The Christian Alliance for Progress has been reporting a particularly egregious case of religious intolerance in the school system. There is now a petition drive, and you can get involved here.
To be honest, I’m not terribly optimistic about the value of this type of petition campaign, but I would imagine it can’t hurt.
Duane Smith has an excellent post over on Abnormal Interests called Evidence, Who Needs Any Evidence. I think this relates closely to my earlier post, A Poll Too Far, in which I discussed people providing opinions on topics concerning which they simply cannot be well-informed.
The further question is why does the media buy into this, by asking people’s opinion? I would suggest that the media prints this information for the same reason they print everything else–it gets their viewers to watch or read, in this case by making them feel more important than they are. But the feeling of importance is a false one.
One further note: Ever since I found out about Abnormal Interests, I’ve been watching Duane’s posts, and I have found that almost all of them interest me, whether I have time to comment or not, so if you think your interests coincide with mine at all, go check it out.
Over and over I’ve heard the refrain, “The invention of the _________ is causing the deterioration of society because it _______.” The technology may be rapid transport, from the steam driven train to the airplane, or communications from radio to television to the internet, or any other form of technology.
The internet is a favorite target these days. Child pornography, predators, bad ideas, unreliable information, crackpot theories, even though policing are blamed somehow on the internet. Now Jason Lanier, in an essay on Edge.org, calls the polling and other “mob” aspects of the internet “Digital Maoism” and refers to the result as the “hive mind.” Some of us who think Wikipedia is somewhat less than reliable are nonetheless hardly likely to equate it with the mobs of the cultural revolution in China. I discovered his essay via MSNBC.com, in an article by Steven Levy titled Poking a Stick Into the ‘Hive Mind’.
Now my problem is not precisely with the problems that Lanier points out, nor even with some of the counterpoints quoted by Mr. Levy. In his final paragraph he makes an excellent point:
[Author Kevin] Kelly’s point is well taken
George McGovern isn’t my very most favorite person, but he is quoted in Newsweek saying this:
Reached by NEWSWEEK on vacation, McGovern offered Democrats a warning. “For 50 years, [Republicans] used the fear of communism to beat Democrats,” he said. “I hope we don’t have 50 years of terrorism for them to do the same thing.”
The article, titled Campaign 2006: A Hawk Stays Aloft, is about a boost for Lieberman’s campaign because of the recent hijacking scare.
But simply admonishing people not to vote out of fear is not enough. If you vote for a candidate because his opponent doesn’t have a plan to deal with a major threat, then are you voting out of fear, or out of prudence? And that’s where I, as an independent, am not seeing what I would like to see out of the democrats thus far. What is the positive plan to make things better? I like what I read in the referenced article about Lamont planning to redeploy troops he would withdraw from Iraq, placing them elsewhere in the Middle East. That’s a good start.
But we need some other specifics. I know politicians are afraid of specifics. But we have choices to make about screening technology, profiling, or other approaches to airport security. We have choices to make about searches and seizures domestically and what is the appropriate legal strategy. I’m fairly sure from the rumblings that there are both Democrats and Republicans out there with a variety of ideas. Perhaps it is simply the media that is stuck at the simplest level, keeping its focus on the war in Iraq, yes or no.
I personally would oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but I think we need to set a realistic set of goals and a realistic strategy to attain them, and withdraw as soon as those goals are accomplished. The following statement, quoted from the same article, frightens me with its naivete:
“If you have Lamont Democrats who say, ‘Bring ’em home, turn away and it will all be over’ … the American people say, ‘You’re kidding yourself’ … The only way you walk away from war is as a victor,” said a senior administration official who asked for anonymity speaking about the politics of national security.
The problem is with definition. What is victory? If we intend to leave a country that is friendly to the United States, a full ally in the war on terror, has a stable government, and is prepared to stand up to neighbors such as Iran, then we are deluding ourselves. It’s not going to happen. We need realistic goals–and most of the realistic ones have already been accomplished–and then we need to move on. We don’t have unlimited resources.
We’ve just seen another terrorist plot stopped, perhaps at a very late stage, and suddenly we have new security restrictions. The question is, are these new security measures adequate? More importantly, are they all that likely to do any good?
I was thinking of writing about this, and I looked around on MSNBC, and found an interview with someone who has said most of the things I wanted to say, and also added some points from his expertise that I wouldn’t know. The interview is by Jennifer Barrett and is with Douglas Laird, a security expert.
He ended with the point I want to start with:
The problem is that we respond to what happened yesterday today. Richard Reid shows up with a shoe bomb and we start making people take off their shoes, which was silly. Reid was not a bright bulb, but these guys out there today know what theyre doing. Remember: it wasnt the checkpoint that caught them, but the intelligence work done by the Brits. The real game is played in the intelligence arena, not at the checkpoint. If these guys make it to the checkpoint, you have a much greater challenge.
He’s absolutely right. If we continue to respond after the fact, it’s only a matter of time until one of these attacks succeeds. There were previous incidents with liquid explosives, and yet security measures are first taken against such explosives after this latest plot was revealed. And it is questionable whether the security measures that have now been taken would necessarily have prevented this attack, had not good intelligence work done so.
I think we need to pick up on another lesson from this attack. It was not based on the soil of a terrorist nation, but rather in Great Britain and in Pakistan. Simply dealing with countries that sponsor terrorists will not stop their attacks. I believe that our strategic thinking about terrorism is too dependent on a bureaucratic picture of what it would take to accomplish a particular mission. These guys don’t think like bureaucrats. They are not stopped by inconveniences or by the limits of bureaucratic thinking. They think outside the box. It’s good to deal with state sponsors of terrorism and to get at their money. But we should not be complacent about the safetry provided by such things.
We need to make some decisions as to what we’re willing to put up with in order to be secure. If we don’t make conscious decisions we’re simply going to slide into massive inconvenience and still lack security. For example, commenting on how one might still get banned items onto an aircraft, Laird said:
But saying, Take no liquids on board
I like following the elections nationwide, and one of the means I use to do it is CQPolitics.com and their e-mail notifications. This morning, I was reading commentary on the Senate race in Connecticut, Conn. Senate Race Still Likely to Have a Democratic Winner. Of course, that prediction is not terribly difficult to make, assuming one grants that Lieberman is still a Democrat.
I have to say, however, that I don’t like the commentary from either of the major parties, which should be no surprise to those who know me, because I rarely make it a secret that I loathe the parties themselves. I’m registered as an independent not because I don’t care to choose between them, but because I can’t stand being identified with either of them.
So I really don’t care what this primary election does to the Democratic plans for the fall, nor what Republicans think they can spin out of it. I must mention that the Republican spin on this thing is unusually ridiculous, and that’s saying something. Lamont isn’t some kind of odd extremist. He opposes the war in Iraq and thinks his part should take a stand and take action. In this position, he’s with the majority of the American people. I have to note, however, that there are at least a good number of the American people who somehow were dim enough to think the war was going to go better than it has, but that’s the nature of democracy, and one of the best arguments for a representative form of government. The current U. S. congress is one of the best arguments against representative government, but I digress.
But look at the following, from CQPolitics.com:
Lamonts win came amid strong voter turnout. State Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo said 43 percent of eligible Democrats participated in the states first August primary
In a post titled A Very Inconvenient Truth, Ben Witherington throws his weight behind global warming and our need to do something about it. I’m glad he has chosen to do so, and not just because I consider his commentary on Revelation to be one of the best available.
And therein seems to lie the problem for some people. One commenter on his blog has called him to account for commenting on something in which he is not an expert. That is a charge that could also be frequently aimed at me, because I comment on many things. In fact, I see my call and mission as a popularizer, so I am almost always reporting things I have found in the works of the actual experts. I’m not terribly comfortable with being an expert. At one time I discovered that there were people at my church who were saying simply that if I could read Hebrew and Greek, and I believed the Bible, then they could too. Of course that bypasses the issue of what, precisely, I believe about the Bible, and of whether one person’s belief or lack of it is an adequate foundation for one’s faith.
But on global warming and a host of other issues the people ultimately making the decisions are going to be non-experts. In our republican system of government, we elect people who make the decisions, but we generally choose those people based on their view on particular issues, as well as our general impression of them as people.
But why should a person like Dr. Witherington, who is clearly expert in New Testament Studies, give his weight to one side of an issue on which he is not at all expert? I think there are several excellent reasons:
We should not decide what position to take based on opinions by people who are not experts. But such people often help deal with peripheral issues.
Dr. Witherington says:
The changing of the minds of many conservative Christians is perhaps a clear ensign that we are nearly to the point of recognizing we are dealing with an undeniable truth. Christians are sadly often the last to get religion about worldly things that have been obvious to others for many years. I say this to our shame.
Because some conservative Christians have been in opposition to most actions related to global warming, Dr. Witherington, a conservative Christian himself is well placed to challenge that view. Perhaps Christians are often the last to get the word, but Christian leaders need to be ready to stand out from the crowd and say, “We have been wrong, and we need to take action.” At a minimum, we need to realize that the global warming debate is about facts and the strategies to deal with them, and is one on which Christians can disagree.
But there are some principles at stake. Dr. Witherington asks a series of questions:
What if there will be no escape from the problems of this world for the foreseeable future because Jesus told us to first evangelize all the language groups before the second coming? What if God expects us to properly tend and care for his good and beautiful garden-like creation until his Son comes back? What if when he returns instead he finds us sticking our heads in the sand, and ignoring the many ways we have bruised and abused the earth he created for our eco-system? What if our otherworldly redemption theology involves a gross distortion of the Biblical creation theology?
I suggest you go to his article to see his answers. Those are all topics on which is is expert.
MSNBC has an interview with Senator Russ Feingold in which he makes some excellent points. There are many things I disagree with Senator Feingold about, but he is right on target on a number of others. For example he says:
People in Wisconsin, and everywhere for that matter, want their elected officials to stand up for what they believe. Democrats arent going to win in November simply by running out the clock. We need to show the American people that we stand for things like guaranteed health care for all Americans, bringing the troops home from Iraq, and defending the rule of law.
I’m just going to speak as an independent here. I give my vote to various candidates. I’m not much concerned about party labels, and I also don’t have any single issue that drives my vote. I can disagree with a candidate on a number of issues if I believe he or she has integrity and some good sense. Democrats won’t get my vote simply by not being Republicans (or the reverse); they have to have their own strategy, their own vision for the country, and a willingness to stand up for those things. That’s probably a great deal to expect of a politician, but that’s what I’m looking for.
This is where the Democratic Party has to catch up with its own supporters. There is a populist movement, a desire for the party to stand for populist positions and strong positions, both international and domestically. All over the country, people are saying the same thing to me. And it is out there in a way I have ever seen before. If the Democratic Party doesnt have the sense to catch this wave, we may pay for it.
Precisely! You can’t continually win elections and hold onto power simply by not offending people. You have to challenge them, engage their interest, and earn (not get, earn) their confidence. I think John Kerry would be President of the United States right now if he had simply managed to convince the American people that he had some sort of plan. The problem was that he was sort of not-Bush, and then not all that sure what positive content being not-Bush was supposed to have.
People voted for the positive plan.
I agree with Senator Feingold that we will have quite a few surprising results, but that’s not much of a prediction. The question I have is whether there is a politician or group of politicians left out there who can catch the attention of the American people in a positive way. I’m watching for such a group and ready to be active. Right now neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties are looking all that good.
Some time ago I blogged on the danger of using insufficient force and of not completing the solution to a problem. The result of that procedure, used all too often in goverment and international relations, is that people suffer and die, but there is no real cause and no conclusion.
Now in a column Eleanor Swift (Holding Pattern — Rumsfelds Senate testimony underscores that there are no good options on Iraq. Meanwhile, wheres Dick Cheney?) evaluates Rumsfeld’s testimony before the Senate armed services committee as indicating that there are no good options:
The best any of this trio of apologists could come up with is that U.S. forces need to keep doing what theyre doing to keep from losing. They offered no strategy for victory, only a holding pattern to prevent a worse defeat than that America is already experiencing. An honest reckoning would acknowledge there are no good options in Iraq and that the road to failure began with Rumsfelds bullheaded determination to keep the number of invading troops to a minimum.
She’s right on part of this, but I actually think she hasn’t gone quite far enough.
Ed Brayton has a wonderful post today titled Answering Ancient Brit on Thought Crimes. I could not agree with Ed any more completely and forcefully. Europe’s response to “thought crimes” is itself extremely dangerous.
I would add a note for my fellow-Christians. When you pursue religious liberty and the rights of religious expression, you need to also pursue freedom of opinion and expression generally, especially for those you dislike the most. You need protection from people who truly despise you and are willing to engage in violence to put their opinion into action.
Christians should be front and center in fighting for the rights of Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and any other religious group. In fact, that effort should be extended to non-religious groups. Freedom needs to be protected for everyone. Freedom of religion is not the freedom for Christians to do what they want; it’s the freedom for everyone, Christians included, to practice their faith as they see fit.
