Category: The Dish

"[I]ndifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be doubt about the most enormous events … The calamities that are constantly being reported – battles, massacres, famines, revolutions – tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. Probably the truth is undiscoverable but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or for failing to form an opinion …" – George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945.

Barbara Bush donated to the Katrina relief fund – but she ear-marked her donation so that it can only be spent to buy educational software from her own son Neil’s company. Charity begins at home, it seems. More here. This strikes me as a big deal.

A reader writes:

"In regards to the whole idea of atheists being untrustworthy, you may find this reviling experience worth relating.
My ex-wife and I recently had a nasty custody dispute. In this dispute, I recently came very close to losing serious ground in my ongoing battle to be a central part of my son’s life. The entire case for the opposing side had nothing to do with how I am as a parent; in fact, every witness for the other side could say nothing but good about my son’s psycholigical health and good about my parenting. Instead, the entire objective of the other side was to smear me in court for being an atheist, or at the very minumum, not attending church regularly.
To make a long story short, the judge took away Sunday visitation from me permanently (I have my son every other week rather than every other weekend, so the change could have been much worse), so that the child "could get the religious instruction he needs" via my ex-wife. Similar verbiage actually appears in the court order. The repulsion I felt about all of this can never be described coherently. I was verbally lambasted by a judge in the United States of America for my religious beliefs, and suffered punishment for it (or perhaps, my son did, depending on viewpoint)… This happened in Mississippi, and I know better than to fight it – given that the original lawsuit aimed to reduce my visitation to every other weekend, I could have fared much worse, and the judge rightly guessed I would not wish to appeal and risk losing more ground when the case is sent back for reconsideration. But still, I have never, never felt so violated."

I wondr if more of this goes on than we are aware of.

A former insider’s exploration of the radical theo-conservative at the heart of the attempt to remake America into a Christianist country (alas, brief, free registration required). My own post on Richard John Neuhaus’s latest anti-gay smear can be found below.

It takes a lot to get a Brit really upset. But Islamist poisoning of beer cans at soccer games will do the trick.

A reader writes:

I’m an atheist, and I really appreciated you linking to the U of Minn study on "distrusted minorities". I agreed 100% with your statement that "religious freedom must emphatically include the right to believe in nothing at all." I’m sorry that angry atheists have been filling your inbox; clearly you meant "no religion at all". The overused phrase "taken out of context" is apt in this case.
Secondly, I particularly appreciated your support for atheists because I know that you are deeply religious. Acknowledging the dignity and moral beliefs of atheism is not only quite welcome, but I think (dare I say?) the Christian thing to do. In the same way, we atheists should respect believers; too often, many of us are hostile to people of faith.
I was touched on Sept. 11 when Tony Blair described that day as an "an attack on those on every religion and those of no religion." It was completely unexpected, and made me realize that for years in the U.S. I’d been hearing the sound of the dog that didn’t bark. Nowadays in the U.S., politicians recognize Yom Kippur, Easter, Eid and Diwali; but I’ve never heard of political support for atheism in the public square.

The worst offender, oddly enough, was the first president Bush. My point is that religious freedom does not simply mean the freedom to believe in God. It also means the freedom to deny his existence, if that is what your conscience and reason tell you. In this, atheists and believers should be completely united. We’re fighting for the same freedon: to decide for ourselves what the meaning of the universe is. To quote Sandra Day O’Connor – more of a real conservative, in my mind, than Antonin Scalia:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

A government that screws with the rights of atheists is screwing with the rights of believers as well.

Well, they’ve run out of Jews. Here’s some disturbing evidence that the pathologically homophobic Islamists and Iranian-backed militias are targeting gay men for murder in Iraq.

"As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I’ve had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I’ve also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.
The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech’s detractors are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone," – Michelle Malkin, not for the first time, criticizing her fellow conservatives.

In another signing statement, president George W. Bush declares he doesn’t have to abide by the Patriot Act’s legal requirement that he inform Congress about the FBI’s use of expanded police powers. Upon what Constitution doth this our Caesar feed?

There sure were links. But what was the point of those links? A reader counters:

Saddam was very conscious of the rise of Jihadist groups and was very keen to avoid being an al Qaeda target. Al Qaeda rhetoric throughout the 90’s was very harsh and anti-Saddam, and it’s clear that they saw in his weakened regime a real opportunity to gain a foothold in the Arab world proper. Moreover, Iraq had an enormous ideological plus to them, since it had Baghdad, the historical seat of the caliphate. To this end, Saddam consciously adopted a policy of Islamification – including aspects of Koranic justice in the judicial system, e.g., putting the invocation on the flag – all outward manifestations designed to help dodge the label of "secular." Saddam was also extremely keen to penetrate al Qaeda and learn what they were up to – and that’s the basis for the relations that arose.

But what he did in this regard isn’t much different from what any smart intelligence service might have done (and notably, ours didn’t).  The prospect of Saddam trying to penetrate al Qaeda and turn it to his purposes is tantalizing, but the evidence for it isn’t there, or at least not yet. I think Pillar had pretty much the same analysis. I give certain quarters credit for trying, but I’m not convinced. You have the fundamental problems that Saddam’s Baathism is totally at odds with what al Qaeda wants, and that Saddam is the showcase example for them of what a bad secular Arab ruler does.

The issue is: given our lack of certainty as to the real reason for the connections, how did we judge the risk, especially after 9/11? We may in retrospect have judged wrongly. But it is only by having invaded Iraq that we now know for sure. In that sense, the war’s objective has indeed been achieved: we have indeed disarmed Saddam. What we have unleashed is another matter.