The Dish

"We must speak and yet we must maintain our silence, we must maintain distance amidst the proximity of God, and we must worship while being careful not to make God into the object of our worship; for God is the subject before whom we worship. This site of uncertainty and unknowing is often a frightening place to dwell, but while the comfort provided by religion is placed into a certain distress by the idea of doubt, this distress, too, is not without a certain comfort. For while we do not grasp God, faith is born amidst the feeling that God grasps us," – Peter Rollins, whose book, "How (Not) To Speak Of God," has been an exhilarating read this past week.

The transcript is here. I found it moving in parts, and certainly a helpful counter to the notion that Wright is some insane anti-American demagogue. He has some views I don’t hold, but he seems a genuine Christian witness to me. Money quote:

"Those sound bites, those snippets were taken for nefarious purposes. That God can take that and do something very positive for it- with it. That, in Philadelphia, in response to the sound bytes, in response to the snippets, in Philadelphia Senator Obama made a very powerful speech in terms of our need as a nation to address the whole issue of race. That’s something good that’s already starting."

To be able to see how some of the more toxic events in this campaign can be turned into opportunities for dialogue and mutual understanding is an authentically Christian achievement. And not easy. Bitter is easy.

A photographic tour through some restaurants in China. Some classic captions. My favorite:

"Henry’s whip" is the house speciality at Beijing’s Guolizhuang restaurant. It’s a sheep’s penis on a stick covered in mayonnaise, sweet cheese, served on a bed of lettuce.

Mmmm.

The cover-story in today’s NYT magazine is a vivid and fascinating encounter with the first generation of gay men who actually have the chance to marry in the same way and at the same time as their heterosexual peers. The silly photo-illustrations underline a very simple point: there is something very natural about wanting to turn one’s sexual and emotional attraction to another human being into a lasting bond. Every connection is unique, and defies easy generalization, but the themes are universal: securing love, seeking stable companionship, integrating into one’s own family, building a home and a future with another person. The NYT’s wedding section has an example of exactly such a moment:

“It was pretty simple,” Mr. Self said. “We were both at that point in life when we had dated a lot of people and were looking for a partner to be able to build a life with and not just date casually.” The couple discussed their future together.

“Did we want to have a family? Did we want to stay in New York? What did we want to do with our careers? How did we feel about monogamy?” Mr. Self recalled of their questions to each other. “And it became very clear to us that we were on the same page.” After eight months they moved in together in Brooklyn Heights…

Mr. Fraley said they wanted to formalize their union before considering having children. “We have very traditional New York City family values,” Mr. Fraley said.

It’s important to remember when you read of such self-evidently constructive relationships that they are banned in 40 states, and that the president of the United States believes that they are destructive of family life. In fact, one political party is now dedicated to demonizing these people and denying them basic legal protections and validity. Targeting these couples as examples of moral degeneracy is given legitimacy by the Pope himself. And preventing them from having civil equality is now a core plank of the Republican party. Ask yourself: are these couples in any way hurting anyone? How can they ever be understood as threat to anyone else’s relationship or marriage or family? It makes no sense at all.

All one can say is that at some point in the future, sane people of all political persuasions will see this current Republican and Catholic and Fundamentalist orthodoxy as the mean-spirited madness it is. Meanwhile, those of us building these families will carry on. It’s encouraging to see so many unintimidated by the campaign of hatred and obloquy directed toward them. Rock on, guys. And don’t let the haters get you down.

"Barack Obama has boycotted Fox News for the past two years. Obama’s boycott ended today, as he was interviewed by Chris Wallace. The result suggests that Obama had nothing to fear from the ostensibly hostile crowd at Fox. Obama showed, once again, that he is a rare political talent. In contrast with his uncharacteristically poor performance in the Pennsylvania debate, Obama handled questions about Wright, Ayers, flag lapel pins–all the hot button topics he would rather avoid–deftly. Rather than showing resentment at being asked about such things, Obama acknowledged that voters want to know who he is, and that these topics are therefore fair game. He skillfully deflected questions on these as well as more substantive issues…

In my opinion, given that Obama has essentially zero record of working with Republicans, that was extremely well done. He makes you want to believe him.

I’ve said that I think John McCain is the early favorite to beat either Obama or Hillary Clinton, but Obama’s performance today was a reminder of how formidable he will be in the fall, assuming that he gets the nomination–and that’s apart from the fact that he is the greatest money-machine in the history of American politics," – John Hinderaker, Powerline. The transcript of Obama’s Fox News Sunday interview can be read here.

One of the most striking things I discovered about Obama last year was how many conservatives and Republicans who have encountered or met or engaged him over the years think highly of him. When the partisan right tries to swift-boat him with any number of polarizing clips, smears and half-truths, his best bet is to counter them directly, in the lion’s den. He should do more of these interviews. He should go on O’Reilly and Hannity. His ability to talk to and engage those on the other side of the aisle is real. It’s an asset he shouldn’t hide.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had an election in which McCain was able and willing to talk to liberals and Democrats and Obama were often engaging conservatives and Republicans? The pressure is against such interactions, but the country would be much better off for them.

Sean McManus has a more considered article on atheism and atheist churches:

…some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. The most successful movements in history, after all—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.—all have creeds, cathedrals, schools, hierarchies, rituals, money, clerics, and some version of a heavenly afterlife. Churches fill needs, goes the argument—they inculcate ethics, give meaning, build communities. “Science and reason are important,” says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. “But science and reason won’t visit you in the hospital.”

Many atheist sects are experimenting with building new, human-centered quasi-religious organizations, much like Ethical Culture. They aim to remove God from the church, while leaving the church, at least large parts of it, standing. But this impulse is fueling a growing schism among atheists. Many of them see churches as part of the problem. They want to throw out the baby and the bathwater—or at least they don’t see the need for the bathwater once the baby is gone.

Amy Knight reviews Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Milov’s supressed report on Putin’s administration:

As Nemtsov and Milov rightly stress, their country has "a level of corruption completely unprecedented in all of Russia’s history." Indeed, the nongovernmental organization Transparency International ranked Russia in 143rd place (with first place being the least corrupt) in its 2007 worldwide country rating of degrees of corruption. Of course, the authors say, there was plenty of corruption under Yeltsin as well. But today the sums are much larger, measured in billions of dollars, and corrupt officials, who occupy high-level government positions, are protected from public exposure by the Kremlin’s control of the law enforcement agencies and the mass media.