The other day I called in to a local radio show. This was a few days before the new NIE report that, thankfully, seems to have ratcheted down the rhetoric on Iran a bit. The formulaic gimmick for generating callers that morning was: 'let's talk about recent and outrageous miscarriages of justice in the Sudan (the teddy bear named Muhammad) and Saudi Arabia (the condemned rape victim) in order to get people worked into a supportive and patriotic frenzy for bombing Iran'. I do understand that's the standard MO for talk radio. And, no, I don't think the topic was any part of a 'warmongering conspiracy'. But once enough propaganda has made it's way into general discourse, the ideas become pretty self-perpetuating. I really objected to this particular propaganda and so I felt obliged to call in and say so.
I started off by stating that both of these tragedies were, of course, indefensible and – I hoped – might reasonably help us reconsider our strange national alliances – in this case our alliance with Saudi Arabia in particular. As we look closer at the laws on the books and the way they are carried out in some of these countries, I said, it seemed unwise to be providing those same regimes with billions of dollars worth of the latest military machines to push their agendas with.
The host, of course, started to agree until he heard me suggest that tired 'no entangling alliances' meme from George Washington's farewell address. Then the host backpedaled and said that maybe the world has changed too much to heed advice like that anymore. I've called in to that show enough that I felt comfortable asking if I could make my second point and take my answer off air. He obliged (I'd been fairly succinct and polite) and I stated it:
The show started off with two far-flung travesties of justice in entirely different non-neighboring countries which only happen to have Muslim majorities. It seemed like dangerous propaganda to me when the justification of bombing Iran was suddenly conflated with those events in Sudan and Afghanistan. It was, I said, too similar to propaganda on communist television during the Cold War. There'd be an isolated hate crime against a some religious minority in Canada perhaps and something similarly tragic like a school shooting in Scotland maybe and the point of the broadcast would be that nations like the U.S. (not mentioned in either story) who get caught up in the dangerous expression of religions and who are, further, free to distribute guns to regular citizens are the most frightening and violent on the planet.
I said I worried that a such a similar setup for that day's morning show was going to mostly draw poorly considered racist-hate comments from callers for the entire program. [Indeed, I'd had to sit through two or three long, racist tirades that the host had tried to tone down while waiting to speak.] Perhaps that rang true with someone because – for that morning at least – they switched topics after my call.
I'm not really sure at which point reasonable and logical similarity becomes pernicious, conflated propaganda. I don't think I've considered it much before. I would likely do well to be more careful of it myself. Perhaps it has to do with your dedication to 'fairness' and your respect for 'reality'. By this I mean, that too many messages out there have ulterior motives as their ultimate endgame. Some pundits and leaders seem to care less about accuracy, fairness, and reality than they do about generating controversy, provoking discussion, or – far too often – promoting a pre-determined ideology.
Of course that gets me thinking about Ron Paul and why I really like his leadership the more I take a look at it. He is studiously judicious in what events he believes do or do not have relevant relation to each other – and he can defend his reasoning quite clearly. (eg he does find it reasonable to point out that our general policy of asymmetric military intervention incites Anti-American resentment throughout the globe, but he does not find it reasonable to exactly label every US military action in the Middle East a 'measured response to the attacks of 9/11'.) His lack of polish when he simply states things as he sees them is remarkably reassuring. When he does find himself falling back on ideology he is extremely transparent in hearkening back to the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers.
Consequently, Paul is the only Presidential candidate confidently preaching that George Washington's warnings are not too old-fashioned – but needed more than ever. Further, he is intimately familiar with those warnings; he understands them; and he can communicate them clearly.
Paul proposes that long-term, sovereignty-sapping, entangling alliances complicate the world and our foreign policy in ways that are bad for everyone. We need to deal with the Iranians, and the Pakistanis, and the Sudanese, and the Saudis on more transparent terms – and not based on back-channel promises, unwise military pacts, and multitudinous pressures from "allies" who may not share our world-views or goals.
Here's a link to Washington's Farewell Address where he warns against both "apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power" and "overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty".
[Given Romney's recent speech you may also be interested to read that portion that begins "... Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness ..."]
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Romney's Speech on Religious Freedom in America
I have to say that Mitt Romney exceeded my hopes and expectations with his speech about Religious Freedom in America. It wasn't a perfect message, of course, but it deserves praise for what it did well. That speech was Romney at his best. I'm even going to revise the title of my previous blog post criticizing his potential speech; to my way of thinking, at least, that was a speech that mattered and made a good difference in the world.
I truly admired his clear and unabashed references to religion in the lives of our founders, in the "symphony" of faiths in our current populace, and in his personal life. He focused on common beliefs, bore a sincere testimony, didn't back away from his beliefs, and really delivered . . . maybe Paul could use him in the cabinet somewhere. I'd back that. :]
I still think he is over the top when he cites "radical Islam" itself as America's greatest danger, but he was pretty careful in that speech to both openly praise the good, common beliefs of many faiths in America (including Muslims) and specify that it's only the radical Muslims he believes we need to fear. I'll stick my neck out and profer that I honestly fear radical Christians and Secularists in this country (like those inventing some of the belligerent-imperialist worldviews that Romney seems to have bought into so deeply) as much or more than radical Muslims. Somehow Romney seems blinded to this. Radical Muslims frighten him. Radical Secularists worry him. Heck, I'm concerned about both of those as well. But he doesn't seem to see the common thread that would indicate that radical anything is pretty scary.
Nevertheless, any mainstream politician that is willing to speak out in such an eloquent and sincere way in the defense of the good in religion – and a brazen belief in God – impresses me. It is simply a fact that such beliefs defined our Founding Fathers. The idea that a number of them might have been skeptical about specific denominational observances is not necessarily anything derogatory – in fact it illuminates both their sense of reason and tolerance. Likewise, the fact that a few expressed a sense of deism in personal belief, for instance, still puts those founders a long way from secular atheism.
As Romney emphasized, our laws and principles were predicated on and informed by religious laws, principles, and a sincere belief in God. A thorough study at the University of Houston [examining nearly 15,000 political essays written between 1760 and 1805] shows that overwhelmingly the Bible was the most frequently quoted text informing political thought. (After that it was Blackstone, Montesque, Locke, etc. - but far behind the Bible.) You simply cannot understand the worldview of our Founding Fathers without considering their readings of the Bible and their beliefs about man's divine origin.
On the other hand, sometimes Romney seemed to go too far in his pandering to hard-core evangelicals. Not only did he not seem too worried about weaving in his traditional Islamic scare, but he didn't show much awareness or tolerance for those who might currently be lacking a specific faith. It would have been wonderful for Romney to reach out in tolerance, understanding, and exemplary confidence with a more inclusive and less condemning message but quite frankly I didn't expect the full wisdom of President Hinckley at the podium. Of the candidates who are in the race, if you want Romney's observance of our Christian foundations plus a thoughtful and inclusive message plus true regard for liberty then you should probably vote Ron Paul.
But Romney's heartfelt speech was successful in its ability to convey both his own sincere convictions and the central role of religious expression in the foundation of this great nation. Romney highlighted that role and celebrates it – and he is right to do so.
That unique balance of devoutness and tolerance exhibited by our forbears – and laid out in our Constitution – is one of the most revolutionary characteristics of this great experiment we call the United States of America. It is still providing strength and liberty more than two centuries later.
[I'll post a youtube when I can get one. For now you can stream the speech from KSL]
I truly admired his clear and unabashed references to religion in the lives of our founders, in the "symphony" of faiths in our current populace, and in his personal life. He focused on common beliefs, bore a sincere testimony, didn't back away from his beliefs, and really delivered . . . maybe Paul could use him in the cabinet somewhere. I'd back that. :]
I still think he is over the top when he cites "radical Islam" itself as America's greatest danger, but he was pretty careful in that speech to both openly praise the good, common beliefs of many faiths in America (including Muslims) and specify that it's only the radical Muslims he believes we need to fear. I'll stick my neck out and profer that I honestly fear radical Christians and Secularists in this country (like those inventing some of the belligerent-imperialist worldviews that Romney seems to have bought into so deeply) as much or more than radical Muslims. Somehow Romney seems blinded to this. Radical Muslims frighten him. Radical Secularists worry him. Heck, I'm concerned about both of those as well. But he doesn't seem to see the common thread that would indicate that radical anything is pretty scary.
Nevertheless, any mainstream politician that is willing to speak out in such an eloquent and sincere way in the defense of the good in religion – and a brazen belief in God – impresses me. It is simply a fact that such beliefs defined our Founding Fathers. The idea that a number of them might have been skeptical about specific denominational observances is not necessarily anything derogatory – in fact it illuminates both their sense of reason and tolerance. Likewise, the fact that a few expressed a sense of deism in personal belief, for instance, still puts those founders a long way from secular atheism.
As Romney emphasized, our laws and principles were predicated on and informed by religious laws, principles, and a sincere belief in God. A thorough study at the University of Houston [examining nearly 15,000 political essays written between 1760 and 1805] shows that overwhelmingly the Bible was the most frequently quoted text informing political thought. (After that it was Blackstone, Montesque, Locke, etc. - but far behind the Bible.) You simply cannot understand the worldview of our Founding Fathers without considering their readings of the Bible and their beliefs about man's divine origin.
On the other hand, sometimes Romney seemed to go too far in his pandering to hard-core evangelicals. Not only did he not seem too worried about weaving in his traditional Islamic scare, but he didn't show much awareness or tolerance for those who might currently be lacking a specific faith. It would have been wonderful for Romney to reach out in tolerance, understanding, and exemplary confidence with a more inclusive and less condemning message but quite frankly I didn't expect the full wisdom of President Hinckley at the podium. Of the candidates who are in the race, if you want Romney's observance of our Christian foundations plus a thoughtful and inclusive message plus true regard for liberty then you should probably vote Ron Paul.
But Romney's heartfelt speech was successful in its ability to convey both his own sincere convictions and the central role of religious expression in the foundation of this great nation. Romney highlighted that role and celebrates it – and he is right to do so.
That unique balance of devoutness and tolerance exhibited by our forbears – and laid out in our Constitution – is one of the most revolutionary characteristics of this great experiment we call the United States of America. It is still providing strength and liberty more than two centuries later.
[I'll post a youtube when I can get one. For now you can stream the speech from KSL]
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Imperial Elephant in the Room
I've noticed that when trying to discuss America's foreign policy there seems to be what is often called "an elephant in the room." And it's not the branded GOP mascot, but rather both Democrats and Republicans have been inviting this elephant into the house for decades: feeding it, grooming it, but otherwise acting completely oblivious to its presence and the awkward way family and guests alike are sometimes squashed against the wall in an effort to maneuver around it. The elephant in the living room is the growing American Empire.
When our founding fathers found it necessary to separate from the British Empire, they had clear grievances regarding the very ideas of imperialism, colonialism, and holding the interests of large corporations [like the East India Trading Company] as more important to 'national interests' than any petty concerns of far flung individuals living abroad. Further, they were particularly sensitive to the dangers and abuses of a standing imperial army sent overseas to police a people that they didn't really understand.
For example, one of the key incidents that led to American Revolution is the "Boston Massacre". Three to four hundred angry civilians surrounded a regiment of British troops on the evening of March 5, 1770. The mob resented the presence of the troops - sent to protect 'Loyalist' interests in the wake of unpopular Imperial decrees - and particularly on that day the forming mob was angry about the interactions of some soldiers that had physically struck a child throwing snowballs at the troops earlier in the day. When one of the civilians struck a soldier down with a club, chaos ensued and at its end three civilians had been shot dead, with two more dying of injuries in the days to follow. That is what has entered our American history books as the 'brutal' and 'horrific' Boston Massacre. With tragedies far worse than this occuring almost daily in our newest colony over in Iraq, I find the irony deeply disturbing.
There is much that needs to be said in recalling our founding principles and relating them to our current actions. For instance, following up on the Boston Massacre in particular, it is notable that the 'rebellious Patriot' and future President John Adams agreed to legally represent the British soldiers in the incident. He felt that - despite his politics - the soldiers had indeed felt threatened and were actually just trying to do their jobs. He wrote in his diary that to have exacted vengeance upon them would have been "as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches." He felt it a moral duty to get the soldiers acquited and did so. But he also wrote that the incident was "the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies." Not all the Patriots felt so magnanimous about it and, in fact, general outrage at the soldiers' acquitals contributed directly to the American Rebellion. Nevertheless, I find Adams' personal actions notable.
But back to the elephant at hand. How on earth have we moved so far from our principles that we have allowed ourselves to become Imperialists? When I call Iraq a colony, I am not mincing words. I am calling a spade, a spade. I am pointing directly at the elephant in the room and saying "What are we going to do with that?" What concerns me is the glib denial of our current state of affairs. We have, in fact, invaded a far away, sovereign nation that did not attack us. We have deposed the government and set up a new government that is at the present time as completely beholden to our interests as the original American colonies were to the British empire.
As neo-colonialism dictates, we have put in a place a series of promises and treaties to put a good public face on this wherein we proclaim the nation 'liberated' and explain that we are merely transitioning them to a 'new and better democracy'. But despite our innumerable claims to the contrary, we have always – since before the invasion – intended to set up an archipelago of permanent military bases (read: U.S. inland-island-colonies) in Iraq. These are intended to complement the ones left behind in Korea, Cuba, Germany, Japan, the Philippines, and throughout the world. Specifically, in this case, the Iraqi bases allowed us to physically relocate, expand, and upgrade our older Saudi Arabian military bases.
In fact – because America is still a free country – many of the documents proving that this was our intention and certainly the greatest unstated reason for invading Iraq have come to light in recent years. The main problem with these admissions is that not only were our original intentions not stated, but they were categorically denied – with intense campaigns of disinformation.
This is the new colonialism. We build great standing armies and circle the globe with them, but we are extraordinarily careful not to call ourselves a global empire. We likewise cultivate entangling alliances with agent nations that are not actually called our 'colonies'. It is more complex, yet in the end we do all of the things that the British Empire did when they caused our forefathers to rise up in condemnation and rebellion. It is anti-American for so many reasons that the founders could have written tomes about it – and in fact they did.
Perhaps if we studied our history, we would have the courage to break the taboo and have an honest debate about neo-colonialism and the new American Empire. Until we do, we are going to have to spend more and more resources trying to figure out how to properly domesticate and conceal the elephant in the room. And I for one, do not believe that to be in the best interest of anyone in the room.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Ron Paul and Barack Obama
I've spent the year trying to study the different candidates and messages regarding America's future under a new President beginning in 2008. I've particularly mentioned some candidates that I couldn't support and I think I've made my case pretty clearly as to why. But I have not spent enough time talking about the candidates and messages that I *do* believe are worthy of support.
The two candidates that I find most compelling, given my particular values and concerns, are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. They are similar in many ways and I probably could support either of them in the general election.
Each of them talk with sincerity about unity, honesty, communication, and freedom.
At present, Paul gets the edge in my book. Paul is taking the much more difficult road, however, with his principled stance against special interest and lobbying funds – and consequently his actual message and platform are much less well-known.
Obama has plenty of mainstream corporate and lobbying support which assures him a greater probability of succeeding as either a Presidential or VP candidate in the general election, but also brings with it a great deal of baggage. Obama's substantial Israeli lobby support is, I would expect, an important part of his political calculus now – to name just one example.
Both Paul and Obama seem to have a better connection to the 'lower and middle' classes that comprise over 90% of our nation (depending on your definition, of course, read on). Congressman Paul spent decades delivering the babies of young, growing families. Senator Obama quit a law firm to follow his heart-felt calling to social work in struggling Chicago neighborhoods. The surprise and disbelief on his opponent's face last week when he asked if they realized that less than 6% of the country makes more than $97,000 (the income point that was being portrayed as 'working middle class') was just priceless – and for me, very telling. Most politicians with the means to compete at this national level are so far removed from the average citizen that it is simply unreal. But Paul and Obama – through their vocational choices – have a far greater understanding than average.
I've discussed some of Obama's multiple strengths before, but I haven't said much about Paul and he has become the candidate I support most strongly. I'll discuss them both more in future posts. Today I'd like to introduce Paul.
As a Latter-Day Saint my favorite parts of the Paul message are:
1. The Constitution is an inspired document that we have all pledged to uphold. We should follow it, and if we do not intend to, we should be honest about that and discuss it.
2. We are a Christian nation and should reasonably be expected to follow the precepts Christ taught. If we live as an example to the world, we will do far more good than if we attempt to force such values at the barrel of a gun.
3. Debt is real and must be reckoned with. The sooner the better. Denial doesn't make it go away. As Paul said the other day "My personal finances would be very good if I was borrowing $1 million a month. But someday the bills will come due." Key components in the Paul platform are reckoning with our astronomically frightening debt and fostering an atmosphere in which individuals and families could do the same. By at least one measure, simply fulfilling our current debt obligations would require $175,000 from each man, woman, and child in the nation. I don't know about you, but I won't *earn* that much this year . . . and neither will my wife or sons. The vast majority of that debt is from our ever-increasing misadventures in foreign policy. The fact that – like most debt – it's only increasing is not good. Furthermore, much of our debt is on loan from 'less-than-friendly' nations like China.
4. Individual responsibility is liberating and requisite. As nations, communities, families, and individuals we should be promoting liberty and responsibilty. Paul believes that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. should be free of our national aid grants that purchase their military hardware and their indebtedness. They could then work out agreements that made more sense in the region and weren't complicated by pandering for our financial aid. [It is assumed by some in the media that this would benefit the Arab countries more than Israel, but there are a number of groups – even within Israel – arguing the reverse. Paul's consistency on the issue frees Israel's hand. Also it prevents the US from propping up dictators that surround them – like the $10 billion dollars and F16 aircraft we just sent Mushariff in Pakistan . . . not to mention all those years alternating propping up Iran and Iraq.]
Likewise, Ron Paul strongly advocates helping individuals and families break free of becoming dependent on government aid. He contends, quite convincingly, that if we were more rational in our foreign policy we would save so much money that not only would government welfare projects actually be solvent but further, individual Americans would see more money in their own pockets – which is an important step in reducing the number of people who become dependent on government aid.
5. Finally, for Ron Paul, every individual soul has worth and should not be dismissed with a label or attacked with a collective slander. When Ron Paul talks about our schoolchildren, soldiers, or immigrants, or the citizens in Iraq, Israel, Mexico, or Darfur – he has the same message. He doesn't need to tailor his message to appeal more to the Arab League or to the WTO or to Iowa veterans. If you listen to his reasoned wisdom on Iraq, for instance, you find that he has concern for both our valiant young men and women being sent into battle and the innocents that sometimes find themselves 'collateral damage'. He is not a weak pacifist or an isolationist. Indeed he strongly advocated going after bin Laden and al Queda – and still does – (remember when that was a shared goal?). But he believes that each use of our considerable might should be reasoned, clearly laid out, and executed quickly and judiciously.
Despite not being in the back pocket of any large and influential organizations, Ron Paul's message is so rational, so 'in touch with the people', so consistent, and so, well, "good" that he literally has the largest grass-roots support any presidential candidate has ever seen. His supporters put up signs and spend hours creating you-tube videos, writing letters to the editor, etc. Regardless of what you think of such efforts, please take a couple of minutes to watch one short exemplary fan-made video. Paul's words are clear and speak for themselves better than any summary I could attempt.
The two candidates that I find most compelling, given my particular values and concerns, are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. They are similar in many ways and I probably could support either of them in the general election.
Each of them talk with sincerity about unity, honesty, communication, and freedom.
At present, Paul gets the edge in my book. Paul is taking the much more difficult road, however, with his principled stance against special interest and lobbying funds – and consequently his actual message and platform are much less well-known.
Obama has plenty of mainstream corporate and lobbying support which assures him a greater probability of succeeding as either a Presidential or VP candidate in the general election, but also brings with it a great deal of baggage. Obama's substantial Israeli lobby support is, I would expect, an important part of his political calculus now – to name just one example.
Both Paul and Obama seem to have a better connection to the 'lower and middle' classes that comprise over 90% of our nation (depending on your definition, of course, read on). Congressman Paul spent decades delivering the babies of young, growing families. Senator Obama quit a law firm to follow his heart-felt calling to social work in struggling Chicago neighborhoods. The surprise and disbelief on his opponent's face last week when he asked if they realized that less than 6% of the country makes more than $97,000 (the income point that was being portrayed as 'working middle class') was just priceless – and for me, very telling. Most politicians with the means to compete at this national level are so far removed from the average citizen that it is simply unreal. But Paul and Obama – through their vocational choices – have a far greater understanding than average.
I've discussed some of Obama's multiple strengths before, but I haven't said much about Paul and he has become the candidate I support most strongly. I'll discuss them both more in future posts. Today I'd like to introduce Paul.
As a Latter-Day Saint my favorite parts of the Paul message are:
1. The Constitution is an inspired document that we have all pledged to uphold. We should follow it, and if we do not intend to, we should be honest about that and discuss it.
2. We are a Christian nation and should reasonably be expected to follow the precepts Christ taught. If we live as an example to the world, we will do far more good than if we attempt to force such values at the barrel of a gun.
3. Debt is real and must be reckoned with. The sooner the better. Denial doesn't make it go away. As Paul said the other day "My personal finances would be very good if I was borrowing $1 million a month. But someday the bills will come due." Key components in the Paul platform are reckoning with our astronomically frightening debt and fostering an atmosphere in which individuals and families could do the same. By at least one measure, simply fulfilling our current debt obligations would require $175,000 from each man, woman, and child in the nation. I don't know about you, but I won't *earn* that much this year . . . and neither will my wife or sons. The vast majority of that debt is from our ever-increasing misadventures in foreign policy. The fact that – like most debt – it's only increasing is not good. Furthermore, much of our debt is on loan from 'less-than-friendly' nations like China.
4. Individual responsibility is liberating and requisite. As nations, communities, families, and individuals we should be promoting liberty and responsibilty. Paul believes that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. should be free of our national aid grants that purchase their military hardware and their indebtedness. They could then work out agreements that made more sense in the region and weren't complicated by pandering for our financial aid. [It is assumed by some in the media that this would benefit the Arab countries more than Israel, but there are a number of groups – even within Israel – arguing the reverse. Paul's consistency on the issue frees Israel's hand. Also it prevents the US from propping up dictators that surround them – like the $10 billion dollars and F16 aircraft we just sent Mushariff in Pakistan . . . not to mention all those years alternating propping up Iran and Iraq.]
Likewise, Ron Paul strongly advocates helping individuals and families break free of becoming dependent on government aid. He contends, quite convincingly, that if we were more rational in our foreign policy we would save so much money that not only would government welfare projects actually be solvent but further, individual Americans would see more money in their own pockets – which is an important step in reducing the number of people who become dependent on government aid.
5. Finally, for Ron Paul, every individual soul has worth and should not be dismissed with a label or attacked with a collective slander. When Ron Paul talks about our schoolchildren, soldiers, or immigrants, or the citizens in Iraq, Israel, Mexico, or Darfur – he has the same message. He doesn't need to tailor his message to appeal more to the Arab League or to the WTO or to Iowa veterans. If you listen to his reasoned wisdom on Iraq, for instance, you find that he has concern for both our valiant young men and women being sent into battle and the innocents that sometimes find themselves 'collateral damage'. He is not a weak pacifist or an isolationist. Indeed he strongly advocated going after bin Laden and al Queda – and still does – (remember when that was a shared goal?). But he believes that each use of our considerable might should be reasoned, clearly laid out, and executed quickly and judiciously.
Despite not being in the back pocket of any large and influential organizations, Ron Paul's message is so rational, so 'in touch with the people', so consistent, and so, well, "good" that he literally has the largest grass-roots support any presidential candidate has ever seen. His supporters put up signs and spend hours creating you-tube videos, writing letters to the editor, etc. Regardless of what you think of such efforts, please take a couple of minutes to watch one short exemplary fan-made video. Paul's words are clear and speak for themselves better than any summary I could attempt.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Some Potential Hypocrisy in Romney's Talk
Romney is weakened a bit in his potential to give a JFK-like straight-talk about his private religion – and how it should in no way influence people to discriminate against the job he could do as a public executive. This is because – despite his apparent sincerity and dedication in his private religious observance – he seems to be overlooking the gravity of one of his key public failings in that observance. And his advisors may actually be correct that consequently he would do better to play it down, rather than highlight it.
The sad fact of the matter is that Romney's own blatant discrimination against Muslims in general [for political gain] – and his facile echoings of the exaggerations, slanders, and lies leveled against Islam generally – have hobbled him as a moral authority in speaking of respect for religious freedom in American politics.
Without doubt, there would be some hypocrisy in Romney going before the American people and talking up the cherished freedom of religion that we all enjoy. It would be disingenuous to propose that he strictly embodies his own religious creed that
Furthermore, contrary to some, I have been impressed with nearly every instance where I've seen him pressed on Mormon doctrine, culture, and beliefs. His knowledge, practice, and well-spoken answers leave me sincerely impressed with Mitt as one attempting to live as a "Latter Day Saint". It is no wonder that he has served in various ecclesiastical leadership positions and I am well satisfied that he has done as well as anyone can in those capacities – which is no small feat. And a great sacrifice which few outside the faith are likely to be aware of.
On the other hand, I've never met a perfect person and consequently I've never known a perfect Mormon. Tragically, one of the only public failings that I've seen evinced in Mitt Romney coincides bafflingly with the question of religious bigotry. [His other public failings seem inextricably linked with this. As much as I like Mitt the person, many of his weaknesses are right where I think our nation's leadership is most lacking at the moment.]
Following lock-step in the dubious advice of such Washington luminaries as Cofer Black (VP of Blackwater) and Norman Podhoretz (publicly "praying" that we bomb Iran regardless of diplomacy), Mitt Romney has made anti-Muslim-defamation a key plank in his presidential platform. As Massachusetts governor he proposed specifically wiretapping every Mosque suspected of preaching "hate" and investigating every University student from a known Islamic nation. As a presidential candidate he has talked numerous times about the imminent danger of a present war that will end only with a Muslim 'caliphate.' Consciously or not, he is a key figure spreading the fear that Muslims generally advocate the violent overthrow of the world's nations in order to unite under a pure Islamic leader. And he is using that fear to pander to the frightened for their votes.
There is something profoundly wrong with promulgating the known falsehood that the Muslim religion *itself* is filled with hatred, blasphemous genocidal justification, and dangerous fanatical calls to 'jihad' – and then asking the American people to overlook any of the probably over-wrought falsehoods about his own religion that they may have heard.
Indeed, almost every world religion can be painted as dangerous and full of fanatics. Ironically, Muslims share many of the same criticisms as the Jews and the Christians. The Old Testament has a great number of frighteningly black or white calls for God's People to entirely wipe out another nation, for instance, or stone – to death – an apparent sinner. Those passages are certainly not, in my opinion, precisely representative of the larger text. And neither are the few similar passages in the Koran.
Nevertheless, you can always find a modern rabbi, or Christian preacher [with an actual following] who emphasizes such frightening passages in ways that the majority of Jews or Christians would be quick to repudiate. Additionally, you don't have to look very far in the past to find Christian [or Jewish] leadership colluding with (or at least appeasing) evil madmen intent on murdering innocent populations of people to make political statements. The local Catholic leadership's relationship in Germany and Spain with Hitler and Franco, respectively, are just two well-known examples. Despite what some will say are crucial differences inherent in the Muslim faith that the 'politically correct' crowd is glossing over, it simply is not so.
Given his religious heritage, I find it especially disturbing that Romney would embrace such obvious distortion and bigotry about another faith. A century and a half ago, his religious ancestors found such fears and slanders of their own beliefs magnified to the point that the surrounding populations in Missouri and Illinois were agitated to violence against the Mormons generally. Much of it was later found to be orchestrated by evil-intentioned politicians and mis-informed, but well-intentioned, religious people.
If Mitt Romney wants to offer "True Strength for America's Future", he would do well to consider if the founders had divine inspiration in protecting diverse religious freedoms and why it was that stunning portion of Joseph's Smith's letter [written to John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat – and containing a resolute defense of the sanctity of individual religious thought in Article 11 –] was canonized in his personal religious tradition.
Unfortunately, it is clear that Romney is so far down the road of defamation against a particular religious tradition – so contrary to both his own private religious conviction and what he must ask of the general populace for himself – that he cannot in all sincerity speak of it effectively during this campaign.
The sad fact of the matter is that Romney's own blatant discrimination against Muslims in general [for political gain] – and his facile echoings of the exaggerations, slanders, and lies leveled against Islam generally – have hobbled him as a moral authority in speaking of respect for religious freedom in American politics.
Without doubt, there would be some hypocrisy in Romney going before the American people and talking up the cherished freedom of religion that we all enjoy. It would be disingenuous to propose that he strictly embodies his own religious creed that
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."In saying this, let me emphasize that I am not questioning his faithfulness as a Mormon. Indeed, I've commented many times that I think Mitt Romney is an excellent example of a faithful Mormon for the public eye. He is positive, cheerful, sober, intelligent, hard-working, and – very impressive to me as a father of four boys – appears to have the strong support of five remarkably successful sons. His relationship with his wife and children is a strong testament to me of his character. One that can simply not be dismissed.
Furthermore, contrary to some, I have been impressed with nearly every instance where I've seen him pressed on Mormon doctrine, culture, and beliefs. His knowledge, practice, and well-spoken answers leave me sincerely impressed with Mitt as one attempting to live as a "Latter Day Saint". It is no wonder that he has served in various ecclesiastical leadership positions and I am well satisfied that he has done as well as anyone can in those capacities – which is no small feat. And a great sacrifice which few outside the faith are likely to be aware of.
On the other hand, I've never met a perfect person and consequently I've never known a perfect Mormon. Tragically, one of the only public failings that I've seen evinced in Mitt Romney coincides bafflingly with the question of religious bigotry. [His other public failings seem inextricably linked with this. As much as I like Mitt the person, many of his weaknesses are right where I think our nation's leadership is most lacking at the moment.]
Following lock-step in the dubious advice of such Washington luminaries as Cofer Black (VP of Blackwater) and Norman Podhoretz (publicly "praying" that we bomb Iran regardless of diplomacy), Mitt Romney has made anti-Muslim-defamation a key plank in his presidential platform. As Massachusetts governor he proposed specifically wiretapping every Mosque suspected of preaching "hate" and investigating every University student from a known Islamic nation. As a presidential candidate he has talked numerous times about the imminent danger of a present war that will end only with a Muslim 'caliphate.' Consciously or not, he is a key figure spreading the fear that Muslims generally advocate the violent overthrow of the world's nations in order to unite under a pure Islamic leader. And he is using that fear to pander to the frightened for their votes.
There is something profoundly wrong with promulgating the known falsehood that the Muslim religion *itself* is filled with hatred, blasphemous genocidal justification, and dangerous fanatical calls to 'jihad' – and then asking the American people to overlook any of the probably over-wrought falsehoods about his own religion that they may have heard.
Indeed, almost every world religion can be painted as dangerous and full of fanatics. Ironically, Muslims share many of the same criticisms as the Jews and the Christians. The Old Testament has a great number of frighteningly black or white calls for God's People to entirely wipe out another nation, for instance, or stone – to death – an apparent sinner. Those passages are certainly not, in my opinion, precisely representative of the larger text. And neither are the few similar passages in the Koran.
Nevertheless, you can always find a modern rabbi, or Christian preacher [with an actual following] who emphasizes such frightening passages in ways that the majority of Jews or Christians would be quick to repudiate. Additionally, you don't have to look very far in the past to find Christian [or Jewish] leadership colluding with (or at least appeasing) evil madmen intent on murdering innocent populations of people to make political statements. The local Catholic leadership's relationship in Germany and Spain with Hitler and Franco, respectively, are just two well-known examples. Despite what some will say are crucial differences inherent in the Muslim faith that the 'politically correct' crowd is glossing over, it simply is not so.
Given his religious heritage, I find it especially disturbing that Romney would embrace such obvious distortion and bigotry about another faith. A century and a half ago, his religious ancestors found such fears and slanders of their own beliefs magnified to the point that the surrounding populations in Missouri and Illinois were agitated to violence against the Mormons generally. Much of it was later found to be orchestrated by evil-intentioned politicians and mis-informed, but well-intentioned, religious people.
If Mitt Romney wants to offer "True Strength for America's Future", he would do well to consider if the founders had divine inspiration in protecting diverse religious freedoms and why it was that stunning portion of Joseph's Smith's letter [written to John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat – and containing a resolute defense of the sanctity of individual religious thought in Article 11 –] was canonized in his personal religious tradition.
Unfortunately, it is clear that Romney is so far down the road of defamation against a particular religious tradition – so contrary to both his own private religious conviction and what he must ask of the general populace for himself – that he cannot in all sincerity speak of it effectively during this campaign.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Republic or Empire?
The founders of our nation were great students of history. Many of their friendships and bonds came from a mutual appreciation of great thinkers and great writers. The tenets of our sovereignty were forged in a manner unlike any other nation. There were great debates lasting months, even years. Great philosophies were dissected, deconstructed, and held to the light of experience, reason, history, and judicious analysis.
For more than a decade after these United States won their independence, great thinkers wrote, studied, debated and convened to set the right course for what would emerge as the uniquely democratic republic called the United States of America.
Famously [according to the notes of a Maryland delegate to the Convention of 1787], as the last day of Constitutional deliberation drew to a close and the attendees were exiting Independence Hall:
This is not an outdated question. In all of recorded history there have been powerful leaders who articulately, resolutely, and logically argued for the cause of empire – and against the ennervating freedoms of the common people. Some of the most famous clashes amongst our own founders were upon this question. But they — all of them – ratified, in the end, a system which favored freedom above security and democracy above hierarchy. History is full of the regimes that decided otherwise – and the atrocious abuses of power that resulted.
Unfortunately, there is no question about it for a surprising number of our current leaders. They strongly advocate empire. If history is any guide, it is clear what path they are championing. And it is not a path I want to follow.
President J. Reuben Clark put it best, perhaps:
For more than a decade after these United States won their independence, great thinkers wrote, studied, debated and convened to set the right course for what would emerge as the uniquely democratic republic called the United States of America.
Famously [according to the notes of a Maryland delegate to the Convention of 1787], as the last day of Constitutional deliberation drew to a close and the attendees were exiting Independence Hall:
The ever astute Benjamin Franklin set the correct challenge before us those many years ago. Can we keep the republic envisioned by our inspired founders? Or will we fall to the natural temptation to choose monarchy and empire . . . to trade liberty for security and bondage?A lady asked Dr. Franklin,
"Well Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."
This is not an outdated question. In all of recorded history there have been powerful leaders who articulately, resolutely, and logically argued for the cause of empire – and against the ennervating freedoms of the common people. Some of the most famous clashes amongst our own founders were upon this question. But they — all of them – ratified, in the end, a system which favored freedom above security and democracy above hierarchy. History is full of the regimes that decided otherwise – and the atrocious abuses of power that resulted.
Unfortunately, there is no question about it for a surprising number of our current leaders. They strongly advocate empire. If history is any guide, it is clear what path they are championing. And it is not a path I want to follow.
President J. Reuben Clark put it best, perhaps:
"For America has a destiny – a destiny to conquer the world – not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example."
Finally, since I don't seem to be following up with my writing goals lately (lol) or moving (as indicated) to my new blog yet, here is a relevant discussion at an outstanding blog I just found last week.
Also, a website that has umpteen thousand recent articles and books on this topic: "Liberty Park, USA" . . . I especially recommend http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/index.htm and http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Franklin/index.htm
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The Reality Disconnect
This morning I was at the dentist for a couple of hours and had the opportunity to hear a good deal of President Bush's speech to the "Democracy and Security" forum at the G8 convention.
The speech was great rhetoric but completely disconnected from reality. He tried to tackle the questions of our Iraqi occupation, for which I commend him. Somehow, however, he was trying to connect internal democratic revolutions of the past with our violent, foreign occupation of Iraq in the present. It was a pretty speech, but vulgar in its absolute disregard for truth, reality, and reason.
Lets be frank about this. President Bush talked about East Germans defying communism by praying in their living rooms and contributing to the end of the Berlin Wall. Then he talked about humble organizers amongst dock workers in Poland bringing about the democratic revolution there. Those are great stories but they are basically the antithesis of what is happening in Iraq. This was not the Iraqi people standing up to tyranny and oppression. This was an outside force coming in to depose one tyranny and forecefully impose a new order. It is about the most unwise connection you could try to make.
I would love to know how these speeches get written. Does President Bush have a hand in writing these? Do they get vetted through any aides? Does the President ever sit in the middle of his own speech and say "OK, what??" Or do his aides cringe when he adds these kind of ideas and refuses to heed advice to cut them from speeches.
In contrast, I heard a fairly rational analysis from Tony Lagouranis on the radio as I drove in to work. He discussed his book on the questions of prisoner interrogation in the Iraqi war. It was not the disconnected stories (and red herrings) that the President was dishing out this morning.
Lagouranis was one of the first interrogators sent to Iraq. He quickly discovered that the architects of this war went out of their way to say that "the detainees that they had were not covered by the Geneva Conventions". His book discusses how the events at Abu Ghraib were often the rule and not the exception (even after the PR fiasco). He was deeply disturbed by his orders and continued to be disturbed when he got back to the states. He explains that many people that got rounded up for interrogation were ultimately proved to not be involved with resistance forces – but that so much harm was done to them in trying to assess them, that they left (if they left at all) as an enemy of our occupying force.
So he wrote a book to talk about facts and ask questions. I commend that. I think there are a lot of facts that need discussion and some difficult questions that need revisiting. If we are going to promote "Democracy and Security" in the world, lets actually do it, not just give pretty speeches about it to try to obscure the reality of our current actions.
Note: I am cross-posting this at a new blog site called "Politics in Plain English". I was kinda hoping this blog would turn into a "group" of Mormons pressing for peace, but since it's more just my own silly soapbox, I'm thinking that having "Mormons" in the title is kinda mis-representative and it would be better to just post over at my new site in the future. Also, the Cheney protests at BYU showed me that there are plenty of Mormons concerned about peace and US foreign policy and that they are discovering their voices just fine as well. :] Thanks though to anybody who's ever taken the time to read my crazy musings and/or post here. :)
The speech was great rhetoric but completely disconnected from reality. He tried to tackle the questions of our Iraqi occupation, for which I commend him. Somehow, however, he was trying to connect internal democratic revolutions of the past with our violent, foreign occupation of Iraq in the present. It was a pretty speech, but vulgar in its absolute disregard for truth, reality, and reason.
Lets be frank about this. President Bush talked about East Germans defying communism by praying in their living rooms and contributing to the end of the Berlin Wall. Then he talked about humble organizers amongst dock workers in Poland bringing about the democratic revolution there. Those are great stories but they are basically the antithesis of what is happening in Iraq. This was not the Iraqi people standing up to tyranny and oppression. This was an outside force coming in to depose one tyranny and forecefully impose a new order. It is about the most unwise connection you could try to make.
I would love to know how these speeches get written. Does President Bush have a hand in writing these? Do they get vetted through any aides? Does the President ever sit in the middle of his own speech and say "OK, what??" Or do his aides cringe when he adds these kind of ideas and refuses to heed advice to cut them from speeches.
In contrast, I heard a fairly rational analysis from Tony Lagouranis on the radio as I drove in to work. He discussed his book on the questions of prisoner interrogation in the Iraqi war. It was not the disconnected stories (and red herrings) that the President was dishing out this morning.
Lagouranis was one of the first interrogators sent to Iraq. He quickly discovered that the architects of this war went out of their way to say that "the detainees that they had were not covered by the Geneva Conventions". His book discusses how the events at Abu Ghraib were often the rule and not the exception (even after the PR fiasco). He was deeply disturbed by his orders and continued to be disturbed when he got back to the states. He explains that many people that got rounded up for interrogation were ultimately proved to not be involved with resistance forces – but that so much harm was done to them in trying to assess them, that they left (if they left at all) as an enemy of our occupying force.
So he wrote a book to talk about facts and ask questions. I commend that. I think there are a lot of facts that need discussion and some difficult questions that need revisiting. If we are going to promote "Democracy and Security" in the world, lets actually do it, not just give pretty speeches about it to try to obscure the reality of our current actions.
Note: I am cross-posting this at a new blog site called "Politics in Plain English". I was kinda hoping this blog would turn into a "group" of Mormons pressing for peace, but since it's more just my own silly soapbox, I'm thinking that having "Mormons" in the title is kinda mis-representative and it would be better to just post over at my new site in the future. Also, the Cheney protests at BYU showed me that there are plenty of Mormons concerned about peace and US foreign policy and that they are discovering their voices just fine as well. :] Thanks though to anybody who's ever taken the time to read my crazy musings and/or post here. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
