The Dish

A reader comments:

I read with interest the blog entry by Wade Burleson on drinking alcohol that you linked to yesterday. Living in a heavily Southern Baptist area, and being an agnostic myself, it was quite a breath of fresh air to see that there is a respected element within that denomination capable of something approaching reasoned and rational discourse on an issue that is usually discussed with reflexive inflexibility.

One thing disturbed me however. Mr. Burleson at one point wrote that accusing Jesus Christ of personal sin is ‘the epitome of liberalism.’ Perhaps I misapprehend Mr. Burleson‚Äôs meaning. Perhaps he is using what is, to me, a non-apparent definition of liberalism. However, I am not aware that accusing Jesus Christ of personal sin (or indeed accusing Jesus Christ of anything) is any part of liberalism of any stripe, let alone its epitome. In fact I know many extremely religious liberals who would quail at even the suggestion of Jesus Christ as a sinner. I consider myself to be well to the political left of the rank-and-file of the SBC ‚Äì I am almost certainly a liberal unless his definition of the term escapes me ‚Äì and I can assure Mr. Burleson that casting an aspersion of any kind on Jesus Christ is the furthest thing both from my political philosophy and my everyday thoughts. I am also relatively certain that the inerrant Bible does not address this issue in any way.

It speaks something about the level of religious discourse in this country when someone touted far and wide – with some justification – as a moderating voice in the debate can casually throw out a facially ridiculous canard like that, apparently in all honesty. We still have a long way to go.

We do indeed. It’s astonishing that liberalism now has a built-in theological meaning, i.e. "Godless." That’s the point of Coulter’s latest best-seller, as it was Hannity’s in his repulsively titled book, "Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism." The point is to portray your political opponents as part of a Manichean struggle against existential evil. And so "liberalism" is literally demonized. In this way, politics collapses into religion, and the political debate becomes the hunt to expose and punish heresy. That hunt has been around for centuries; and people love it. The left specialized in it once; and still does. But the right has now coopted an entire ancient faith in this gambit. Whatever else this impulse is, it isn’t politics; and it isn’t real faith. It is, however, what American conservatism has now largely become.

A source of mine whom I’ve learned to trust as an honest observer has some interesting things to say about what’s going on in Iraq:

I come away with a very different impression from the one I had in March and April. I am impressed with Casey, Khalilzad and the new Iraqi PM. An earnest effort is being undertaken to reconcile key Sunni groups and to eliminate the most virulent Sunni opposition. As for Zarqawi, they all recognize the essential silliness of portraying him as the embodiment of the opposition, but given the resources the US has poured into this massive psyops, their feeling is: why not get a little boost out of it themselves? Hence the claim that it’s the end of al Qaeda in Iraq, and the out-of-perspective presentation of al Qaeda’s role in the insurgency. The added benefit for them is to put the onus of the insurgency on foreign elements and not the Sunnis they are attempting to reconcile. So: misleading, but very sound politics.

The real focus is on the Sunnis, and on political concessions that will get them to buy into the government. This is being pursued with a classic carrot and stick approach – a military clean-up coupled with an offer of accommodation. It is at least clear that there is no commitment to do it in place now. The new PM is a very clever cookie; he’s already proven himself a far more adroit political leader than either of his predecessors. That’s cause for optimism, but the realist will say he has a very long way to go just to stabilize things.

Yes, but we seem to have turned a little corner, in as much as the administration is now dealing with reality, rather than fantasy, and Maliki, as I’ve noted, seems to be the first able national politician Iraq has had in decades. Rumsfeld and Cheney remain, of course, and they’re massive obstacles to progress. They don’t get how the Gitmo gulag undermines everything we’re trying to do in the Middle East; and they never will. I’m told that the Gitmo suicides are routinely placed in quote marks in the Arab press. The damage the torture policy has done for America’s allied support in Europe is also incalculable. This is a long war; and we have to keep the moral high-ground. But despite the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of brutal incompetence, Casey, Khalilzad, Rice and Maliki are grown-ups. They’re slowly trying to gain ground. Merkel and Blair are helping. At this point, the debate in Washington needs to be less about domestic politics and more about how to win on the ground. Fat chance, of course.

A reader makes a point about the Marine video I want to be persuaded by:

Why did he smile?

I understand your interpretation based on your first "hearing" and your revised correction. However, as a former intelligence analyst, I have an alternative to suggest:

A. Marine "duped" by Hadji Girl and led into an ambush
B. Ambush is "sprung"
C. Sister is murdered by ambushers
D. Marine smiles because he now understands his situation and his rules of engagement, which he believes leave him with the upper hand, since he is a "Marine".

The context is that our soldiers are restrained by rules of engagement, often just beyond the point of allowing the terrorists the first blood. They are "unrestrained" when the situation allows them to act on their training and to take action against the enemy. This is a moment of "relief" and filled with the fervor of battle.

The writer of the song probably never thought anyone would interpret his words as meaning joy that a little girl was killed.

In intelligence, we need to understand what various people were really thinking when they said or wrote something. My "practiced" analysis led me to this other interpretation.

Words are very imprecise things.

Thanks. Let’s just say I hope that interpretation is the right one. And I am deeply grateful for men and women who risk their lives to protect my right to criticize them.

"Let us resolve to deal with the world as it is but never to accept that we are powerless to make it better than it is – not perfect, but better. America will lead the cause of freedom in our world not because we think ourselves perfect. To the contrary, we cherish democracy and champion its ideals because we know we are not perfect," – secretary of state Condi Rice, to the Southern Baptist Association. Not far off my formulation in a recent column. Too bad her boss doesn’t walk the walk.

Iraq The Model’s Mohammed sees glimmers of hope in the Iraqi capital:

The raid that killed Zarqawi led us to some significant findings and revealed a lot of information but it didn’t reveal everything, so I agree with Mr. Rubaie that the end of Zarqawi marked the beginning of al-Qaeda’s end in Iraq and I do believe the government has a golden opportunity to deal with al-Qeada and its allies as the death of Zarqawi left his organization and followers in a state of shock and huge suspicion that the network’s lines have been infiltrated, and I feel that most of them are behaving clumsily out of fear from being already identified and located. Of course this will make their moves more noticeable and will eventually expose them, that’s if they’re not already exposed.
Moreover, the government is sending vague messages through the local media stating that some of the documents seized near Zarqawi included names of well known political figures and I think this kind of leaked information is choking the involved elements.

In fact some people here are suggesting a link between the arrest of the head of the city council in Kerbala and the information found in those documents building these speculations on the nature and timing of the arrest, some are expecting similar arrest to follow against even more important figures.
That’s what we’re going to find out soon but in general these announcement and leaks stand as part of a necessary psychological war that – if performed well – can further lower the morale of the terrorists and their allies.

He reports a new calm in Baghdad, but attacks are still at high levels in the country as a whole. Courage. Patience. Criticism.

I’ll be on Larry King tonight discussing gays and faith. I’ll also be on the Chris Matthews Show this weekend discussing Iraq.

Check out one of the most influential blogs in the recent Southern Baptist Convention by one Wade Burleson. Theologically, I don’t expect any changes with the new president. But there may well be a difference in tone and greater lee-way for some dissent. Of course, dissent against the kind of extremism that has taken over the SBC means only a tiny move to the center. But any pull-back from full-throated fundamentalist Christianist certainty is encouraging. Check out this posting on whether it’s permissible for Baptists to drink any alcohol at all. Burleson is the "liberal" on this. His view of the Bible is that all of it is inerrant. But you can still have an occasional beer.

There are some signs that the Cheney-Rumsfeld bubble is beginning to be pierced by people with an actual grasp on reality. Greg Djerejian notes several pieces of evidence that change might be afoot, and that Bush realizes – finally! – that he has to listen to fresh voices. One of those voices is Fred Kagan. Greg’s position is very close to mine:

Having come this far, can we really say every man who dies here on out will have died for a mistake, or is there hope that the project can still be salvaged? This is not an easy question for those of us who haven’t already made up our minds either way, and the burden is high on either side of the question given the immense human stakes involved (more American deaths if we stay, and likely even greater horrors for Iraqis if we precipitously leave). I have no easy answer, and it’s somewhat glib to suggest we simply hope for the best, and soldier on. But still, mightn’t this not be the most responsible policy decision, all told, if we are finally beginning to move our policy in more intelligent directions?

Yes, it is. We have one commander-in-chief; and Iraq must be won. The new Kerry anti-war position (I haven’t checked in the last fifteen minutes) is, once again, the wrong one. Hillary, in contrast, is right to stay engaged. If the war degenerates past hope, she will be finished, as will Bush. But the history is not written yet; and her current position may be the sanest one.

"The vast majority, and I am not exaggerating, of the scores and scores of people I know through these ["ex-gay"] organizations, are out now, accept themselves as gay, and look back on that time as very traumatic and difficult. … Many of them have walked away from God and any sort of faith tradition because they were so disappointed ‚Äî they’d been lied to over and over again by people speaking in Jesus’ name," – Peterson Toscano, an "ex-gay" survivor, to Eve Tushnet, in an excellent piece at NRO. How refreshing to read an article at National Review whose premise isn’t ignorance and suspicion of gay people.

The Christianist right has done more to detach gay people from God’s love than any other force I know. Given the hostility, hatred and condescension directed at them, it’s a miracle how strong the faith lives of so many gay people are. But then grace is always a miracle. And it has kept many of us within our faiths, even as the leaders of those faiths target, demean and scapegoat us.

An update on this story of a philosophy professor fired by the Mormon church for … thinking. Once you let philosophers think and speak freely, who knows where it will lead? A university cannot have that kind of thing going on, can it? There’s a radio interview with him available here as well.