Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘faith’ Category

Check out These New Grammy Award Nominees

Friday, December 7, 2007

Field 19 – Best Spoken Word Album

# The Audacity Of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream
Barack Obama
[Random House Audio]

# Celebrations
Maya Angelou
[Random House Audio]

# Giving: How Each Of Us Can Change The World
Bill Clinton
[Random House Audio]

# Sunday Mornings In Plains: Bringing Peace To A Changing World
Jimmy Carter
[Simon & Schuster Audio]

# Things I Overheard While Talking To Myself
Alan Alda
[Random House Audio]

That’s right. Democrat Barack Obama, Democrat Bill Clinton, Democrat Jimmy Carter, self-avowed atheist Alan Alda (from M*A*S*H fame who, famously, took the Republican-inspired character Hawkeye Pierce and turned him into a lefty), and Maya Angelou.

Read Full Post »

Battle of the Bushes

PART ONE

It was a cool, crisp day in the spring of 2004 — a rarity for Houston — and George H.W. Bush chatted with a friend in his office suite on Memorial Drive. Tall and trim, his hair graying but by no means white, the former president was a few weeks shy of his eightieth birthday — it would take place on June 12, to be exact — and he was racing toward that milestone with the vigor of a man thirty years younger. In addition to golf, tennis, horseshoes, and his beloved Houston Astros, Bush’s near-term calendar was filled with dates for fishing for Coho salmon in Newfoundland, crossing the Rockies by train, and trout fishing in the River Test in Hampshire, England. He still prowled the corridors of power from London to Beijing. He still lectured all over the world. And, as if that weren’t enough, he was planning to commemorate his eightieth with a star-studded two-day extravaganza, culminating with him skydiving from thirteen thousand feet over his presidential library in College Station, Texas. All the celebratory fervor, however, could not mask one dark cloud on the horizon. The presidency of his son, George W. Bush, was imperiled.

One way of examining the growing crisis could be found in the prism of the elder Bush’s relationship with his son, a relationship fraught with ancient conflicts, ideological differences, and their profound failure to communicate with each other. On many levels, the two men were polar opposites with completely different belief systems. An old-line Episcopalian, Bush 41 had forged an alliance with Christian evangelicals during the 1988 presidential campaign because it was vital to winning the White House. But the truth was that real evangelicals had always regarded him with suspicion — and he had returned the sentiment.

But Bush 43 was different. A genuine born-again Christian himself, he had given hundreds of evangelicals key positions in the White House, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and various federal agencies. How had it come to pass that after four generations of Bushes at Yale, the family name now meant that progress, science, and evolution were out and stopping embryonic stem cell research was in? Why was his son turning back the hands of time to the days when Creationism held sway?

But this was nothing compared to the Iraq War and the men behind it. George H.W. Bush was a genial man with few bitter enemies, but his son had managed to appoint, as secretary of defense no less, one of the very few who fit the bill — Donald Rumsfeld. Once Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney took office, the latter supposedly a loyal friend, they had brought in one neoconservative policy maker after another to the Pentagon, the vice president’s office, and the National Security Council. In some cases, these were the same men who had battled the elder Bush when he was head of the CIA in 1976. These were the same men who fought him when he decided not to take down Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. Their goal in life seemed to be to dismantle his legacy.

Which was exactly what was happening — with his son playing the starring role. A year earlier, President George W. Bush, clad in fighter-pilot regalia, strode triumphantly across the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, a “Mission Accomplished” banner at his back — the Iraq War presumably won. But the giddy triumphalism of Operation Shock and Awe had quickly faded. America had failed to form a stable Iraqi government. With Baghdad out of control, sectarian violence was on the rise. U.S. soldiers were becoming occupiers rather than liberators. Coalition forces were torturing prisoners. As for Saddam’s vast stash of weapons of mass destruction — the stated reason for the invasion — none had been found.

Bush 41 had always told his son that it was fine to take different political positions than he had held. If you have to run away from me, he said, I’ll understand. Few things upset him. But there were limits. He was especially proud of his accomplishments during the 1991 Gulf War, none more so than his decision, after defeating Saddam in Kuwait, to refrain from marching on Baghdad to overthrow the brutal Iraqi dictator. Afterward, he wrote about it with coauthor Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser, in “A World Transformed,” asserting that taking Baghdad would have incurred “incalculable human and political costs,” alienated allies, and transformed Americans from liberators into a hostile occupying power, forced to rule Iraq with no exit strategy. His own son’s folly had confirmed his wisdom, he felt.

But now his son had not only reversed his policies, he had taken things a step further. “The stakes are high …” the younger Bush told reporters on April 21. “And the Iraqi people are looking — they’re looking at America and saying, are we going to cut and run again?”

The unspoken etiquette of the Oval Office was that sitting and former presidents did not attack one another. “Cut and run” was precisely the phrase Bush 43 used to taunt his Democratic foes, but this time he had used it to take a swipe at his old man. Having returned recently from the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia, the elder Bush was eagerly looking forward to his celebrity-studded birthday bash in June. But, to his dismay, the media didn’t miss his son’s slight of him. On CNN, White House correspondent John King characterized the president’s speech as an apparent “criticism of his father’s choice at the end of the first Gulf War.” Thanks to a raft of election season books, the press was asking questions about whether there was a rift between father and son.

So on that brisk spring day, a friend of Bush 41’s dropped by the Memorial Drive offices and asked the former president how he felt about his son’s controversial remarks. The elder Bush was stoic and taciturn as usual. But it was clear that he was not merely insulted or offended — his son’s remark had struck at the very heart of his pride. “I don’t know what the hell that’s about,” George H.W. Bush said, “but I’m going to find out. Scowcroft is calling him right now.”

The battle lines between father and son had been drawn even before the Iraq War started — a discreet, sub-rosa conflict that was both deeply personal and profoundly political. In the balance hung policies that would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people, create millions of refugees, destabilize a volatile region that contained the largest energy deposits on the planet, and change the geostrategic balance of power for years to come.

Ultimately, it was the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history — one that could result in the end of American global supremacy.

The two men shared overlapping résumés — schooling at Andover and Yale, membership in Skull and Bones, and an affinity for Texas and the oil business. But that’s about where the similarities end. From the privileged confines of Greenwich, Connecticut, where he was raised, to Walker’s Point, the Bush family summer compound in Kennebunkport where his family golfed and ate lobster on the rugged Maine coast, to the posh River Oaks section of Houston after they settled in Texas, George H.W. Bush epitomized a blue-blooded, old money, Eastern establishment ethos that was abhorrent to the Bible Belt. By contrast, his son had been a fish out of water among the Andover and Yale elite, and scurried back to the West Texas town of Midland after graduating from the Harvard Business School. Nothing made him happier than clearing brush off the Texas plains.

People who knew both men tended to favor the father. “Bush senior finds it impossible to strut, and Bush junior finds it impossible not to,” said Bob Strauss, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who served as ambassador to Moscow under Bush 41 and remained a loyal friend. “That’s the big difference between the two of them.”

More profoundly, they epitomized two diametrically opposed forces. On one side was the father, George H.W. Bush, a realist and a pragmatist whose domestic and foreign policies fit comfortably within the age-old American traditions of Jeffersonian democracy. On the other was his son George W. Bush, a radical evangelical poised to enact a vision of American exceptionalism shared by the Christian Right, who saw American destiny as ordained by God, and by neoconservative ideologues, who believed that America’s “greatness” was founded on “universal principles” that applied to all men and all nations — and gave America the right to change the world.

And so an extraordinary constrained nonconversation of sorts between father and son had ensued. Real content was expressed only via surrogates. In August 2002, more than seven months before the start of the Iraq War, Brent Scowcroft, a man of modest demeanor but of great intellectual resolve, was the first to speak out. At seventy-seven, Scowcroft conducted himself with a self-effacing manner that belied his considerable achievements. Ever the loyal retainer, he was the public voice of Bush 41, which meant he had the tacit approval of the former president. “They are two old friends who talk every day,” says Bob Strauss. “Scowcroft knew it wouldn’t terribly displease his friend.”

Well aware that war was afoot, Scowcroft had tried to head it off with an August 15, 2002, Wall Street Journal op-ed piece titled “Don’t Attack Saddam” and TV interviews. As a purveyor of the realist school of foreign policy, and as a protégé of Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft believed that idealism should take a backseat to America’s strategic self-interest, and his case was simple. “There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations,” he wrote, “and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.” To attack Iraq, while ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, “could turn the whole region into a cauldron and, thus, destroy the war on terrorism.” A few days later, former secretary of state James Baker, who had carefully assembled the massive coalition for the Gulf War in 1991, joined in, warning the Bush administration that if it were to attack Saddam, it should not go it alone.

On one side, aligned with Bush 41, were pragmatic moderates who had served at the highest levels of the national security apparatus — Scowcroft, Baker, former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, and Colin Powell, with only Powell, as the sitting secretary of state, having a seat at the table in the new administration. On the other side, under the younger George Bush, were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board Committee — all far more hawkish and ideological than their rivals.

Of course, both Scowcroft and Baker would have preferred to give their advice to the young president directly rather than through the media, and as close friends to Bush senior for more than thirty years, that should not have been difficult. After all, Scowcroft’s best friend was the president’s father, his close friend Dick Cheney was vice president, and Scowcroft counted National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley among his protégés. And James Baker had an even more storied history with the Bushes.

“Am I happy at not being closer to the White House?” Scowcroft asked. “No. I would prefer to be closer. I like George Bush personally, and he is the son of a man I’m just crazy about.”

But in the wake of Scowcroft’s piece in the Journal, both men were denied access to the White House. When the elder Bush tried to intercede on Scowcroft’s behalf, he met with no success. “There have been occasions when Forty-one has engineered meetings in which Forty-three and Scowcroft are in the same place at the same time, but they were social settings that weren’t conducive to talking about substantive issues,” a Scowcroft confidant told The New Yorker.

Meanwhile, Bush senior did not dare tell his son that he shared Scowcroft’s views. According to the Bushes’ conservative biographers, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, family members could see his torment. When his sister, Nancy Ellis, asked him what he thought about his son’s plan for the war, Bush 41 replied, “But do they have an exit strategy?”

In direct talks between father and son, however, such vital policy issues were verboten. “[Bush senior is] so careful about his son’s prerogatives that I don’t think he would tell him his own views,” a former aide to the elder Bush told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. When the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward told Bush 43 that it was hard to believe he had not asked his father for advice about Iraq, the president insisted the war was never discussed. “If it wouldn’t be credible,” Bush added, “I guess I better make something up.”

Likewise, friends who saw them together found that they had absolutely nothing to say to each other on matters of vital national importance. “I was curious to see how they related to one another, and I’ll be damned,” said Bob Strauss, who shared an intimate dinner with them in the White House. “They never discussed the war, never discussed politics. We talked about social things, friendships, what was going on back in Texas. It was like a couple of old friends just gossiping about the past.”

PART TWO

Conventional wisdom has it that George W. Bush became a “born-again” Christian in the summer of 1985, after extended private talks with Reverend Billy Graham. As recounted by Bush himself in “A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House,” a ghostwritten autobiography prepared for the 2000 presidential campaign, one evening at Walker’s Point, the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, Graham, spiritual confidant to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan and a close friend of the Bush family, sat down by the fireplace and gave a talk. “I don’t remember the exact words,” Bush wrote. “It was more the power of his example. The Lord was so clearly reflected in his gentle and loving demeanor.”

The next morning, Bush and Graham went for a walk along the rugged Maine shore, past the Boony Wild Pool where Bush had skinny-dipped as a child. “I knew I was in the presence of a great man …” Bush wrote. “He was like a magnet; I felt drawn to seek something different. He didn’t lecture or admonish; he shared warmth and concern. Billy Graham didn’t make you feel guilty; he made you feel loved.”

“Over the course of that weekend, Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year,” he continued. “He led me to the path, and I began walking.”

There’s just one problem with Bush’s account of his conversion experience: it’s not true. For one thing, when Billy Graham was asked about the episode by NBC’s Brian Williams, he declined to corroborate Bush’s account. “I’ve heard others say that [I converted Bush], and people have written it, but I cannot say that,” Graham said. “I was with him and I used to teach the Bible at Kennebunkport to the Bush family when he was a younger man, but I never feel that I in any way turned his life around.”

Even if one doesn’t accept Graham’s candid response, there’s another good reason to believe that the account in Bush’s book is fiction. Mickey Herskowitz, a sportswriter for the Houston Chronicle who became close friends with the Bush family and was originally contracted to ghostwrite “A Charge to Keep,” recalled interviewing Bush about it when he was doing research for the book. “I remember asking him about the famous meeting at Kennebunkport with the Reverend Billy Graham….” Herskowitz said. “And you know what? He couldn’t remember a single word that passed between them.”

Herskowitz was so stunned by Bush’s memory lapse that he began prompting him. “It was so unlikely he wouldn’t remember anything Billy Graham said, especially because that was a defining moment in his life. So I asked, ‘Well, Governor, would he have said something like, “Have you gotten right with God?'”

According to Herskowitz, Bush was visibly taken aback and bristled at the suggestion. “No,” Bush replied. “Billy Graham isn’t going to ask you a question like that.”

Herskowitz met with Bush about twenty times for the project and submitted about ten chapters before Bush’s staff, working under director of communications Karen Hughes, took control of it. But when Herskowitz finally read “A Charge to Keep” he was stunned by its contents. “Anyone who is writing a memoir of George Bush for campaign purposes knew you had to have some glimpse of what passed between Bush and Billy Graham,” he said. But Hughes and her team had changed a key part. “It had Graham asking Bush, ‘George, are you right with God?'”

In other words, Herskowitz’s question to Bush was now coming out of Billy Graham’s mouth. “Karen Hughes picked it off the tape,” said Herskowitz.

There is yet another reason why the episode in Maine could not possibly have been the first time George Bush gave his soul to Christ. That’s because Bush had already been born again more than a year earlier, in April 1984 — thanks to an evangelical preacher named Arthur Blessitt.

Whereas Billy Graham was a distinguished public figure whose fame grew out of frequent visits to the Oval Office over several decades, Arthur Blessitt had a very different background. His evangelicalism was rooted in the Jesus movement of the sixties counterculture. To the extent he was famous it was because he had preached at concerts with the Rolling Stones, Janis Joplin, the Jefferson Airplane, and others, and had run a “Jesus coffeehouse” called His Place on Hollywood’s Sunset Strip during that turbulent decade. His flock consisted of bikers, druggies, hippies, and two Mafia hit men. The most celebrated ritual at Blessitt’s coffeehouse was the “toilet baptism,” a rite in which hippies announced they were giving up pot and LSD for Jesus, flushed the controlled substances down the toilet, and proclaimed they were “high on the Lord.”

In 1969, however, Blessitt was evicted from his coffeehouse and, in protest, chained himself to a cross in Hollywood and fasted for the next twenty-eight days. Over the next fifteen years, “The Minister of Sunset Strip,” as he was known, transformed himself into “The Man who Carried the Cross Around the World” by lugging a twelve-foot-long cross for Jesus through sixty countries all over the world, on what would become, according to the “Guinness Book of World Records,” the longest walk in human history. Blessitt delivered countless lost souls to Jesus. He went to Jerusalem. He prayed on Mount Sinai. He crossed the Iron Curtain. Finally, in 1984, he came to Midland, Texas, to preach for six nights at the Chaparral Center before thousands of Texans night after night on a “Mission of Love and Joy.” He did not know it, but he was about to bring George W. Bush to Jesus.

Thirty-seven years old when Blessitt came to Midland, Bush had yet to make much of a name for himself and still struggled with the giant shadow cast by his father. The pattern had begun early, when Bush was playing sports in school. “His father had been the captain of the baseball team and star first baseman at Yale,” said Mickey Herskowitz. “He had met Babe Ruth at home plate at the stadium at Yale to accept the manuscript of the Babe’s autobiography. Dad was a star, a scholar, the leader of the team and the captain. And George never got much beyond Little League. He wanted to be a catcher, but one of his coaches said he had an unfortunate flaw — he blinked every time the guy swung the bat.” Whatever he did, his meager achievements were dwarfed by his father’s spectacular résumé.

When he was in his twenties, his alcohol-fueled clashes with his father disturbed his parents so much that they asked friends to rein in their unruly son. In the spring of 1972, the elder Bush, then ambassador to the United Nations, called Jimmy Allison, an old friend from Midland, Texas, who was a political consultant and the owner of the Midland Reporter-Telegram, to ask if George W. could work on a Senate campaign Allison was running in Alabama for Winton “Red” Blount. “Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy’s wing,” Allison’s widow, Linda, told Salon’s Mary Jacoby. “[The Bushes] wanted someone they trusted to keep an eye on him.”

When the younger Bush got to Alabama, however, he continued drinking, according to Allison, often ambling into work at midday, boasting about how much he’d drunk the night before. One night at a party, she saw George W. urinating on a car in the parking lot. He reportedly shouted obscenities at police officers, and trashed a home he rented, leaving behind broken furniture he refused to pay for. “He was just a rich kid who had no respect for other people’s possessions,” a member of the family who rented the house told the Birmingham News.

When Bush returned to Washington for Christmas that year, he got drunk with his sixteen-year-old brother Marvin, ran over the neighbor’s garbage cans, and found himself standing unsteadily in the doorway at home, confronting his father. “I hear you’re looking for me,” he said. “You wanna go mano a mano right here?”

The elder George Bush didn’t say a word. “He just looked at him over his glasses that had slid down the end of his nose,” Barbara Bush told a friend of the family. “And he just looked until [George W.] walked away. Everything he needed to communicate was in that glance.”

When young George went off to Harvard Business School in 1974, the differences between him and his father became more clearly defined. Where the older Bush embodied a genial and patrician preppy ethos, the son embraced the iconography of Texas as if determined to eradicate the last vestiges of East Coast elitism in his veins. At Harvard, his classmates “were drinking Chivas Regal, [but] he was drinking Wild Turkey,” April Foley, who dated Bush briefly, told the Washington Post. “They were smoking Benson and Hedges and he’s dipping Copenhagen, and while they were going to the opera he was listening to [country-and-western singer] Johnny Rodriguez over and over and over and over.”

After graduation, rather than join his classmates in the glittering canyons of Wall Street, Bush struck out for Midland’s arid landscape of oil rigs and pump jacks, mesquite trees and horned lizards — where he fit right in. But it was still unclear what he was doing with his life. A 1978 attempt to run for Congress was a disaster. Various stabs at making it in the oil industry — with companies named Arbusto Energy, Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy — failed. Even after marrying Laura Welch in 1977 and becoming the father of twins four years later, Bush’s reputation was that of an aging frat boy who worshipped what he called the four B’s — beer, bourbon, and B&B. Family members still wondered what he was going to be when he grew up.

Meanwhile, oil-rich Midland was going through its own spiritual crisis. When the price of oil soared in the seventies and early eighties, Midland had become a heady boomtown minting a new generation of hard-driving Texas oil barons. Its population exploded from 70,000 in 1980 to 92,000 just three years later. There were shimmering skyscrapers, Lear jets, and Rolls-Royce dealerships.

But in the eighties, as oil plummeted from $40 a barrel to $8, Midland’s boom gave way to unemployment lines, repo signs, and bankruptcies. In 1983, the First National Bank of Midland collapsed. “Fear set in…” said Midland evangelical Mark Leaverton. “Marriages broke up. People started having pretty serious emotional problems… It was a scary time for all of us… People started asking questions.”

By the time Arthur Blessitt came to Midland, several of Bush’s friends had become born-again Christians, including two Midland oilmen named Don Poage and Jim Sale. After preaching one night, Blessitt went over to Sale’s house with Poage and a few other followers. Before Blessitt left, Poage asked if they could pray together. Blessitt anointed him with Mazola oil because the Sales had no olive oil in their kitchen. “I got down on the floor with him and a group of people,” Poage said in the 2004 documentary, “With God on Our Side: George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right.” “We prayed a very powerful prayer for me. And … I felt big white lightning bolts coming out of my shoulders and even though I was on my knees, I felt like I was about three feet off the ground.”

Baptized as an Episcopalian in Connecticut, Bush had been a regular churchgoer his entire life, but for the most part he had just been going through the motions. As Stephen Mansfield reported in “The Faith of George W. Bush,” when a Midland pastor asked his congregation what a “prophet” was, Bush replied, “That’s when revenues exceed expenditures.” Obvious quips were more important to Bush than spiritual quest. But when Bush heard about Poage’s encounter with Blessitt, he was so interested that a meeting was arranged.

So, on the afternoon of April 3, 1984, Blessitt and Sale went to the coffeeshop in the local Holiday Inn. Bush had already arrived, and got straight to the point. “I didn’t bring up the subject of Jesus,” Blessitt recalled. “He did. That’s his personality.”

“Arthur,” Bush said, “I did not feel comfortable attending the meeting, but I want to talk to you about how to know Jesus Christ and how to follow Him.”

Stunned by Bush’s directness, Blessitt silently prayed, “Oh Jesus put your words in my mouth and lead him to understand and be saved.”

Then he picked up the Bible and leaned forward. “What is your relationship with Jesus?” Blessitt asked.

“I’m not sure,” Bush replied.

“Let me ask you this question. If you died this moment do you have the assurance you would go to heaven?”

“No,” Bush said.

“Then let me explain to you how you can have that assurance and know for sure that you are saved.”

“I like that.”

Blessitt then quoted several verses on sin and salvation — from Matthew, Romans, Mark, and John. “The call of Jesus is for us to repent and believe!” he explained. “The choice is like this. Would you rather live with Jesus in your life or live without Him?”

“With Him,” Bush replied.

“Had you rather spend eternity with Jesus or without Him?”

“With Jesus,” said Bush.

Blessitt told Bush that Jesus wanted to write his name in the Book of Life, and extended his hand. “I want to pray with you now,” he said.

“I’d like that,” Bush replied. He joined hands with Sale and Blessitt. Then, Blessitt prayed a variation on the Sinner’s Prayer aloud, one phrase at a time, with Bush repeating after him:

Dear God, I believe in you and I need you in my life. Have mercy on me as a sinner. Lord Jesus as best as I know how, I want to follow you. Cleanse me from my sins and come into my life as my Savior and Lord. I believe You lived without sin, died on the cross for my sins and arose again on the third day and have now ascended unto the Father. I love you Lord, take control of my life. I believe you hear my prayer. I welcome the Holy Spirit of God to lead me in Your way. I forgive everyone and ask You to fill me with Your Holy Spirit and give me love for all people. Lead me to care for the needs of others. Make my home in Heaven and write my name in Your book in Heaven. I accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and desire to be a true believer in and follower of Jesus. Thank you God for hearing my prayer. In Jesus’ name I pray.

The three men smiled. “It was a happy and glorious time,” said Blessitt. He explained to Bush exactly what had just happened. “Jesus has come to live within your heart,” he told Bush. “Your sins are forgiven … You are saved … You have received eternal life … You are now the Child of God … The Holy Spirit abides within you … You have become a new person.”

Jim Sale was present during the entire discourse. “You can never tell what goes on in a man’s heart and soul,” he said. “But the question was asked and answered.” George W. Bush had invited Christ into his life. “Why God chose to move in our president’s heart at that time, I don’t know,” Sale said. “I’m just glad he did.”

“A good and powerful day,” Blessit wrote in his diary. “Led Vice President Bush’s son to Jesus today. George Bush Jr.! This is great! Glory to God.”

Craig Unger is the New York Times bestselling author of “House of Bush, House of Saud” and a frequent analyst on CNN, ABC Radio, Air America, “The Charlie Rose Show,” NBC’s “Today” show and other broadcast outlets. He has written for the New Yorker, Esquire and many other publications and is currently a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. He lives in New York, where he is a fellow at the Center on Law and Security at NYU’s School of Law.

Read Full Post »

Arab-American psychologist, Wafa Sultan, of Los Angeles, speaks out in Qatar on February 21, 2006.

Here’s a sample of the transcript:

“The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the middle ages, and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights on the one hand, and the violation of these rights on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.”

and

“We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned the three Buddah statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

If windows media plays it, you can slow it down by clicking the slow speed.  so you have enough time to read the caps. 

We don’t know how long the link will be active.

Read Full Post »

The Rise of Mailerism

Norman Mailer’s God, not surprisingly, is a great artist, who created mankind and all the plants and other animals, and could reincarnate them according to his whim. But he was not all-powerful. Because there was the Devil—and the Devil had technology. And lately, the Devil seems to be winning…

Photo-illustration by Sean McCabe.  

(Photo: Adam Nadel/Polaris)

In a six-decade career, Norman Mailer has written thirteen novels, nineteen works of nonfiction, two poetry collections, and one play. He’s directed four movies. He ran for mayor of New York, and in the living room of his Brooklyn Heights home, he built, in three weeks, with two friends, a vast Lego city, incorporating some 15,000 pieces, known as the city of the future, seeming to take as much pride in it as in any of his other creations. But even at 84, he has a vast ambition. And now he has created something like a religion. In a new book, On God, a dialogue with one of his literary executors, Michael Lennon, he lays out his highly personal vision of what the universe’s higher truths might look like, if we were in a position to know them. But his theology is not theoretical to him. After eight decades, it is what he believes to be true. He expects no adherents, and does not profess to be a prophet, but he has worked to forge his beliefs into a coherent catechism.

Mailer’s deity is much like Mailer. He or she is an artist—with the stipulation that God is the greatest artist—concerned most particularly with the human soul, but with much else besides. God takes great pleasure in his creations. God is constantly experimenting, and highly fallible. God is far from all-powerful, but is learning along with us. God is in constant struggle with his own fallibility, and also with evil—with the devil—and is not certain whether good will triumph in the end. We are God’s creations, but we are not at all times part of his plan—God may not even be cognizant of all that we do. And if God needs our love, the question Mailer insists has to be answered is, Why?

Like Emerson, Mailer borrows from countless other traditions, discarding their husks, or rewrites them. (Mailer allows that Jesus may very well have been the son of God, but thinks that his crucifixion and resurrection must have been a mistake and the mistake’s crude fix.) In place of heaven (his hell seems like a celestial DMV), Mailer posits a system of reincarnation retooled from the Indian religions. Karmic factors certainly play a role, but God’s creative interests, as well as his needs in his struggle with the devil, are more important. Not only bodies, but souls, too, can be eliminated for various reasons—sometimes they’re tired, sometimes simply because they’re no longer interesting to God. Evolution is God’s studio. Some of his creations work, and some need improvement—Mailer believes in a highly modified version of Intelligent Design.

Mailer’s devil is borrowed partly from Milton—very possibly a fallen angel who, Mailer posits, may find God incompetent. The devil’s principal weapon is technology, which was of course a driving force of the twentieth century—Mailer’s century. Mailer believes that the devil aspires to create a mechanized world, where souls are increasingly interchangeable. Mailer even questions the value of quotidian inventions, like plastic or the flush toilet, believing that they may have insulated people from the truth of their existence.

In another sense, On God is Mailer’s own non serviam, his disavowal of organized religion. He allows that the Ten Commandments are useful in most cases, but views any slavish following of God’s rules as an abdication of personal responsibility. His own ethic consists of divining right action amid the confusion of the world—obviously, many mistakes are made. Courage amid uncertainty is, as always, Mailer’s highest virtue.

The tragedy of the twentieth century is embedded in Mailer’s new theology. The Holocaust—enabled as it was by technology—along with the nuclear bomb were for Mailer obviously the work of the devil. They fouled up the mechanics of reincarnation, confusing God, devaluing all souls.

Mailer understands the vanity many will see in this project—God the novelist, the Universe as mirror of self. But he’s lived with critics his entire career.

As he writes in his introduction, “the conviction grew that I had a right to believe in the God I could visualize.”

Read Full Post »

WASHINGTON (CNN) — U.S. first lady Laura Bush — in a rare foray into foreign policy — called on Myanmar’s military junta to “step aside,” give up the “terror campaigns” against its people and allow for a democratic Myanmar in a commentary published in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.

art.laura.bush.afp.gi.jpg

U.S. first lady Laura Bush said the junta “should step aside to make way for a unified Burma.”

“Gen. Than Shwe and his deputies are a friendless regime,” Bush said. “They should step aside to make way for a unified Burma [Myanmar] governed by legitimate leaders.

“The rest of the armed forces should not fear this transition — there is room for a professional military in a democratic Burma,” Bush said, in keeping with the U.S. policy of still using Myanmar’s former name.

In Wednesday’s commentary, Bush called on Myanmar’s military leaders to release Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders so they can meet with and plan for a transition to democracy.

“Meanwhile, the world watches — and waits,” Bush warns.

“We know that Gen. Than Shwe and his deputies have the advantage of violent force. But Ms. Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders have moral legitimacy, the support of the Burmese people and the support of the world.

“The regime’s position grows weaker by the day. The generals’ choice is clear: The time for a free Burma is now.”

The humanitarian rights situation in Myanmar has been a cause for the first lady in the past few months as the crisis there worsened.

Myanmar state media has reported that 2,000 people were detained during the demonstrations and the crackdown against them — under an emergency law imposed on September 25 banning assembly of more than five people — and that 700 of those people have been released.

The official death toll from Myanmar’s leadership is at 10, but there are reports that hundreds were killed and thousands arrested in the wake of the demonstrations that peaked late September, which were led by Myanmar’s Buddhist monks.

On Tuesday morning, Bush received a phone call from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to update her on the efforts of his special envoy to Myanmar, Ibrahim Gambari. A representative of the secretary general said the call was a follow-up to a conversation they had weeks ago.

Gambari met last week with the military junta leadership as well as with Nobel Peace Prize winner Aun Sung Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest in Yangon.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters that Laura Bush and her husband’s administration believe that there is a “need to start preparing for transition” for Myanmar.

“We believe it is very important that progress be made and prisoners be released and conditions for Aun Sung Suu Kyi be improved [so] that she can prepare for participation for negotiations for a transition,” he said.

 E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

Read Full Post »

In God We Doubt: 

http://rmadisonj.blogspot.com  (source not redacted)

Well, after I thank Grandmere Mimi for the link, I’m going to have to look around for a copy of this, John Humphrys new book In God We Doubt. He writes about his own spiritual journey, and along the way takes a swipe or two at Richard Dawkins, which is always a good time:

Militant atheists seem to have enormous difficulty in understanding why so many people – many of them just as clever as they are – manage to live by their beliefs. Here’s what Dawkins told Laurie Taylor in New Humanist magazine: “I don’t know what it would mean to say that we live by faith in our daily life. There is, I suppose, a sense that we are sometimes too busy to reason everything out, but otherwise I don’t know what it means.”

Just on the scale of reason alone, the very idea that Dawkins “reason[s] everything out” is simply laughable. David Hume would have a field day with that remark, not to mention Kant, Kierkegaard, Socrates, Sartre, and Derrida. I can only imagine the comic novel Voltaire could make out of that innocently naive comment. But the real heart of the article is not the swipes at “militant atheism,” as Humphry calls it; it is the insight into human experience:

Trite it may be, but most of us can see the beauty as well as the horrors of the world and, sometimes, humanity at its most noble. We sense a spiritual element in that nobility and, in the miracle of unselfish love and sacrifice, something beyond our conscious understanding. You don’t need to be an eastern mystic or a devout religious believer to feel that. We should not – we must not – be browbeaten by arrogant atheists and meekly accept their “deluded” label. They are no more capable of understanding this most profound mystery than a small child making his first awe-inspiring discoveries.

If you get the feeling the wheel is being reinvented, you aren’t alone. Humprhys is not really telling us anything William James hasn’t already pointed out:

The freedom to ‘ believe what we will ‘ you apply to the case of some patent superstition; and the faith you think of is the faith defined by the schoolboy when he said, ” Faith is when you believe something that you know ain’t true.” I can only repeat that this is misapprehension. In concreto, the freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider.

But in this new age of reason, reinventing the wheel to prove how wise we are today, is all the rage. And I don’t mean to point a finger at Humphrys when I say that, but sadly, the public discussion of these issues is a miserably informed and largely ignorant one, fought out almost entirely on the misbegotten Romanctic landscape of one’s own personal experience. Dawkins can’t imagine what “faith” is, as he relates it to religion particularly, so he can’t imagine it has any reality. Dawkins also shows no knowledge of the famous essays by James, nor any glimmer of the work of Wittgenstein on language games, and yet he is credible because he is a scientist, he is militant, and he is an atheist.

Humphrys is, on this battlefield, little better. He brings only personal anecdotes to the discussion, and while he admits at one point that his sample size is too small to be of statistical significance, he still insists that:

I HAVE talked to many people about God – eminent theologians, historians, scientists, clerics – but let me finish with a woman called Mrs Buchanan.

The anecdote that follows that sentence, though, is quite good, and really quite explanatory. If his argument could be summed up by Shakespeare: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” it’s still a good argument nonetheless. The issue remains: are the militant atheists, only a handful of all humanity at any one time, even a minority of a minority in Western countries, really the only sane ones, and the rest of the world insane? Can anyone find that position credible?

Which is not to say numbers are proof, but rather to focus us on the question of proof, the standards of proof allowed. Proof is actually a term we associate with logic, with truth tables and elaborate proofs of the validity of statements. The syllogism is that basic form: Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal. It is valid not because Socrates is proven to be a man, or that men are proven to be mortal. It is valid because, given the validity of the first two statements, the conclusion about them can be drawn. But is Socrates a man? Are all men mortal? The syllogism cannot tell us. Where is the proof? Chase that down far enough, you end up with the empiricism of David Hume, and you find you can make only two kinds of statements: synthetic, and analytic. And one kind of statement is pointless, verifying information that really advances no valuable knowledge, and the other is unverifiable and therefore must be rejected. What kinds of statements would the latter be? “I love my wife” would be a fine example. Try proving that one empirically; yet try proving to me that it is a pointless statement. So even as I enjoy Humphrys’ work, I note that we still haven’t advanced the ball very much, at least not in the popular discussion. Why are these blatant mischaracterizations of religion still giving us so much trouble? Maybe it’s because neither side brings that much ammunition to the argument; and yet the stores of knowledge sit waiting for someone to examine them….

On the other hand, I appreciate Humphrys if only because he brings us Giles Fraser:

He [Fraser] is embarrassed by “stupid” Christians thinking they know more about the nature of the universe than clever atheists like Dawkins. Ask him to prove that God exists – one of the subjects of his philosophy lectures at Oxford – and he cheerfully admits that he can’t. He goes further: “The so-called proofs of God’s existence are all rubbish.”

Ask him if the resurrection of Jesus Christ really happened and he says: “Umm . . . dunno . . . can’t prove it.”

Ask him about evangelical Christians and he snorts: “Evangelicals have misunderstood the Bible. They turn it into some bloody Ikea manual.”

Ask him to sum up the state of battle between militant believers and militant atheists and he says: “Atheists have the best arguments, which makes belief such a precarious thing.”

Proofs of God’s existence: well, I’m at risk of running that flat into the ground. Fraser is right: they are all rubbish. The more interesting question to me has become: why do we care about them? I have an answer or two; but I’m still knocking them into presentable form.

The resurrection? I consider that a confessional topic. I can’t prove it; but I don’t need to. Whether or not you confess it (i.e., believe it) is irrelevant to me, if we’re going to argue about it. I’m not an apologist for it. And as for evangelicals turning the Bible into an “IKEA manual,” well that’s just lovely. I’m keeping that.

Some of the critique of religion I read on the web comes from, I think, a vague memory of Wordsworth, of how we are all “suckled on a creed outworn.” The creed outworn, actually, is the doctrines of the European enlightenment, and European Romaniticism. The critique of religion these twin forces are usually focussed on is the question of theodicy, the question of suffering, of which Humphrys has a great deal to say (he and Chris Hedges could certainly swap notes on that issue for quite a long time). America is often held up as a product of the Enlightenment, but the question of suffering for the Founding Fathers was limited, largely, to white land owners. I know, I know, two different meanings of the root “suffer,” and “suffrage” just sounds like “suffering.” A poor pun, at best. But the suffering of slaves, or of Native Americans, didn’t bother much of anybody during the Enlightenment. Indeed, the great theodicial issue of the European Enlightenment, the destruction of Lisbon by an earthquake (the event that really set Voltaire off on religion), mostly raised the question “Why do we suffer?” There’s a notable shift in that concern in the experiences of Humphrys or Hedges, it should be noted. The theodicial issue goes on, but it needs addressing on its own terms.

Here’s the real issue, and frankly, it brings us back to Harry Potter:

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the little old lady might use a different vocabulary to try to explain why they believe, but it comes to the same thing in the end. They believe because they believe. This is not about intellect or learning: it’s more basic than that. It is both more profound and more simple.

Start here: why isn’t Harry just like Voldemort? If B.F. Skinner was right, environment should be a powerful shaping force (of course, Harry isn’t a human being, he’s a fictional construct, so dragging behaviorism into this is unfair; but bear with me, I’m not lashing out at a new target with this). Both Harry and Tom Riddle are raised in loveless environments, both find Hogwarts to be their first true “home.” Maybe it’s genetics, given their quite different parents (and so, pace Skinner, it’s blood that will out). But isn’t it all about “intellect or learning”? Don’t we still prefer that answer, or the answer of the power of genetics, which we only know through intellect and learning, over the answer Dumbledore consistently gives, the answer Voldemort consistently sneers at: love?

Is love an emotion, or is love a force? War is a force that gives us meaning, Christopher Hedges says; is there, then, no place also for love? There’s an interesting question, eh? Is love just another feeling, akin to anger, remorse, fear, hatred, lust, desire? Or is it something else entirely? Empiricists would not want to push that too far, but still Humphrys is right:

Strip from Christianity the notion of proof, evidence and historical events (or nonevents) and what drives belief has little to do with the head and a great deal to do with the heart.

Fraser makes the point, one I’ve arrived at independently, and used more than once: Explain to me, in scientific or empirical terms, without resort to reductio arguments, precisely why I love my wife. Perhaps my love for my child is because she carries my genetic code (Dawkin’s “selfish gene”), but why do I continue to love my wife? Or, as Fraser puts it:

“The night before I got married my brother sat me down in an Indian restaurant and (too many beers) got me to make a list on a napkin of why this girl was the right person for me to marry. One side of the napkin had all the pros and the other side the cons.

“What was fascinating about the list was that nothing I could write down – kind, pretty, warm, sexy, etc – could ever add up to “I love her”. To marry and make the love commitment is the nearest thing to faith I know because it is something done with the same degree of risk.

“Would a person who needed everything fully evidenced and rationally demonstrated ever be in a position to say, ‘I love you’? Couldn’t a Dawkins-type figure make a case for love being a fiction, a function of human need, a function of biology and selfish genes? He may have many useful and persuasive things to say but there is something deeply mistaken about thinking love is simply reducible to the chemistry of the brain.

“Love, like faith, is to make more of a commitment than one can prove. But there is a truth to it that I won’t – indeed can’t – back away from. Of course, there is much to say about all of this and I can think of a dozen reasons why faith and love might look different. But the truth of both is, for me, found in the poetry, not in the science.”

Or, as Kierkegaard said (sad how seldom he comes up in these discussions, considering how much he contributed to them. We’re still catching up with the melancholy Dane): “Truth is subjective.” Or, as Wittgenstein put it:

Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something that actually takes place in human life. For ‘consciousness of sin’ is a real event and so are despair and salvation through faith. Those who speak of such things (Bunyan for instance) are simply describing what has happened to them whatever gloss anyone may want to put on it.

We don’t really advance the conversation until we come to grips with this as a fundamental truth. Dawkins can’t imagine a life lived by relying on faith? Fine. But does that mean such a life cannot be? Hardly.

And where I disagree with Humphrys, again, is in any description of religious faith as a security blanket, as “the little scrap of blanket that so many small children rely on.” To be fair, Humphrys doesn’t really rest his argument there so much as accept the description arguendo. But I don’t accept it that way, and there is ample evidence in what Humphrys presents to dismiss it altogther. Take the example of Mrs. Buchanan, the neighbor he knew from childhood who was always a faithful Christian and a good person despite the fact her marriage was a childless one (as Humphrys points out, there was no IVF in 1954). Humphrys, wisely, will go no further than to say of church for the Buchanans: “It provided structure and, I think, some meaning to their lives.” That in itself is no small thing. But set that up against, say, this explanation of the view of Kierkegaard:

With regard to everything that counts in human life, including especially matters of ethical and religious concern, Kierkegaard held that the crowd is always wrong. Any appeal to the opinions of others is inherently false, since it involves an effort to avoid responsibility for the content and justification of my own convictions. Genuine action must always arise from the Individual, without any prospect of support or agreement from others.

“Religion is responsibility, or it is nothing at all.” But Derrida was wise enough not to de-limit responsibility to social structures or even the duties of citizenship. Perhaps responsibility to one’s self and what one holds to be true is responsibility enough. Kierkegaard can be read, in light of that summation, as being very harsh indeed, as insisting everyone practice the Christianity he practiced. But Kierkegaard was not reacting against bourgeois Christians in the Danish pews. He was reacting against their leaders, and against the “severe rationalism” of Hegel. He was not condemning the Buchanans he might meet in the Lutheran church of a Sunday. He was actually speaking for them, for their lives, for their existence. The crowd might well say, as it did to Sarah, that the shame of childlessness was on this couple, certainly on the wife. It’s an old story, and yet God did not give Mrs. Buchanan pleasure, even late in life. Yet her convictions remained the same, or apparently so. Even Luther, long before the Dane, would consider how much he could know his own heart, and lead us all to agree with the prophet that: “The heart is devious, beyond all understanding. Who can fathom it?” So was Mrs. Buchanan a good existentialist Christian? She probably wouldn’t explain it that way, but she certainly did not derive her faith solely from others. There was something that made that faith a live option for her (James’ term) or something actually taking place in her life. In that sense Kierkegaard describes her faith, and the challenge of his writings is to the rest of us: to accept her, even if we do not have her faith, or her understanding of faith.

There is just so much more to this, and so many people have pointed that out. Browsing through my archives for a minor point or two, I came across this, quite by happenstance:

[John] Gray [professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics] argues that this fixation misses the point of religions: “The core of most religions is not doctrinal. In non-western traditions and even some strands of western monotheism, the spiritual life is not a matter of subscribing to a set of propositions. Its heart is in practice, in ritual, observance and (sometimes) mystical experience . . . When they dissect arguments for the existence of God, atheists parody the rationalistic theologies of western Christianity.”

One might also note those “rationalistic theologies” are of a certain time and place, and hardly the sum and substance of all religious practice, or even of all Christian belief. There are more things in heaven and earth indeed, Horatio.

So I’ve been through all this more than once, and yet I keep returning to it, trying to have the last word on it (well, let’s be honest). But ultimately it comes back, not to arguments and reasoning but, as Humphrys points out, to the question of love. So I ask again: is love merely an emotion, or is it akin to a force in the world? In the schema of Harry Potter love is clearly powerful, deep, and mysterious, experienced rather than known, or surely Voldemort would have discovered its powers, Dumbledore would have included it on the Hogwarts’ curriculum. It is love that saves Harry in the beginning, and love that sends him into the Forbidden Forest with his words to the Golden Snitch Dumbledore has left him: “I am going to die.” It is not faith that sends him there; he is quite sure of his end, not at all anticipating a further future. And there is an even deeper irony here, one that links the militant atheists and the militan fundamentalists the former so fear:

This is a thought taken up by Azzim Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought. “I refer to secular fundamentalism. The problem is that these people believe that they have the absolute truth. That means you have no room to talk to others so you end up having a physical fight. They want to close the door and ignore religion, but this will provoke a violent religiosity. If someone seeks to deny my existence, I will fight to assert it.”

We are, of course, encouraged to fight to assert our existence because Islamic fundamentalism leads to the “existential threat” of terrorism. And yet one response we are urged to make is to deny the validity, any validity, to religion, which provokes the very response we seek to quell. To fight to assert your identity, your existence, is, of course, very human. But it is not, ultimately, what Harry Potter does; it is not, ultimately, what Christianity (at least) teaches. And that is where the question “What is love?”, gets very interesting.

Read Full Post »

BRINGING IN THE POLITICAL SHEAVES

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »