Wednesday, November 29, 2006

29 Nov 2006 07:23 pm

"The Way America Is"

Borat gets pulled over. "Looking Muslim While Driving."

29 Nov 2006 06:35 pm

The Right and the War

A reader has an insight:

Looking at the comment by Rich Lowry you highlighted today ("for all his swagger and protectiveness of executive prerogatives — is becoming a disturbing study in lassitude in the executive branch"), it occurred to me that you can read it two ways. One is that Bush, as has often been noted even by allies, is rather intellectually lazy, incurious and generally detached from things that call for close attention or expertise (such as the Presidency, fighting wars, etc.). That's not the Lowry we all know and love. The other - and the point I think Lowry tries subtly to make - is that Bush didn't exert enough power in the execution of the war. He should have listened more to Cheney. We needed more executive privilege, more top-secret decisions, more "commander-in-chief" type leadership, whereas Bush preferred the comfortable position of simply being another branch of a democratic government. There's also a clear dig at the generals there - if Bush had just kicked their asses a bit more, they might have gotten something done.

What we needed was more troops, more allies and an actual post-invasion plan (which Rumsfeld vetoed). Even then, it would have been tough. What we didn't need was more bombs, more torture, more executive secrecy and more unilateralism. But the terrible lack of that list of horribles seems to be an emerging theme on the denialist right. My reader continues:

I predict that we will start seeing a new meme emerge from the Right (and linked to approvingly by Reynolds): Bush just wasn't tough enough: he countenanced treasonous dissent in the press and in Congress; he was too cautious, too afraid of ticking off the ACLU and all those bleeding heart Europeans; he was too soft on the generals and failed to expand the war to Syria and Iran when he had the chance. That, combined with "the Iraqis were a bunch of incompetent ingrates" will comprise the Right's assessment of this war over the next two years.

We'll see, won't we? But given the dreadful record of much of the conservative intelligentsia these past few years, I wouldn't be surprised.

29 Nov 2006 05:47 pm

Atheist Proselytizing

An Australian atheist gets ticked off by pre-lunch Mormon proselytizing, so he gives a fireside rant and then travels to Salt Lake City and goes door to door trying to convert people to Darwinism. Since I have now offended every Mormon by publishing a picture of the undergarments, I figure I have nothing left to lose by posting this YouTube. It's not something I'd do myself (I tell proselytizing Mormons that I'm Catholic and, if that doesn't work, that I'm a flamer), but it's somewhat revealing about some double standards with respect to religion and other views of the universe:

29 Nov 2006 05:07 pm

Papal Fashion

The correlation between strict orthodoxy and fabulous outifts is a long one, as this Harvard Advocate piece points out. Money quote:

"[T]he Catholic use of art and design to broadcast a message of strength and authority in times of transition is not new. In response to the Protestant Reformation, Baroque art became the propaganda of the Counterreformation. As Protestantism embraced a simpler aesthetic, Catholic art became more extravagant. The new churches rejected such indulgences as idolatrous and sinful. Catholics, however, played up this dichotomy in order to assert their identity as well as influence the hearts and minds of everyday churchgoers who marveled at the glory of the cathedrals and representations of holy figures. Protestants may have offered a more intimate relationship to God through study of the Bible, but Catholics put on a better show..."

The NCR sees this a little differently:

It has become apparent in recent years that there's been an upsurge in historical ecclesiastical finery and other goods. We've seen more birettas (those funny three-peak hats with the fuzzy ball on top that come in different colors depending on clerical rank) and cassocks (the kind with real buttons, no zippers for the purists) and ecclesiastically correct color shoes and socks, lots of lacy surplices and even the capa magna (yards and yards of silk, a cape long enough that it has to be attended by two altar boys or seminarians, also in full regalia). In some places they're even naming monsignors again.
It's as if someone has discovered a props closet full of old stuff and they're putting it out all over the stage. ...

It really is the Age of Conservative Denial, isn't it?

29 Nov 2006 04:48 pm

Like A Rolling Stone

I love Michel Gondry's work; and it doesn't come much better than this Rolling Stones video. Classic rock on ketamine.

29 Nov 2006 04:08 pm

Underwear, Again

An email I should address:

I'm a pretty reasonable Mormon. I live in MA, voted for Deval Patrick, got my MBA from Boston University after going to BYU. I also served a two year mission.

Your garment picture is offensive to me. You showing them and joking about them (to me) would be like having a rave in the holy of holys to a Jew or touching the Koran to a devout Muslim.

Every worthy LDS church member that has been a member longer than 1 year most likely wears them. You are offending a lot of people.

I'm sorry I was unaware of the underwear. I'm sorry if my eyebrows jumped a notch. But I am not sorry for publishing a visual of them. My response is the same to Mormons as it was to Muslims who were offended by my publishing images of Muhammad. This is your taboo, not mine. And this is a free country. If you cannot handle some inspection of your religious practices, then you need to find some other place to live.

I dare say this blog has revealed more about Mormonism to a mainstream audience than many other outlets in recent history. I've linked to many Mormon websites and sources of information. I've published emails from Mormons. I'm busy reading more. And I have to say that the more I read about Mormons' understanding of the constitution and politics, the more I actually agree with them. They seem very keen on the separation of church and state, religious liberty, and the separation of powers - much more so than the evangelical right. It comes, perhaps, from a deeper understanding of what it actually means to be a despised minority in this country. Yes, they are virulently homophobic. But so are most organized religions, sadly. And all in all, this past week has made me far less concerned about a Mormon president than I might have been. In fact, I think the message of constitutional propriety and reverence that seems common among Mormons could do well in appealing to the conservative center, especially in contrast with the bullying and contempt for the constitution displayed among many Christianists. But it's foolish in my view for Mormons to be so sensitive. If Romney runs, you'll need to deal with this. And you'd best get a thicker skin.

29 Nov 2006 02:59 pm

"Let's Get Into Trouble, Baby"

Here's a clip about making an '80s video on spec - from the classic movie, Tapeheads. They get what we've been enjoying this past month or so. And yes: paint.

29 Nov 2006 02:18 pm

Ten Months

Rich Lowry finally comes out of denial about Bush:

Bush simply has failed to run his war. Historian Eliot Cohen describes how, in contrast, the best American wartime president conducted himself: "Lincoln had not merely to select his generals, but to educate, train and guide them. To this end he believed that he had to master the details of war, from the technology to the organization and movement of armies, if only to enable himself to make informed judgments about general officers."

Bush has taken the opposite approach and — for all his swagger and protectiveness of executive prerogatives — is becoming a disturbing study in lassitude in the executive branch.

A new Cornerite, Mario Loyola, is even forced to the following concession:

I still think that given the alternatives — in 2000, the disturbingly insincere and megalomaniac Al Gore; and in 2004, the sincerely pompous and foolish John Kerry—Bush was by far the better choice. But in the end, in these horribly difficult times, America needed a leader of real greatness ...

Well, yes and no. In 2004, we knew Bush was a failure. Hence my decision to give someone else a chance. On September 12, 2001, I wrote in this space:

The only question is whether we will get the leadership now to deal with this or whether we will have to endure even worse atrocities before a real leader emerges.

For well over a year after that, I did all I could to give this president the benefit of every doubt, until, in the weeks afer the Iraq invasion and the torture revelations, it became impossible to continue to do so. Four years later, I think we now all sadly know the answer to the question of whether we had the right leader at the right time. The Iraq failure, I should add, does not mean surrender. It means a tactical retreat from a dreadful error in order to fight again. But not recognizing it as an irretrievable failure at this point is pure fantasy. In war, we cannot afford fantasy. We need strategy, based on a cold, hard empirical look at where we are. You think Churchill would have advised fighting on to retain Dunkirk? The choices are as Tom Friedman puts them today:

10 months or 10 years. Either we just get out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 10 months, and try to stabilize it some other way, or we accept the fact that the only way it will not be a failed state is if we start over and rebuild it from the ground up, which would take 10 years. This would require reinvading Iraq, with at least 150,000 more troops, crushing the Sunni and Shiite militias, controlling borders, and building Iraq’s institutions and political culture from scratch.

Given our military constraints, the message of the last election, and the inadequacy of presidential leadership, I'm compelled to say: 10 months.

(Photo: Hadi Mizban/AP.)

29 Nov 2006 12:45 pm

The Pope Wears Prada

The Italian magazine, L'Espresso, has a multi-media presentation of the many fashion statements of the current pontiff. He has a style the magazine calls "neo-Bavarian and Wagnerian" - with "square robes, showy gold, and hats"! Check out this one for size. For this Pope, every aisle is a runway.

29 Nov 2006 11:27 am

Christianism, Ctd.

I'm not budging. Neither is this reader:

The apoplectic responses of Reynolds and others only reinforces your argument. Speaking of which, I found this passage interesting. It's from the Wikipedia entry for Islamism:

"This usage is controversial. Islamists themselves may oppose the term because it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a way of life."

Sounds a lot like the Reynolds-Althouse opposition to the use of Christianist. Regarding Prager, perhaps he should read the Constitution, Article VI, clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

What part of "no religious test" is unclear? I guess the Christianist part.

29 Nov 2006 09:17 am

Tormentum Insomniae

A reader writes:

Menachem Begin was not, of course, the first person to undergo sleep deprivation. The inquisition used it as well, and considered the tormentum insomniae to be one of its most useful tools. And since torture was forbidden in England, when the Witchfinder General Matthew Hopkins went after the alleged witches in the 1640s, he had to make do with sleep deprivation. It worked well enough: people confessed to crimes they couldn't possibly commit, knowing the punishment was death - and accepting it for a few hours of undisturbed sleep.

Yep: it's enough to make you want to accept death if you can finally sleep. Sleep deprivation was, in fact, a routine form of judicial torture in the early modern period in Europe. It was also a critical part of the Rumsfeld-monitored torture of al-Qahtani in Gitmo. At the end of months of sleep deprivation and other forms of torture, Qahtani, according to an FBI letter,

"was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma (talking to non existent people, reporting hearing voices, crouching in a cell covered with a sheet for hours on end)."

You can argue whether what was done to Qahtani was justified or not. But you cannot argue that it was not torture. And it was authorized directly by Donald Rumsfeld. You cannot argue against that either.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

28 Nov 2006 10:24 pm

Hands and Oaths

A reader writes:

Pace Mr Prager, there has never been, and is no, requirement that a member of Congress put his hand on anything when taking the oath of office. There is nothing in the law requiring a member to do anything in particular with his hands. A member is free to put his hand on a Bible, on any other book or for that matter, to keep his hands at his sides or in his pockets or to make bunny shadows with them during the taking of the oath.

The very first law passed under the Constitution was enacted on June 1, 1789 (Statute I, Chapter 1 (1 Stat. 23)):  "An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths." That law says nothing about what someone taking the oath of office is supposed to do with his hands; nor does it say anything about Bibles or any other books being involved in the process. That original law currently is disbursed in 2 U.S.C. Sections 21, et seq. and 5 U.S.C. Section 3331 and in none of these sections (nor in the Rules of the House of Representatives) is there any requirement about what one does with his hands.

28 Nov 2006 08:31 pm

The View From Your Window

Near Dodge City, Kansas, 5 pm.

28 Nov 2006 08:06 pm

Althouse Prods

Today, the Althouse-Reynolds Axis begs for me to engage them on the issues, rather than making them my "enemy." I'm befuddled. I linked to a quote by Glenn Greenwald, which was very long and included many links to Althouse and Reynolds and others over the question of whether "Christianist" is an appropriate term to use to describe the fusion of political ideology and religious faith. Greenwald shows that Reynolds and Althouse simply refuse to allow me to deploy a word in a manner that makes sense to me. Althouse writes:

I criticize Sullivan when he shows a hostility toward ordinary religious people who aren't trying to bully their way around the political world. There are distinctions to be made here.

Indeed there are. That's why I call "ordinary religious people" Christians and call those who are "trying to bully their way around the political world" Christianists. Is that so hard for her to understand? I've stated it quite clearly from the beginning, but she refuses to take me at my word. Reynolds writes:

"The problem with the term "Christianist" isn't that it adds "ist" to the end of a religion. It's that, by parallelling "Islamist," it is a deliberate attempt at conflating people who oppose gay marriage - or, apparently, Madonna's schlocky posturing - with people who blow up discos and mosques..."

But, as Greenwald points out, my definition of the term includes the following:

I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

I presume Reynolds can read, so why the inversion of my stated reason? Yes, this term is an attempt to reclaim Christianity from some of its most vociferous representatives in the Republican establishment. When they use the word "Christian" to describe their politics of big government intolerance, I find it distasteful and offensive to my own faith. I have every right to take back a word they have defiled and invent a new one to describe their politicization of faith. Yes, it's provocative. But nowhere near as offensive as the Republicans' cooptation of Christ for themselves.

28 Nov 2006 07:41 pm

Living Wills For Pets

A new law in Ohio. But if your dog is the same sex as you, it may be unconstitutional in Virginia.

28 Nov 2006 07:13 pm

Sleep Deprivation and Geneva

A reader writes:

For your and Aaron's Netflix Queue, may I recommend Billy Wilder's brilliant "Stalag 17" (now available in a special edition format). Sure, William Holden won an Oscar, but check out the scene in Commandant Col. von Scherbach's (Otto Premminger) office. Von Scherbach is trying to get a confession out American POW Lt. Dunbar for blowing up a munitions train.  To force the confession, Lt. Dunbar is forced to stand on his feet and not sleep.

That is, until a "Geneva Man" comes in to inspect the camp and enters Col. von Scherbach's office as well. Dunbar runs to the couch and falls asleep.  In the presence of the "Geneva Man", Von Scherbach does nothing.

Billy Wilder was a Polish Jew who made films in Germany until Hitler came to power when he fled to the US. He had no desire to show the Germans in a positive light by showing their techniques as mild. Wilder knew that sleep deprivation was torture, and it was torture that you could show on a movie screen back in 1953.

Not every tortuous method has to involve the "Jack Bauer" techniques that current day people have come to equate with "typical" torture.

Agreed. But the president differs. He has the same contempt for the "Geneva man" that previous foes of America had.

28 Nov 2006 06:18 pm

Sacred Underwear

Mormons aren't alone. A reader in India writes:

Wearing special underwear is one of the five central tenets of Sikhism. There are "5K's" that Sikhs are required to wear at all times as part of their religious devotion. These symbols, along with another Sikhism tenet to never cut one's hair or shave, are probably the most visible of any religion. They are constant reminders to the believer of their faith, and greatly distinguishing articles of their faith to others. The keski is a turban. The kanga is a comb worn in the hair under the turban. The kara is an iron bracelet worn on the dominant hand. The kaccha (or kachera) are cotton underwear, similar to boxers, with a drawstring. The kirpan is a small "sword", worn under the clothes by modern Sikhs in daily life.

Here's the Wikipedia description of the five tenets of Sikhism and here's an explanation of the kachha, photographed below:

28 Nov 2006 05:53 pm

Christianism Watch

The latest:

28 Nov 2006 05:50 pm

The Christianist Right vs Rick Warren

The attacks on Obama are a continuation of another piece of Christianist character assassination. In this WND piece, Warren is described as " an enabler and defender of evil, plain and simple."

28 Nov 2006 05:25 pm

The Christianist Right vs Obama

The war has begun.

28 Nov 2006 05:10 pm

Malkin Award Nominee

"Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?" - Dennis Prager, Townhall.com.

28 Nov 2006 04:58 pm

Contra Fumento

TNR's Eve Fairbanks writes about the leaked Marine memo from Anbar, a memo that has a distinctly different take on Iraq than Mike Fumento's latest piece from Ramadi.

28 Nov 2006 03:38 pm

Stay the Course?

I don't know the backstory for Philip Zelikow's departure from the State Department but it seems to me that those of us who assumed that the election and the demise of Rumsfeld meant a change of course for the Bush administration may be fooling ourselves. Mike Allen's report on Bush's tude is here. The president today seemed to argue that the violence in Iraq is caused by al Qaeda. He's right that this sectarian warfare was part of al Qaeda's strategy - but it now has a life of its own. It's troubling he seems unaware of this, or under the impression that Maliki is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Maybe he is still in denial. And maybe it's that realization that has prompted Zelikow to throw in the towel.

So there's a good chance there will be no change in strategy, merely more grind against the insurgents, and a slow breaking of the U.S. military. Iran's involvement with the Shia militias in Iraq via Hezbollah is grist for Cheney; so is Syria's acquiescence. And Cheney's suspicions of dealing with Iran and Syria aren't nuts. It's just that we have very few options left. Our leverage over Maliki is weak, and he is beholden to Sadr. We cannot get involved in a civil war; but could we morally abandon Iraqis to systematic secticide and ethnic cleansing, and watch from Kurdistan as the country tears itself apart? Here's what I do know: There is no guarantee that Bush will not pursue a failed strategy until it fails some more. He's done it for three years already, and he doesn't have to face another election. Reality has been too hard for him to grapple with for the past five years. Why are we naive enough to believe he can change now?

(Photo: Brooks Kraft/Corbis.)

28 Nov 2006 02:15 pm

Sadism and Torture

I was talking last night with a friend and trying to figure out why many of us are talking past each other on the question of torture. One thought I have is that many people confuse sadism with torture. A superfluity of comic books and bad horror movies leads many people to think of torture as something that must involve elaborate sadism, like pulling out fingernails or putting someone on a rack or drilling in their skull. Some torture is indeed like that - and it is now going on all over Iraq, perpetrated by sectarian death squads. But sadism can exist without torture. Some of the pictures in Abu Ghraib were, it seems to me, examples of sadism, abuse and humiliation - not torture. And torture can exist without sadism.

Torture is indeed aptly described by the term "coercive interrogation." That, of course, is an oxymoron. A genuine interrogation requires consent and interaction between two people; coercion is the act of one person forcing his will on another. For me, and in the law, torture is the use of force to compel an answer to a question. The compulsion can be physical or pscyhological. While it must be severe to qualify as torture, it need not entail the sadism I mention above. Take the simple example of "sleep deprivation," a term that many people simply do not believe is torture. And it doesn't sound the faintest bit sadistic. We've all gone without sleep. But to be forced to go without sleep for weeks on end is to use the body's physical needs to compel the soul and the psyche to surrender information. That is torture. And Rumsfeld personally ordered it. Menachem Begin was subjected to sleep deprivation as a torture technique in the Soviet Gulag. He describes a torture victim who is

"wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget ... Anyone who has experienced the desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable it with it."

Maybe this helps bridge some of the gap in understanding between those of us who oppose torture and those who think we are being hyperbolic hysterics. The issue is not sadism. It is compulsion.

28 Nov 2006 01:35 pm

The Mormon Emails

A reader writes:

I'm so sorry for not being able to warn you about that. I saw the article and thought, oh dear Andrew, now you've gone and pissed off the Mormons. I am one ex-Mormon (BYU graduate, Mormon mission to Paris, France, son of a notorious Mormon charismatic preacher who taught religion at Brigham Young) and living with my gay lover for the last ten years in the shadow of the Salt Lake Temple.

One nice thing for you is that this may be a lesson in empathy - you are getting a tiny glimpse into what it's like to be raised, indoctrinated and then terrorized by Mormons daily for being gay (just open a copy of the Deseret Morning News if you think I'm kidding). These are conservatives of a very different breed. I love them and I hate them. But nothing ignites their fury more than a mention of garments.  And ... despite all my years away from the "fold," I still took an instinctive quick breath in as I saw your article.

Well, I learned my lesson. Which is to note an early pre-South Park Trey Parker/Matt Stone movie. It's called "Orgazmo" and it has some priceless moments. The IMDB plot summary reads:

Naive young Mormon Joe Young is recruited to act in porn movies.

My favorite piece of dialogue:

Maxxx Orbison: Put your tongue in her mouth, for Christ's sake!
Joe Young: How would Christ benefit from me putting my tongue in someone's mouth?

Trey Parker plays Joe Young. Matt Stone plays Dave The Lighting Guy. Fun quotes here. For a fascinating Mormon discussion thread on my bigotry or lack thereof, check this page out. The headline is ironic. Many Mormons have a sense of humor - and perspective. Just not all.

28 Nov 2006 01:11 pm

Yglesias Award Nominee

"It's not true, as some conservatives and administration officials say, that tax cuts raise revenue. (Some conservatives say that nobody makes that false claim, and that's not true either.) And while you are right to suggest that some of the extra revenue brought in through tax increases would be spent, probably some of it would go to deficit reduction. The question is whether the marginal deficit reduction is worth the marginal cost to economic growth," - Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review Online.

28 Nov 2006 12:43 pm

Thought for the Day

"He who attempts to act and do things for others or for the world without deepening his own self-understanding, freedom, integrity and capacity to love, will not have anything to give others. He will communicate to them nothing but the contagion of his own obsessions, his aggressiveness, his ego-centered ambitions, his delusions about ends and means, his doctrinaire prejudices and ideas," - Thomas Merton, Contemplation in a World of Action, University of Notre Dame Press.

28 Nov 2006 11:57 am

Squirm Television

Ricky Gervais is its master, although Borat is close behind. In this clip, even David Bowie gangs up on a "chubby little loser." If you're having a bad day, this might be the tonic you need.

28 Nov 2006 11:44 am

Cheney and the Executive

The vice-president's radical views on the powers of the presidency may well foretell a very bruising couple of years in Washington as the White House battles a Congress of a different party. This analysis is sobering - and helpful in teasing out Cheney's consistency on this issue - from the 1970s on. Money quote:

"[Congress cannot] place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response," the Justice Department asserted in a September 2001 memo solicited by the White House. "These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make."

The following year, the administration drew up secret legal opinions informing military and CIA interrogators that the president has the power to authorize them to violate laws banning torture.

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign against Al Qaeda and its allies, [the anti-torture law] must be construed as not applying to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," said an August 2002 memo, which was leaked to the media only after the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib came to light.

Then, in December 2005, The New York Times revealed that the administration was wiretapping Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without warrants, violating the 1978 surveillance law.

Three days later, Cheney sat down with reporters and laid out his belief "in a strong, robust executive authority." Bypassing the warrant law, he asserted, was "consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

28 Nov 2006 11:12 am

A "Divinely Inspired" Founding

I misquoted Mitt Romney in his belief that America had a divine founding. He used the word "inspired." It's a little milder, but official Mormon teaching uses the terms interchangeably. Here's a Mormon take on America's unique founding:

While LDS scripture reinforces the traditional Christian duty of "respect and deference" to civil laws and governments in general as "instituted of God for the benefit of man" (D&C 134:1, 6), Latter-day Saints attach special significance to the Constitution of the United States of America. They believe that the Lord "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose" (D&C 101:80). The Prophet Joseph Smith once described himself as "the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth" (Hc 6:56-57). All of his successors as President of the Church have reaffirmed the doctrine of an inspired Constitution. This consistent endorsement is notable, for basic LDS teachings are far removed from the premises of American liberalism, and largely as a result of these differences, Latter-day Saints suffered considerable persecution before achieving an accommodation with mainstream America...

This understanding of the divine inspiration of the Constitution as mediated through the human wisdom of the founders and the founding generation invites the inference that new needs and circumstances might require the continued exercise of inspired human wisdom by statesmen and citizens alike. LDS leaders have taught that the Constitution is not to be considered perfect and complete in every detail (as evidenced most clearly by its accommodation with slavery, contrary to modern scripture; e.g., D&C 101:79) but as subject to development and adaptation... President Brigham Young explained that the Constitution "is a progressive — a gradual work"; the founders "laid the foundation, and it was for after generations to rear the superstructure upon it" (JD 7:13-15).

Two thoughts. The first is that this allows for far more constitution amending than most conservatives favor (and helps explain Romney's ease with amending the federal constitution to bar gay unions). Second: the question of American exceptionalism gets somewhat more dangerous when it is viewed as divine exceptionalism. In a world where the clash of Islamic and Christian civilization seems close to the surface, a reaffirmation of the divine nature of one nation (with the implication that all others do not enjoy the same divine favor) is not exactly oil on troubled waters.

For a Mormon Elder's view of the divinely inspired Constitution, check out this interesting article. The LDS church is particularly taken with the liberalism of the American constitution, especially its avowal of religious freedom.

Monday, November 27, 2006

27 Nov 2006 11:45 pm

Mormons and Race, Ctd

A Mormon reader writes:

The LDS are now, on the whole surprisingly non-racist. I have many devout white LDS friends who have adopted African American children. And black/white married couples are much more common among LDS Church members under the age of 50 than one might imagine--given Brigham Young's racist theology and its continuation in the LDS Church until '78.

By the way, the change in '78 came about because LDS missionaries had been so successful in South and Central America. The LDS Church was building temples in those countries for use by all of the new members there, and then the Church leadership realized that because most converts had some African ancestry, they would be barred from those Temples because they couldn't be ordained Priests.  So common sense (rather than "Divine revelation") mandated the theological change. Otherwise there would have been sparkling new, multi-million dollar LDS Temples south of the boarder standing virtually empty.

When I joined the LDS Church as an 18 year old in 1977, I was deeply disturbed by the racist theology. What eased my mind was finding out that the majority of LDS Church members I knew in my home-state of Virginia were incredibly embarrassed by the racist doctrine. I remember the announced doctrinal change was announced on a Friday. On Saturday the members of my Ward (congregation) were enthusiastically volunteering to go door to door with the LDS missionaries in the predominately black neighborhoods throughout Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Va. Everyone I knew was ecstatic over the change in the theology. When I attended Brigham Young University from 1979 until 1982, there were black LDS students present and more than a few interracial married couples on campus. The white LDS members seemed to WANT to reach out to blacks outside the church.

At the moment the LDS Church is experiencing the greatest growth in Latin America and Africa countries. In fact, as of 2005 the majority of LDS Church members worldwide are now NON-WHITE and non-American.

In the meantime, I left the LDS Church and am now a Reform Mormon. This new Mormon denomination returns to the non-racist, liberal later doctrines of Mormon founder, Joseph Smith. His later theology was refreshingly liberal, rational and non-Christian.

As for the reader whose LDS roommate rejected carbon dating and believed that the earth was only 6000 years old: this is a new development among the LDS and is the result, I think, of the LDS Church joining forces with Fundamentalist and Evangelicals of the Religious Right (since the early 1980s). This fellowship with the Religious Right is also why so many of your LDS readers insist that they are Christians. Before the 1980s, LDS members actually rejected the label "Christian," opting for the more Biblical label of "Saint."

27 Nov 2006 10:50 pm

The View From Your Window

Missoula, Montana, 1.20 pm.

27 Nov 2006 10:10 pm

It's Official

I've now had more emails about Mormon underwear than gay marriage.

27 Nov 2006 09:31 pm

Winning in Ramadi?

Here's a very, very long but worthwhile report by Michael Fumento on incremental but measurable progress against the insurgency in Ramadi. His bottom line? You should read the entire piece if you have time. But he seems to argue that a long grinding war of attrition against Sunni and Qaeda insurgents might work in the long run, especially with the cooperation of local tribes. But the broader issue of sectarian civil war - and the militias now fueling it - remains at large. He's a great reporter and an honest, often surprising writer. Visit his tip-jar.

27 Nov 2006 08:25 pm

Blacks and Mormons

A Mormon reader writes:

Starting with a hypothetical - suppose that Mormonism is truly led by prophets, God has always specified who and when a group could hold his priesthood. For hundreds of years it was restricted to the Levites. Later it was extended to gentiles. If it is God's priesthood, then I would suggest He can decide who can hold it and when, and historically has given that instruction to his prophets. He does it for his own reasons and purposes, and I'd suggest we'd be foolish to try to interpret why or what for.

In any event – if you think Mormonism is led by prophets or not – I don't think the racism claim holds then or now. To see my point you only have to look at how quickly the entire church (the entire church) turned on a dime when the revelation extending the priesthood was received. The following week the church rejoiced, blacks were immediately given the priesthood, and Mormons were overwhelmed with joy and collectively invigorated. Is that the sign of a racist people – to turn the entire church literally on one statement by the leader, and precisely in one week with no subsequent hold outs or debate or opposition? From what I know on the inside, I just don’t think the signs of racism are there, then or now.

All points taken. But it still shocks me to think that this didn't happen until 1978. A non-Mormon reader writes:

Way back in 1991 my wife and I shared an apartment with a couple of friends from college. One friend was a white, outgoing, athletic girl from Choctaw, OK. The other was a black, outgoing, athletic boy from Oklahoma City. They were a fantastic couple, seemingly ignorant of the whole white/black racism thing, and quite obviously very happy. Marriage was discussed frequently, and enthusiastically. Then something odd happened. The girl started hanging out with a devout Mormon.

It wasn't long before our friend started coming home with these odd "facts of the day", as we liked to call them. Things like, the earth is only 6000 years old; carbon dating is a hoax; and other nonsense. Then things took a turn for the worst, she fully converted, and became a Mormon. Quickly thereafter the talk of marriage with her boyfriend all but ended, and apparently because of one simple desire, she wanted to be married in a Mormon temple. Mormon's don't allow mixed couples to marry in the official Mormon temples for some bizarre reason.

Well, that was that. The happy relationship was over, our friends split up and went their separate ways. We've lost track over the years, but last we heard she is married to someone in the church, not working out of the house, and has many children. We never did hear from our other friend, I'm sure he got over it, but what a heartbreaker.

Is inter-racial marriage now permitted in Mormon temples? (Update: yes it is, as long as husband and wife are both "Temple-Worthy", regardless of race. The "mixed couple" refers to a religious, not a racial, description.)

27 Nov 2006 07:29 pm

Email of the Day

A reader writes:

Attempting to call Fundamentalist "Christianism" a progressive movement?

Honey, the Fundies are yours. You had no problem with them in 2003. The true progressives opposed this war in Iraq - this dare-I-say "utopian" war in Iraq - from the start. You're using Coulter logic (defined as "The whimsy of Lewis Carroll used to murderous ends.") I suspect that in a month you'll be calling the "Christianists" a bunch of liberals.

I sense that the nuanced, chastened Andrew Sullivan is returning to his bullying ways. I bring as a case in point your mocking references to the "magical underwear" of Mormons, or "undies", as you said.  How can you - as a Catholic - mock anyone else's religious ways? I fear that as a happy atheist, Catholicism and Mormonism are equally queer to me. But since your religion has been around longer, you get to be the mean schoolgirl tormenting the new girl on the playground.

A couple of responses: I do find it puzzling that the progressive nature of Bush's fundamentalist conservatism hasn't won more plaudits from the left. This president has called for reversing the U.S.'s historic ties to autocrats in the Middle East, he has endorsed the biggest new entitlement since LBJ (and it's about to get tougher on Big Pharma, as was predictable from the start), he's in favor of legalizing most illegal immigrants, he has poured federal money into education, and spent more on AIDS in Africa than Clinton ever dreamed of. Bush's little secret is that he has been much more liberal than he sometimes appears. Liberal in some of the wrong ways, I'd argue.

As for my own "Christianism," my view is that any Mormon is fine by me in public office, as long as he or she sticks to non-sectarian political appeals. But if a candidate explicitly appeals on religious grounds, then he puts religion on the table. Live by Christianism; die by it. And this blog has long poked fun from time to time at all sorts of religious and non-religious lifestyles - including Catholics and gays and everything in between.

27 Nov 2006 07:00 pm

Worst 80s Video Nominee

27 Nov 2006 06:58 pm

Mormons and Miscegenation

This strikes me as a pertinent issue, because Mitt Romney has set himself up as a guardian of the institution of civil marriage. He certainly wants to prevent me from legally marrying my fiance. For a long time, inter-racial marriages were also taboo in the LDS church, and you can read a lively pro-Mormon discussion of the issue here. Currently, according to this site, the LDS policy is to discourage interracial marriage, but not to forbid it. Money quote from former Mormon president, Spencer Kimball:

"The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor's degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs."

27 Nov 2006 06:36 pm

Life Itself

Clive Davis celebrates the astonishing Michael Apted documentary, which, in its most recent form, is called "49 Up." A group of seven-year-old children were filmed in 1963 as a case-study in British social class. They have been re-interviewed every seven years since. Their stories - at once banal and riveting - are all of our stories. Aaron and I watched "49 Up" a couple of weeks ago, and it was as good as any of the others. There are now seven re-edited versions of the documentary. They repeat sequences, of course. According to Apted on the DVD featurette, one person actually sat and watched all seven in sequence over a long weekend. He described it as an almost mystical experience into the meaning of life. I don't recommend a marathon like that; but if you've ever seen the films, they are unforgettable. And profound - in a way that's difficult to articulate.

27 Nov 2006 06:35 pm

Quote for the Day

"What seems to be guiding Althouse and Reynolds' hatred of the term "Christianist" is that it highlights a fact which they both are eager to ignore - namely, that the political party to which they are so devoted is dominated by individuals who believe that their religious/Christian beliefs ought to dictate the American political process, shape secular law, and exploit coercive state power to constrain the choices of their fellow citizens," - Glenn Greenwald, responding to increasingly hysterical attacks on yours truly by some Republican bloggers.

27 Nov 2006 05:26 pm

Republican Rethink Watch

Is evangelical conservatism an oxymoron? I don't think so - as long as the evangelical's primary political impulse is to keep government at bay from his or her religious freedom - and others' freedoms as well. But when a progressive, benign, big government evangelicalism emerges, it is a threat to true conservatism, not a support. That's the basic case of my book, and it's one theme of this challenging lecture given in February last year at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. The author, Wilfred McClay, even wonders whether the shift of Republican color from blue to red isn't somewhat symbolic of this shift. The color red, after all, has always been associated with progressive, collectivist, utopian impulses. And what is Christianism if not a progressive, collectivist, statist movement? Money quote:

There is not much of Niebuhr, or original sin, or any other form of Calvinist severity, in the current outlook of the Bush administration. That too is a reflection of the optimistic character of American evangelicalism, and therefore of evangelical conservatism. It certainly reflects the preference of the American electorate, which does not like to hear bad news, a fact that is surely one of the deep and eternal challenges to democratic statesmanship. And it is, by and large, an appropriate way for good leaders to behave. It is, in some respects, a political strength.

But conservatism will be like the salt that has lost its savor, if it abandons its most fundamental mission - which is to remind us of what Thomas Sowell called 'the constrained vision' of human existence, which sees life as a struggle, with invariably mixed outcomes, full of unintended consequences and tragic dilemmas involving hopelessly fallible people, a world in which the legacy of the past is usually more reliable than the projections of the future. As the example of Niebuhr suggests, such a vision need not reject the possibility of human progress altogether - which, by the way, has never been characteristic of traditional conservatism either, from Edmund Burke on. But it does suggest that it is sometimes wise to adopt, so to speak, a darker shade of red, one that sees the hand of Providence in our reversals as well as our triumphs. To do so is as needful for American evangelicalism as for American politics.

Much more politic than my own bluntness. But the same point underneath, I think.

(Photo of embryonic elephant from an upcoming documentary made by Pioneer Television.)

27 Nov 2006 04:00 pm

America's Catholic Bishops

Their insularity and myopia are becoming impossible to miss. This National Catholic Reporter editorial says it all - and so much more brutally than you'd find even on this blog. In a world of real, pressing questions, in a church reeling from decline and continuing sexual abuse scandals, at a time when the government has authorized torture, where war rages and social and economic inequality grows, the American bishops are still focusing almost entirely on the evil of condoms and why gays are now to be seen as having an "inclination" rather than an "orientation." Money quote from NCR:

It is difficult to figure out how to approach these documents. They are products of some realm so removed from the real lives of the faithful one has to wonder why any group of busy men administering a church would bother. They ignore science, human experience and the groups they attempt to characterize. The documents are not only embarrassing but insulting and degrading to those the bishops are charged to lead. The saddest thing is that the valuable insights the bishops have into the deficiencies and influences of the wider culture get buried.

Where is this all going?

No one's come out with a program, but we'll venture yet one more hunch. It has become apparent in recent years that there’s been an upsurge in historical ecclesiastical finery and other goods. We've seen more birettas (those funny three-peak hats with the fuzzy ball on top that come in different colors depending on clerical rank) and cassocks (the kind with real buttons, no zippers for the purists) and ecclesiastically correct color shoes and socks, lots of lacy surplices and even the capa magna (yards and yards of silk, a cape long enough that it has to be attended by two altar boys or seminarians, also in full regalia). In some places they're even naming monsignors again.

It's as if someone has discovered a props closet full of old stuff and they're putting it out all over the stage. ...

Now that's order.

Now that's the church.

Bring up the lights a little higher so all can see.

Before it all fades to irrelevance.

And that, I fear, may be Benedict's chief legacy in America.

27 Nov 2006 02:34 pm

Rudy's The Most Popular

Another poll verifies Giuliani's remarkable popularity. And Obama is well ahead of Hillary. A Giuliani vs. Obama race in 2008 would cheer a lot of people up, I suspect.

27 Nov 2006 02:30 pm

Yankee Republicanism, RIP

This statement from Walter Peterson, a former New Hampshire governor and lifelong Republican, sums up a lot:

"What the people want is basically to feel like the candidates of a political party are working for the people, not just following some niche issues. The old traditional Republican Party was conservative on small government, efficient government; believed in supporting people to give them a chance at life but not having people on the dole; wanted a balanced budget; and on social issues they were moderate, tolerant, live and let live. They didn't dislike somebody from other religious viewpoints. That was the old-fashioned conservative, but the word conservative today has been bastardized."

And, yes, New England Republicans ignored Mitt Romney's faith and focused on the real issues. The question is whether the new, evangelical Republican base can do the same.

27 Nov 2006 01:04 pm

All About Mormons

It's Mormon Week on the Dish! South Park, because its creators have long been fascinated by the LDS Church, has actually produced two marvelous little skits on the origins of the Mormon faith and why many Mormons are among the nicest people you'll ever meet. Here's the story of Joseph Smith, in song:

And here's the lesson of the story:

27 Nov 2006 11:50 am

The View From Your Window

Friday Harbor, Washington State, 10.30 am.

27 Nov 2006 11:24 am

"Black and Mormon"

It isn't easy - even now. Below is a YouTubed 2004 news story on a black professor at Brigham Young University, Darron Smith, who edited a book on the LDS church and its history of racial discrimination. At the time of the book's publication, "Black and Mormon," Smith was a member in good standing in the church. BYU fired him thereafter. Here's a Mormon blog entry on him as well.

27 Nov 2006 08:47 am

"One Bank"

Move over, David Brent. This song to celebrate a bank merger goes immediately into the vaults of corporate horror. Sing it, Mary J.

27 Nov 2006 03:11 am

War Crimes?

A fascinating tid-bit from David Addington's Wikipedia entry.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

26 Nov 2006 10:35 pm

Malkin Award Nominee

"Schumer is a Radical Communist Jew - he is clearly in that part of the Jewish religion that supports Socialism and Communism. They claim to be secularist so they can attack all the other religions and hide their true affiliations. New York is full of these children of Communist immigrants of the early 20th century. FDR used them in very responsible positions during his Presidency to enact his Socialist programs and to get the approval of the Supreme Court, which he packed with Socialist thinkers. At that time Communism was on our side in the war. There are thousands just like Schumer but he is by far the most dangerous--George Soros is a close second. Look for the Radical Communist Jews in the MSM, Hollywood, the ACLU, and in the Judiciary as Judges and Lawyers," - a commenter on Hugh Hewitt's blog, outraged at some mild words of faint praise for the senator from Mr Hewitt.

Elsewhere in the comments section, Schumer is described as someone in the same class as "Yosip Broz Tito, Nicolai Ceusescu, and other third rate Communist thugs," as a "sick bastard," a "dirty dog," "deceitful slime," and one reader even emotes: "the mear sight of this scum sickens me." In this company, Hewitt really does come off as a moderate.