential questions about the future of the West and the state of Israel.

In responding to my views on Iran, Rubenstein sent me a link to a brief video at the New English Review in which he summarizes a longer talk about President Obama. He holds that Obama is the "most radical U.S. president ever" and that Obama believes that the creation of the state of Israel was an historical mistake. These views, holds Rubenstein, are rooted in sympathy for Islam that are tied to Obama's family and background. I have thought about this and find myself (on the whole) disagreeing with him about Obama. I believe that Obama is more shaped and constrained by traditional U.S. attitudes about Israel than the video suggests. I do, however, believe that Rubenstein is correct about worrisome tendencies in U.S. thinking about the state of Israel, but a larger shift in American attitudes, not Obama, is the key worry.

I would like to draw attention to the following concerns:

First, in my view, broad U.S. interest in defending and securing the future of Israel is declining. (This view and those that follow are intuitions, not reports on empirical findings.) Several factors contribute to the decline of U.S. interest in securing Israel. Important among them is that new Evangelicals are more focused on 'spirituality' and 'relationship' than 'history' and 'prophecy.' Christian pietism's ahistorical tendencies do not serve Jews well. Christian pietism can muster little energy to defend the territorial (or even bodily) interests of another--and especially that of Jews.

Second, the new generation of Evangelical Christians is less Calvinist than their forebears. For all of its own weaknesses and absolutism, the Calvinism of American religion has created a uniquely welcoming place for Jews. What remains after Calvinism is sponsorship of Liberal tolerance, but that doctrine is unlikely to lead to aggressive defense of Israel's interests. Tolerance does not diminish the need for the use of political force abroad, and Liberal tolerance is not particularly able to recognize a compromise of Jewish interests.

Third, the Holocaust and WWII generation is dying, and newer generations are less likely to think about the need for Israel in the post-Holocaust environment. There are many good educational initiatives about the Holocaust, but none of them can replace the core teachings of Calvinist Christianity. The broader political salience of defending Israel requires ongoing theological infusions into culture.

Fourth, U.S. geopolitical interests have shifted considerably since the end of the Cold War. International terrorism is a radically different kind of threat, one that erases boundaries of the nation-state.Though U.S interest in Israel is theologically and historically rooted, a larger political consensus about defending Israel has been possible because of the doctrine of political realism. Realists have defended Israel because it is a friendly staging point, should it be needed, for strikes in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Religiously, the realists were predominantly Calvinist mainline Christians, and these groups are in significant decline. In any event, under conditions of international terrorism and the decline of state sovereignty, a staging point in Israel is less necessary than it was in the Cold War.

Fifth, there is a growing impatience with the grueling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strong calls for peace are starting to sound. In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the U.S. is being asked and pressured to distance itself from Israel. In this sense, Rubenstein is correct in my view to regard Obama suspiciously, but Obama is the tip of the iceberg.

Sixth, President George W. Bush--an Evangelical of the pietistic sort--did considerable damage in the long run to Israel, even though he himself was a fairly steadfast ally. His administration miscalculated the significance of Shi'ism in Iraq and Iran. I share Obama's view that the turn from Afghanistan was too hasty. The U.S. continues to pay for that failure, and it certainly does not benefit Israel. Iran has been empowered, and we may yet need to exercise a military option there. But it is unclear whether there is the political will to do so, should it be necessary. A possible scenario is that the American people will allow Israel to be scapegoated or to be used as a pawn in support of our larger interests.

Tomorrow night I will defend the enduring theological, moral, and political interest the U.S. has in defending Israel. In spite of these worrisome tendencies, I believe there is reason for hope.

Readers's comments, as always, are welcome.

Whooping Cough and the Future

2010-06-24T00:23:00.001-04:00

Tonight I am thinking about the Whooping Cough epidemic in California, which is reported by Jesse McKinley for the New York Times. Between January 1 and June 15,there have been 910 confirmed cases. Pertussis becomes epidemic every three or four years. The United States has ample vaccine but the youngest babies are vulnerable even after they have been vaccinated. In this case the disease is being spread among unvaccinated adults and those who do not have their children vaccinated. The reports focus on immigrants (i.e., impoverished), but there also is a growing tendency among affluent, well-educated parents to eschew vaccination.

In one way at least, pertussis vaccination surfaces issues that linger in this blog in discussions of al-Qaeda and terrorism. On the one hand, there is the issue of justice. The issue of justice is raised by those who cannot afford vaccination or who lack confidence in the medical establishment because they are completely outside its care. On the other hand, there is the issue of fear, vulnerability, and distrust of government. These issues are entailed in the actions of the affluent resisters of vaccination. This group believes that larger social initiatives are likely to be botched. Vaccination runs afoul of an individualistic sense of entitlement.

To move forward as a people--we face immense challenges--we need to fundamentally reconsider social justice and also questions raised by our sense of vulnerability. This a lot to do, and it is human nature to focus on oneself and to ignore others when feeling threatened. As pertussis shows, this sort of self-focus may lead to irrational decisions.

Questions we will need to address will go to the root of our character. Will future generations find us wanting in this respect? Will they see us as petty and fearful, prone to a sense of individualistic entitlement and against the common good? Or will they see that we understood the challenges, looked into our souls, and mounted a serious response to them? Will they see that we re-envisioned basic premises and recast ancient traditions in order to meet our challenges?

Adam Gadahn and the Death Rattle of Al-Qaeda

2010-06-22T00:36:00.000-04:00

Tonight I am thinking about the implications of the Adam Gadahn video recently posted on Islamist websites. In the video, Gadahn, an American-born convert to Islam and then to al-Qaeda, opines that Obama is "snakelike," a villain in a crumbling empire--not the change agent he promised to be. Gadahn also threatens that al-Qaeda will launch more devastating attacks against the United States, should Obama (and America) not change course. The video makes the strained point that America is less just than al-Qaeda--strained, that is, unless you admit the assumptions being made by Gadahn.

Gadahn has been indicted for treason for offering material support and providing comfort to al-Qaeda. He is listed by the FBI as one of the most wanted terrorists. The Rewards for Justice Program (U.S. Department of State) will pay up to $1 million for information leading to his arrest.

My main question is, why this video now? To stoke our insecurities? Yes. To make counterclaims for legitimacy? Yes. To show that America and Obama are the real bad guys? Yes.

But more to the point: al-Qaeda fears Obama's approach, recently detailed in the 2010 National Security Strategy. This strategy is considerably more religiously sophisticated than predecessor documents. The focus is not on Islamists or Jihadists--both of which bring in confusing associations, and increase suspicions of many Muslim allies--but on "al-Qa’ida and its affiliates." Obama is seeking to turn the greater Islamic world against al-Qaeda, which has good reason to fear that he will be successful. As we have seen in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Indonesia, when moderates turn against Jihadi movements such as al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, the tide turns quickly against extremists. Fareed Zakariah published an excellent piece on this topic in the February 12, 2010 Newsweek.

Al-Qaeda needs the war or terror to be thought of broadly, globally, in order for its global mission to be justified. If the focus is tightened on al-Qaeda (and its violent affiliates), the extremist's ability to recruit is diminished and the legitimacy of their message harder to establish.

By stoking fear--a bigger attack is coming--this video seeks to lend credence to the idea of global war. The problem for al-Qaeda is that we are not fighting a global war, but a war against a few masterminds, some lieutenants, and a few thousand dupes and lackeys. It is clear that the senior leadership is increasingly beleaguered.

Al-Qaeda remains a menace, and we should continue to seek to eliminate its core leaders. In this, we should appeal to and work with Muslims. Those efforts are going to be successful. This video should be heard as a death rattle; it is that.

Going after bin Laden, personally

2010-06-18T00:42:00.001-04:00

Tonight I'm pondering Gary Faulkner who, according to news reports such as this one at CNN, went after bin Laden personally.

Reports CNN:

Pakistani authorities announced this week that they had picked up the 50-year-old Colorado man near the border with Afghanistan. Armed with a pistol, sword, night-vision equipment and Christian literature, Faulkner told police that he had been hunting bin Laden since the September, 11, 2001 attacks.

What does, what should, one say about this? Should it be a hearty high-five, a chuckle, condescending pity, a look of concern?

Laughter is suggested by the Quixotic nature of the enterprise, but then again bin Laden has committed some of the most Quixotic of all windmill runs--some of which worked dramatically. His most unlikely exploit was to trigger a civilizational war, or more precisely, to trigger a war that could be construed as a civilizational war between Islam and the West. Nearly ten years after 9/11, the United States is the primary force in Afghanistan fighting a protracted war. We are preparing to withdraw from Iraq, but whether there is a successful transition to a truly independent Iraq has yet to be seen.

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are non-state actors. That is, they aren't identified with or limited to the activities of a single state and thus they are difficult to apprehend or destroy without violating state sovereignty. They can harm a multitude--thus attack a state--but the multitude among whom the hide are innocent. That is, bin Laden is not elected, and he is not responsive to constituents. The U.S. entered the war in Afghanistan because the Taliban provided a safe haven to bin Laden.

Whatever one thinks of Faulkner, he is trying to exploit the reality of being a non-state actor. For this reason he is viewed as crazy by some and as a hero by others. He's the American Rambo, Chuck Norris...a Jesus-preaching Sly Stallone. Given the risk Faulkner was taking, arguably this way of putting it underestimates him.

If we are lucky, many of us will begin to see bin Laden in similarly 'discounted' terms. Bin Laden's primary power resides in and is a product of our minds. Even if bin Laden is eventually killed by a predator drone strike, he ultimately will be defeated by clear thinking, confidence, and conviction. Gary Faulkner's actions are, it seems, detached from reality. It's sad that he's closer to the truth than many of us.

Note: Today, I posted on a related theme at Creedible.com.

I can believe the news today

2010-06-15T23:26:00.000-04:00

Check out the New York Times Lens piece Pictures of the Day: Northern Ireland and Elsewhere by Merrill D. Oliver and Karin Roberts, and the Times editorial The Truth about Bloody Sunday.

And Bloody Sunday by U2.

Rest in peace.

Child porn too big for law enforcement? Microsoft steps in. - CSMonitor.com

2010-06-13T23:55:00.001-04:00

Child porn too big for law enforcement? Microsoft steps in. - CSMonitor.com

This is an interesting and heartening story. It illustrates, among other things, that large corporations can act with conscience and soul.

I'm not suggesting that corporations such as Microsoft are perfect or saintly. We know that they are not. I am saying that they do have the power to act morally, and I would add that it is quite likely they increase their long-term viability and profitability by doing so.

With AIG's foolishness in the not too distant background and BP's mendacity in the foreground, it is well to remind ourselves that corporate profitability does not require lax ethics. We should expect more from corporations than we do. Were we to do so, the political left-of-center position on corporations would lose much of its cogency.

How we do so--how we begin to build a sense of civic responsibility and efficacy--is a more difficult problem. I suggest that our sense of powerlessness is related to individualism and that much of what passes as criticism of corporations is little more than self-aggrandizing individualism. We need to work on these issues; our viability as a people requires it.

Bishop Accountability

2010-06-12T17:18:00.095-04:00

I encourage readers to visit BishopAccountability.org. This remarkable site aims "to facilitate the accountability of the U.S. bishops under civil, criminal, and canon law." It contains an "abuse tracker," more details of the abuse than you will be able to stomach, reports on dioceses and seminaries, news links, grand jury reports, and more.

I have written previously in this blog on "The Pope's Penance" and "Küng, Weigel, and the Fading of Reality," but this site warrants further comment. The main issue, from my perspective, is that the hierarchy is being called to account by something other than the hierarchy itself. Those calling for accountability are very clear about the need for external standards. The site says that it is maintained by "a small staff and is strictly an educational enterprise," but the winds of real reformation seem to be blowing in it.

It is worth remembering that when Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door in Wittenberg, he did so as a Catholic, a monk, and professor of theology. He was motivated by the sale of indulgences, but his criticisms tapped into a deeper shift, which had a depth and impact that he did not anticipate. Luther earlier had been shaken by a 1510 trip to Rome where he was confronted with sexual irregularities and worldliness of the priests there. Many have commented on the parallels to the current situation.

Whether the present crisis will precipitate a larger shift is unknown, but it is significant that a large number of people are no longer willing to allow the Holy See or the Roman Curia to pronounce the matter settled. Bishops are being publicly criticized and direct pressure is being applied on the Vatican. This is quite remarkable.

Those of us on the outside of the issue (i.e., those who are not Roman Catholics) have a different perspective and different responsibilities from those on the inside. It takes considerably more courage to confront this issue as an insider.

Luther's story also shows that insiders can lose that status if they keep asserting their views; they also can leave it behind of their own accord. Much hangs in the balance when the Holy See addresses this issue. RITN will continue examining the issue and invites readers to offer comments.

Chevrolet, Chevy, and Jesus

2010-06-11T00:43:00.002-04:00

Join me at creedible.com to discuss religious brands and identity: Chevrolet, Chevy, and Jesus. Get there!

Death by Firing Squad

2010-06-09T22:18:00.003-04:00

Tonight I'm thinking about the firing squad. This article at CNN raised the issue for me. I encourage you to read this story, which recounts some of the experiences of a former executioner in Utah, where the firing squad is scheduled to be used again on June 18th to execute Ronnie Lee Gardner. The executioner--unnamed because he still works in law enforcement--says that "I've shot squirrels I've felt worse about" and "the death penalty ... is nothing more than sending a defective product back to the manufacturer. Let him fix it."

Regardless what one thinks of the death penalty this is a terrible way to think about human life. More worrisome is the number of people who will think it's perfectly acceptable, many of whom will be Christians.

From the perspective of religious studies it is unsurprising that members of religion espouse one thing and do another, or espouse one thing and make choices that are at variance with its implications. I don't want to oversimplify, and there are theological defenses of the death penalty. Also, it's true that many who find the death penalty acceptable would give their lives to protect the unborn or the freedoms of people with whom they disagree about essential matters. On the other side, there are many who find the death penalty abhorrent but would risk their lives, if not take someone else's, to prevent cruelty to an animal, but then go on to support widely available abortions in the third trimester.

Human beings, it seems, have difficulty being consistent about not killing each other. Those who don't kill indirectly sanction it in acts by the military and police. I am among them.

Nonetheless, the death penalty (whether by firing squad, hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection) is a terrible act, even if it does pass muster with concern for justice. For in the death penalty, the ultimate arbiter of human justice takes a life. Here there is no emergency--as in battle, or a police under duress--but the dispassionate act of the judiciary and the workings of the penal system. We are not helped when sheer callousness is the mode of discourse about this terrible act. The fact that it is so prevalent shows, I think, that broad acceptance of the death penalty, if not the death penalty itself, is rooted in deeply atavistic elements of human nature.

note: I posted a video on this topic, over at Theological Prescripts.

DARPA, Chesterton, and Niebuhr

2010-06-08T21:46:00.003-04:00

One of my favorite quotations is Reinhold Niebuhr's statement that the 'only empirically verifiable doctrine of Christian faith is the doctrine of original sin.' Apparently, it was first authored or uttered by G.K. Chesterton, the English author and Catholic apologist, and seconded by Niebuhr. Chesterton and Niebuhr's point is that human beings have a tremendous capacity for malicious activity, but it's combined with a staggering ability to be thoughtful, inventive, and caring.

Tonight I'm thinking about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and especially some of the technologies it is working on. I was directed to DARPA, about which I had been completely ignorant, by POPSCI and Wired Magazine's Danger Room. Read these stories, if you're interested in the desire to "override evolution to create immortal synthetic organisms." No worry, says the Pentagon, the critters have a kill switch. This is more or less precisely what Chesterton and Niebuhr were writing about.

I also checked out DARPA's website, which I encourage RITN readers also to do. I am especially intrigued by the Defense Sciences Office and especially the Strategic Thrust of Materials. A dimension of this thrust focuses on Biologically Inspired Materials. James Bond would be impressed.

For example, there is Z-Man:

The Z-Man program will develop biologically inspired climbing aids that will enable an individual soldier to scale vertical walls constructed of typical building materials without the need for ropes or ladders. The inspiration for these climbing aids is the way geckos, spiders, and small animals scale vertical surfaces by using unique biological systems that enable strong reversible adhesion using van der Waals forces, or by hooking into surface asperities. This program seeks to build synthetic versions of those material systems and then utilize them in a novel climbing aid optimized for efficient human climbing. The overall goal of the program is to enable an individual soldier using Z-Man technologies to scale a vertical surface while carrying a full combat load.

Neato. Then, there's Fracture Putty:

Traumatic battlefield wounds such as compound bone fracture are very difficult to treat, often requiring multiple surgeries and long healing and rehabilitation times. Amputations are not uncommon. Current treatments employing bone screws, plates, and rods are deficient and can themselves lead to further complications.

DARPA seeks to create a dynamic putty-like material which, when packed in/around a compound bone fracture, provides full load-bearing capabilities within days, creates an osteoconductive bone-like internal structure, and degrades over time to harmless resorbable by-products as normal bone regenerates.

If neither of these intrigue you, check out Negative Index Materials, Nano-Composite Optical Ceramics, Instant Fire Suppression, or RealNose. RealNose is "a 'nose' constructed from actual olfactory receptors that further leverages the components of the canine olfactory system to create a breakthrough detection system with potential capabilities beyond that of a canine."

I am a political realist. I follow Niebuhr in that, too. Essentially, realism says that we should be prepared to respond to those who threaten us or try to harm us. This includes a military dimension. I support just war theory.

Niebuhr's theological realism, however, reflexively called all power into question. As a free society, we should consider the kinds of military options we want our government to sponsor and pursue. I, for one, support projects such as Z-Man and Fracture Putty but not immortal designer-gene bugs. I am happy that this information is publicly accessible.

What are your thoughts?

A Connecticut Jirga

2010-06-06T01:33:00.001-04:00

Join me at Creedible.com for a discussion of the Afghani jirga's support of President Hamid Karzai to approach lower-level members of the Taliban with an offering of peace.

The U.S. National Security Strategy, Reaction 3

2010-06-04T00:24:00.000-04:00

This is my third (and final) reaction to the National Security Strategy (NSS) that President Obama transmitted to Congress on May 27, 2010. I posted on this topic previously in this blog here and then here.

The strategy as a whole is a defense of American hegemony that could have been written in broad outlines by the Bush Administration. The attacks of 9/11 continue to serve as a primary reference point and our response to al-Qa’ida is set forth as quintessentially representative of our national security interests and approach. Says the strategy, “The dark side of this globalized world came to the forefront for the American people on September 11, 2001” (NSS 1) and commits us to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates through a comprehensive strategy…” (4). Though the strategy is framed as a reaction to al-Qa’ida, it “reject[s] the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents” (22).”

The strategy paints a grim picture of threats, of biological and nuclear weapons possibly falling into the wrong hands. Yet it also calls to “Resist Fear and Overreaction” holding that “if we respond with fear, we allow violent extremists to succeed far beyond the initial impact of their attacks, or attempted attacks—altering our society and enlarging the standing of al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates far beyond its actual reach” (22).

At the heart of the strategy is a call for a “Whole of Government Approach,” consisting of integrated use of defense, diplomacy, economic renewal here at home, development initiatives abroad, Homeland Security, intelligence gathering, shaping global opinion through strategic communications, and relying upon initiatives of the American People and the private sector (NSS 14-16). In sum, “This strategy calls for a comprehensive range of national actions, and a broad conception of what constitutes our national security. Above all, it is about renewing our leadership by calling upon what is best about America—our innovation and capacity; our openness and moral imagination” (NSS 51).

There is also a strong emphasis of universal values, to wit:

The United States believes certain values are universal and will work to promote them worldwide. These include an individual’s freedom to speak their mind, assemble without fear, worship as they please, and choose their own leaders; they also include dignity, tolerance, and equality among all people, and the fair and equitable administration of justice. The United States was founded upon a belief in these values. At home, fidelity to these values has extended the promise of America ever more fully, to ever more people. Abroad, these values have been claimed by people of every race, region, and religion. Most nations are parties to international agreements that recognize this commonality. And nations that embrace these values for their citizens are ultimately more successful—and friendly to the United States—than those that do not (35).

Reference to these values functions to limit the use of force by making it a last resort, but the values also legitimize the use of force and construe the nature of our enemies. Aware of the ambiguities involved in defending such values with force, an examplarist approach is commended: “In keeping with the focus on the foundation of our strength and influence, we are promoting universal values abroad by living them at home, and will not seek to impose these values through force” (5). “Our moral leadership is grounded principally in the power of our example…” (10).

A range of other topics are treated within the strategy: from promoting non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to relationships with Iran and North Korea, Arab-Israeli peace and cybersecruity, and reducing our deficit spending while reinvesting in education, energy, food security, and technology.

My overall reaction to the strategy is that this is a wartime document that correctly identifies key perils of our age. I support its realism, though the "Whole of Government" approach is worrisome. Too much integration of the various sectors of our common life will run afoul of the key values of pluralism and differentiation of spheres. I also believe that eventually we need to move beyond viewing 9/11 as the primary reference point for shaping security policy. I say this not to diminish 9/11 but to suggest that if its horror serves as the primary basis for our security policy, the terrorists, not we, fundamentally determine our approach. The strategy's appeal to our deepest values holds greater promise, and eventually we need to base our actions primarily on them, and not in response to al-Qa’ida.

Al-Qaida's #3 Killed by Predator Drone Strike

2010-05-31T23:18:00.003-04:00

The following is being widely reported today, including by Siobhan Gorman at the Wall Street Journal: Sheik Sa'id al-Masri, al-Qaida's third in command after Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri,was apparently killed about a week ago by a predator drone strike.

As noted earlier in this blog, the new National Security Strategy deliberately focuses its language on al-Qaida and its affiliates. The United States is not engaged in a civilizational war, even if the commitments of two civilizations--Islam and 'the West'--are brought into bold relief by such news.

June 2 Follow-up: Craig Whitlock and Greg Miller report at the Washington Post that "Al-Qaeda is likely to replace No. 3 leader with ease."

On June 3, 2010, I will post my third (and final) reaction to the NSS.

The U.S. National Security Strategy, Reaction 2

2010-05-31T00:45:00.002-04:00

On May 27, 2010, I posted this reaction to the National Security Strategy President Obama transmitted to Congress earlier that day.

In this post, I want to focus on four themes identified by Obama in the strategy's leading letter.

“Time and again in our Nation’s history, Americans have risen to meet—and to shape—moments of transition. This must be one of those moments.” This sentence opens the letter, which offers a quite extraordinary account of the challenges we face. Globalization is changing everything, Obama argues. To succeed in the coming century, we must rise to meet significant challenges. We must do it by relying on American know-how and gusto, but we cannot do it alone. We will need once again to cultivate relationships with our long-standing allies (i.e., those we fought with, and against, in World War II). Here, Obama is repudiating a key element of the Bush presidency, but he is doing so in the context of sharing goals set forth by Bush: to exterminate al-Qa’ida and to continue America's benevolent global hegemony. Obama's claim that this 'must be one of those moments' should be understood as a statement of the perils we are facing. Either we succeed in this moment or catastrophe could roil the globe.

“...renew our focus on Afghanistan as part of a commitment to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates…” Al-Qa’ida, put bluntly, would stop at nothing to carry forward its objectives. We must, almost at any material or moral cost, defeat it.

“Moreover, as we face multiple threats—from nations, nonstate actors, and failed states—we will maintain the military superiority that has secured our country, and underpinned global security, for decades.” Here Obama extends the threats we face beyond nonstate actors, to include nations and failed states. The former (e.g., Iran and North Korea) may deliberately or inadvertently draw us into hostilities. Failed states (e.g., Yemen, Chad, Pakistan, Burma) are a breeding ground for terror.

“Our long-term security will not come from our ability to instill fear in other peoples, but through our capacity to speak to their hopes.” We may need to instill fear in their leaders, in order to gain a chance to speak to the hopes of their people. This sort of realism entails many dangers, and we ourselves could easily lose moral compass.

Another prominent theme in the letter is growing the economy, but that seems more foundational (or political) and less analytical and strategic to me.

What, some might ask, does religion have to do with any of this? To which I answer: much. As indicated in the blog of May 27, Obama is seeking to focus on al-Qa’ida so as not to indict Islam as a whole. But to close tonight's blog, I want to think about the vision to which Obama appeals. What inspires this vision? The answer, I think, is a Christian-Western account of the world and the practices developed in light of it. This vision of the world is not neutral; it assumes democracy, rule of law, human rights, and the rest. Arguably, each of these is more consistent with their Christian origins than they are with, say, Islam. They are also quite different from the traditions of government ownership and control in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China.

To be precise: I believe that Islam has elements that prepare societies to be receptive to these 'Christian-Western' goods, but it also has elements that press against them. My primary point here–limited, to be sure–is that the origins of these practices and ideas are Christian-Western. Thus, focusing hostility on al-Qa’ida and its affiliates while simultaneously extending the olive branch to 'Islam' will be a difficult script to follow. Let's hope we overcome that difficulty.

More to follow this week on the National Security Strategy.

Note: My thanks to Samiur Rahman for pointing me to the Bremmer article.

Blogging at Creedible.com about Outsider Candidates

2010-05-30T22:34:00.003-04:00

Join me at Creedible.com to discuss "The Political Culture of Outsider Candidates."

Your opinions and views, as always, are most welcome.

Follow up to Being Gay in Malawi

2010-05-29T15:15:00.004-04:00

Homosexuality remains illegal in Malawi, as reported by Reuters and published by the New York Times, but Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika pardoned the gay couple previously sentenced to 14 years in prison for openly celebrating their relationship.

On May 20, 2010, I posted a blog on this topic here at RITN.

I am watching the debate about the U.S. military's 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy.

This site supports gay rights, freedom and equality for all.

The U.S. National Security Strategy, reaction 1

2010-05-27T23:47:00.005-04:00

On May 27, 2010, President Barack Obama transmitted the National Security Strategy of the United States to the Congress. Aljazeera reported this story, as did most major newspapers and media outlets. Over the next week or so, I will post several analyses of this strategy. Tonight I want to focus on the language being used to define U.S. efforts against al-Qa’ida. The strategy avoids using incendiary language that would suggest the U.S. is at war with Islam as a whole.

The United States is waging a global campaign against al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates. To disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates, we are pursuing a strategy that protects our homeland, secures the world’s most dangerous weapons and material, denies al-Qa’ida safe haven, and builds positive partnerships with Muslim communities around the world. Success requires a broad, sustained, and integrated campaign that judiciously applies every tool of American power—both military and civilian—as well as the concerted efforts of like-minded states and multilateral institutions national security strategy.

We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out. Yet this is not a global war against a tactic—terrorism or a religion—Islam. We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners (National Security Strategy, 19-20).

In 1993, Samuel Huntington published 'Clash of Civilizations?' in Foreign Affairs, which he expanded in the 1998 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. Huntington argued that the post Cold-War would be dominated by struggles motivated by civilizations and cultures (among them, the struggle between 'Islam' and 'the West'), not by struggles over political ideology. The 1998 book was especially tendentious with respect to Islam, and Huntington's language provided the intellectual architecture for viewing 9/11 and the U.S. response as dimensions of civilizational war. Whoever thinks that scholars have little influence should undertake an analysis of the ways in which Huntington's view has shaped the politics of the last decade. (For a thoughtful analysis of how Islam has been viewed in the post-9/11 world, see James A. Beverly's 2002 article for Christianity Today.)

President George W. Bush said on a number of occasions that "...Islam is a great religion that preaches peace," much to the chagrin of people like Daniel Pipes.On the whole, the Bush Administration was clear about focusing its efforts on extremists, but there was a tendency to refer in more general terms to Islamic extremists, rather than in more particular terms to "al-Qa’ida and its affiliates."

The Obama administration's more precise language is trying to create allies among moderate Muslims and maintain the allies we have. In this respect, Obama's approach extends Bush's "Islam is a great religion that preaches peace...". Though the National Security Strategy is being viewed by many as a complete repudiation of Bush's approach, in important ways it continues to push the agenda established by Bush in the immediate wake of 9/11.

From my perspective, this approach is a good one--an unfortunate but necessary evil in a time of war.

A report to RITN readers

2010-05-27T00:15:00.001-04:00

The first entry was posted to RITN on April 9, 2010. In two months, nearly 50 posts have been made, and approximately 70 comments have been received. In May, the site received about 700 visitors and had about twice that many page views. The New York Times is feeling the heat!

The Top Five Most-Read Blog Posts were as follows:

Worth another chance:

Readers have hailed from 14 countries. In declining order, readers come to RITN from these countries: United States, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada, India, Paraguay, Philippines, Gambia, Germany ,Malaysia, Netherlands, and Italy.

My main purpose in contributing to this site is to reflect on religion in the news. I am persuaded that a religious/theological analysis offers something vital in terms of comprehending what is happening in our world. I would be happy writing these brief pieces simply as an act of reflection without any readers, but I am delighted that some readers are engaged by these topics.

Keep joining me, and bring your ideas--submit possible posts to me by email, or offer comments--to the table for discussion and analysis. Invite your friends; let's make a difference.

Also, join me at Creedible.com, where I post one or two blog entries each week.

Stephen Healey

Difficulties of Dialogue

2010-05-26T00:50:00.001-04:00

Join me tomorrow evening (5/26/10) at http://www.creedible.com/blog4/ for a discussion of the Difficulties of Dialogue.

National Security in an Insecure Age

2010-05-22T13:28:00.006-04:00

I am reflecting on anxiety in light of President Obama's speech to graduates of the United States Military Academy, as reported by Peter Baker of the New York Times and Michael Sheer at the Washington Post.

This brief video clip from Washington Post's site gives a flavor of the President's remarks.

Tradition. Honor. Love of Country. Putting self in harm's way. These themes are to be expected in such a speech. Early reports also indicate that Obama continues his repudiation of the Bush presidency. Obama is turning from unilateralism to multilateral cooperation. Though he is prosecuting the war in Iraq and an intensified war in Afghanistan, he hopes to exercise increasingly robust diplomacy. More will be gained through alliance building, he argues, than through sheer American power.

I think Obama is right about this, but the times in which we live have an ominous sense of peril. Al-Qaeda, a non-state actor, has succeeded at shifting the national and international conversation. We feel beleaguered and threatened. Just when we feel a little safer, someone shows yet again that our security is more easily compromised than we imagined. But why has terror been so successful?

Let's note that we also are terrorized by environmental destruction, the collapse of the economy, the global pandemic, the spread of AIDS, SARS, the drug war, the chasm between the haves and have nots, the rise of the numbers of cancers, cloning, the fat in our diets, the obesity epidemic, Internet addiction, the loss of privacy, the depletion of the global oil supply, the spilling of millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, the rise in gas prices, inflation, deflation, deficits, Greece, China, illiquidity, the crash of the DJIA, WMD, government is doing too much, government is doing too little, taxes are too high, social security is bankrupting us...enough.

Is there anything that we are not afraid of? Anything that will not cause us to spin into a state of anxiety? If an individual went to a psychiatrist and complained of so many threats, he would be diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder.

What, if anything, will help us to feel more secure? I believe that the answer is not when we exterminate al Qaeda, have a once-again robust economy, defeat AIDS, overcome SARS, heal the environment, and the like. I believe that our terrorized reaction to these events is precipitated by a vague sense that the rules of the game are changing. That is, we sense that an ethos shift of immense macro-sociological importance is afoot, one that we barely comprehend. We know enough about it, however, to know that it will change the world, and that our kids will live in a world that is fundamentally different from the one in which we lived.

We fear that our kids will be worse off. That is possible, it seems to me, but it's not a certainty. The question is whether we will face the anxieties of our age and develop convictions to face them. Convictions of this sort will not be talking points made by commentators on the left or right; they will be made and articulated by average Americans, or they will not be made convincingly.

Such convictions will need to be conversant with our deepest traditions, but they also will need to refashioned in light of fundamentally new circumstances. If we raise our kids to accomplish tasks on this order of magnitude, they may very well live in a better world than we do. They almost certainly will be better people than we are.

Blogging about Grocery Stores at Creedible.com

2010-05-21T22:49:00.006-04:00

Tonight I'm blogging about the everyday miracle of food-packed grocery stores over at creedible.com, to wit:

A friend and I were disputing the nature of faith on Facebook. He was stressing internal transformation, and I was focusing on social concern and witness. At one point, he said that “It seems that our Lord does his best work one on one…”. I countered by referring to the Feeding of 5000 in John 6:5ff. [Continues @ creedible.com]

Being Gay in Malawi

2010-05-20T23:31:00.003-04:00

Tonight I'm thinking about the report of Barry Bearak in the New York Times about the Gay Couple in Malawi recently sentenced to 14 years in prison. The couple's crime was being openly gay. The country is 80 percent Christian and 13 percent Muslim, according to the CIA World Factbook, which cites Malawi's 1998 Census as the source of its information.

On the whole, Africa is very traditional when it comes to homosexuality. Bearak reports that

The nation’s clergy have been united in condemning the gay couple. “God calls homosexuality an abomination, which is greater than a simple sin,” the Rev. Felix Zalimba, pastor of the All for Jesus Church in Blantyre, said Thursday. He said church and state were aligned in agreement: “These two must repent and ask God’s forgiveness. Otherwise, they will surely go to hell.”

This reminds me of the Episcopalian Churches that split from the Anglican Communion and associated with African Churches over questions related to the ordination of gay priests. Partly this action was motivated by churches in the more traditional "Global South," that is, Africa and South America.

With regard to the situation in Malawi, pressure has been applied by human rights groups, the U.S. State Department, and others. Some have urged the decriminalization of homosexuality, drawing on the distinction between sin and crime.

Sensitive to the cultural variables at work, fewer have straightforwardly championed gay rights. This serves to raise questions about the universality of rights. When should, and when must, we press the issue of universal rights, the various cultures and religions of the world notwithstanding?

Is there a universal right to free speech, even if it takes the form of a 'Draw Muhammad Day'? Is there a universal right to religious liberty? If so, how ought conceptions of these rights intersect with local religions and cultures?

I have not thought these issues through. My thoughts about them are fragmentary. I will say, however, that I can imagine no instance in which the love described in this story--consensual, adult, etc.--should be subject to legal penalty. I also think that serious moral reflection will show this love to be as worthy as heterosexual love, even if there are important distinctions between them.

As always, of course, I am interested in readers's opinions.

Creeds and Credibility

2010-05-20T00:23:00.000-04:00

Tonight I am blogging at creedible.com. Join me for a discussion of belief in God and the nature of public theology.

Warming our hands over Hell's Fire: Terror & Alienation

2010-05-19T00:55:00.003-04:00

Tonight I am thinking about us--especially our reaction to horrific news. The occasion of this reflection is news from Thailand about anti-government protesters and the Thai army's reaction. This news called to mind suicide bombs, terror attacks, assassinations, political kidnappings, rapes and assaults, and genocide. These and worse are the daily news.

We are little moved by these horrors.
As we stand in line for another cappuccino, send an email at work, watch a streaming film online, play with the kids in the back yard, or lay our heads down at night, some function of the mind prevents this hellishness from bothering us. The cries of thousands go unheard. A million people could be being butchered, and our sleep will be little disturbed. Insofar as these events constitute the news, we take them in as information, if not as entertainment. We warm our hands over Hell's fires.

In his sermon "You are accepted," Paul Tillich preached, "The walls of distance, in time and space, have been removed by technical progress; but the walls of estrangement between heart and heart have been incredibly strengthened." Tillich saw this separation through the Christian category of the state of sin. That is, Tillich held that sin was less about our actions and more about the state of our consciousness, our state of mind, our concern for others, and the like.

On May 17, 2010, this blog focused on the moral life of babies. Paul Bloom's research seems to show that some element of other-regard appear is hard-wired into the brain. Our sense of empathy is most effective on the most local and immediate scale. Nearly everyone who discovers a lost child at the mall will help him or her to safety. Those who would not are outliers, but this empathic quality is starkly limited.

Compare this limited empathy to the universalism found in the world's religions. Mahayana Buddhist monks take the bodhisattva vow, through which they commit to seeking enlightenment, and therefore the end of suffering, of all sentient beings. In the Hebrew Bible, Jonah comes to realize that divine prophecy is to be given to all who need to hear it. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches that those who are in need are our neighbors. There are, to be sure, elements of these religions that contribute to a demonization of outsiders, but mainly they expand the sense of community beyond tribe and kin.

Yet we are little moved by the anguish of others, so long as they are sufficiently far away and look sufficiently different from us. And so long as we don't allow ourselves to see pictures of suffering children. The word alienation seems an apt description of this callousness. It's a cold world, but hell casts its warming glow over us.

Answering the Recession

2010-05-17T23:32:00.002-04:00

Tonight I am thinking about the recession. Over the last week or so, the markets have gotten jittery, as investors have worried about Greece in particular and the sustainability of the EU in general. A 're-recession' there may cause a 'double dip' here.

The economy has begun 'creating' jobs, but unemployment is shockingly high. It seems that TARP, the Capital Assistance Plan, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and other such initiatives have restored confidence in banks and (at least) prevented the economy from getting worse. It seems that a run on banks will not happen. Consumer confidence and spending seem to be on the mend. Even after a bad week or so, the Dow is at 10,600, up from about 7 grand in February '09. GM just announced a quarterly profit, and Chrysler's parent company recently repaid part of its TARP-funded loan.

I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. My point is that these mini-news lines are part of the common conversation nowadays. Prior to this 'good news', we were bombarded on a daily basis with 'bad news.' That's partly why this good news comes as such a relief.

I don't want to suggest that I'm above it all. I'm not. I also don't want to ignore the fact that a recession here (in the USA) is bad news around the world. I also want the unemployed to get back to work, and I worry for them.

But I want to answer the recession. I want, in my answer, to be less passive in my thinking, less reactive, and less concerned all at once.

For the most part, these economic woes and winds of relief occur on such a large scale that passivity is a fact. We cannot develop a solution, let alone put it in play. One suspects that even the likes of Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner (and before him, Hank Paulson), and Larry Summers were making it up as they went along, guided, as it were, by intuition lightly seasoned with knowledge and a heavy helping of hardly masked desperation. How, then, can we be less passive? My point is that we can be less passive in our thinking. We may not be well-equipped to think about the economy, but the economy is not the whole of our identity. We can think, or continue thinking, about what news means to us: for our families, careers, choices, and the like. That itself will bring with it a welcome measure of freedom.

We can be less reactive. When the economy was overheating, and the housing bubble was inflating by the day, and energy speculators (in the context of rising demand) seemed ready to push crude oil to $200 or $300 per barrel, we--okay, I--were simultaneously mesmerized and terrorized. In my neighborhood, at the lowest point every home seemed to be for sale, half of which were in foreclosure, and none of which were selling. Of course, this is hyperbole; my point is that our thoughts and actions were reactive. A recession--I am not an economist--is a series of reactions in the face of dread, decline, and reduction. The economy as a whole starts to feel queasy, and key decision makers cut budgets and payrolls 'to the bone', which triggers others to do the same. Recessions end when people collectively believe in the possibility of a better tomorrow, but that is a sunnier kind of reactivity. We can be less reactive, but to become freer we will need to embrace a larger purpose.

I am simplifying, perhaps too much, but this I am willing to argue: our focus on economy is near to what Judaism, Christianity, and Islam call idolatry. Idolatry simply means that we invest more in an object than the object's value can sustain. That's a formula for disaster, and no scheme of credit default swaps can hedge against its unavoidable losses.

We will be less concerned with the economy if we explore non-economic worthiness: that our kids are wonderful; that we have souls (or receptive minds) in need of tending; that truth, goodness, and beauty abide. In a reverse move, we could tend our gardens as a statement of optimism--in the value of unencumbered acts.

Moral Bambinos

2010-05-17T00:30:00.003-04:00

Tonight, I am thinking about Moral Bambinos. I am inspired in this undertaking by a Paul Bloom article in the New York Times Magazine entitled "The Moral Life of Babies" (May 3, 2010), and by the reflection of Dima Grozeva, a former student of mine at the University of Bridgeport.

I want to start my reflection by telling a brief story about my younger son. Within an hour or two of his being born, I began cooing to him, "Say hi to Daddy." When he was one-month old, I needed to travel for professional purposes. When I returned after a few days of travel, I joined my wife, who was changing his diaper. I leaned over and said, "Say hi to Poppa."
In that instant, his look of expectation (of hearing the name Daddy) changed to a look of question (who is Poppa?). I'm not a psychologist and it was a strongly emotional moment, so perhaps I misinterpreted his look. But I don't think so. As a father of four children, I think that babies are smart, so it was with special interest that I read Bloom's article. In brief, his empirical work, and that of his colleagues, is leading to revised estimates of tikes.

Bloom's article focuses on moral judgments made by babies. At some level, quite young babies appear, under experimental conditions, to make moral and proto-moral judgments--or at least to act in ways consistent with making moral judgments. This suggests that there is a biological--and therefore universal--undergirding to morality, which is synthesized with cultural elements in fully developed moral codes. This raises questions about work of heavy hitters like Freud, Piaget, Kohlberg, who saw children as "amoral animals."

Dima, who graduated from UB with a degree in psychology, also was drawn to the Bloom article. In an email to me, she said,

I find the author's approach very interesting. It's not easy to develop experiments involving adults, let alone babies. That means there are real limitations and possible alternative explanations for these findings. I respect the authors for acknowledging them.

It is fascinating to propose that babies are moral creatures, considering that 'tabula rasa' has been a dominant motif when it comes to thinking about the moral life of babies....

The idea that empathy is ingrained in us from birth is quite important. If it's true that babies have an in-built sense of concern for others, it's worth questioning why some adults lack it. Why do we lose this urge to assist strangers in distress? If we accept the findings of this research, it seems that we are born with the required building blocks to develop a balanced social life. Yet something happens in the course of our development that corrupts this inborn potential....

Psychology is a relatively new science. Therefore, psychologists have much more to study. I think that research on early childhood development and 'the moral life of babies' is much needed if we are to understand how to raise children. The first year of life is critical for cognitive, emotional, physical and psychosocial development and it's sad that this is so commonly disregarded.

Dima has raised several important points, especially with regard to implications for children's development and the moral lives of adults.

I'm interested in the intersection of these findings with traditional religious and theological motifs. Bloom points out that his research does not suggest a role for God; the synthesis of biology and culture can account for the phenomena he is studying. Let's stipulate (for now) that this is correct. We could (and arguably should) view 'theology' and 'claims about God' as part of the work of culture.

Judaism holds that God created human beings with impulses to choose the good (yetzer tov) and impulses to choose selfishly (yetzer ra). In creating human beings, God essentially requires morality to be made as a choice. This view is consistent with the findings of Bloom. Here the (biological) interplay of yetzer tov and yetzer ra requires the (cultural) work of covenant theology.

I think that historical and comparative theological work has power to enrich the work of empirical scientists. In a future blog post, I will seek to defend that viewpoint.

The Recession & the Moral Life of Babies

2010-05-15T20:04:00.000-04:00

Tonight I'm pondering the religious/theological meaning of the recession. I'll post something on this topic in a day or two. I'm also thinking about the moral life of babies. Dima Grozeva, a former student, and I will post a blog tomorrow evening.

Join us.

Religious Absurdities

2010-05-14T21:05:00.002-04:00

Tertullian, the late second century Christian father, once said, "Credo quia absurdum." I believe because it is absurd. Critics of religion often point out that religious absurdities abound. They are not wrong. Currently, there's a yogi who claims to have eaten nothing for the last 70 years. Astonished? Well, he's also had nothing to drink during that time, not even a drop. Or so he claims.

All religions have their share of, shall we say, inspirations. Lao Tzu? He was born as an elderly sage. The Buddha? He spoke immediately upon being born.
The Hebrew Bible has its vision of the whole world being flooded--with Noah saving the animals--the Tower of Babel, and the speaking serpent; and the New Testament has its resurrections, angels, demons, and the like. These are legends, of course, and we don't really gain much by treating them as truth claims. Rather, we need to consider these tales in their original contexts to see how they shape larger spheres of meaning. In the Hebrew Bible, for example, the Noah story is taken to establish a universal covenant between God and righteous Gentiles. That's not at all absurd.

In addition to wild tales, religions possess the power of judgment and transvaluation. In 1 Cor. 1: 19-27, St. Paul celebrates a kind of foolishness:

For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. … For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. …God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong…

Such an inversion of values itself has power. The Exodus event in the Hebrew Bible, which also uses a strategy of inversion, empowers the quest for justice.

On the other hand, religious transvaluation can be dangerous. Al-Qaeda uses this strategy when it declares Western societies to be in a state of ignorance. With that claim, its architects justify suicide bombings and would not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction.

Clearly we need a philosophical-theological strategy to distinguish absurdity from malignancy.

The Religious Meanings of Oil

2010-05-14T00:11:00.005-04:00

Black gold has been on my mind, as it has for many people, because of the oil spill in the gulf. I have written previously in this blog about "Oil Spills & Public Theology," but in this post I want to go in a different direction, to discuss the religious meanings of oil.

Though my thinking about such topics frequently moves in either an ethical or mystical direction, a religious perspective need not be limited to these choices. A judgmental screed about how we are exploiting the planet will accomplish little. Even the former oilman President Bush could say that we are addicted to oil. It's gratifying to denounce the exploitation of natural resources, but how much meaning does that have if we do little or nothing to reduce our energy use? Also, a mystical approach that overstates the meaning of oil--the earth itself is sacred!!--accomplishes little.

In fact, religious meanings frequently arise through reflection on, and connection or reconnection to, facts of nature. Call it Joe Friday theology: "All we want are the facts, ma'am." (On a side note, it troubles me to report that snopes.com says Friday did not say "Just the facts, ma'am." I can hear the line echoing in my mind, but...).

A January 2009 estimate of 'proven oil reserves' put the remaining supply at 1,348,528,420,000 barrels. That's 1.35 trillion barrels of oil or 5.66381936 × 10¹³ gallons. (This estimate is taken from Wikipedia, which summarizes data from the CIA's World Factbook.) These numbers are so large that it's hard to comprehend their significance. They don't mean that the oil supply is unlimited, of course, and some predict that we will use all of it within 50 years.

The most common (biotic) explanation for the formation of oil is that between 10-160 million years ago, countless plants and animals lived and died in the oceans. Oil is a result of their slow decay. Another (abioitc) view posits that oil "formed deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic materials."

Let's assume, for the moment, that the biotic view is correct. When we fuel up our cars or heat our homes, we're forming (or assuming upon) a relationship with these plants and animals that lived and died so long ago. We often think about the events of a week or month ago as if they are simply gone, but oil reminds us that even tiny plants from 160 million years ago continue to make their presence felt in our lives. We also tend to put too much emphasis on the personal and gauge significance by how much something serves human interests. What's interesting about oil formation is that there was nothing personal about it, because these processes were in play long before homo sapiens evolved. These processes did not take place 'for us.'

A variety of religious meanings can be taken from this, but I am most interested in the way that the consumption of oil telescopes to 160 million years ago and beyond that to the formation of earth, which is 4.5 billion years old, and the Universe, coming in at 13.75 billion years old. Oil use is situated within a geophysical and cosmological context that most of us ignore. But we should not ignore it; our lives occur within a vast and intricate cosmos of interrelationships. And it's good to bring these relationships to mind. In this endeavor, science is a profound asset.

Meditation on these natural facts may incline to mysticism, and thinking about our energy use, as compared to that of others, has a strong ethical dimension. But ethics and mysticism are stronger when they are based on a good dose of Joe Friday's "just the facts, ma'am" theology.

RITN News, Big & Small

2010-05-13T00:28:00.006-04:00

Tonight's post looks at big and small issues dealing with religion in the news. It's troubling and intriguing to reflect on the fate of our world as it is simultaneously shaped by matters of international significance and petty passions.

Big: Peter Nicholas and Paul Richter report for the Los Angeles Times that "may embrace a plan by his Afghan counterpart to reconcile with certain Taliban leaders." This news is built upon other important news: that U.S. relations with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, seem to be improving. Not long ago, Karzai said he was considering joining the Taliban. This issue of global significance is a bit like a game of chess.

Big: Andrew Higgins reports for The Washington Post reports that Indonesia is stepping up its pressure on Islamist Radicals. Indonesia is focusing its efforts on Jemaah Islamiyah, arresting some of its leaders and killing others. If it's required for important purposes such as security, killing the 'bad guys' is very human to do.

Small: Jim Davenport reports of Associated Press that now-divorced Gov. Mark Sanford spent time over the weekend with his Argentine lover. The earlier news from Sanford--he disappeared to be with his lover--surprised everyone, but that's the essence of passion.

Small AOLNews.com reports that Ted Haggard, disgraced former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals and former pastor of a 14,000 member church in Colorado, has registered a new church with Colorado's secretary of state. Haggard is a tragic figure whose life work was destroyed by passions that he seemed unable to control. That's a very human thing to have happen.

It's worth noting that this is an average day for religion in the news (RITN). RITN is involved in topics of global significance. Will we and our allies and associates be able to halt the spread of terror? Will Islamist radical be held in check? Will we find peace in Afghanistan? And the most vexing question: Can we have peace yet maintain our security? It is possible that our fates, and those of our children, are being determined in fairly direct ways in these events in Indonesia and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, RITN is about personal passions. Ted Haggard's liaison with a male prostitute led to disgrace, but now he is seeking to reenter the ministry. Or perhaps he is trying simply to deal with issued related to income taxes. Mark Sanford visited his Argentine lover over the weekend, having been divorced by Jenny Sanford in March after his affair came to light. This story is not overtly about religion in the news, but I include it here because Sanford complains about the obsession with his personal life. That obsession is related to religious censure. In our culture, the scarlet letter has become a scarlet alphabet.

Religion in the news, let's note, is not strictly personal, but includes a personal dimension. And though religion in the news deals with personal issues and passions, it also grapples with issues of international significance. In order to grasp the most salient issues of our day, we must combine a psychologist's focus on individuals with a sociologist's or historian's focus on large-scale events. Let's keep working on it.

Why I Still Agree with Sarah Palin: A Reply to Rick Ungar

2010-05-12T00:18:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, I posted this reflection on Sarah Palin's views of America and those of her detractors. The brief reflection was in reply to Rick Ungar, Charles Johnson, and, as I said, "a host of others who treat Sarah Palin as if she is a fool." My main argument--cast as a partial defense of Sarah Palin--is that she's onto something important with respect to the history of America. I argued that her detractors are too quick to dismiss her views, and I encouraged them to 'edit' rather than 'malign' her statements.

Mr. Ungar offered this comment suggesting that I mischaracterized his treatment of Palin and that I did not address his main points. (I am assuming in this world of cyber-realities that the comment is actually Mr. Ungar's and not someone posing as him.) In any event, here are his comments, followed by my replies.

Ungar 1

"My thoughts are that if you are going to comment on an article - you should actually comment on that article."

Healey 1b
For reasons set forth here, I hold that my reflection was responsive to Mr. Ungar's article--and those of Palin's other detractors.

Ungar 2

"For starters, I believe I was very respectful of Gov. Palin in the piece. I never 'lampooned' her or in any way made fun of her. While it may suit you to suggest this for purposes of your own response, dishonesty is not a reason to take license of another's work."

Healey 2b
I used the words lampoon, mock, and malign to describe the treatment of Palin by Ungar, Johnson, and a "host of others." Do they apply to Ungar's article?

Though the strategy may be deemed proof-texting, I'll simply quote Ungar, thereby allowing readers to make their own judgments. (I also encourage readers to go directly to T/S, in order to read these statements in context.)

“Sarah Palin can’t seem to distinguish between the bible and the American Constitution.”

“However, the continuous effort by Palin and friends to pervert the true history of the nation and the intentions of the founders is nothing short of subversive and clearly dangerous.”

“... if Sarah Palin wants to rule a nation based on God, she really should look elsewhere. There are many countries in the world that would meet her requirements – although she will find that most of them worship the God of Islam. Palin might ask the women in so many of these theocracies how government and law based on religion has worked out for them.”

“Or Palin and friends might simply look up the word 'Pilgrim' in the dictionary and learn about how our own original settlers were fleeing religious persecution at the hands of a Monarch who was also the leader of the Christian church in the land of their birth.”

I wouldn't characterize these claims as respectful, but others may take a different view. Lampoon? Mock? Malign? Let the readers decide.

Ungar 3

"You never address the point of the piece which is Palin's suggestion that American law, as created by the foudners, is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Instead you reference religious movements that came after - and some instances long after- the founding of the country. Could you be any more off point?"

Healey 3b
The Great Awakening occurred in the 1730s, but my main point is not haggling over details. Instead I will refer to the T/S piece. In the context of refuting Palin's reference to the Declaration of Independence, Ungar says "The thing is, there was no American nation when we proclaimed our independence from Great Britain."

Ungar and I use the term nation quite differently. I would say there was no American state but that there was already an American nation. The state was constituted formally by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, later to be replaced by the United States Constitution. But the nation--the people, their customs, habits, mores, and their diverse religious views and practices--already existed. The Articles and the Constitution set forth fundamental law that is to govern the body politic, but politics and government are set within and rely upon a broader social fabric, without which they would not long endure. (Of course, the states severally already existed--the Constitution of Virginia was ratified in 1776--but we can leave that aside for now.)

I'm not urging a return to the Articles, but I do note that they concluded by claiming that "And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union." To be fair, the Articles also allowed in Art XI that "Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union...". Clearly, some things have changed, but the Articles indicate something of the climate that prevailed in the founding days of the republic.

Ungar's complaint that I refer to "religious movements that came after ... the founding of the country..." misses the point that these references are part of my defense of Palin's view. To be sure, she would not use this kind of analysis, so my "agreement" with her is partial, as I make clear in the post. I'm arguing--in response to the T/S piece, that, yes, a religious core does underlie the American nation. It was there before the formal founding of the state, and it continues through revival movements to be reclaimed by ongoing generations. Palin's appeal, I believe, lies in part in her ability to channel this story and history. The view the T/S piece sets forth is partial and misleading, on my view, but it also makes a contribution. As I say, "Though Palin is correct, Ungar, Johnson, and the many others like them also grasp something important. The truth, however, must include both kinds of insights. Our history is a tapestry, not a single thread."

Ungar 4

"My piece never discussed America today as being far removed from the foundations. It simply was not the subject of the piece nor even a reference point.

It seems to me that if you want to write about religion, with so much as a spec of credibility, you would want to be far more precise in how you use material."

Healey 4b
My blog was commenting on two kinds of foundation--the Puritan strand articulated by Palin, and the Liberal strand articulated by Ungar. She thinks that we have moved too far from the Puritan strand, and Ungar worries (I think) that the great Liberal tradition will be lost. I have written previously about the exemplary nature of this tradition elsewhere in this blog.

I agree that the great Liberal tradition is under siege. I wrote in this blog about a related topic with regard to the National Day of Prayer, which was the occasion of the comments made by Palin on the Bill O'Reilly show.

Ungar's T/S Piece
Blog entries of this sort--brief little essays--cannot hit every point. I agree with some of Ungar's points and certainly encourage RITN readers to consider them. I am especially interested to support his intention, which seems to be to hold overly zealous religionists at bay. The First Amendment gets it right, I think.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Hear, hear. But Congress is a political entity, and politics is not the whole of the nation. The free exercise clauses give us the ability to exercise these fundamental ights. And here we are doing it. Not bad, America. Not bad.

Why I Agree with Sarah Palin

2010-05-10T23:55:00.002-04:00

I'm responding to Rick Ungar's "The Palin Principle - Bible Trumps Constitution," Charles Johnson's "Palin's Theocratic Daze," and the host of others who treat Sarah Palin as if she is a fool. Ungar and Johnson miss Palin's deeper points, and mock her ideas without understanding their significance. Such commentators ask with bewilderment, how are the Bible and God relevant to politics? They assume that the separation of Church and state settles this issue once and for all.

For her part, Palin keeps insisting that she knows better than her critics. Frequently, she is right. Don't misunderstand me; I often disagree with Sarah Palin. I disagree with most of her political views and nearly always find her politicized summaries misleading.

But Ungar, Johnson, and many others mistake lampoon for thoughtful analysis. Palin uses colloquial language to make the point that America's political culture and national life draw upon deep aquifers of religious--that is, Christian--meaning. She expresses this in problematic ways, but a better approach would be to 'edit' rather than 'malign' her views.

Palin is correct, I am prepared to argue, that American's core civilization is built upon certain Christian motifs. In the American experience, the foundations of civil society and civic life were built on premises that God is creator, that nature is his work, and that a moral law constrains and guides all. Further, these meaning systems are subject to revival and renewal. Among these are the 'Great Awakening' associated with Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, which led to significant cultural flourishing and was proto-revolutionary; the 'Second Great Awakening' in the early nineteenth century, which led to the abolition, suffrage, and (fated) temperance movements; and the Social Gospel and Pentecostal renewals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These revivals--on the left and right, respectively--account for the spiritual architecture, in profound ways, of Obama and Palin.

To be sure, the eighteenth century divines are important 'founding fathers,' and this group--Franklin, Jay, Madison, Paine, Jefferson, and others--was heavily influenced by the rationalistic and individualistic elements of the Enlightenment. To make a case for their own liberty, these liberals claimed that the Puritans came to America seeking freedom, when in fact the Puritans came seeking purity. Arguably that act of creative misinterpretation laid the groundwork for current struggles about the moral and political fabric of our national life. Though Palin is correct, Ungar, Johnson, and the many others like them also grasp something important. The truth, however, must include both kinds of insights. Our history is a tapestry, not a single thread.

Palin (and simultaneously Ungar, Johnson, and others like them) are correct that nowadays America is quite far removed from these foundations. Instead of making fun of each other's claims, we should sponsor reasoned debates about the issues. We might agree about some issues, even if we part ways over how to respond to current challenges. A group of us will stress the need to revise our older traditions, to rethink them in light of new knowledge and religious pluralism, and to make room for people who are not persuaded by these older sources. Another group of us will see that something essential lies in these traditions, that they continue to live in our new circumstance, and that we do well to heed their counsel.

In Creeds, Society, and Human Rights, Max Stackhouse argues that a 'liberal-Puritan synthesis' serves as the foundation of American life. To reinvigorate that synthesis will require people like Palin, Ungar, and Johnson to be involved.

Let me know your thoughts.

Anwar al-Awlaki: Moderate turned Jihadi?

2010-05-09T13:09:00.003-04:00

Recommended reading: Scott Shane and Souad Mekhennet’s New York Times piece "Imam’s Path From Condemning Terror to Preaching Jihad."

On some accounts, Anwar al-Awlaki used to be a strong supporter of Islamic moderation, a champion of integration with mainstream American institutions. Following 9/11 he presented Islam to the media as a moderate religion which had been distorted by terrorists. But al-Awlaki now supports jihadi violence against the United States. The Obama administration has authorized his "targeted killing." That's quite extraordinary since he is a US citizen who was born in New Mexico.

A serious question is whether al-Awlaki's turn to jihad is a new development, or whether he was always so inclined.
Was the moderation merely an act? Did he misrepresent his understanding of Islam in order to further the cause of terror? Or did he undergo a conversion to extremism, as he himself claims, after realizing the lengths to which America would go in prosecuting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? This is a question that will be asked of and turned against our moderate Muslim neighbors.

The Bush administration prevented Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss citizen and eminent Muslim scholar of Islam, from entering the United States, but the Obama administration permitted his entry. Ramadan supporters say he is a true moderate and that his work represents the possibility of a rapprochement of Islam and the West. Ramadan detractors say that he is two-faced. They argue that this grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna provides intellectual cover for radicals.

My view is that we should resist concluding that our moderate Muslim acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and co-workers are wolves in sheep's clothing. If we assume that all moderate Muslims are merely putting on an act, we will misjudge many good people.We also will have succumbed to the deeper terrorist plot, which is to cause us to lose faith in our principles and core values. They already are dangerously close to succeeding, and we cannot afford to give them another victory.

We should not be naive. The world situation is pressuring everyone and, as the case of al-Awlaki demonstrates, moderation is something that can be renounced. We also should, I think, advocate for an expeditious withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The fight against Islamist-inspired terror is likely to continue for the next twenty or thirty years, but the presence of American (and Western) troops in these lands is a powerful recruitment tool for radicals. We can fight against radical elements covertly, and in alliance with Muslim groups who see terror as fundamentally and profoundly anti-Islamic. There are many such Muslims. Whether al-Awlaki was once one of them is uncertain; that he is not one of them now is confirmed.

We are living in a time when the true price of democratic freedom is becoming more obvious. This 'price' is not in the cost of our military, but in the anxieties that attend the course of liberty.

The Pill: 50 Years Later - Sex | Erectile Dysfunction | Sexual Health - FOXNews.com

2010-05-08T14:42:00.005-04:00

The Pill: 50 Years Later - Sex | Erectile Dysfunction | Sexual Health - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis

Of topics frequently addressed by religionists, sex is near the top of the list, alongside other heavy hitter topics such as power and money. One can find celibates in traditions as varied as Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, and others. Traditions that counsel the practice of celibacy for some recognize the importance of sexuality for all. Tonight we are reflecting on the religious significance of the pill--now in its 50th year of availability.

Directly relevant for Catholics is Humanae Vitae, the encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI. In brief, the letter prohibits the use of contraceptives, seeing them as a contravention of God's purposes:

… an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will....

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

But the pill and other forms of contraception are widely available, and there is good reason to believe they are used as frequently by Catholics as they are by others. PBS.org reports that in the 1980s "almost 80% of American Catholic women use contraceptives, and only 29% of American priests believe it is intrinsically immoral." Catholic teaching, in large part, relies on an account of nature--as imbued with moral purpose--from which many have become detached. These believers also have adopted modes of family life that make sustaining large families impossible. Hence, birth control is deemed the only workable choice.

The birthrates of countries characterized by high levels of development (access to education for men and women, urbanization, affluence, political freedoms, etc) are declining significantly, while underdeveloped countries tend to have high rates. Check out the Total Fertility Rate in the CIA's useful World Factbook. Niger, for example, as a TFR of 7.75 children/woman, while rates of Singapore and Hong Kong are 1.09 and 1.02, respectively. The United States, which has a large immigrant population, is 2.05. These figures are not the result of abstinence.

Anne Fried-Drath, a former student of mine, emailed me earlier this evening about implications of birth control for women, men, and religion. Her points are salient, so I want to include them here:

The pill does not make women more promiscuous. It gives them power to choose whether they want to have children and, if so, how many. The pill expanded opportunities, allowing women to go to college and enter the workforce ….

[Echoing elements also found in Humanae Vitae, she asks] Religiously, something is wrong with thispicture. Aren’t children a gift from God? If so, isn’t it wrong to regulate how many children one conceives? Is it not a way of putting oneself over the power/wishes of God….

The Bible conceives a hierarchical order that essentially puts women in charge of the children but men are the head of the family. Offering women the pill shifts the hierarchical order. The pill allows women to pursue their own dreams and make their own money. Thus, they don’t need to accept the man as the head of the family….

The idea of giving women more independence may be seen as threatening by the church, since it is primarily dominated by man. In parts of the Bible women are portrayed as strong and independent (e.g., Miriam the sister of Moses), but these accounts are frequently ignored. The story in whose shadow women live is that Eve was created from Adam’s rib, ate and shared the forbidden fruit, making women forever weak and irresponsible.

The pill has power to reshape this story. It says to women: you have power to make choices. You don’t have to ask a man for permission!

Anne-Fried has identified several essential issues. From my perspective, the most important are that the pill causes the hierarchy to totter, yet also opens up possibilities of reshaping our most fundamental narratives of life, love, and death.

Thanks, Anne-Fried.

Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, and Grace

2010-05-07T22:14:00.012-04:00

Tonight I am thinking about recent revelations involving George Rekers, the prominent anti-gay activist who apparently hired a male prostitute to 'carry his luggage' on a recent trip. Rekers also recently was paid a large sum to testify in a Florida Court against gays adopting children. I have no interest in what Rekers has or has not done. I am interested only in the larger themes raised by reports of his actions.

Rekers was unknown to me before this story broke, but the cases of Senator Larry Craig, Reverend Ted Haggard, and Representative Mark Foley are fresh in my mind. Their political interests also led them to say one thing and do another. They each donned a mantle of righteousness but struggled to achieve their own ideals.

Johnny Cash reminds us in 'I can see a darkness' that personal struggles are rooted in an 'opposition [that] comes rising up sometimes.' Before rushing to our own judgment, we should bear that in mind.

Paul Tillich addressed a similar point in his powerful sermon, 'You are accepted.' Cash and Tillich show that the grace of self-acceptance surpasses self-loathing. Acceptance of oneself leads to acceptance of others. Where it does so, others are treated generously.

Power is a factor. Each of these leaders possessed enormous power, but they did not--or perhaps could not bring themselves to--use this power to work on behalf of others whose needs were very much like their own. If we want to transcend their harmful pettiness, we will need to use a different strategy.

It's worth noting in this charged political context that grace is frequently experienced, not as control, but as surrender. Though it may lead to self-control, grace is not self-control. Grace is taxonomically different from control; those with power often are blinded to that fact.

Mosque at Ground Zero?

2010-05-06T23:49:00.005-04:00

Tonight I am pondering the plans of two Islamic organizations to build a 13-story mosque near Ground Zero. The motives are positive: to educate the West about Islam, to show its profound spiritual riches, and to outflank radical Islamists. (The term Islamist should not be confused with the term Muslim. An Islamist is a radical, who is committed to violence and terror as a means. A Muslim is one who has submitted to God. Islamists are Muslims--on their own view--but not all Muslims are Islamists.)

Even though the motives for building this mosque are positive, I see storm clouds brewing. That is not necessarily a reason to resist the building of this mosque.

On the one hand, this is a highly courageous step. The organizers are confronting the radicals at the locus of their most horrific achievement: the destruction of the Twin Towers. A less courageous approach would put as much distance as possible between that hateful achievement and the organizers's positive work. By showing their willingness to represent the best and most noble elements of Islam at Ground Zero, the organizers are expressing clarion conviction that true Islam is not in the hands of radicals and terrorists. I encourage readers to visit the site of the Cordoba Initiative and to review the work of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Draw your own conclusions about the ideas there.

On the other hand, building a mosque at Ground Zero is inherently provocative. Many (Jewish, Christian, and secularist) Americans who are quite tolerant will, I believe, find building this mosque to be insensitive, if not incendiary. My guess is that building the mosque will motivate a fringe element--consisting primarily of nationalistic Christians--to stage protests and perhaps resort to vandalism or violence. It will then be up to mainstream America to protect the mosque and those Muslims and non-Muslims who gather at it.

What ought we conclude?

The 'one hand' here is more principled: tolerantly allowing full expression of convictions. The 'other hand' is more pragmatic: limiting one's freedom in order to be sensitive.

Americans typically honor principles even when they run afoul of pragmatic considerations. The Bill of Rights is full of examples of this--freedom of speech, the right of assembly, the right to 'keep and bear arms', and the like.

So this is a test not only of Islam and the Condoba Initiative; it is a test of American convictions. My deepest hope is that we pass this test. To defeat the radicals, we must do so 'spiritually', that is, by honoring the principles they seek to undermine. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Americans can work together to achieve that.

Facebook's Potencies, Various & Serious

2010-05-05T23:52:00.003-04:00

Tonight I want to consider themes suggested by Facebook's High Pressure Tactics: Opt-in or Else. Issues arising from Fb use go beyond the (sur)face. But even the surface level is important: the claim is that Fb is coercing its users to link their user accounts with public pages. Gone, the argument goes, is free expression; in, it continues, is submission to Fb's control. From my perspective, it's good that the Fb user community is agitating for autonomy, the right to provide feedback, and the like.

In this entry, however, I want to think about Fb from a different perspective.
I am thinking, at the first level, of access. Who can afford to access Fb, and who is excluded? We--anyone reading this--usually assume that everyone has access. Not so. There is a digital divide in which people in affluent countries and communities are likely to have access, and people in poorer settings do not. Access is limited and uneven.

I am thinking, secondly, about acceptance. One of the remarkable features of Fb is that people connect with colleagues, acquaintances, people from current and former lives, etc. It is my impression--limited to be sure--that social networks are remarkably free of bullying, exclusion, and hate. There are some high-profile cases of bullying and sadism, but they are, on the whole, somewhat rare. There is a movement to stop cyberbullying. It seems, however, that Fb typically affords a radically open and inclusive social network. In some senses, it is a secular Church--if not, for some, an outright Church.

I am thinking, thirdly, about digital exhibitionism. The 'high pressure' article focuses on what Fb might do to us. Without denying the salience of that worry, more alarming is what we might do to ourselves. The digital environment is not the one in which our species evolved! The monkey logic we use is so busy swinging from tree-to-tree that we lose our moral compass in Fb-land. This is worth pondering, I think.

I am thinking, finally, about self-representation. The term facebook seems to capture a spectrum of possibilities. On the one hand, our faces are a natural, given self-representation. The other day, in an Fb chat, several of us were commenting about the recent face transplant patient. This is, I said, a miracle of modern medical science. I have not lessened my opinion of the procedure. In some senses, we are a face, and we need one in order to belong. Though we may hold or know that we are more than our physical expressions and facial presence, there should be no denying that our faces are important--essential, or almost essential--to us. Facebook allows facial expression.

But facebook contains a second noun: book. Books are things we author--things that we make. Unlike faces which are a natural given, books are an artificial construction. Facebook offers a profound opportunity, for everyone with access, to author a 'book' representing their identity. This is amazing--and arguably without analogue or precedent. In the near past, there was no such opportunity.

Taken together, these elements of social networking sites add up to a metaphysically significant alteration of human identity, which is both something given and something made. From a religious perspective, the alteration of identity through such networks raises questions that will need to be addressed, if religious communities are to have formed a thoughtful approach to the circumstances of our time. I wonder what they will discover in this process of discernment.

National prayer day: Say amen (if you want to) - The Boston Globe

2010-05-04T23:46:00.027-04:00

National prayer day: Say amen (if you want to) - The Boston Globe
Posted using ShareThis

For the following reasons, I'm against the concept of a national day of prayer (NDoP).

NDoP's purpose is rhetorical, ideological, and self-congratulatory: O God! A nation at prayer! Look how good we are! There is a tradition in the Hebrew Bible for such prayers, and our Puritan legacy pushes in a similar direction, but our circumstance is radically different from those sources.

The First Amendment's particular language excludes making a law about the establishment of religion. Arguably NDoP is not that, since 'establishment' means a political preferencing of one religion over another. I will leave the legal analysis to Constitutional lawyers. My point is religious/theological. In what sense might a political agent call people to pray? In what sense can there be a national day of prayer? Answers: when God is construed as a national possession and politicians are afraid not to appease this nationalism; when invocations of God are viewed as a litmus test of being a good American. Is this what we want to encourage?

Here is where we need an old-fashioned liberal. By old-fashioned liberal I mean someone whose political philosophy seeks, in Lockean fashion, to separate the political and religious spheres. We need, I think, for President Obama to risk the ire of conservatives, and to suggest that religious communities can call for prayer of types they see fit, but he is not going to call a NDoP. I believe, however, that Machiavelli's counsel dominates: perceptions of religiosity are more important than actual religiosity. Even stipulating that Obama's religiosity is genuine--I believe that it is--his administration is afraid that it will be perceived as irreligious if it does not call a NDoP. Unfortunately, that is likely to be true.

Jesus spoke against this sort of public praying:

Matthew 6: 1-8

Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

These are the words that immediately precede the Lord's Prayer in the book of Matthew. The author of Matthew seems to be giving principles that should guide prayer, before setting forth an exemplary prayer. A NDoP might be conducted in such a way as to avoid running afoul of Matthew's account of Jesus's instruction. But, at present, I can't quite imagine what it would be. An outright violation of Jesus's words is far easier to imagine:

Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, our kingdom come, our will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven...

It's possible that we know better than Jesus, but I urge caution about concluding that.

Water Fit to Drink

2010-05-04T00:25:00.004-04:00

News from Boston, reported by Shahrzad Noorbaloochi for The Epoch Times. A water pipe that brings water from the Quabbin Reservoir to Boston broke. Eight million gallons of water per hour flowed into the Charles River. As an emergency measure, the city's water supply was drawn from an untreated source. The city was placed on a 'boil alert.'

If this news is viewed from a certain perspective, it has an an illumining, almost revelatory, significance. Creatures of dust that we are, without water, we die.
Thus, on one level, the news is about our vulnerability. Unless we're faced with a summer drought (or live in California, the land of perpetual drought; or most of the developing world, where potable water is a rare luxury), we do not generally think about the water supply. Though we give it little attention, we're absolutely reliant on it being available, and vulnerable to losing it. Thus, a second level emerges: our vulnerability is concealed. We human beings are vulnerable to many things that we block from our conscious minds. In the case of the water pipe, however, we have good reason to ignore our vulnerability. Most of the time the technology that delivers drinkable water to us works well.

Thus, a third level emerges: we rely on technology and thereby depend on a host of others. If we reflect on the water pipe--a ten-foot diameter custom-made pipe capable of delivering eight million gallons per hour--the sheer amount of human knowledge entailed in making it becomes apparent. Each element of technology--whether it's the metallurgy, the installation processes, the engineering or design, the manufacturing and delivery--is dependent upon other sources of technology and science. In fact, no one person--probably no group of a thousand, even if they were hand-selected for this purpose--would know all of the science and technology that is required to make a single section of this pipe. Remember, to make such a pipe requires a production facility, with its energy needs, delivery systems, and all of the technologies that go into making that facility itself. Thus, a fourth level opens up: our dependence on others is concealed.

So it is that we are vulnerable, but not particularly aware of it, and dependent on others, but not particularly inclined to keep that in mind. I propose that most of the time we are profoundly mistaken about the conditions of our existence--that on which we rely, those on whom we rely, and those to whom we owe thanks. We're infantile in lacking awareness of our dependence on others.

Hinduism and Buddhism both teach that we are ignorant of reality. Boston's water supply seems to confirm that, but there is another dimension. With very little reflection, we can become aware of our vulnerability and dependency on others, yet we typically do not. Rather, we assume that we are 'okay' and that 'we are responsible for ourselves.' But if the water pipe breaks, all of sudden we're not okay; nor are we alone. We're thirsty, because the anticipation of a dry spell makes us thirsty; and we're in a community, because we're rooting for the workers who are installing the new section of pipe.

If we hope to become a little more aware of the actual conditions of our lives, we need to experience something revelatory--like the breaking of a water pipe.

Iran, the U.N., and Women's Rights

2010-05-03T00:10:00.001-04:00

The U.N. has elected Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). To put this in perspective, we need to know something about the CSW and Iran's treatment of women.

The CSW was established in 1946 and has adopted a significant number of 'agreed conclusions' to improve the standing of girls and women. Recent conclusions have urged 'financing gender equality and the empowerment of women' (2008) and 'elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against the girl child' (2007).

Iran's concern for women's rights is not robust.
Certainly, if women's rights requires the full autonomy exhibited by Western women, Iran falls short. In the 2010 edition of Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa, Freedom House rates women's freedom in Iran as better than that of Saudi Arabia but worse than that of Egypt. The relative position of Iran should not obscure the fact that all score quite poorly on this index.

Female identity has historically been conceived in a broad range of ways. As I indicated here, much of that history is problematic and in need of revision. But Western conceptions of women's rights do not provide fixed prescriptions for all societies. That's why the work of CSW continues.

Iran's election may even augur the possibility of better relations with the West. What motivated Iran to seek this assignment? My guess is that Iran desires to overcome the shame at being excluded from the U.N. Human Rights Council, hopes to place itself on the moral high ground, and wants to contribute an Islamic perspective to the Commission's work. If it brings an Islamic perspective to the CSW's deliberations, Iran may even contribute to the Commission's main purpose.

CSW's mission cannot be fulfilled without its conclusions being broadly endorsed, and Islamic perspectives must be included in that process. In that respect the election of Iran is problematic but not catastrophic. Others, I am sure, will see this issue differently.

My thanks to D.M. Murdock,whose piece in the Freethought Examiner pointed me to this story. I also am reliant on Joseph Abrams's reporting at FOXNews.com and the follow-on piece at Fox News.

Religion & Immigrants: Then & Now

2010-05-02T00:01:00.003-04:00

Our national story portrays us as a land of immigrants—particularly of religious immigrants. We feel good about that.

We refer to the seventeenth century Puritans but also to Catholic and Jewish immigrants, who came to the U.S. in large numbers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Will Herberg’s Protestant - Catholic - Jew (1955) analyzed elements of common life, and the differences, produced by these three immigrant groups. That work continues to be relevant.

The U.S. continues to accept a significant number of immigrants, but we may be losing our nerve on this front. Arizona law S.B. 1070 is a wake-up call. A similar measure is being proposed in Utah by Rep. Stephen Sandstrom.

Yet the story we tell of immigration continues to have power. In Salt Lake City, Andrew Adams of ksl.com reports that Sandstrom, an LDS member, is being criticized by some for forgetting Mormon history. (Mormons arrived in Utah after fleeing Missouri.) Not all agree that this history is relevant, but powerful emotional rhetoric can be culled from the quintessentially American nature of the Mormon story. Adams quotes Tony Yapias, Proyecto Latino de Utah director, who says, “If anything, Utahns - those who can remember their ancestors when they first came to Utah - they should remember what it's like to be persecuted, what it's like to be driven out.”

Adams also cites calls to mercy for immigrants made by LDS Elder Marlin K. Jensen and Salt Lake Catholic Diocese Bishop John Wester. In a Newsweek story, Lisa Miller congratulates the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for its criticism of S.B. 1070. She says that “Diverse religious groups are condemning the law and calling for federal immigration reform, but Catholic prelates have taken the lead.”

Where our immigrant story will and should lead us is a matter for reflection and debate. Let's keep watching the issue and let's also make a contribution to it.

Why I'm Not Laughing

2010-05-01T01:33:00.001-04:00

It has been reported widely that a Facebook group, which now claims more than one million members, is based on a purportedly humorous prayer that President Obama will die. If you haven't read about it, see The Huffington Post's brief account.

I don't find this prayer humorous in the least. Here's why:

First, whatever one thinks of Obama, surely there should be recognition that he is at risk. Every president serves at peril to their own lives.This is especially the case for Obama, since he has broken the race barrier and is pursuing an agenda that pushes against powerful interests.

Second, though I admit to having a taste for blasphemous humor, the prayer crosses a line, I think. The palpable aggression--here I am thinking of Freud's analysis--ruins any possible humor for me. Neither do I find Farrah Fawcett's and Patrick Swayze's deaths--to rectal and pancreatic cancer--funny. Ditto Michael Jackson's death; to be sure Jackson was a troubled soul, but he was one of the most gifted entertainers and musicians of our time. It is true that humor can be transgressive, but this is sheer meanness and insensitivity.

Third, the example of the Hebrew Bible comes to mind. The tradition there typically refuses to use the noun for 'God' and the verb for 'curse' in the same sentence. The word for 'bless' usually stands in the place of curse. The idea is that words are efficacious, a viewpoint ostensibly claimed by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others who pray.

Fourth, I have kids, and this leads me to imagine what it would be like for them to learn that a million people--or one, for that matter--finds its funny to pray that I will die. Obama's kids, and he and the first lady, deserve better.

Fifth: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy. I find no humor here. I hope others will join me in resisting this malice, passed off as humor.

Virginity & the Moral Worthiness of Religions

2010-04-29T23:19:00.001-04:00

The issue for tonight is the life and death issue of virginity—and the moral worthiness of religions. The sad fact, as reported by Najlaa Abou Mehri and Linda Sills for BBC News, is that in places around the world girls and young women are at risk if they cannot prove their virginity on their wedding nights. Imagine being murdered for failing to prove your virginity, if you are a woman, that is.

The report focuses on a French (Arab) surgeon, who performs a hymenoplasty to restore "virginity," that is, the ability prove virginity by a show of blood on the wedding night.
The reporters cite the view that the issue is primarily cultural, not religious:

Muslim clerics are quick to point out that the virginity issue is not about religion. 'We should remember that when people wait for the virgin's blood to be spilled on the sheet, these are all cultural traditions,' says Syrian cleric, Sheikh Mohamad Habash. 'This is not related to Shariah law.'

Christian communities in the Middle East are often just as firm in their belief that women should be virgins when they marry.

In my view, the distinction being drawn here between religion and culture is well-intended but misleading. It's well-intended insofar as it seeks to show that harmful practices against women are not limited to one religion. In our highly charged political environment, offering a balanced portrayal of religions is essential. Nonetheless, to suggest that culture is the problem fails to analyze the religious sources of culture.

It is true that Arab, Asian, South American, and African cultures contain strong residues, if not outright instances, of tribal religious viewpoints and practices, and that many of these portray women in profoundly conservative terms. It also is true that these viewpoints and practices stand side-by-side with viewpoints and practices that derive from the world religions. But it is not true that culture is the source of all ill and religion the source of all healing. Rather, all of the world religions have portrayed women in terms that are limiting and injurious. Some of the most culturally malicious practices can, with very little text twisting, offer religious legitimation.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism—and the cultures in which they arose, as well as the cultures in which they have been adopted and modified—all fail to do full justice to women as equals to men. This sad fact is obvious to anyone who has read the texts and commentaries and studied the religious practices of these religions. Also, though in certain regards Europe and North America have made most progress on the issue of women, it is also true that they continue to have much room to improve.

The religious traditions of the world also possess resources that can be used to strengthen the claims of women. I think especially of the conceptual structures they have for recognizing various kinds of error.

On the whole, however, full recognition of the equal status of women requires adopting attitudes and views that have been developed in post-classical times. Though there are some important precursors, the most important material with regard to the quality of women dates from the eighteenth century and beyond. One thinks of such treatises as Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1791), John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women (1861), Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963), and Mary Daly's Beyond God the Father (1973). Without including insights that come from works of this sort—whether these insights are considered 'cultural' or 'religious' illumines nothing—no classical religious tradition will lead to full justice for women and girls.

I propose that we view how well religions adopt these post-classical attitudes as a test of their moral worthiness. If they cannot integrate awareness of the full equality of women into their structures, then they are, at least by that indicator, less worthy than those that can.

Supreme Separations, or Not

2010-04-28T22:44:00.003-04:00

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled "that a white cross, erected as a war memorial and sitting on national parkland in the Mojave Desert, does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state," so reports Bill Mears for CNN. Liberals will be outraged. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, they will argue. And conservatives will be thrilled. This honors the national heritage and brings God back into the picture.

I'm more interested in other dimensions of this issue, some of which will roll back around to the liberal and conservative positions.

I find it interesting that the cross is such a multivalent symbol. The cross was, historians remind us, an instrument of state 'terror', for want of a better word. The Romans used the cross—crucifixion—to deter others from following the example of persons who were crucified. The main message: do not run afoul of or provoke the state. Here we are, twenty-one centuries after Jesus' crucifixion, and the cross is supple enough to be used as a symbol of the national heritage, our way of life, the sacrifice of soldiers, and the rest. This cruel instrument has been neutralized, and turned into a symbol of America, of our national religion. No longer does it represent a state threat; no longer, by Christian transvaluation, is this threat turned into the promise of a non-violent Kingdom (of God). No, rather, the cross is a symbol of state-sanctioned purposes and national pride.

I find it interesting that in the history of Christianity the relationship of Church and State has inspired creative tensions. The earliest Church was an illegal upstart, but the Church gained more and more power and came to dominate Western civilization and was integral to the formation of Western nation-states. Because of abuses of power, both sectarian Protestants and Enlightenment liberals argued that the two swords—Church and State—were best kept separate. I find it interesting that this dance continues into our time. Usually, however, we do not bother to think about these historical antecedents.

I find it interesting that the cross is viewed by many as a proper symbol for the war dead. I am not denying that it is, just finding it interesting that so many see this as completely unproblematic.

I find it interesting that Christians on the right and the left generally ignore these issues to focus instead on the proper relationship to the state. There are exceptions to this: I think of Anabaptists, for example, who support Church-state separation of theological grounds.

I find it interesting that there are other issues of sacred trust—marriage, for example—that we also typically want to be solved by the state. Let us have a 'defense of marriage act' as if the state's power is what is most essential in keeping society and families glued together.

I find it interesting that in our social struggles an instrument of state oppression, which itself was transvalued by Christians into a symbol of grace, is being considered in law courts as an appropriate (because not only religious) expression of the people's national heritage.

So I become Catholic. That is, I propose that Christians--and I propose this from what Paul Tillich called 'the boundary', save that I propose it from the near-but-non-Christian side of that boundary--use the crucifix, and resist every other display of the cross. My thinking is that, with Jesus hanging there in anguish, we will be less likely to allow the cross to be sullied, and more inclined to ask for the state to stand aside.

So it is that the crucifix, and a certain kind of liberalism, meet. And so it is that essential limitations on state power—ostensibly a conservative view—also needs further articulation.

Küng, Weigel, & the Fading of Reality

2010-04-28T00:03:00.001-04:00

I have commented recently in this blog about the Roman Catholic Church’s handling of the abuse scandal—especially Pope Benedict XVI’s call for penance. This brief reflection takes up part of the Church’s theological discussion of this issue, and then suggests that larger questions emerge than either theologian raises.

Hans Küng, a Roman Catholic priest and controversial theologian, recently published an open letter to the Pope claiming, among other things, that “There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).” (Ratzinger is now serving as Pope Benedict XVI.) Küng concludes his letter with six proposals, each of which asks the Pope to promote a broad reform of the Church’s handling of the issue of abuse—and thus also to reconceive papal and Church authority.

George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, recently published “An Open Letter to Hans Küng” in First Things Online. Weigel claims, in defense of the Pope, that “your description of Ratzinger’s role as quoted above is not only ludicrous to anyone familiar with the relevant history, but is belied by the experience of American bishops who consistently found Ratzinger thoughtful, helpful, deeply concerned about the corruption of the priesthood by a small minority of abusers, and distressed by the incompetence or malfeasance of bishops” who handled the charges. Weigel also portrays Küng as “a new global personality-type—the dissident theologian as international media star” who has acted in a shameful manner.

What are we to make of this? On the one hand, the issues are as profound as those faced by Luther. Küng, in fact, alleges that the Pope is trapped in a medieval outlook. On the other hand, we are clearly dealing with a twenty-first century struggle—being waged, as Weigel correctly notes, in the ethereal media driven fabric of our time. Both theologians follow Luther’s lead in going directly to the masses. Theirs are not tomes written in Latin; rather, they are published openly and online, for all to see. In this sense, it seems that Küng's hand is stronger. Weigel's defense of the Pope and Church leads him to to a place he would rather not be, at least on this topic.

How the issue if being handled raises interesting and troubling questions. At what point does representation overtake, or become, reality? In what ways can we escape sensationalism and mere portrayal, to form our views of what has happened? Are our views of religious figures—the Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, for example—based primarily or merely on representation? Do religious portrayals of these figures serve as a fount for the development of representational media? Is there an essential apotheosis entailed in rendering individuals in such larger-than-life terms, and does not that negate their actual, individual influence? In this blog, I have discussed the inflammatory issue of visual representations of Muhammad, but the issue is considerably larger.

Arguably the central philosophical-theological task is to know what is real and to specify conditions under which we can be confident in that knowledge. How appropriate to raise this issue in an online venue. The issue, of course, is not new, and it has been broadly discussed by every religion and significant philosophy. One of Taoism's great masters put the issue this way:

Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the other.] This is called the transformation of things.

Oil Spills & Public Theology

2010-04-26T21:19:00.001-04:00

Oil spills shock the mind, this most recent spill no less than previous ones, but we are not good about thinking in terms of scale or impact. This spill apparently is pouring 42,000 gallons of crude oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. “At [that] rate,” the article tells us, “the leak would have to continue for 262 days to match the 11-million-gallon spill from the Exxon Valdez in 1989….” By what kind of analogy could we understand this? Most of us—I will include myself—don’t ponder spills like this long enough to comprehend the meaning of the words. We also seem generally disinclined to think about the impact of energy exploration, drilling for oil, and economic impact in religious or theological terms.

This is too bad, because surely religious and theological issues are involved, at least if one understands religion to be a fundamental grasp of the meaning of existence, and theology to be reasoned and normative reflection on religious claims. Religious questions are everywhere manifest in oil drilling: what is the nature of the earth? Is it sacred, merely a thing to be used for instrumental purposes, or a creation—neither sacred in itself nor a mere thing? What is our responsibility to the earth? What is our responsibility to each other and to the next generation, and those after it? Is the earth simply to be used for human purposes, or is a larger set of purposes at stake? Are we morally responsible to limit the size of our carbon footprint?

Rarely outside of seminaries can one get a conversation going about the religious—and thus theological—significance of our use of energy. Rarely inside them, too, I would guess. There are at least two religious trains of thought that tend to eschew public questions: the pietistic and the doctrinal. Pietism ultimately views the self (the soul) as the only real thing, and thus it is only tangentially interested in such things as land, oil, and environment. Such a view can be aligned to scriptures from around the world, because they contain heavy doses of anti-worldliness. Then there are the creedalists, who focus on doctrine. Doctrine may connect to public questions, but the language for doing so tends to be self-referential, and thus is unlikely to further a larger conversation. “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” Very good then, and relevant to oil spills, but what about people who do not share this belief? In what terms will we dialogue with them?

What we need, I think, is religious inquiry focused on larger public issues—oil spills, and the like—but that resists dogmatism, regardless its flavor. Though the term has fallen into disfavor for many, the science of this type of enquiry is public theology. We need, I am arguing, a public theology that sponsors truly searching dialogue about energy, our relationship to the earth and each other, and to the larger questions of life’s meaning.

Secularism in Lebanon

2010-04-26T02:20:00.001-04:00

Here is some interesting news from Beirut. Lebanon is 60 percent Muslim and 40 percent Christian, and thus it must find a way to negotiate points of religious, social, and political unity and divide.

I am happy to see such news, and it is especially welcome against the backdrop of 2006, when the kidnap of an Israeli soldier led to conflict with Israel. If I have a reservation it’s related to the focus on secularism. When it comes to politics, too much focus on ideology—here, secularism—is a warning sign. Arab politics often seems drawn to theocracy on the one side and secularism on the other. This is the false choice suggested by Continental philosophy.

The story reports that “Omar Habib, 29, carried a fluorescent banner with skull and crossbones. ‘Sectarianism: danger,’ it read.” In this context, there should be no doubt that that is true.
In the long run, however, neither secularism not sectarianism is sustainable: 'Secularism: also a danger.'

To my sensibilities, a much stronger way to sustain a multi-religious state is to cultivate a robust civil society—one that is neither ‘secular’ nor ‘religious,’ since it is not ordered by a single ideology or viewpoint. Such a civil society is the foreground of politics, and allows for religious and secular force to influence politics in mediated fashion.

To be sure, the free association of a robust civil society raises questions about how Hizballah and other such groups. This raises questions that loom large in the entire Middle East. Recent news from Iraq shows how important it is for these societies to organize their potentials in humanizing ways.

Smearing Islam | Robert de Neufville | Big Think

2010-04-24T08:59:00.001-04:00

Samiur Talukder, a former student (and now a Facebook friend), emailed me a response to de Neufville's article (Smearing Islam | Robert de Neufville | Big Think). Samiur offers a compelling case for keeping dialogue as open as possible:

I am a Muslim and am thankful for Robert de Neufville’s article entitled “Smearing Islam.” He brings to light things we should be willing to discuss. Franklin Graham’s characterization of Islam as evil offends me, but I urge Muslims to carefully think through the implications of the Pentagon’s decision to rescind his invitation to National Day of Prayer service.

As I read the article, I remembered experiences helping to organize a panel discussion titled “Muslims in the Mirror: Radicalism Series” at Queens College earlier this year. I wondered whether the panelists would be allowed to speak at all. In 2009, there were heated exchanges about whether Imam Siraj Wahhaj (imam of Masjid Taqwa in Brooklyn) would be allowed to speak after having been confirmed as a speaker. Many non-Muslims believe that he was a co-conspirator to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. My point is that Muslims are often denied access to discussions because of fear and prejudice. We gain little if we respond by rejoicing over the exclusion of other points of view.

By excluding Graham, we lose an opportunity to promote our case for reconciliation. As Muslims, how can we expect to engage in dialogue and promote discourse if we exclude people like Graham? What are we doing to help people see that they have misunderstood Islam?

In his 2006 keynote speech entitled “Changing the Tide and Islam in America” at the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Shaykh Hamza Yusuf argued that Muslims in America need to utilize their persuasive powers more effectively. He said that "Muslims need to begin to extend soft power – persuasive power that is overwhelming. This country can benefit from the teachings of Islam, whether they embrace Islam or not, just like it nurtured Europe out of the dark ages without Europe embracing Islam. God gives with gentleness what he never gives with violence."

We Muslims need also to think about the implications of Sarah Palin’s defense of Graham. In my view, core religious values will steer U.S. diplomacy and help in building coalitions geared towards peace. Though we may want to, we cannot afford to dismiss Palin, and those like her.

It is almost 5 am, and hence almost time for the Fajr prayer. As I prepare for this prayer, I will reflect on how I can continue adding to this discussion. I invite you to join me.

Samiur has raised some points that all of us should consider. His essential point is that dialogue requires openness, even if we find the viewpoints of others offensive. He believes that Islam will come off well in an open dialogue because it has resources that many people do not know.

He also suggests that the core religious fabric underlying American politics must be grasped, and that Muslims can use their faith to understand the significance of these values. I agree.

Thanks, Samiur, for this helpful contribution.

April 17, 2009 ~ Rwandan Reconciliation | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly

2010-04-23T19:31:00.001-04:00

Tonight I will be posting Tijana Bokic's reflection on this article and then briefly replying to it. April 17, 2009 ~ Rwandan Reconciliation | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly (Bokic, a former student of mine, originally posted this reflection on Facebook.)

Bokic argued that:

The socio-political implications of religion initially played an important role in choosing the appropriate truth and reconciliation mechanisms. Considering the involvement of certain religious leaders in crimes committed during the genocide period, it was not possible to initially implement the religious models of forgiveness in the reconciliation process.
There is not a clear picture of how Rwandan people actually feel about the reconciliation process – some are openly skeptical and some are very quiet on issues such as genocide, justice or reconciliation.

In the case of Rwanda, issues of justice and reconciliation should be treated as separate ones. In my opinion, there is not a direct relationship between these two factors – meaning that justice cannot truly contribute to the reconciliation process.
… Although ICTR [the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] has been established by the UN, there has been a lot of public dissatisfaction caused by the Court’s inability to prosecute some of the worst perpetrators.
National Gacaca hearings [created to promote truth, justice, and reconciliation] have been established as an alternative to dealing with the thousands of criminal hearings. The Gacaca hearings highlight apologies and reparations by the perpetrators. Those found guilty can contribute to local reparation funds or perform community service. Some of the Gacaca principles have roots in local religious beliefs and culture [in the informal dispute system of Rwanda’s traditions].
This is a sign that religion is deeply implanted in local communities, even though the church has lost some of its credibility. Churches still have the capability to support both violence and peace, because of strong social influence they have and their ability to reach a large number of people.
One of the examples of a reconciliation effort by local religious leaders is the Joint Action Forum, a purely civil society effort designed to promote religious and ethnic tolerance. This initiative does not exclude the marginalized Muslim population and therefore represents the first initiative to promote an all-inclusive religious response to “healing efforts.”
Finally, the impact of Hutu rescue stories is modest. However, they may be used to promote reconciliation, especially as an article of faith. Such faith can be used to create a notion of shared ownership for a large number of Rwandans, gradually contributing to the healing process of the society. This is not a revolution. It is also not an overnight process. There is still much to be done, but I believe that key dimensions of the Rwandan reconciliation process has begun.

In my view, Bokic has identified several key dimensions of this situation. Her analysis recognizes a social, cultural, and religious element, but she is careful not to overstate this point. She also recognizes limitations of the Gacaca Courts. I am impressed by Bokic's contributions!

I also am interested in the way the reconciliation process points to limitations of 'Western' models of justice, which are adversarial and individualistic. In some instances, reconciliation seems more able to lead to a lasting peace. This is worth further thinking and inquiry. Thanks, Tijana.

RITN: ReligionInTheNews

Internet Darkness, Freedom

Cyberwar! Be (Un)alarmed

Dan Wheldon Tragedy

Anwar al Awlaki, dead after Hellfire missile attack

Health Care: The Bigger Questions

The Dance of Reason and Unreason

Camping Flabbergasted! Me, too!

Francis Fukuyama: 'The Origins of Political Order' - Newsweek

Libya, the Obama doctrine

Obama, On Military Action in Libya

History's Curveballs

Wishful thinking, count me in

North Africa: Worry and Celebration

The Unrest in North Africa

Stuxnet, part II

Paul Krugman's Op-Ed, recommended reading

Political Debate and Violence

Attacks Against Pakistani Sufis

New Words, and Beyond Them (to Ecstasy)

Join me at Creedible.com

Mike Wallace Interview of Reinhold Niebuhr (1958)

Theology of the Amygdala?

Christians Fleeing Iraq

Christians in Iraq

Wikileaks, Al Qaeda, and UltraProtestantism

Will God survive Afghanistan? Reply to Cummings and Johnson

Exorcisms Revisited

Worries about the Awlaki Case

Tariq Aziz, Iraqi foreign minister under Saddam Hussein, sentenced to hang - latimes.com

Christine O'Donnell's separation anxiety

The Politics of Sex and Salami

Guilty nation?

Work of Satan revealed

No brainers

The End of Tolerance, revisited

Tanenhaus, Obama, and Religious Change

Dialogue and Assembly

What language do you believe (in)?

'Ground zero mosque': Worldwide, Muslims bemused by mosque controversy - latimes.com

Obama CSMonitor Reflection

Reverend Terry Jones and Rabbi Abraham Cooper

Pop Theology

Mosque at Ground Zero, May to August

Age of the Demonic

Human Nature? Full of bugs!

Atheism and Baptism

Nate Oteka Henn

Indonesia at the Crossroads

Patheos

Robert Wright on Afghanistan, etc

Richard Rubenstein, Obama, and the state of Israel

Whooping Cough and the Future

Adam Gadahn and the Death Rattle of Al-Qaeda

Going after bin Laden, personally

I can believe the news today

Child porn too big for law enforcement? Microsoft steps in. - CSMonitor.com

Recommended Reading

Bishop Accountability

Chevrolet, Chevy, and Jesus

Death by Firing Squad

DARPA, Chesterton, and Niebuhr

A Connecticut Jirga

The U.S. National Security Strategy, Reaction 3

Al-Qaida's #3 Killed by Predator Drone Strike

The U.S. National Security Strategy, Reaction 2

Blogging at Creedible.com about Outsider Candidates

Follow up to Being Gay in Malawi

The U.S. National Security Strategy, reaction 1

A report to RITN readers

Difficulties of Dialogue

National Security in an Insecure Age

Blogging about Grocery Stores at Creedible.com

Being Gay in Malawi

Creeds and Credibility

Warming our hands over Hell's Fire: Terror & Alienation

Answering the Recession

Moral Bambinos

The Recession & the Moral Life of Babies

Religious Absurdities