Month: April 2011

Al Jazeera is at ground zero of the Syrian crackdown:

"Deraa has been under siege since Monday morning. Residents from the surrounding villages were trying to break the siege as they tried to get supplies. They met with hostile security forces who fired at them and we know that at least 15 people were killed. One resident told me that that people do not have supplies, no communication, the situation is dire and they wonder what the security forces want from the town," [Al Jazeera's Rula Amin] said.

MSNBC is now putting that death toll at 42. Updates at AJE's live-blog. Enduring America is updating more frequently:

1801 GMT: … The AFP is also noting that four soldiers are among the dead in Daraa. The real development there, however, is the reports that these soldiers were killed by other soldiers when they refused to fire on protesters. If true, it is the first time (that I am aware of) that we have seen reliable reports of cracks in the unity of the security forces. …

1729 GMT: Syrian human rights activist Mohammad Al abdallah (Tweeting from Washington, D.C.) has this report. We will watch this development, but have no way to verify this information yet: "Eyewitness: Lt. Alaa Alcoaiti has been killed by a security officer in#Khalidiya #Homs after he refused to fire on the protesters #Syria"

Peter Harling takes stock of the increasingly desperate situation in Syria:

The primary benefit of observing events from [Damascus] is to measure just how unreliable all sources of information have become. Local media tell a tale of accusations and denials in which, incredibly, security services are the sole victims, persecuted by armed gangs. Where the regime initially acknowledged civilian martyrs and sought to differentiate between legitimate grievances and what it characterized as sedition, such efforts have come to an end.

The above video was shot in Deraa today. James Miller is compiling fresh clips.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence respond to the Dish's criticism:

Rail against the supposed grief we cause believers and wrap yourself in self-righteous anger if it makes you feel good- it’s your shtick and in these tough times I know you need a paycheck. But for the love of every young LGBTQI kid out there trying to find a way through this cruel world, please stop carping on about how events like Hunky Jesus “empower every religious right prejudice about gays.” Bigotry like that is irrational and self- generating. They hate us because we’re GAY, Andrew, period.

Not all of them "hate us". A majority of Americans actually support our right to marry – the kind of progress this display of raw, unfunny bigotry threatens to undo. And really, it's now LGBTQI? I guess they needed a vowel. A final round of emails on the matter:

Part of your distaste for one act was "depicting the Passion of Jesus as a sado-masochistic act (which is entirely voluntary rather than the brutal torture Jesus suffered)." I have to say, Andrew, that I always thought a large part of the theological point of the Passion was that it was freely chosen? 

Not enjoyed, certainly, but entered into as a willing sacrifice.  Now, surely these ribald homos are not the first ones to make the connection between Christian martyrdom and S&M.  From self-flagellating monks to Mel Gibson, there has been a very prominent strain of Christianity with an unwholesome, even prurient fixation on Jesus' physical suffering, and a rather morbid desire to share in it in hopes of expiating a sinful nature.  It's such a widespread phenomenon that it's become cliche.  The joke might not have been funny, but it's also not new or unique, and digs into the ways that religion can be perverted by its own practitioners.

For that matter, why is a "Hunky Jesus" contest not a valid critique of Western Christianity's obsession with portraying Christ as a fair-skinned, light-eyed handsome man, or a spiritual husband and lover?  You get a lot of this from the Evangelical side of things, especially.

One of your previous correspondents was correct on one count – this is no more offensive to most Christians than South Park is.  Though Matt & Trey are superior in terms of wit and satirical thrust, when you boil it right down, blasphemy is blasphemy.  Whether it's "making fun" or "making a point," they both profane what billions hold sacred.  Any differentiations are mere matters of taste.

I have to say, also, that I think it's ironic that you'd make such a big deal out of this tacky spectacle when I am currently sitting here in Tennessee contemplating the recent passage of two (1, 2) anti-gay laws (in addition to the previous Constitutional ban on gay marriage), which seem to have been passed just to make damned sure we Southern queers know just how unwanted we are. 

Mutual understanding, tolerance and compassion are always called for, but I can well understand how a lot of gay people might be feeling particularly hostile towards fundamental Christianity right now, and perhaps feeling like laughing at a symbol of oppression is maybe better than doing something more hateful or direct.

The symbol of oppression is not Jesus. He obviously opposed all oppression and to mock him rather than his misguided followers is to miss the entire point, and to alienate large numbers of Christians who are gay-friendly. Conflating all religious people with hate is something some of us have struggled against for years – because it is not true and it is entirely counter-productive. And really, you think this kind of spectacle will help us gain ground in Tennessee? It surely confirms every anti-gay bigot in their prejudices. Another writes:

I mentioned to my wife last week how surprised I was to see so many sarcastic tweets and status updates referencing Easter, something I hadn't noticed before.  I agree; the tendency on the left (and this is pretty much where I sit politically, by the way) to associate a loud minority of American Christians with the entire membership of the world's largest faith system is pretty stunning.

I also agree with your reader re: Bill Maher (although not about you appearing on his show): He was never interesting to me, a comic who seems to equate petulance with being clever, but his attacks on religion pushed me all the way toward boycotting him.  I've heard him praise MLK, a man who literally — literally — was defined by his Christianity.  Take the minister out of King and he doesn't exist for us and never would.  And yet MLK, according to Maher, must have been mentally ill.

I belong to a small mainstream Protestant church in a blue-collar neighborhood.  We have two gay men on Session (i.e., the governing board of our church).  One of our deacons is a lesbian.  This is not unusual, either, in the various churches I've attended; the statistics alone (percentage of population calling themselves Christians, percentage of Americans who favor gay marriage, or voted for Obama, etc.) should give these people the pause they'd surely consider when it comes to Muslims who don't want to bomb us, for example.

I'm not sure how my Christian community would react to Hunky Jesus.  I was just saddened by it, therapeutic or not.

A glossary. Dish faves:

Authoritah: Authority that must be respected.

Bono: A man who, no matter how many good things he does, comes across as a huge piece of crap. This is because he actually is crap.

Little Man in the Boat: Clitoris.

Tits!: A positive exclamation for great, groovy, cool, rad, etc.

Weak: A negative exclamation for bogus, unfortunate, too bad etc. Opposite of "Tits!"

Now we've really made ourselves toxic to a few puritanical servers.

This should piss off some liberal readers. Robin Hanson calls the above video an example of "natural hypocrisy":

Most people believe that redistributing money within a nation is good, but that redistributing GPA within a school is bad, and if asked why these should be treated differently, have little to say. My point isn’t to say one can’t come up with reasons to treat these differently.  One could, for example, argue that we prefer differing school signals to help employers sort people into jobs, to achieve higher productivity so that the pie is bigger when we redistribute money. My point is that most people can’t think of such reasons, making it pretty unlikely that such reasons are the cause of their opinions.

A reader writes:

You wrote, "I know it doesn't make total sense, but religious practices, even when inflicting pain on the helpless, do seem to me to fall within constitutional protection – and rightly so."

I would correct you; it doesn't make any sense.  The constitutional protection of religion is strong, but it should not extend to harming the innocent.  Parents would not be given the right to carve a religious symbol into the flesh of their child. They would not be given the right to give it a tattoo either.  They would not be given the right to deny their diabetic child medical care because of their religious beliefs. Why should a circumcision law have such a religious exception? Children are not the property of their parents, nor of their parents' church or creed.

Look, I understand that this law has unfortunate implications, some of them racial. That's why I cannot fully support the law, despite how much I despise circumcision.  Writing an exception in the law so that it doesn't apply to you based on your religion? That is unacceptable.  All people in this country are equal under the law, no matter what their religion is. If something is illegal for an Atheist, it should be illegal for a Jewish person, or Muslim, or Christian. Period.

Another writes:

I'm curious about something (and also wondered about it when I read the original article before seeing your post): If there were to be an exception for religious practices, why then wouldn't there be an exception for religious practices for female genital circumcision as well?  To me, there's no moral difference – they're both barbaric practices that should be done away with.

Another:

Why is it that your normally coherent position on never inflicting unnecessary pain – your no-go stance on torture, which I agree with 100% – goes out the window as soon as it means some people's rights to placate whatever god(s) they believe in would be infringed upon?  This case yet again shows how intelligent people make themselves look wishy-washy and sometimes outright silly when they have to warp their logic and sense of right and wrong to accommodate or respect the inanities of religion.

Another:

Just to nitpick on your legal analysis: as a constitutional matter there is actually no need for a religious exception.  Laws of general applicability regulating conduct are given rational basis review, regardless of the fact that the conduct regulated might be an important religious practice.  For a law to pass muster under rational basis review, all the law's proponent must do is prove that there exists some rational basis for the governing body to adopt the law – the party objecting to the law has the burden of proof and almost always loses.  Therefore a state may outlaw bigamy despite the fact that it is an important religious practice, or outlaw usage of peyote and other psychedelics used in religious rituals, etc.  What a state cannot due is regulate solely religious conduct – for instance a law making ritual sacrifice of animals illegal in a Hialeah, FL  was struck down because it was not generally applicable – it targeted religious activity.  The town could potentially have outlawed all killing of animals, but not "sacrifice". 

Therefore, a blanket ban on involuntary circumcision could likely pass constitutional muster.

Points all taken. I believe in religious freedom rather passionately – and support its being treated more deferently than other forms of freedom, because the right to make one's own judgment about the ultimate things and to live one's life accordingly is a baseline human freedom.

The second point – distinguishing between female and male genital mutilation – is answered quite simply. FGM is far more hideous than MGM. It's rooted in misogyny, and its physical effects are much more severe than MGM. There's a difference between reducing sexual sensitivity and removing it altogether. I think the right balance here is to allow religious exceptions to this rule. It also seems to me a legitimate pragmatic concern that if you banned it entirely, religious groups, especially Muslims, will do it anyway, but in illicit ways that could make accidents, health complications and more pain than necessary far more likely.

Kathmandu, Nepal, 12 pm.

The tiles!

Milbank on the White House Correspondents' Dinner hoopla:

With the proliferation of A-list parties and the infusion of corporate and lobbyist cash, Washington journalists give Americans the impression we have shed our professional detachment and are aspiring to be like the celebrities and power players we cover.

Impression?

Ezra Klein claimed last week that it’s the Democrats. Douthat isn’t convinced:

To the extent that there are serious liberal plans for bringing the budget toward balance — whether they involve centralized rationing, middle class tax increases or huge tax hikes on the rich — neither the White House nor the Democratic Party as a whole seems to feel a sense of urgency in rallying behind them. In part, no doubt, that’s because much of the left doesn’t think of the deficit as a particularly urgent issue. They have every right to take that view. But it explains why the case that the Democrats are the real party of fiscal seriousness looks thin indeed.

But the GOP after the past ten years? It has a very long way to go before it retains any credibility.

Donald Trump will be sitting at the same table tomorrow night as John Boehner. Good times.

H. Allen Orr's critique of Sam Harris's most recent book is worth a read. Money quote:

Harris’s view that morality concerns the maximization of well-being of conscious creatures doesn’t follow from science. What experiment or body of scientific theory yielded such a conclusion? Clearly, none. Harris’s view of the good is undeniably appealing but it has nothing whatever to do with science. It is, as he later concedes, a philosophical position. (Near the close of The Moral Landscape, Harris argues that we can’t always draw a sharp line between science and philosophy. But it’s unclear how this is supposed to help his case. If there’s no clear line between science and philosophy, why are we supposed to get so excited about a science of morality? After all, no one ever said there couldn’t be a philosophy of morality.)

Dylan Matthews targets another piece of faulty reasoning. Sam has written a response to me on torture. I'll respond when I catch my breath, but here's the piece in the meantime.