Confronting Islam

The pope was right to do so, even though he could have been more politic and accurate. In that vein, good for the former Archbishop of Canterbury:

Lord Carey said that Muslims must address "with great urgency" their religion’s association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the "clash of civilisations" endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.

"We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times," he said. "There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths."

Arguing that [Sam] Huntington’s thesis has some ‘validity’, Lord Carey quoted him as saying: "Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power." Lord Carey went on to argue that a "deep-seated Westophobia" has developed in recent years in the Muslim world.

Ressentiment under Allah: a toxic brew indeed.

The Left’s Thought Police

A reader writes:

First off, good on Nyhan for sticking to his guns. Second, I recommend that Sam Rosenfeld take a good, long look in the mirror. His acquiescence to the true believers besieging his e-mail server is more odious than those true believers themselves, and they’re stinkier than a horde of Visigoths. Nyhan sums it up perfectly:

…while TAP can choose to (almost) exclusively criticize conservatives, isn’t open and honest debate a value that liberals prize? Is it appropriate to largely ignore one side while jumping on virtually any misstatement from the other?

Self-criticism and honest inquiry are hallmarks of the liberal mindset. Bloggers like Atrios apply filters to their facts and judge dissent and criticism as the height of disloyalty, a crime punishable by ridicule and financial ruin.  Schopenhauer’s point about taking care not to become the beast you fight is eerily apt. In their fanatical drive for unity and victory, they risk becoming what they hate.

Eric Hoffer once wrote, "The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without." This could not be more true of anyone, Right or Left – we all have the propensity. Once we stop accepting criticism as an opportunity to reflect and evaluate, we become less. The only way we can avoid doubt within and retain our humanity and honesty is to weather the slings and arrows that come our way, using reason as our shield. Going on the offensive, by calling someone ‘wanker of the day’ for example, isn’t the act of someone confident in their opinions. It‚Äôs the act of a coward afraid of his own shadow of doubt.

YouTube Removed

That 30-second clip from "The 4400" depicting "waterboarding" has been removed from YouTube. Not sure why. Probably because it’s a clip from a TV show and the network decided it wasn’t "fair use." Sorry. Hiding the truth about what the government is doing is integral to this administration’s successful use of illegal torture. If anyone finds any other video dramatizations of the Bush-authorized techniques – "cold cells" and "waterboarding" particularly – please email them. As we saw at Abu Ghraib, hideous violence can be made to sound inane through euphemism. Photos bring the truth home. That’s why the images are kept from you. And in a free society, the media exists to propagate them. And, before Malkinians blog-swarm me, I have also shown and linked to the evil of Islamist violence and torture as well.

The Roller-Coaster

First, it seemed the House Judiciary Committee voted down the Bush torture bill. Now I hear that Jim Sensenbrenner cracked the whip and eked out a tiny majority. Here’s Reuters:

In an abrupt reversal, a U.S. House of Representatives committee narrowly voted on Wednesday to endorse President George W. Bush’s plan for tough interrogations and trials of foreign terrorism suspects after Republicans rounded up enough members.

About an hour earlier, the House Judiciary Committee rejected Bush’s plan, with three Republicans joining committee Democrats. Embarrassed Republicans then summoned absent members, called for another vote, and approved it 20-19.

It’s called winning ugly. This internecine struggle cannot be quite what Rove had in mind. Stay tuned.

Pulped Non-Fiction

As I write, the entire print-run of my forthcoming book, The Conservative Soul, is being pulped or trashed. A horrible printing error spliced half of the fifth chapter into the middle of the sixth, rendering the entire second half of the book incomprehensible. Many of the books were ok, but so many – thousands of them – weren’t that we had no option but to start over, or risk the integrity of the text. All copies that were shipped are being recalled from booksellers. This is every writer’s nightmare – especially as I discovered the error myself while re-reading the book late one night last week and couldn’t believe my eyes. But it has a relatively happy ending. With the speed of today’s print technology, the publishing date has been moved back only a week – to October 10. The review galleys were fine, mercifully. If you pre-ordered by Amazon, fear not. Nothing has shipped yet and the entire batch will be replaced. But if you got an advance, published, finished book, you’ll soon be getting a replacement and an apology. My apologies on behalf of my publisher and printer. But we caught it in time; and the final product will have the pages in the right order.

Goldwater, Benedict, Conscience

Benedictmauriziobrambattiap

A reader writes:

In my childhood memory, the first two politicians I ever recognized were Nixon and Goldwater, and Nixon spooked me enough that I was one of only two in our 35-student first grade class who chose McGovern in our election day show-of-hands straw poll of 1972 – and I always thought that the girl who also raised her hand only did so because she liked me. I remember feeling as though Goldwater looked like the strictest principal I could envision, and now I come to find that he had the strictest principles one might envision.

I find it enlightening that your use of the idea of "conscience" in speaking of the senator dovetailed so closely with my reading of Christopher Hitchens’ illuminating language in his Ratzinger article that "the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintains a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith." I feel as though a great deal of what ails this administration is that our leader, who undoubtedly considers himself a vessel of Christ on Earth, maintains that same, steady attack. And though we might like to find in our current political landscape a Goldwater-styled defender of principles, even McCain has caved to the broader faith-based puppeteers whose grip on our democracy MUST be loosened if we are to advance our shared Constitutional freedoms.

It is surprising to me that I never before joined the two words individual/conscience in my assessment of my own, non-faith/religion-based beliefs. I hold no book to be the word of God, and I presume no church to be the church of God, but I presume every individual to have developed an individual conscience that defines them more truly than any book that they might carry, or any religion that they may promote. Hypocrisy is the truest barometer of an eroded conscience, and our world strains against the raging current of it that washes over all of the earth’s shores.

I broadly agree. I would also note an important detail in the pope’s address. He puts the word "conscience" in quote-marks:

The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. [My italics.]

This is no typo. Ratzinger has long disowned the notion of an individual conscience as we have long understood it in the West, as I explain at greater length in my forthcoming book. His view is that if your conscience goes against anything that the Pope says at any time, then it isn’t really your conscience. It’s a false conscience in a mirror of the Communist idea of "false consciousness". Your real conscience, Benedict insists, is always in agreement with the Pope. It’s just that you are too befuddled by sin to recognize it. This Pope speaks eloquently of using reason in faith. And yet, no post-war Pope has waged a more ferocious war on the use of reason in the Catholic church than Ratzinger/Benedict. Maybe he should take the mote out of his own eye before he excoriates the beam in others’.

(Photo: Maurizio Brambatti/AP.)

Anti-Christianismism

A reader writes:

One of the standard passages in the "Prayers of the People" in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer asks for God’s blessings and guidance for "the President of the United States, the Governor of this State, and all others in positions of authority."  I see no particular difference between this and the sign in your illustration.  But this perfectly unobjectionable prayer, which used to be included in our ritual every Sunday without regard to who held any of the offices referred to, is no longer being used at my Episcopal church.  Maybe this apparent selectivity in deciding which President is deserving of God’s guidance and blessing is another species of "Christianism"?

Agreed. The overt partisan politicization of faith is obnoxious whatever side it’s coming from, left or right. It’s one thing to bring moral witness to the public square, rooted in faith. It’s another thing to align – or detach – God with one party or one candidate.

[Update: several readers email to say that their churches and synagogues routinely offer prayers for those in power, whatever their party. That’s certainly my experience. I would also think that this president especially needs our prayers. These are terribly trying times; and given his very limited abilities, he needs all the prayers we can send his way.]