I was hoping to run across an image to post by now, but have failed. The previously posted quote was Jon Stewart's commentary accompanying footage during The Daily Show's headlines of President Bush speaking at a press conference during which a hanging camera.. or light??? or something came loose from the ceiling and was dangling. The president continued speaking from his notes, but couldn't help being distracted by the swinging camera. (as anyone, of course, would) Stewart's original comments accompanied only a few carefully selected clips... making it hilariously out of context, but to his credit, he then showed enough of the video to get a better feel for the situation... the president commented on the object, then moved on, and thus didn't look nearly as ridiculous as the initial footage indicated. It was at that point that Stewart said the line. I laughed out loud and thus had to run and post the quote. It's not nearly as fun anymore without a picture to accompany it.
While we're on comical criticism though, I heard some guy on the radio this morning talking about Bush and comparing him to the guy's cat. He said something along the lines of: "he gives those looks as though he actually understands me,he tilts his head, furrows his brow, wiggles an ear, but I know, of course, he can't possibly understand." Come, on, that there's funny, don't matter who ya are. Watch the guy speak sometime with that in mind. Admit it. You see it.
Along those lines, what's with the "liberal media" initially including Dems among those who routinely accepted Abramoff money? Katie Couric is being blasted as the latest, but she's not the first to just lump everyone together into this particularly huge mess. Granted, both parties have done their share of lobby money collecting, but never to this extent and never this brazenly. That was the Repubs this time around, and the Repubs alone. When Dean stood up to Couric he showed the Dems have a spine and when she himhawed about "finding the facts at a later date" she showed the true colors of the "liberal media."
The myth continues: trying to get as many sides of a story as possible in order to present it with as little objectivity as possible now = "liberal" and for some strange reason, that's become a bad thing. It's also become associated with Dems, whether they're conservative, moderate, or liberal. So what our media does these days is bend over backward to shed this label thus they let Repubs (even those with liberal ideas) off the hook without answering questions the vast majority of Americans (the mainstream, whether Dem or Repub or independent) really want to know. They don't do their homework, they say what creates scandal to keep you through the commercials, and it has, decidedly and obviously tipped toward favoring Repubs since Bush 43 first ran for the office.
And speaking of conservative Dems, Jimmy Carter is one. A conservative Christian who favored both fiscal and individual responsibility yet still feels that we all have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves... as though this were some Biblical idea... something maybe Jesus might have advocated. Can you imagine such a crazy interpretation of Christian ideas?! Or a godless liberal Democrat advocating such nonsense while at the same time believing in balancing your budget even if it means raising taxes so those more fortunate pay their share along the way rather than just benefitting freely from the labor of those at the bottom? But I digress. I got Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis for Christmas this year. In what little time I've had, I've been reading a chapter or so per night before I go to sleep, but the last few chapters have angered me so much that I've had to change that routine. If half of what Carter delineates in the book is true, I don't understand how Bush 43 hasn't been impeached. (I used the term "delineates" because, unlike me and this 'blog, Carter lays out a clearly stated and thoroughly supported premise for each claim)
Two things lead me to believe Carter's claims might be true: 1) he's always presented himself as a forthright, nonjudgmental man who rarely criticizes by party line, but rather by what's good for the nation or the world. In fact, he rarely criticizes at all, preferring instead to take action. In several places throughout the book, Carter gives praise to Reagan and Bush 41 for doing things that Carter may not have agreed with in method, but clearly saw as being motivated by the greater good. Oddly enough, in each of those cases, Carter then goes on to point out how Bush 43's efforts have all but erased what progress those predecessors gained in those situations. And 2) world events that are easily observable to anyone who chooses to see them support each of his claims. For instance, Carter suggests that Iraq has become a proving ground for terrorists providing them with real-world training scenarios against our troops all concentrated into one area of the world - a luxury they didn't have before our invasion. Granted, this is a matter of perspective, but only to a degree. The book lays out actual events that lead to this conclusion. I've also read a number of articles that predict the future and give Bush 43 credit for his long range plan in which democracy truly does take root through our efforts in Iraq. These articles laud Bush for having the courage to attempt the impossible, something few past presidents would have attempted. I agree. I've even noted some interesting links to the real world in those articles as well, but most of them have been disproven over the last few years. As the actions on the ground fail to meet the think tanks and intelligence community's predictions, so goes the accuracy of these forecasts. Carter's forecast remains in touch with the actions on the ground and consistent with what unfolds as a result.
Another reason I'm inclined to give Carter the general benefit of the doubt is that he has spoken, since his presidency, and probably before that, more through his actions than through his words. When he spoke of his faith publicly during his presidential campaigns, it wasn't because it "polled well," it was because he believed it, lived it and couldn't simply avoid explaining it when asked. At the time, he was criticized for it. Since that time, every public decision and action he has made aligns with Christian values... real Christian values like being one's brother's keeper as opposed to "advertised as Christian values" like "God helps those who help themselves," which was actually Ben Franklin, not God. Habitat for Humanity, his efforts in matters from world crisis to labor negotiations and on and on show a truly and consistenly altruistic motivation. There is neither personal nor political agenda in these efforts. He doesn't do sound bites of his beliefs, he lives them. He's never asked anyone to just believe what he says, instead, through his actions, he invites us all to do what he does. (Try that test with the current president)
He's maintained an even, reasonable course in all of his public life that leads me to believe that his private life is similar. He rarely speaks out against something he sees as wrong without jumping in and trying to right it in a constructive manner, not through public criticism.
In light of all of this, it's frustrating and even scary to read his thoughts about the current state of our nation. It's kind of like hearing a gentle father's rare, harsh reprimand... what's not said says more than what's said. The contrast in this, his first book on American politics, is sharp.
Like him or not, Carter clearly has more experience, education and intelligence than I do. While I understand he speaks from one perspective, I am inclinced to believe it's a more fairly formed one than what we're used to hearing. All this time I figured, ah well, my choice of president didn't win... that's how it goes in our country and that's usually accompanied by some good things I may not have thought about. At the very least, I accept it, believing no real damage will be done. Our system of government has always provided that kind of faith and stability. But I'm beginning to wonder now. There actually seems to be damage. It actually seems to be on just about all fronts, domestic, foreign, economic, morality, separation of powers, war, peace, you name it. Things that past administrations (Dems and Repubs) have accomplished and that have been accepted as positive progress by most Americans are being undone more and more as this administration bulldozes its way through what this country thinks and does. A once respected and feared military is now neither feared nor respected. The Geneva Convention that was once both modelled and enforced by our military has been cast aside. World affairs from poverty and disease to international law that appeared to be on the verge of major breakthroughs at the turn of the millenium now flare up like detonators rather than as working points that bring us together. Many signs do, in fact, point to the end of days, a point the fundamentalists at the root of this calamity like to point out, but what they ignore is that they're the ones bringing it on. It was supposed to be God's plan, not some crazily inspired, overly funded and politically connected American religious group's doing.
I'm beyond wondering why or how anyone can still support or defend this administration. Now I wonder how they stay out of jail... or out of the path of the lightning bolts.
11 comments:
Random responses to random thoughts.
I find it interesting that Carter now is held up as an outstanding citizen and often his Christian values are cited as an example. When president he was vilified for those same values. A columnist with our local paper, who is nationally syndicated and is a self-proclaimed liberal and devotee of H. L. Mencken, sarcastically decribed Carter in the 70s as a Baptist peanut farmer qualified only to teach Sunday School. In more recent years he has honored him as a near great president who would have achieved greatness if not for the little dustup in Iran, but more significantly has applied the concept of statesman to him for his outspokeness about various world problems and his humanitarian work. I will concede that Carter is a principled man and any greatness achieved has been a result of his humanitarian work post-presidency. My only real disagreement with your assessment of Carter is the characterization that he is a conservative Christian. From what I've read recently, he would fall into the liberal theological camp. I believe he has denied or questioned the virgin birth of Christ and His deity. If true, he is not conservative.
As an owner of large GM cars, I've been accused of personally causing global warming. Now as a Fundamentalist (defining that in the proper sense as one who opposes modernist theology which denies the inerrancy of Scripture, virgin birth of Christ, etc., not wacko kool-aid drinkers) I am responsible for the end of the world as we know it. Unfortunatley, there is some truth to your thoughts, but it is the result of those who have twisted the truth. It has been argued that Christians who are looking for the imminent return of Christ have no motivation to preserve the Earth and its resources because it doesn't matter.
I strongly suspect our next president will be liberal, regardless of party. Should be an interesting ride.
That's my point exactly, politicians used to be criticized for being uabashedly Christian, questioned at least. That was a good thing since our constitution specifically separates the two concepts. When Carter was forced - forced, he didn't offer it up as a plank - to explain his faith, he pointed out that he could separate his personal beliefs from his role as a national leader, and only then was he considered worthy of leadership material. When Kerry did the same, he was called a waffler. How has this particular president and administration not only turned that around, but turned it around without ever displaying any behavior even remotely associated with the actual beliefs? ie. Most of Carter's working life was spent in public service (Kerry's too, come to think of it). He could have worked in the private sector, maybe made more money. Landed himself a nice job with a defense contractor or started his own security firm or contract service. He certainly had the connections, but he chose public service. (did I mention this was the route Kerry took too?) Most of Bush's working life was spent putting money into his own pocket... usually while taking it out of someone else's, kind like the Enron execs. How does a guy like that get away with claiming to be "more Christian" than his opponent. Even if there was some evidence of it, how does he get away with making the claim?! It's a private issue. One that should cause any potential voter to cringe. I'll grant you that Bush didn't come out and say this, but it's what his campaign boiled down to.
Regarding your local columnist's ideas on Carter: Carter, as I'm sure you're aware, was also a Navy Officer and nuclear engineer. (Which meant, at the very least, he could pronounce "nuclear") He served longer on active duty than any president of our age. I'm pretty sure he was qualified to do more than just teach Sunday School. Most of us learn and grow over time, but I'd be hesitant to put too much stock in what the columnist says given the extreme conflict of his opinions. After all, he gets paid to do what I do here! I wouldn't listen to me too much! However, I believe it was you who suggested that something someone said 20 years ago isn't necesarily relevant today. Maybe, like Alito, the columnist finally gets it and we should just ignore his past.
Carter explains his dispute with the Southern Baptist Convention as being centered around certain aspects of his beliefs. You'll have to read it to clarify the whole virgin birth thing, but it comes down to their "fundamentalism." I put that in quotes because he too used to believe that the term meant "belief in the fundamentals." He thought he was one. After working closely with these people, and in their favor for many years, Carter eventually left when he surmised that the term now seems to mean, "rigidity, domination and exclusion." He notes that they favor strict adherance to Old Testament Scriptures, but only when it's consistent with their agenda, and like many of the 85% of us Americans who call ourselves Christian, they ignore the tenets that don't work with their modern lifestyles - usually the one's Jesus, himself, espoused and acted out. Anyway, in the book that's all in the first four chapters. Check it out for yourself. It's pretty interesting. And he offers up an extended definition/ observation of modern fundamentalism that seems to be pretty much on target for both Moslem and Christian "fundamentalists" these days. Not you though!
Speaking of modern/revisionist definitions vs. individual definitions, I wasn't accusing you personally of bringing on the apocalypse. I too drive only large vehicles (but they get good mileage for their size) for whatever that's worth, but I was thinking more along the lines of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanon and this administration or as you put it, "those who have twisted the truth" in summoning the end. This, however; is a legitimate complaint on your part. Upon a subsequent reading, I notice that I left that pretty vague. If I edit it now, our comments won't make any sense, so consider this the corrections page.
I also give in on the whole liberal vs. conservative argument as the terms apply to Carter. Compared to me and my definition of liberal, he's pretty conservative, but compared to what those terms have come to mean today, he's definitely liberal. As far as how that applies to his personal faith... that's between him and God.
I know it's mostly nostalgia and selective memory, but it sure seemed like we were a lot better off when the only connection between religion and politics was how one's PERSONAL faith PRIVATELY affected how one voted.
I gotta go, that SNL episode with Dane Cook is on again! They're singing the "nonspecific winter holiday song" right now!
I have a friend who hates blogs because they tend to be communication by sound byte. I think here and on Cosmic Wheel we tend to go into a little more depth with our arguments. That is good.
It's true Carter was forced to speak about his Christian faith because it was more of a novelty at that time. It wasn't until the mid 80s with Falwell and the Moral Majority that Christians, as a monolithic group, became politically involved. Politics was always considered dirty and not a worthy vocation. Better left to those with no scruples. But, you see more and more politicians talking about their faith and more conservative Christians are directly involved in the political process. Since we are perceived as "anti" all the fun stuff like alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, homosexuality, etc. people fear us. Fear us from the standpoint that we will outlaw all their fun activities and make everyone go to Sunday School and play nicely in the sandbox. Oh yeah, there are some who would attempt to do just that, but look what happened with Prohibition. In addition, with the rise in prominence of Islamic fundamentalism in the Near East, there is a fear that we Christian fundamentalists are just as bad. But, do you think Bush would have been elected president if he didn't get the conservative Christian vote? Unlikely. I will grant that Carter was honest in the exposure of his faith. I haven't made up my mind yet about Bush. Panderer? Maybe. But now Kerry, your boy, when he tried to use biblical talk was clearly pandering. He had no clue what he was talking about and sounded as if he had never even opened a Bible. His speechwriters weren't much better. My stack of unread books is piling up, but I suppose it would be good to get ahold of Carter's and see first hand what he has to say.
I knew you were refering to the Pat Robertson's of America as the ones bringing on the Apocalypse. I just couldn't resist a little tweaking. About a year ago or so on a widely read conservative political blog there was a thread about gas prices, or something like that. It devolved into a discussion of what we should drive if we should drive at all. After mentioning I drive a full sized car, one resident liberal troll personally attacked me blaming me for all our environmental problems. I couldn't resist throwing it in here.
Regarding religion and politics, I don't see how you can divorce the two. Our constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, a la the Church of England. But our religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs, help define who we are. Our religious beliefs govern, or should govern, our sense of morality and that would be a determining factor on how one votes on any particular answer. In my line of work, Human Resources, I sometimes have to do things I don't like or deal with lifestyles I don't approve of. For example, I do believe homosexuality is wrong, but I have defended gay employees from harassment by coworkers. Though I believe homosexuality is wrong, it is not illegal. Certain forms of harassment are illegal therefore, I must side with the harassed. And I do so willingly. I am a teetotaller, but I organize company sponsored dinners that includes alcohol. I have been instructed to lie to people. I have refused. If I were instructed to do something unethical or illegal, I will refuse. I refuse based on my sense of ethics as defined by my religious beliefs. An honest politician should approach his job the same way. BTW, do you realize that us Baptists were very instrumental in securing religious freedom in America? Some of the colonies were established as little enclaves for specific religious groups. The Baptists pushed hard for the bill of rights and the non-establishment clause. Colonial Baptists were the liberals of their day.
I can't blame you for your "tweaking" here... you raise valid points that should remain part of the national discussion. My own "tweaking" is what led to this in the first place.
What I would like to see is those Baptists to whom you refer returning to those "liberal" ideas rather than abandon them as knee jerk reactions to the latest ACLU or Democratic push. I'm sick of every issue becoming a point of heated conflict and national significance rather than intelligent debate.
I'm not suggesting anyone separate their personal religious beliefs from their personal politics, but once the personal decisions are weighed out, the public discussion should be more logical than that. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll equate "religion" with "the greater good." (I know that's pretty liberal of me!) When we bring these arguments into the public political forum, meaning, once they take on the purpose of becoming public law or policy, they should be couched in... or more precisely, defended as/ justified in logical terms and how they serve the greater good, NOT how they serve one group's interpretation of their faith.
Let us present issues so that everyone, atheist, deist, fundamentalist alike, can see the logic behind them. If a law or public policy doesn't pass that test, it shouldn't be considered. Religious basis alone shouldn't factor into public policy debate. Since we're talking about man's laws here, specific religious basis, if any, should be left at home. In other words, I don't have a problem with laws that originate in religious principles, but for them to become public law, affecting the religious and non-religious alike, they must pass the logic test, not the religious test. Faith is illogical. The design of our legislative process is logical. I understand that as soon as humans enter the fray, logic is in peril, and I don't place full faith in, nor am I idealistic enough to believe pure logic will ever exist or amount to anything. But those of us who aspire to lead should have the capacity to separate the two... to explain ideas in common, not religious terms. In many cases, the two work together nicely and that's fine too. But using religion as the basis or justification for any policy or candidate endorsement should be taken for what it is: at best, pandering or hubris, at worst, blasphemy. Carter didn't campaign on religion, he was forced to answer questions about it. W campaigned on it.
By the way, I disagree with your assessment of Kerry. (in case you were wondering) I wouldn't go so far as to call him my boy, but I think he was rightfully astonished, and caught off guard by the direct questions about his personal religious beliefs... much like Clinton was with the "boxers or briefs" or the "I didn't inhale" questions. Much like W when confronted by unscreened criticism from the troops - except in that case, the criticism, about military policy, by the military, was apropos.
The press creates much of this, but the spin doctors knowingly capitalize on it and we fall for it. I just want people to think for themselves. To see how ridiculous some the "national issues" really are. I'm convinced you do.. as do many others, but they don't often argue it that way. Then the spin doctors, based on polling results, set an agenda based on the dumbest issues while our real ones get ignored.
The problem with religious, or church, influence in society is that society today is much more diverse. First of all, there is a wider gap between various church denominations that creates conflict and distrust. Going back several generations Jews had been involved in the business world but for the most part were excluded from the political world. And Muslims had no part of the political process. Going back 100+ years the unchurched with no religious ties still often behaved very similar to the churched in public. Whether one was churched or unchurched homosexuality, abortion, public drunkenness, public profanity were considered wrong or impolite. Today, there is a wider gap between the churched and the unchurched as far as public mores are concerned. This gap has created more tension. So, our problem now is to create a balance that doesn't appear to be discriminatory.
YES! And that balance, in order to be accepted by the "unchurched" or even the more liberal churched, must be justified in non-religious terms. The debate over man's laws must be conducted in man's terms in order to be accepted by men. If the laws are fair, they'll be accepted and followed. If they are fair, they should stand on their own, without religious justification. You and I (and many others) know that these laws may stem from, coincidentally or not, religious values, but we also realize that many non-religious people share similar values based on their own, religion-free sense of right and wrong. That sense should drive man's laws, not one's religious beliefs. Whether one derives that sense from religion or not is irrelevant to public policy.
Sense of right and wrong, or better yet, a definition of right and wrong, that is the crux of the issue. The Islamic terrorist sees nothing wrong with slashing the throat of an infidel if done in the name of Allah in fact they may see it as doing Allah's will. The secularist, or religiously liberal sees nothing wrong with abortion and fights to maintain it. The far right religious conservative feels called of God to destroy the institution of abortion and believes it is God's will for him to shoot abortionists or bomb abortion facilities. These people all have strong convinctions that their truth is the only truth and they are doing right. Society is becoming extremely complex. We are juggling double edged swords and the latest one added to the mix is trying to agree on what fair means.
Note that each of your examples "justifies" extreme means or ends by association with religion or in comparison to a religious view. Let's define "fair" without that. Doing so would make things a lot less complex. (not that complexity is any excuse to avoid trying)
Yes, I chose extreme examples on purpose because unfortunately, we have to deal with those. The threat of Islamic terrorism is real. Abortion is real. Killing doctors who perform abortions is real. I think it would be relatively easy to define fair in a way you and I could accept, but the problem is how do we include others less reasonable. Recently, we had a large trial ending in the conviction of four war protesters. Sentencing was completed last week. All four are receiving jail sentences of 4 to 6 months because they crossed the line by entering an Army recruiting office and splashing their own blood around the office including on the recruiting officer who tried to stop them. Our community has been divided over the issue, some saying war protest is just and their extreme actions were justified because of this war is so unjust. Others admit protest is fine as long as it doesn't cross a line and the splattering of their blood was way beyond that line. I agree with the latter. So, now we conservatives can easily equate liberal war protesters with this radical group; paint you all with the same brush. And, as I have stated before admitting I am a Christian fundamentalist will cause me to be lumped in with the far right radicals and even with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists - it happens. Both of these are real issues and unfair and inaccurate. These are the issues I seeing causing serious divisions in our society. Personally, I can live with you having liberal theological beliefs, you have every right to hold to those positions. You cause me no harm. I cannot tolerate war protesters destroying government property, splashing their blood around and potentially exposing a serviceman to a life threatening disease. And on the other side of the coin, I cannot tolerate those on the radical right who would shoot a doctor or bomb an abortion clinic.
Sorry that is such a long paragraph, maybe some of WCharles is rubbing off on me.
Luth, here is a link to an interesting blog. Scroll down to thread on Morality and Religion. Understand this blog is operated by a Lutheran and the participants have a wide range of religious experience, so you get good cross section of beliefs and experiences, but most tend to be quite conservative theologically and politically.
http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/
I think you will find some things to agree with.
Definitely a fun read, but frequented by too many so-called Christians who don't speak Christ's word and only quote man's interpretation of Christ's word when it suits their purpose. Nothing sets me off quicker than ignorant displays of that by the self-appointed righteous. I don't want to jump into that uninvited. But it does give me the idea for a new post...
Post a Comment