The ever-more disgusting Marty Peretz: "I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse." Take a guess on who "these people" are.
If Peretz didn't own the damn place, this is the sort of thing that would get one fired. What an embarrassment. (Incidentally, Alex Pareene is correct that if TNR's in-house critics can't weigh in on this, then what's the point of having them around?).
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Monday, September 06, 2010
Home of the Brave
Daniel Gordis has a rather repellent column up in the Jerusalem Post. It purports to be about the Park 51 community center, but it actually barely talks about it. Rather, its focus is on the need of Americans to know, with clarion certainty and no distractions, that we are in a potentially endless, apocalyptic war, with Muslims (yes, yes, not all Muslims are terrorists. But this observation, he writes, "only goes so far."). To the extent the Cordoba Initiative comes up, it seems to be that any indulgence to any Muslim, anywhere, risks distracting us from this steely steadfastness we'll need to pull through.
As Tim F. once noted, the possibility that Americans might forget that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11 "seems vanishingly unlikely when at any given time a Republican is running for office somewhere." But more fundamentally, what this article is, more or less, is an unapologetic paean to pure fear. It says that America's noted "gentility" (which, I imagine, is like France's noted courtesy. I love America and lots of things about it, but "gentility" is hardly among our better-known qualities) will be the end of us. For all its macho rhetoric about how we need to be strong and unified, it is cowardly and weak. For all the talk about how the terrorists wish to destroy us and our liberties (and, no doubt, they do), it seeks to do much of their job for them, by turning our robust, vibrant, and free society into a paranoid fortress. I fly pretty often, and no, US air travel is not "abominably unpleasant". It isn't, it doesn't have to be, and really, if that's the best you got, your siege mentality needs work. We have stood resilient for years against this threat, precisely by not making our state a ghastly imitator of bigoted, oppressive regimes worldwide; precisely by not deciding that their discriminatory hatred is not a sin to fight, but a model to emulate.
We do need to be both the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". But Daniel Gordis is not brave. He is weak. He is cowardly. He would have America panic and treat the Muslim community writ large as presumptive enemies, when what distinguishes America from so many countries around the world right now is the relative lack of homegrown Muslim radicalism. We've preserved that lofty status because we have no yet wavered from our belief that America is for all Americans -- that we are all equals here. Now, some folks, like Mr. Gordis, seek to cut and run from our constitutional commitments. There is no bravery in that.
As Tim F. once noted, the possibility that Americans might forget that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11 "seems vanishingly unlikely when at any given time a Republican is running for office somewhere." But more fundamentally, what this article is, more or less, is an unapologetic paean to pure fear. It says that America's noted "gentility" (which, I imagine, is like France's noted courtesy. I love America and lots of things about it, but "gentility" is hardly among our better-known qualities) will be the end of us. For all its macho rhetoric about how we need to be strong and unified, it is cowardly and weak. For all the talk about how the terrorists wish to destroy us and our liberties (and, no doubt, they do), it seeks to do much of their job for them, by turning our robust, vibrant, and free society into a paranoid fortress. I fly pretty often, and no, US air travel is not "abominably unpleasant". It isn't, it doesn't have to be, and really, if that's the best you got, your siege mentality needs work. We have stood resilient for years against this threat, precisely by not making our state a ghastly imitator of bigoted, oppressive regimes worldwide; precisely by not deciding that their discriminatory hatred is not a sin to fight, but a model to emulate.
We do need to be both the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". But Daniel Gordis is not brave. He is weak. He is cowardly. He would have America panic and treat the Muslim community writ large as presumptive enemies, when what distinguishes America from so many countries around the world right now is the relative lack of homegrown Muslim radicalism. We've preserved that lofty status because we have no yet wavered from our belief that America is for all Americans -- that we are all equals here. Now, some folks, like Mr. Gordis, seek to cut and run from our constitutional commitments. There is no bravery in that.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Proof This Roundup
To quote my friend Marlena: "Let's kill 'em!"
* * *
Venezuelan Jews appeal to Hugo Chavez to stem the tide of anti-Semitic incitement pouring from the state's media.
9/11 families appeal to Pam Geller not to hold an anti-Muslim rally on the day of 9/11. Geller tells the families to get lost -- a bit weird, given that she claims to be speaking on their behalf.
Speaking of 9/11, American Muslims may have to curtail their end of Ramadan celebrations because the timing overlaps with 9/11. I smell another round of "out respect for the feelings of real Americans (and certainly not any prejudice!), Muslims should spend most of their waking hours in caves in service of interfaith dialogue" concern trolling.
UC-Irvine has upheld, though slightly reduced, its suspension of the campus' Muslim Student Union after it was found to have engaged in coordinated disruption of a speaking appearance by the Israeli ambassador. There was, I think, a good discussion of the original decision in the comments here.
The history of America indicates that nothing is better than effectively preventing minority groups from integrating into society.
A history of union violence against poor, defenseless corporations.
* * *
Venezuelan Jews appeal to Hugo Chavez to stem the tide of anti-Semitic incitement pouring from the state's media.
9/11 families appeal to Pam Geller not to hold an anti-Muslim rally on the day of 9/11. Geller tells the families to get lost -- a bit weird, given that she claims to be speaking on their behalf.
Speaking of 9/11, American Muslims may have to curtail their end of Ramadan celebrations because the timing overlaps with 9/11. I smell another round of "out respect for the feelings of real Americans (and certainly not any prejudice!), Muslims should spend most of their waking hours in caves in service of interfaith dialogue" concern trolling.
UC-Irvine has upheld, though slightly reduced, its suspension of the campus' Muslim Student Union after it was found to have engaged in coordinated disruption of a speaking appearance by the Israeli ambassador. There was, I think, a good discussion of the original decision in the comments here.
The history of America indicates that nothing is better than effectively preventing minority groups from integrating into society.
A history of union violence against poor, defenseless corporations.
The Anti-Obama
Haley Barbour makes the pitch:
A corrupt lobbyist with ties to White supremacists? Yeah, that's the anti-Obama alright.
Haley Barbour, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and one of the most powerful Republicans said to be considering a run for president, is making the case that his southern accent and lobbying career might make him exactly the kind of candidate who can mount a successful campaign against President Obama.
[...]
"As far as southern accents and Mississippi, this country may be looking for the anti-Obama in 2012. Don't know. Could be," Barbour continued.
A corrupt lobbyist with ties to White supremacists? Yeah, that's the anti-Obama alright.
PA Savages Iran, Ahmadinejad
I figured there existed some tension between the Palestinian leadership and the Iranian government, given that the latter (a) tends to arrogate itself the right to speak for Palestinians and (b) provides support for brutal separatist groups which violently removed the PA from various Palestinian territories. Still, this is pretty amazing:
I have to ask whether this is the first outright statement by a (non-Israeli) middle eastern leader that Ahmadinejad stole the election and is an oppressive tyrant?
This, once again, reinforces the delineation between the folks who actually support Palestine living side-by-side in peace with Israel, and Iranian-backed stooges who couldn't care less what happens to Palestinians so long as they can be used to whip up racist hatred.
The one who does not represent the Iranian people, who falsified election results, who oppressed the Iranian people and stole authority has no right to speak about Palestine, its president or its representatives," Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh said about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I have to ask whether this is the first outright statement by a (non-Israeli) middle eastern leader that Ahmadinejad stole the election and is an oppressive tyrant?
This, once again, reinforces the delineation between the folks who actually support Palestine living side-by-side in peace with Israel, and Iranian-backed stooges who couldn't care less what happens to Palestinians so long as they can be used to whip up racist hatred.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
The Worst Fear at All
I find it entirely unsurprising that the announcement of renewed peace talks between Israel and Palestine has thrown COSATU foreign relations secretary and pro-Palestinian activist noted hate speaker Bongani Masuku into a fit of apoplexy:
Hence, COSATU is looking to undermine these negotiations at all costs, by joining with Iranian-backed groups and pushing for a renewed wave of anti-Israel activism designed to torpedo, once again, the chance for peaceful co-existence. Because if you're not struggling, you're surrendering. And if Palestinians aren't chafing under occupation, if Jews aren't cowering under Masuku and his brethren's barrage of hate and incitement -- well, what would he do with his life?
“ This march also takes place at a time when the imperialists have imposed upon the Palestinian people, negotiations under the barrel of a gun, which have been designed to serve the interests of forcing the Palestinians to succumb to the bully tactics of the US and Israel.
“ The terms of negotiation, the terrain of struggle has been made to favour the occupying force through several brutal incursions and continued destabilisation of Palestine by the Israeli forces.
Hence, COSATU is looking to undermine these negotiations at all costs, by joining with Iranian-backed groups and pushing for a renewed wave of anti-Israel activism designed to torpedo, once again, the chance for peaceful co-existence. Because if you're not struggling, you're surrendering. And if Palestinians aren't chafing under occupation, if Jews aren't cowering under Masuku and his brethren's barrage of hate and incitement -- well, what would he do with his life?
Friday, September 03, 2010
Tip of the Iceberg
I feel like, of all the various repulsive things Glenn Beck has said, focusing on whether he actually held George Washington's inaugural address is kind of small potatoes.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Victory Mosque Removal
In The New Republic, Yossi Klein Halevi has a heartfelt letter addressed to "his friend" Imam Rauf. The objective behind the letter is twofold: first, to establish that he does consider Rauf to be an important figure in interfaith dialogue ("If you are not a worthy dialogue partner for the Jewish community, then there is almost no one in Islam with whom we can speak."), and second, to urge the Imam to change the plans for the Park 51 center. Instead of turning it into a Muslim community center:
In the abstract, such a center would be a wonderful idea. Is it "better" (from the standpoint of interfaith healing? From the a general social utility view?) than the current blueprints? It's hard to say, though I suspect that, under whatever standard that labels such a center superior to Park 51, that same center would be a "better" usage for nearly any parcel of land publicly or privately developed in New York City (those strip clubs spring immediately to mind). And I maintain that, if the purpose of the community center is to serve the Muslim community in Southern Manhattan, it kind of misses the point to relocate the center tothe other end of the borough Staten Island Queens.
But even if such an idea was meritorious, it can't happen anymore. The stakes have changed. We've moved beyond that.
One of the more ridiculous memes surrounding the Park 51 center is that it constitutes a "victory Mosque". The center organizers certainly never cast it that way, so we're forced to speculate that Islamists world-wide are slapping high-fives over the creation of a Islamic center headed by a man who has said he is a "supporter of Israel", and who gave such a stirring sermon on the occasion of Daniel Pearls brutal murder by those same Islamic extremists. The "victory Mosque" supposition stretches beyond implausible -- it is the stuff of pure paranoid bigoted fantasy.
On the other hand, we need no speculation to know who would claim victory at forcing the abandonment of the Park 51 plan. Changing the Park 51 plans -- moving it one inch, changing its mandate one iota -- would hand a victory to Pam Geller and her crowd of fascists who are responsible for ginning up this controversy and have never minced any bones about their objectives. They absolutely would declare victory. And they'd be right.
This is why, even granting the most "nuanced" interpretation of their position on this controversy, I still find the ADL's stance to be an outrageous capitulation of their core agenda. The arguments being put forth by Pam Geller and her bandmates represent a dire threat to the entire American constitutional vision. Their principles are toxic to the ideals of religious liberty that the ADL had sworn to protect. That was the critical issue that the Park 51 controversy raised. Everything else is a sideshow. The ADL either didn't recognize that, or it didn't have its priorities in order. Either way, it's no longer worth the time of folks genuinely concerned with preserving freedom in this nation.
America has seen these moments before. We had the Know-Nothings. We had Father Coughlin. We had the John Birch Society. All of these repellent groups counted hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans, among their adherents. But that did not render these movements American, and ultimately, we the people were faced with a choice. To affirm American values of religious freedom, of pluralism, of tolerance; or to cede ground to the nativists, the ultra-nationalists, the reactionary purveyors of hatred. Today, we have Pam Geller. She is a representative of an ancient evil, one that slumbers but seemingly is never killed. And we have that same choice faced by our predecessors. The time for clever midway solutions is over. You're either on the side of American values, or you're with Pam Geller. No more middle ground.
Instead, I urge you to consider turning the site into a center for interfaith encounter. Build the mosque—but do so together with a church and a synagogue and a center for common reflection for all three faiths and for those with no faith. Do this, Imam Feisal, not to surrender to your critics but to honor their pain, and, in the process, to honor Islam.
In the abstract, such a center would be a wonderful idea. Is it "better" (from the standpoint of interfaith healing? From the a general social utility view?) than the current blueprints? It's hard to say, though I suspect that, under whatever standard that labels such a center superior to Park 51, that same center would be a "better" usage for nearly any parcel of land publicly or privately developed in New York City (those strip clubs spring immediately to mind). And I maintain that, if the purpose of the community center is to serve the Muslim community in Southern Manhattan, it kind of misses the point to relocate the center to
But even if such an idea was meritorious, it can't happen anymore. The stakes have changed. We've moved beyond that.
One of the more ridiculous memes surrounding the Park 51 center is that it constitutes a "victory Mosque". The center organizers certainly never cast it that way, so we're forced to speculate that Islamists world-wide are slapping high-fives over the creation of a Islamic center headed by a man who has said he is a "supporter of Israel", and who gave such a stirring sermon on the occasion of Daniel Pearls brutal murder by those same Islamic extremists. The "victory Mosque" supposition stretches beyond implausible -- it is the stuff of pure paranoid bigoted fantasy.
On the other hand, we need no speculation to know who would claim victory at forcing the abandonment of the Park 51 plan. Changing the Park 51 plans -- moving it one inch, changing its mandate one iota -- would hand a victory to Pam Geller and her crowd of fascists who are responsible for ginning up this controversy and have never minced any bones about their objectives. They absolutely would declare victory. And they'd be right.
This is why, even granting the most "nuanced" interpretation of their position on this controversy, I still find the ADL's stance to be an outrageous capitulation of their core agenda. The arguments being put forth by Pam Geller and her bandmates represent a dire threat to the entire American constitutional vision. Their principles are toxic to the ideals of religious liberty that the ADL had sworn to protect. That was the critical issue that the Park 51 controversy raised. Everything else is a sideshow. The ADL either didn't recognize that, or it didn't have its priorities in order. Either way, it's no longer worth the time of folks genuinely concerned with preserving freedom in this nation.
America has seen these moments before. We had the Know-Nothings. We had Father Coughlin. We had the John Birch Society. All of these repellent groups counted hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans, among their adherents. But that did not render these movements American, and ultimately, we the people were faced with a choice. To affirm American values of religious freedom, of pluralism, of tolerance; or to cede ground to the nativists, the ultra-nationalists, the reactionary purveyors of hatred. Today, we have Pam Geller. She is a representative of an ancient evil, one that slumbers but seemingly is never killed. And we have that same choice faced by our predecessors. The time for clever midway solutions is over. You're either on the side of American values, or you're with Pam Geller. No more middle ground.
Give Him More Rope, Part III
Yes, the honesty is refreshing, but Haley Barbour is like a sick parody:
Please oh please nominate this man. Nominate the man who wants to brag about his time as a lobbyist.
But I will know this: if I run for President, what you see is what you get, and I am from Mississippi, I do have a southern accent. I was a lobbyist and a pretty damned good one. And I'm very proud -- we were talking before the show came on -- I am happy about my life. I've got a great marriage. I've got great family, and I've had a great career. Wouldn't do anything differently."
"And I will tell you this -- the next President of the United States on January 21, 2013 - - is going to start lobbying. He's going to be lobbying Congress, he's going to be lobbying other countries. He's going to be lobbying the business community. He's going to be lobbying the labor unions, the governors, because that's what Presidents do, and I feel like it's an advantage for me to have the chance to do that."
Please oh please nominate this man. Nominate the man who wants to brag about his time as a lobbyist.
Ring Up Another One
I just completed a long overdue reorganization of "Racism as Subjectification." And, coincidentally, I also found that Racism as Subjectification, though not yet published, in fact was heavily cited in a recent journal chapter: Denise Egéa-Kuehne, "Subjectification": Biesta’s Strong Link to Education, 2009 Phil. Educ. 363.
Unfortunately, this reorganization means that all the pagination in Professor Egéa-Kuehne's article is about to be wrong, as soon as I get around to updating SSRN. That's the peril of citing unpublished works -- usually, the author is still trying to render them publishable. Still, it's a nice vote of confidence. And unlike the folks who have cited my blog, Professor Egéa-Kuehne decided to go totally wild and even include my name. So, big day for me.
Unfortunately, this reorganization means that all the pagination in Professor Egéa-Kuehne's article is about to be wrong, as soon as I get around to updating SSRN. That's the peril of citing unpublished works -- usually, the author is still trying to render them publishable. Still, it's a nice vote of confidence. And unlike the folks who have cited my blog, Professor Egéa-Kuehne decided to go totally wild and even include my name. So, big day for me.
Outlet Pass
So opponents of peace between Israel and Palestine have launched a full-court press to derail talks between Bibi Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas has promised a wave of attacks. Iran is sponsoring rallies calling for the demise of Israel. Settlers are swearing to renew construction throughout the West Bank.
Here's a thought: How about we not give them what they want? I know the idea of not giving into the demands of radicals is all novel and bleeding-heart, but maybe it's worth a try? Just saying.
Here's a thought: How about we not give them what they want? I know the idea of not giving into the demands of radicals is all novel and bleeding-heart, but maybe it's worth a try? Just saying.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Of Interests and Lobbies
As someone who found The Israel Lobby thesis to be profoundly misguided, it really shouldn't be any surprise that I find its new counterpart, The Arab Lobby, to be pretty silly as well. Hussein Ibish reviews the latter here, though I wish he had provided more specific examples about where he thinks the authors go off the rails, the broad points are sound.
In general, the problem with these sorts of arguments is twofold. First, they nearly always have an insanely reductionist account of "American Interests", creating an implicit baseline of what the U.S. "would" be doing were it not for the "lobby", and then measuring the lobby's influence based on how far it can get us to deviate from our basic interests. But that's not the way interests work--we don't just have interests in the abstract; we're interested in various principles, resources, and situations, all of which are open to political and democratic contestation, and lobbies usually try and convince policymakers to adopt one constellation of interests over another. So yes, if the U.S. really didn't care about democracy (adopting a pure W&M-style neo-realist framework that only cared about defensive security) our position regarding Israel would probably change; if the U.S. really did care about democracy our position regarding Egypt would change. We blend lots of interests together, in a variety of cocktails. And that's okay.
Second, they usually collapse many different perspectives under a single heading. Ibish claims that The Arab Lobby does this by creating blanket groupings of organizations as either "pro-Israel" or "pro-Arab", we know Mearsheimer did this with his wretched list of good and bad Jews. I agree in principle that we can characterize groups ranging from J Street to ZOA as "pro-Israel" in some sense or another, but it seems very bizarre to characterize them as being part of a cohesive "Lobby".
And this, in turn, gets at the fundamental problem with these comparisons between the power of the "Israel Lobby" and the "Arab Lobby"? When you define the Israel Lobby as broadly as do Walt and Mearsheimer, encompassing everyone from the ZOA to J Street, the only thing they have in common is that they don't want Israel to die. Is the sentiment amongst US policymakers that Israel shouldn't be destroyed stronger than their sentiment that, say Saudi Arabia shouldn't be destroyed? I guess, but (unlike with Israel) the potential destruction of Saudi Arabia isn't really on the geopolitical table. In terms of more specific policy initiatives where "the Israel Lobby" is internally divided, it becomes more difficult to sustain claims of unique power. Israel gets lots of American weaponry and aid; so does Egypt and Saudi Arabia. America has security guarantees with Israel, but it likewise has them for Arab neighbors.
Given the unstable nature of concepts like "interests", the widespread disagreement over what it would mean to "support" Israel or Arab "interests", the differing geopolitical contexts which mediate what each group has to request and how much pushback their is against their demands, the question of whose Lobby is bigger is effectively meaningless. These questions are nearly always used as a smokescreen (author protests notwithstanding) to act like somebody is subverting the true needs of the American nation, and I find it aggravating.
In general, the problem with these sorts of arguments is twofold. First, they nearly always have an insanely reductionist account of "American Interests", creating an implicit baseline of what the U.S. "would" be doing were it not for the "lobby", and then measuring the lobby's influence based on how far it can get us to deviate from our basic interests. But that's not the way interests work--we don't just have interests in the abstract; we're interested in various principles, resources, and situations, all of which are open to political and democratic contestation, and lobbies usually try and convince policymakers to adopt one constellation of interests over another. So yes, if the U.S. really didn't care about democracy (adopting a pure W&M-style neo-realist framework that only cared about defensive security) our position regarding Israel would probably change; if the U.S. really did care about democracy our position regarding Egypt would change. We blend lots of interests together, in a variety of cocktails. And that's okay.
Second, they usually collapse many different perspectives under a single heading. Ibish claims that The Arab Lobby does this by creating blanket groupings of organizations as either "pro-Israel" or "pro-Arab", we know Mearsheimer did this with his wretched list of good and bad Jews. I agree in principle that we can characterize groups ranging from J Street to ZOA as "pro-Israel" in some sense or another, but it seems very bizarre to characterize them as being part of a cohesive "Lobby".
And this, in turn, gets at the fundamental problem with these comparisons between the power of the "Israel Lobby" and the "Arab Lobby"? When you define the Israel Lobby as broadly as do Walt and Mearsheimer, encompassing everyone from the ZOA to J Street, the only thing they have in common is that they don't want Israel to die. Is the sentiment amongst US policymakers that Israel shouldn't be destroyed stronger than their sentiment that, say Saudi Arabia shouldn't be destroyed? I guess, but (unlike with Israel) the potential destruction of Saudi Arabia isn't really on the geopolitical table. In terms of more specific policy initiatives where "the Israel Lobby" is internally divided, it becomes more difficult to sustain claims of unique power. Israel gets lots of American weaponry and aid; so does Egypt and Saudi Arabia. America has security guarantees with Israel, but it likewise has them for Arab neighbors.
Given the unstable nature of concepts like "interests", the widespread disagreement over what it would mean to "support" Israel or Arab "interests", the differing geopolitical contexts which mediate what each group has to request and how much pushback their is against their demands, the question of whose Lobby is bigger is effectively meaningless. These questions are nearly always used as a smokescreen (author protests notwithstanding) to act like somebody is subverting the true needs of the American nation, and I find it aggravating.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Master of Money Roundup
Anybody on Law Review will tell you -- nobody knows economics like I do.
* * *
Glenn Beck: Not really comparable to Malcolm X. At all.
Four Israeli settlers shot dead by Palestinian terrorists. Hamas has claimed responsibility; the PA condemned the attack.
A neat piece on Justice Ginsburg's role as a feminist pioneer. This older bit from the Legal Times is also interesting.
A CNN profile on a Baha'i woman imprisoned by Iran. Apparently, charges of espionage for Israel are the preferred method Iran takes for suppressing its religious minorities (surprise, surprise).
It's a shame that the housing market is so dismal right now. If only there were masses of people desperate to come to America and find a place to live.
It's like the Maroonbook doesn't even exist (for entirely valid reasons, to be sure).
The best and worst of America.
* * *
Glenn Beck: Not really comparable to Malcolm X. At all.
Four Israeli settlers shot dead by Palestinian terrorists. Hamas has claimed responsibility; the PA condemned the attack.
A neat piece on Justice Ginsburg's role as a feminist pioneer. This older bit from the Legal Times is also interesting.
A CNN profile on a Baha'i woman imprisoned by Iran. Apparently, charges of espionage for Israel are the preferred method Iran takes for suppressing its religious minorities (surprise, surprise).
It's a shame that the housing market is so dismal right now. If only there were masses of people desperate to come to America and find a place to live.
It's like the Maroonbook doesn't even exist (for entirely valid reasons, to be sure).
The best and worst of America.
Monday, August 30, 2010
30/30/30
CNN has an interesting story about a group of two American Muslims (plus a CNN reporter and photographer) who are trying to visit 30 mosques in 30 states in 30 days. Worth a read.
You'd Think the Church Would be Deemphasizing the Centrality of its Priests' Genetalia
I think Christian denominations have every right to define their own theology and religious practices, free from my interference. Nonetheless, I find the latest Catholic defense of barring women from priesthood to be a little baffling:
Indeed, that analogy is weak. But more fundamentally, I have to think one can believe that sex is not interchangeable while still not considering a critical component of Jesus' human representation to be his penis (why not his height or -- let's have some fun, shall we? -- skin color? Would you hire George Clooney to play Magic Johnson? On second thought, don't answer that). If I were a Christian, I'd find that message to be incredibly degrading. The essential Jesus: universal love, global salvation, and a cock.
But whatever. I'm an interested spectator in this fight, no more.
Barring women from being Catholic priests is not the result of sexism 2,000 years ago, it's because women cannot fulfill a basic function of the priesthood, "standing in the place of Jesus," a leading British Catholic thinker argued Monday.
"This teaching is not at all a judgment on women's abilities or rights. It says something about the specific role of the priest in Catholic understanding - which is to represent Jesus, to stand in his place," argued Father Stephen Wang in a statement sent out by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales.
[...]
The bottom line is that Jesus chose 12 men - and no women - to be his apostles, Wang argues.
The choice was "deliberate and significant, not just for that first period of history, but for every age," Wang says.
Men and women are equal in Christianity, he continues, but "this does not mean that our sexual identity as men and women is interchangeable. Gender is not just an accident."
He compared the role of a priest to that of an actor playing King Arthur or British soccer star Wayne Rooney in a movie.
"No one would be surprised if I said I wanted a male actor to play the lead," he said, admitting the analogy was "weak."
But, he said, "it shouldn't surprise us if we expect a man to stand 'in the person of Christ' as a priest, to represent Jesus in his humanity - a humanity that is not sexually neutral."
Indeed, that analogy is weak. But more fundamentally, I have to think one can believe that sex is not interchangeable while still not considering a critical component of Jesus' human representation to be his penis (why not his height or -- let's have some fun, shall we? -- skin color? Would you hire George Clooney to play Magic Johnson? On second thought, don't answer that). If I were a Christian, I'd find that message to be incredibly degrading. The essential Jesus: universal love, global salvation, and a cock.
But whatever. I'm an interested spectator in this fight, no more.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Strange Necessity of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef
The other day, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of the influential Sephardic-religious Shas Party, set-off a firestorm after delivering a sermon in which he said God should unleash a "plague" against the Palestinians and declared that "Abu Mazen (nom de guerre for Abbas) and all these evil people should perish from this world."
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu moved quickly to disavow the comments. And yet, we are left in a strange situation. Rabbi Yosef's comments are clearly appalling -- I reject anyone who tries to distinguish them from the rabid anti-Israel and anti-Semitic discourse that flows out of the pulpits of all-too-many Palestinian preachers. And yet, Rabbi Yosef has an interesting history in this respect. He has consistently viewed the Palestinian people as Israel's enemy. Yet he also made a highly influential religious ruling that Israel should seek peace with Palestinians, even giving up painful concessions, because to do so might save lives. And indeed, this perplexing paradox was how Shas' spokesperson explained the Rabbi's comment: That the Rabbi sees the Palestinians as enemies, but wants peace with them.
And this is something we seem to see surprisingly often. In the case of "normal politics", we might say someone who called for a plague to fall down against a whole class of people ought be permanently disqualified from playing any role in any political discussion whatsoever, except as a figure of contempt. For of course, these positions are contemptible. And yet, if we want peace, it will have to be the people like Rabbi Yosef who will do it. I am proud of the Israelis who don't see the Palestinians as enemies, and the Palestinians who don't see Israelis as their enemies. But ultimately, it's the folks who would say things like this, who have horrible, hateful, detestable views, and yet still are willing (at least sometimes) to take a step for peace, that are the most valuable.
The easiest thing in the world, in an entrenched ethnic conflict, is to find ways to disqualify prominent players from the realm of civilization. Because ethnic conflict nearly always carries with it a wake of hatred, and hatred is a terrible thing. But such an instinct, I think, ultimately is incompatible with peace and reconciliation -- it is a gambit to justify the status quo, not a tactic thrusting towards the future. This is why I'm willing to look beyond -- not overlook, not apologize for, but look beyond -- some of the positions of potential peace partners, rather than searching for mutually assured discredition. You don't build bridges to folks already on your side of the river. You don't make peace with those who already agree with you. The important thing is a commitment to securing a just peace. Beyond that is beyond that -- it isn't my concern right now.
At least once upon a time, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was this sort of person -- horrible in his hatred of the Palestinians, but perhaps necessary in order to secure peace. It is a thin stand upon which to hang grace, and he may not possess it anymore. But the template is a common one -- amongst Israelis and amongst Palestinians, and it is one we must handle delicately.
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu moved quickly to disavow the comments. And yet, we are left in a strange situation. Rabbi Yosef's comments are clearly appalling -- I reject anyone who tries to distinguish them from the rabid anti-Israel and anti-Semitic discourse that flows out of the pulpits of all-too-many Palestinian preachers. And yet, Rabbi Yosef has an interesting history in this respect. He has consistently viewed the Palestinian people as Israel's enemy. Yet he also made a highly influential religious ruling that Israel should seek peace with Palestinians, even giving up painful concessions, because to do so might save lives. And indeed, this perplexing paradox was how Shas' spokesperson explained the Rabbi's comment: That the Rabbi sees the Palestinians as enemies, but wants peace with them.
And this is something we seem to see surprisingly often. In the case of "normal politics", we might say someone who called for a plague to fall down against a whole class of people ought be permanently disqualified from playing any role in any political discussion whatsoever, except as a figure of contempt. For of course, these positions are contemptible. And yet, if we want peace, it will have to be the people like Rabbi Yosef who will do it. I am proud of the Israelis who don't see the Palestinians as enemies, and the Palestinians who don't see Israelis as their enemies. But ultimately, it's the folks who would say things like this, who have horrible, hateful, detestable views, and yet still are willing (at least sometimes) to take a step for peace, that are the most valuable.
The easiest thing in the world, in an entrenched ethnic conflict, is to find ways to disqualify prominent players from the realm of civilization. Because ethnic conflict nearly always carries with it a wake of hatred, and hatred is a terrible thing. But such an instinct, I think, ultimately is incompatible with peace and reconciliation -- it is a gambit to justify the status quo, not a tactic thrusting towards the future. This is why I'm willing to look beyond -- not overlook, not apologize for, but look beyond -- some of the positions of potential peace partners, rather than searching for mutually assured discredition. You don't build bridges to folks already on your side of the river. You don't make peace with those who already agree with you. The important thing is a commitment to securing a just peace. Beyond that is beyond that -- it isn't my concern right now.
At least once upon a time, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was this sort of person -- horrible in his hatred of the Palestinians, but perhaps necessary in order to secure peace. It is a thin stand upon which to hang grace, and he may not possess it anymore. But the template is a common one -- amongst Israelis and amongst Palestinians, and it is one we must handle delicately.
No, Dr. King Would Not Be Proud
On the occasion of helping lead a right-wing rally on the Mall on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech", Sarah Palin declared her hope that "Dr. King would be so proud of us."
In his famous speech, Dr. King answered those who asked "When will you be satisfied?" He replied:
As my friend notes, some of these, like the exclusion of Blacks from hotels, the "Whites only" signs, and the flat prohibition on Blacks voting in the South, have been rectified. Others, though -- like police brutality and rampant residential segregation, have not.
Has Sarah Palin spoken out on the issue of housing segregation? Has she spoken out on the issue of police brutality? Not that I can recall. Those aren't her issues. Those aren't her passion. And I doubt she knows or cares enough about the legacy of Dr. King to even know her short-comings.
I wrote several years ago that, for much of America, the only "good" civil rights leader was, quite literally, a dead one (Dr. King). There is a reason why the same admiration the right bestows upon Dr. King hasn't been granted to any of his surviving lieutenants.
I firmly believe that, if Dr. King were alive today, Sarah Palin and her cohorts would believe he is a radical agitator, a socialist sympathizer, maybe someone who once had some important ideas, but whose time had effectively passed. It is quite fortunate, then, that he is dead, so he can be stripped of his essence and turned into a icon.
So no, I don't think Dr. King would be proud to be treated in this manner. I don't think he would be proud to have his legacy abandoned -- contorted as some abstract paean to "equality" rather than as a concrete struggle for justice. Sarah Palin can change that, by actually adopting Dr. King's agenda. But she won't. And he is not proud to be used as a tool by the likes of Sarah Palin..
In his famous speech, Dr. King answered those who asked "When will you be satisfied?" He replied:
We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
As my friend notes, some of these, like the exclusion of Blacks from hotels, the "Whites only" signs, and the flat prohibition on Blacks voting in the South, have been rectified. Others, though -- like police brutality and rampant residential segregation, have not.
Has Sarah Palin spoken out on the issue of housing segregation? Has she spoken out on the issue of police brutality? Not that I can recall. Those aren't her issues. Those aren't her passion. And I doubt she knows or cares enough about the legacy of Dr. King to even know her short-comings.
I wrote several years ago that, for much of America, the only "good" civil rights leader was, quite literally, a dead one (Dr. King). There is a reason why the same admiration the right bestows upon Dr. King hasn't been granted to any of his surviving lieutenants.
Being dead, he can't contest or contextualize the actual content of his beliefs. Being dead, he can't remind audiences of the criticisms and abuse he was subjected to during his campaigns, and how it is eerily reminiscent of the charges foisted upon contemporary Black leaders. And being dead, he is no longer a political threat, and thus is a safe person to prop up upon an altar and praise. Were he alive, we might be faced with the uncomfortable prospect that this great hero of American history might demand we actually fulfill our covenant with Black citizens, and that would require actual change and reform and sacrifice. Dead people tell no such tales.
I firmly believe that, if Dr. King were alive today, Sarah Palin and her cohorts would believe he is a radical agitator, a socialist sympathizer, maybe someone who once had some important ideas, but whose time had effectively passed. It is quite fortunate, then, that he is dead, so he can be stripped of his essence and turned into a icon.
So no, I don't think Dr. King would be proud to be treated in this manner. I don't think he would be proud to have his legacy abandoned -- contorted as some abstract paean to "equality" rather than as a concrete struggle for justice. Sarah Palin can change that, by actually adopting Dr. King's agenda. But she won't. And he is not proud to be used as a tool by the likes of Sarah Palin..
Friday, August 27, 2010
A Year of Fundamentals
I feel like this is going to be an interesting election year. On the one hand, all the fundamentals favor the GOP. The economy is down. The Presidential Party normally loses off-year elections. The Democratic Party won a ton of marginal seats in the 2006 and 2008 wave elections, and those seats would be difficult to hang onto under any circumstances. The terrain is very Republican-friendly.
Political scientists are generally rather sneering about the idea that the daily political play-by-play actually effects election results all that much. It's fundamental, macro issues (most notably the economy) which drive results.
Yet, this year, we might see a test of that hypothesis, given just how far to the right the Republican Party has decided to drift. It's not quite like the Republican Party decided to run a whole slate of Alvin Greenes, but it's close.
In state after state -- Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, and most recently Alaska -- GOP primary voters have spurned mainstream, electable candidates for folks on the furthest of the right-ward fringe. And it's turning states that should have been easy wins for the GOP into bona fide targets for the Democratic Party. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) should be dead in the water, but for the fact that 66% of Sharron Angle's own supporters regret having nominated her. Joe Miller's apparent knock-off of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has possibly put that Senate seat into play. In the Florida gubernatorial race, former prohibitive favorite Bill McCollum couldn't get past Rick Scott in the primary, and Democratic nominee Alex Sink has to be smiling given that McCollum apparently won't endorse Scott. A similar story prevails in the Florida Senate race, as Charlie Crist's independent bid after getting forced out of the GOP primary by Marco Rubio has thrown the entire race into flux (for the record, I'm a Charlie Crist fan, and have been since well before he dropped the GOP label). And so on and so forth.
So this is an interesting year. It really tests the question -- are fundamentals everything? Are there candidates so extreme that they can -- not just on a case-by-case basis, but systemwide -- check against the natural political gravity which is pulling hard against the Democrats this year?
It'll be interesting to find out. (Although I can't say I'm excited. Call me risk-averse, but I'd prefer a strong chance of mainstream Republicans winning than even a 50-50 chance of some of the nuts we're talking about getting their hands on the levers of power. Sharron Angle may have given Harry Reid a breath of life, but it also means we have a non-negligible prospect of Senator Sharron Angle. Scary.).
Political scientists are generally rather sneering about the idea that the daily political play-by-play actually effects election results all that much. It's fundamental, macro issues (most notably the economy) which drive results.
Yet, this year, we might see a test of that hypothesis, given just how far to the right the Republican Party has decided to drift. It's not quite like the Republican Party decided to run a whole slate of Alvin Greenes, but it's close.
In state after state -- Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, and most recently Alaska -- GOP primary voters have spurned mainstream, electable candidates for folks on the furthest of the right-ward fringe. And it's turning states that should have been easy wins for the GOP into bona fide targets for the Democratic Party. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) should be dead in the water, but for the fact that 66% of Sharron Angle's own supporters regret having nominated her. Joe Miller's apparent knock-off of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has possibly put that Senate seat into play. In the Florida gubernatorial race, former prohibitive favorite Bill McCollum couldn't get past Rick Scott in the primary, and Democratic nominee Alex Sink has to be smiling given that McCollum apparently won't endorse Scott. A similar story prevails in the Florida Senate race, as Charlie Crist's independent bid after getting forced out of the GOP primary by Marco Rubio has thrown the entire race into flux (for the record, I'm a Charlie Crist fan, and have been since well before he dropped the GOP label). And so on and so forth.
So this is an interesting year. It really tests the question -- are fundamentals everything? Are there candidates so extreme that they can -- not just on a case-by-case basis, but systemwide -- check against the natural political gravity which is pulling hard against the Democrats this year?
It'll be interesting to find out. (Although I can't say I'm excited. Call me risk-averse, but I'd prefer a strong chance of mainstream Republicans winning than even a 50-50 chance of some of the nuts we're talking about getting their hands on the levers of power. Sharron Angle may have given Harry Reid a breath of life, but it also means we have a non-negligible prospect of Senator Sharron Angle. Scary.).
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Filling the Gap
Kevin Drum has two good posts up: one on the obsession with raising the retirement age, and another on the rise of the "Obama is a Muslim" falsehood.
It's been a busy day for me, and a quiet day on the web.
It's been a busy day for me, and a quiet day on the web.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Ground Zero: It's Not Just Staten Island Anymore
No, the title is not a typo. In the meantime, opponents of the Park 51 community center don't know exactly where "Ground Zero" ends and Muslims should be allowed to build things. 10 blocks away? 100 blocks away? The entire island of Manhattan? Who knows! We ought to just throw up our hands like the American Family Association, and just ban Mosques nationwide!
This sudden escalation of hate and prejudice is reflected by the nearly one-third of Americans think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to run for President. As Dan Filler accurately notes, "anti-Muslim sentiments are beginning to jump the levees, spreading out across Village Americana." We are teetering on the precipice of this becoming mainstream -- part of "normal politics", rather than banished to the fringes where it belongs. It's scary. It's very, very scary.
This sudden escalation of hate and prejudice is reflected by the nearly one-third of Americans think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to run for President. As Dan Filler accurately notes, "anti-Muslim sentiments are beginning to jump the levees, spreading out across Village Americana." We are teetering on the precipice of this becoming mainstream -- part of "normal politics", rather than banished to the fringes where it belongs. It's scary. It's very, very scary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
