red fuzzy jesus

DEAR DUBYA

Dear President Bush:

I have just read a transcript of your televised speech this evening.  I am impressed by your level of accountability - however indirect or ambiguous it was - after an administration characterized by refusal to admit mistakes or change course.  From your words tonight I glean the following admissions:
1. The rationale and selling points used to justify going into war were wrong.  Not just imperfect but flat out wrong.
2. You and your advisors underestimated the level of resistance in Iraq because you failed to take into account cultural aspects of the region, mainly the millennia old Shi/Sunni conflict.
3. The country has suffered “terrible loss.”  If I understand this correctly you are no longer labeling so many citizens “terrorists” posthumously but recognizing the large number of civilian casualties that are the unfortunate consequence of waging guerilla urban warfare against an enemy you neither recognize nor differentiate. 
4. The bad news isn’t over.  You regret the previous months’ policy of ‘happy talk’ in contrast to the facts on the ground and no longer wiSh to promulgate the fiction that everything is okey dokey. 

I appreciate your national reality check.  I know that was difficult for you and I hope you give a raise to whoever made you say it. 

In addition to these stunning admissions, please consider going a baby step further.  Please apologize to the people of America that have been called unpatriotic for three years for warning of the same things you just admitted.  Please apologize to the lobbyists, hill staffers, and journalists who lost their jobs because they were smeared as supporting terrorism when questioning the lead up to the war.  Please apologize to former members of the opposition party on the Hill whom you and Mr. Cheney actively campaigned against under the flag of false intelligence and a poorly managed war.  Please also direct those who speak for you in the media to also quick deriding opponents of your agenda for being unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. 

You said in Saturday’s radio address, “As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have. …The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."  Surely the malicious leak of a covert CIA operative's name is just as wrong and just as dangerous.  Bob Novack, the reporter first responsible for revealing Plame, said this past week that you knew who his source was.  If you are so outraged by the leaking of confidential information and so concerned with national security, please fire that person.  The cost of the ongoing investigation is staggering and you could save the country a lot of money if you would make this new spasm of responsibility a habit. 

Please also ask your librarian wife to find you a copy of the book 1984.  The real and manufactured fear of terrorism is similar to Big Brother’s perpetual enemy attacks.  And your unauthorized surveillance of citizens is inexcusable.  You could have sought warrants for those phone taps.  If you were pressed for timeOR reenacting an episode of Fox’s 24, the law allows for retroactive search warrants for phone tapping.  You never sought warrants because you think the “War on Terrorism” justifies all actions regardless of their legality or constitutionality.  It does not.  Stop listening to people’s correspondence without a warrant.  This is America. 

And lastly sir, please continue to devote weekly radio addresses and televised speeches to defending the mess you’ve already made.  The more time you spend rationalizing what you’ve done the less time you have to forward more flawed initiatives.  You have a lot to explain so I encourage you to continue with the on air mea culpa and pull back the aggression in other areas.  I think this approach is best for everyone. 

Best of luck constructing a legacy in the next three years. 

Kiss kiss,

- Red Fuzzy Jesus

FOCUS ON THE OBVIOUS

I am absolutely loving James Dobson this week.  Sure, as the godfather of the religious right pseudo-mafia he differs from me on probably every known issue but I have to respect the man for his cahones.  Every day Don Jimmy Dobson hosts a radio talk show where he has various guests of the far right discuss whatever’s on their small minds.  They tackle some of the biggest issues of the day like how to roll back civil rights, fighting the brutal “War on Christmas,” and bemoaning the oppression of those poor disempowered religious conservatives.  Occasionally the topic de jour is too big for one day – ignorance can’t be limited to an hour – so it’s made into a special two part series.  But this week James Dobson went all out for his absolute favorite topic in the world creating a four part special series on, of course, himself.

The topic of discussion on Dobson’s Focus on the Family broadcast all week is ‘James Dobson, America’s Family Man.’  While one must assume focusing on the family is still a priority for Dobson I have to trust him if he thinks the highest priority right now is focusing on him.  So this week has been a non-stop parade of guests from all walks of life - Baptists, Southern Baptists, Unaffiliated Baptists, those mysterious and rare Black Congregational Baptists - to come on and let the listening audience know just what a great guy the host of the show is.  It really is riveting entertainment and I wish other talk shows would follow that lead.  I can imagine Conan having a special week where every guest comes on to chat about how funny he is.  Or Chris Matthews could take a break from that silly coverage of partisan bickering to have pundits proclaim his excellence.  Matthews’ superiority as a person is something both sides of the aisle can agree on. 

The guests have fallen all over themselves to kiss Dobson’s ring and by day three the pressure to top previous praise was intense forcing some into levels of hyperbole that require a pronounced absence of shame.  It’s almost as if they religiously follow him.  (Say it aint so.) 

This tops my favorite episode of the James Dobson show when he screamed (literally) out of his frustration because, quote, “We can’t get our hands on judges!”   Damn you, third branch of government designed to check and balance majority rule.  How dare you be designed so impervious to Dobson’s lynch mob?  Something must be done to remove this defense of individual liberty.  If Dobson commands it, who are we to let these “tyrants in black robes” stand in his way? 

There is no praise like the sincere praise of an adversary.  So on this conclusion of Dobson week let me take this moment to laud the man for whom I’ve grown in respect these last four days: 

Thank you, Mr. Dobson.  You have now made your priorities crystal clear so social commentators like me don’t have to.  Your tireless work to alter society really isn’t about “unborn children” or state’s rights or even “protecting” marriage.  It really is all about you.  You do all this out of an insatiable, craven lust for political power and social control.  The praise of your electoral clout, the bragging about the mountains of donated cash you roll in, and the loyal flock of sheep that do your bidding from the ballot box to the local Walmart are all fruits of your megalomania. And I so appreciate the opportunity to listen for four days about just how wonderful and powerful you really are. 

Truly, sir, I stand amazed.      

BOOK REVIEW: ISLAMIC POLITICAL ETHICS

Islamic Political Ethics, edited by Jack Miles, is not the work of a singular author but a collection of long form essays by various experts.  Although each portion can stand alone, all (except one) forward a general theme.  Islam contains a moral history of teachings in regards to establishing political power.  And, the interpretation of that history determines the degree to which an Islamic state can embrace modernity and principles of individual liberty. 

Jack Miles first sets the tone by encouraging an intellectual look at religion; all religion.  When specifically speaking of Muslims he encourages a greater community of Islam (umma) to do more to dispute the notion of war mongering fundamentalist zealots.  Then Sohail Hashmi develops that general sentiment in his preface by calling for a reexamination of Islam, a rejection of fundamentalism for “Islamism” and challenges Muslims globally to do a better job of disseminating Islamic ethics rather than the draconian hate unfortunately associated with Islam.

In Civil Society and Government in Islam, John Kelsay looks at Mohammed’s life and how his example contributes to participation in politics.  He asserts that within classical concepts of Islam there is a model for civil society and in more modern teachings on Islam this civil society is emphasized.  He balances the ulama against the khilafa that seems, even for a reader not familiar with much of the history, a conveniently selective use of Islamic traditions.  It is an elaborate way of making the very simple point that Islam does not preclude the possibility of civil society – even with the secularism the term ‘civil society’ implies. 

Farhad Kazemi in Perspectives builds on Kelsay’s work by drawing a bright distinction between backward fundamentalism and more intellectual Islam.  It is a theme repeated throughout proceeding essays.  Kazemi bemoans a latent intelligentsia within the Muslim community and proposes a resurgence of that community to fight the social ills of gender and minority oppression common under the dominance of less progressive approaches to religion.   Then in Conceptions, Hasan Hanafi develops this idea further by calling for a creative interpretation of Islamic texts to confront contemporary concepts of democracy.  His ideas are reformist and could be described as a correction of Islam.  According to Hanafi, civil society – even social contract democracy – is possible but an adjustment in the popular applications of the Qur’an must first be made.

In Boundaries, M. Raquibuz Zaman explores a type of Islamic ‘judicial review.’  The Islamic treatment of law is obviously more theocratic and absolute than Western civil and criminal jurisprudence.  Then in Maintenance, Sulayman Nyang discusses the role of religion in dictating the limits of human behavior not just for religious purposes but to maintain social order.  Both of these essays hint at but never provide a clear formula for the relationship between religion and law in a modern Arab state.  Religion is necessary to help find governable consensus and maintain social order but beyond that it is unclear how people will divorce explicit beliefs on the will God to live under the rule of law.

Then Eickelman argues that modern Islam actually provides for moral pluralism (what he labels ‘ethical pluralism.’).  He uses Islamic history to suggest a civil society that allows for pluralism.  His best example is Turkey – often cited as the most successful secular state with religious citizenry.  But, having already read Islamist Mobilization in Turkey by J. White, I know that even within that country there is an irrepressible wave of orthodox religiosity that threatens its secular institutions.  While Eickelman makes a good case that a civil society can be both Islamic and respect pluralism, he fails to answer how and how likely this will occur.

Masud’s follow up essay on pluralism develops this thesis further to suggest that tolerance from Pluralism does not need to be ‘interpreted’ in Islam but ‘recognized.’  Citing many sources in the long and winding history of Islam, Masud cast the religion as a moral tradition that is, by itself, pluralistic.  He also echoes previous calls for modernity and reformation in the form of reason.

Sohail Hashmi, the editor or the collection, parses the positive and negative effects of religion.  Religion, when used correctly, creates a ‘human habitat’ of commonality and goodwill.  Of course, religion can also be used to justify oppressive law and prevent social evolution that leads to the adoption of civil liberty protections.  His concern is how to root a legal code in Islamic morals but provide for dissent and protection of rights.

Then there’s Bassam Tibi’s piece on War and Peace in Islam.   This essay at the end reminds me of the children’s game where players are shown a grouping and asked which member doesn’t fit.  Tibi argues that at the core of Islam is an antiquated system that calls for violence against non-adherents.  He argues that Islam cannot be reformed, reinterpreted or reapplied to fit modern notions of democracy and tolerance because its nature is anti modernity.

The sad fact is, Tibi’s description of Islam as incompatible with intellectual or peaceful cultures is widely accepted today.  Many people view the Western ‘war on terror’ as a war on the religion of Islam.  The repeated message through the rest of the essays is that Islam in and of itself is not violent, hateful, misogynist, and archaic.  Miles’ call for an intelligent ‘theology’… Kazemi’s preference for lay intellectuals in Islam to challenge fundamentalism… and Masud’s pining for recognition of pluralism (among others) reflect a central thesis of this book and others read in the course.  Islam can be used to support systems that respect human rights and justice but only when interpreted with critical analysis and reason.  The war mongering Taliban representation of Islam does not represent all of Islam.  And the current image of the Muslim world as antithetical to modern democratic values is a product of history and politics and not any intrinsic deficiency in the religion. 

The essays in Islamic Political Ethics do a superb job of showing what’s possible for any group of people wanting to follow Islam but establish a just state with democratic principles.  It does not specify ‘how’ at a practical level.  Much of the work also misses the opportunity to make broader statements about the use of religion as an alternative to reason and rational thought.  In many ways, the harsh orthodoxy of Islamic fundamentalists mirrors Christian fundamentalists so influential in the United States today.  The same argument is that ‘true’ Christianity – when interpreted with reason and applied with critical thinking skills – supports democratic principles while the agenda of cultural hegemony forwarded by many Christians would result in a state not unlike the most oppressive in the Middle East.      

Broadening the analysis of Islam to a more universal criticism of how religion, any religion, can be used to affect politics would make statements about Muslims seem less like a criticism of any people and more a commentary on human nature.  The trappings of Islam and the promise of Islam are both there and it is contingent upon what is brought out that conversely, and unfortunately, defines the religion.   Neither another reformation of Islam or worldwide analysis of religion and political power (as a product of globalization) are out of the question.  The outcome depends on the intra-faith competition between reason and orthodoxy and the agenda setting power of leaders and believers.   

BOOK REVIEW: THE SEARCH FOR ARAB DEMOCRACY

In The Search for Arab Democracy, Larbi Sadiki presents a discursive look at religion and state power that reads like a lexicon of postmodern terms and theorists.  The work implicitly presents several popular, contemporary questions such as; “Is Democracy possible in traditionally Islamic states?”  “Can an Arab region have secular institutions with religious histories and persons?” Rather than argue a singular thesis to any of these questions, Sadiki explores the philosophical assumptions behind such inquiries.  Key to his approach is an exercise in linguistics.  While less concerned with the possibility of Democracy in an Islamic country, Sadiki instead asks what is meant by “democracy”, by “Islam”, and by “possible.”

Sadiki opens his one-man debate with an impressive explanation of foundationalism and anti-foundationalism.  He manages to adequately describe foundationalism and place in the lineage of Plato, Descartes, Kantian utilitarianism and Hart’s legal positivism while still being succinct.  Rejecting the stark and false dichotomy of absolutism vs. relativism, Sadiki introduces foundationalism as a critical tool to question so called ‘truths’.  At the heart of foundationalism is the idea of a central truth discoverable with reason and a concrete reality with some objective base.  The converse, antifoundationalism, suggests no such point from which to derive normative markers and measure meaning.  History is non-linear and denoted by shifting perceptions.   

Sadiki then puts his deconstruction method to work in practical form by looking at why foundationalism offers a poor starting point for evaluating democracy’s chances of success in an Arab state.  The foundationalist view of democracy seems to be rooted in a Western history.  By “Western”, Sadiki often implies “Christian.”  Much of the history that gave way to modern democratic institutions was birthed out of Christianity’s development.  The Protestant reformation spurred thoughts of social leveling and questioned a hegemonic divine order.  The resulting thought produced ingredients of Western democracy including individual autonomy, freedom of conscience, and expression.  The enlightenment moved much of the Western world from religious certitude to existential doubt.  Such landmarks along the path of Christian history have had little effect on the Muslim world.  But, in looking for signs of democracy in Islamic states, Sadiki suggests there may be equally significant parallels.  Key to finding these parallels is letting go of Occidentalist and Orientalist assumptions about government and religion. 

The conversion from a Western concept of democracy to progress elsewhere relies heavily on word choice and the translation from terms that denote Westernization to terms that preserve a unique Islamic character.  “Islamist” is preferred over “fundamentalist” because “fundamentalist” is a Western/Christian term with specific Catholic/Protestant connotations.  In the same way, many of the ideas that accompany democracy are evaluated under Muslim pretexts.  One example is social contract theory – often associated with Western democracy.  In the Western tradition of social contract theory there is an assumption of conformity among contractures.  Social contract theory was as much a factor in the forming of Western democracy as Christianity.  But the simultaneous introduction of the Protestant values of tolerance and pluralism can be seen to undermine some of the assumptions of social contract theory.  Yet, the question of whether Western or Christian states can be democratic is seldom asked.  A Muslim state, where religious conformity can often be assumed, may even be more conducive to developing its own civil society in the mode of a social contract.  By abandoning the occidentalist assumption that all things Western compliment all things Christian compliment all things democratic, Sadiki is able to show that some definition of Arab democracy can develop but it won’t grow just like its Western counterpart. 

Sadiki takes a hard look at the assumption that a state must be secular to be democratic.  The question is relevant.  However, where Sadiki first seems to falter is when he tries to selectively cite portions of the Qur’an.  Overall he presents the Qur’an as an infinitely plastic document whose texts can and have been used to support almost every position on the political spectrum.  Any reader can be assumed to be familiar with the oppression of women associated with Islamic regimes.  But, Sadiki uses the latter third of the book to show how Islam has been interpreted as a form of virocentric feminism.  By showing how differing interpretations of the Qur’an can lend to different political positions Sadiki shows that Islam, and all religion, can be constructed then construed in any number of ways.  So there is no one “Islam” but a myriad of interpretations, beliefs, practices that come from some concept of Islam or another.  And, some are more conducive to democracy than others. 

What the reader is left with is the postmodern idea that everything is a reducible construction.  Religion is a construct of a people just like government just like political values.  And democracy is possible in an Islamic state depending on what one means by “democracy” and what one means by “Islam.”  “Democracy” may develop in the Arab world but it is unlikely to be Western democracy.  Islam may catalyze democratic states but the teachings of Islam would first need to be democratized. 
Any definitive statement to close the book would contradict the reliance on antifoundationalism throughout.  So, Sadiki closes instead by encouraging a pluralistic dialogue.  This is a fitting end for a book that is less concerned with conclusions and more interested in how conclusions are found.    

THE GAYNESS OF ENNIS

Brokeback Mountain is easily one of the most talked about films this year.  More reviewers reviewed it than any other movie on Rotten Tomatoes.  It swept the LA Critics awards and just received several Golden Globes nominations.  It is also expected to be a heavy Oscar contender.  With so much written already about the movie, it is difficult to find something new to say.  Upon careful review, however, there is something more worth noting – a lack of definition for the one thing that sets this movie apart. 

Although Brokeback is often called the “gay cowboy movie,” among the reviews and other articles there seems to be a lack of consensus on whether or not the two main characters, Jack and Ennis, are gay.   The answer to that question lies in what someone believes “gay” is.  The two characters themselves claim, “I’m not queer,” and they do marry and father children suggesting a rejection of the “gay lifestyle.” 

Some gay men have a total aversion to naked women.  They are so turned off by them that they can’t muster enough attraction to perform sexually.  Others, I would say most, can physically have sex with women and probably even enjoy it.  They can care about women and build lives with women.  Because Ennis and Jack both get married and have children they are obviously capable of sex.  This reality is what prompts some writers to declare the men are not gay.  They may be straight men with an inexplicable attraction for just each other or somehow bisexual but they’re not gay because they have wives and kids.  Gay men don’t have sex with women.   

I reject the notion that ability to form relationships with women, even sexual ones, is proving the gay negative.  In the movie, even though the two characters have wives, at a level deeper than sex lays a desire for each other.  The sex with their wives is perfunctory while with each other they achieve a truer level of intimacy.  The ability to marry and have sex with women has enabled gay men for generations to deny they are gay.  Living out the lives of their straight counterparts enables denial.  However, I would argue men in that situation are still gay if the person with whom they achieve real intimacy and personal satisfaction is another dude.  Even if they sleep with a hundred women, if they’re truly honest with themselves (easier said than done) they may conclude that men satisfy something more.  That, to me, makes them gay. 

This distinction speaks directly to the gay/ex-gay debate.  Many programs (all religious, most “Christian”) advertise the ability to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals.  However, these programs are only successful in alternating behavioral expressions of sexuality and even then, not so much.  The AFA has had a video out about their triumphs in curing gayness.  It’s called It’s Not Gay and it chronicles the successes of ex-gays.  There’s just one problem.  The people in the video now admit that although they went through the motions of being straight, they were never actually as attracted to people of the opposite gender as their own.  Michael Johnston, the central “character” in the “documentary” is now suing the AFA asking them to stop distributing the video because at the time it was made he was still having secret, and dangerous, sexual encounters with men.  He no longer wants his name and likeness to be used to promote a false idea. 

With this line of thinking comes some controversial assertions.  Some married men with children may be gay.  And it is possible to be gay even if you have never acted on those desires.  If your definition of “gay” is behavioral then you cease to be gay when you have sex with a woman instead of a man.  If you definition of “gay” includes deeper notions of love and intimacy then you retain your gayness regardless of with whom you sleep. 

What makes one person attracted to another is a great mystery of the human experience.  Most couples cannot describe in finite detail exactly why they are in love with the object of their affection.  Abstract notions of love and intimacy supercede more superficial behaviors and cultural norms.  There is no “gay lifestyle.”  Rather, there is a mysterious gay identity and those with that inclination vary in lifestyle from the cripplingly repressed to the drag queen on roller skates in the pride parade.

The characters in Brokeback are tragic in the same way that anyone is tragic who cannot be with the one they love for whatever reason.  But the tragedy runs deeper.  Ennis seethes with anger that only worsens with age because despite his best efforts he cannot be the man he feels he should.  The self loathing and self torture he endures as he tries to have a relationship with his wife and tries to push Jack away would make any religious ex-gay proponent beam with pride.  Anyone whose heart is not inhibited with absolutist ideology would have that heart break for poor Ennis and Jack.  Their lives would be so much more fulfilling if they could just be loved the way they need to be loved. 

Men like Jack and Ennis have a much easier time these days.  Part of that progress is due to movies like Brokeback.  But this movie goes further not because it features two gay male leads but because it highlights the humanity of gays.  Gays in films usually languish in stereotypes and charicature.  This movie treats them as fully realized complex people.  One would hope a greater portion of society would do the same.   

Merry Mêlée

The latest news from the battlefront is grim.  Elf deaths have now passed 2000 as they’re forced to the outer edges of cities in what can only be interpreted as retreat.  From his undisclosed location, baby Jesus is meeting with his top generals and is said to be weighing heavily the nuclear option.  And while much of the mainstream media is precluded from showing the most violent images of conflict, pictures of Donner and Blitzen face down in the mud have spread across the internet weakening resolve and lowering morale.  One can only hope wise men from the East arrive soon.  All this destruction and for what - the senseless war on Christmas. 

Of course, the War on Christmas is make believe.  There is no increase in cultural sensitivity this year that hasn’t been around for quite some time.  Cable “news” and other outlets fabricated this war on their own.  Just as children around the age of 5 start to figure out there really is no big fat man in a red suit delivering toys around the world, we here in adulthood need to come to grips with other holiday mythologies. 

It can be difficult not to believe the War on Christmas poses a clear and present danger.  Two thirds of all evening programming on FOX News now deals with this “war.”  “Christian” news sources such as Agape Press and World News Daily flood their sites daily with increasingly sensationalist stories like imbedded war zone reporters bringing all that care to be aware the awful truth.  Why?  Because these are hard line conservative “news” outlets and real news isn’t too favorable to the current heroes of conservatism. 

If FOX News and company were forced to report real news they would have to comment on the President’s low approval rating.  They would have to note the sea change in public opinion on their much trumpeted war in Iraq.  They would have to revisit the mess in New Orleans and engage in the ongoing discussion on torture.  There are real issues in the world.  Unfortunately, a lot of those issues put their guy in office in a bad light and hurt their guys in Congress next November.  So what does one do when real news threatens their political agenda?  Why, generate some fake news complete with manufactured threat, feined outrage, and good old motivating fear. 

The more the conservative “press” hammers the idea that Christmas is somehow being taken away from America the less they have to talk about substantive, albeit embarrassing, stories.  The so-called “War on Christmas” is nothing new.  I remember debate when I was growing up over including specific Jesus references in school concerts and what to write on the cards going out to conservative Jewish relatives.  I imagine such considerations predate my childhood.  They are only being highlighted relentlessly now because real news is icky and the religious right – like the demanding fat kid on Christmas morning – has been given everything it wants lately prompting only increased demands. 

Of note is also the innate hypocrisy behind the warriors for Christmas.  Every single night Bill O’Reilly does at least one segment about the effort to strip Christ from Christmas.  Christ becomes less of a concern when he’s forcing subordinates to engage in phone sex.  Rush Limbaugh blusters endlessly about the removal of Christ from culture.  He has yet to specify how Christ was included in his maid’s midnight runs to parking lots to fetch him more prescription pain killers.  And the 4-Stars-of-the-East General of the Christmas wars, Jerry Falwell, has publicized his friend and foe list.  The list of political enemies now includes retailers and schools who do not sufficiently pay homage to Christ this time of year.  And what better way to honor Jesus on his birthday than to act in the exact opposite way of what he taught.  Remember, that was the guy who spent his earthly years preaching forgiveness, peace, communion with the unclean?  Does that ring a bell, Jerry?  I believe publishing a hit-list of political adversaries is the antithesis of Christ honoring behavior.   

Now for the punch line of the sad but true joke:  These soldiers for Christ really aren’t concerned with Christian teachings or the state of the world.  They are mainly just concerned with grabbing and keeping power.  FOX news loves to boast of their efforts to force retail chains to change their store displays to acknowledge Christmas.  And if you think sex boosts ratings, try whipping up some religious tinged panic on sweeps week.  Jerry Falwell has made a career and quite a sizable fortune off fear and loathing for all people existing outside the girth of his waist.  And Rush Limbaugh is crazy beyond commentary. 

There is no War on Christmas.  People are still honoring their religious traditions in their homes and lives the way they usually do.  Shopping is up this year.  Churches will still hold services.  And polite people will decide for themselves what holiday greeting to include on their cards, thank you very much.    The saddest thing is that nasty, partisan, political confrontation over storefront semantics distracts from notions of community and family that make the holiday special.  If Christmas was too tainted with commercialism before, boycotting and bickering doesn’t help.  So I’ll close with a wish for peace; peace in both real war torn areas around the world and in the made up constructs of paranoid minds.