Vox Popoli

New MoveOn.org Ad Shows Republican Majority Leader Frist Trying To Blow Up Capitol…

Oh, you mean that’s not his actual platform? Never mind.

Thomas Friedman writes in the NYT:

I don’t understand a concept of the sacred that says a book is more sacred than a human life. A holy book, whether the Bible or the Koran, is only holy to the extent that it shapes human life and behavior.

“Look, Newsweek may have violated journalistic rules, but what jihadist terrorists are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan – blowing up innocent Muslims struggling to build an alternative society to dictatorship – surely destroys the Koran. They are the real enemies of Islam because they are depriving Muslims of a better future. From what I know of Islam, it teaches that you show reverence to God by showing reverence for his creations, not just his words. Why don’t your spiritual leaders say that? I am asking, because I want to know.”

Santo cielo! I know that I’ve stated many times that journalists are astoundingly ignorant, but Thomas Friedman is someone whose book, FROM BEIRUT TO JERUSALEM, I read in high school as a uniquely well-informed description of the Middle East. A book is holy to the extent that it accurately reflects the Word of God, not how it shapes human life and behavior. By Friedman’s bizarre definition, Star Wars is holy because it gets people to line up in front of empty theatres for weeks in advance, to say nothing of its effect on the language.

Second, the reason that Muslim spiritual leaders are not saying that Muslims should show reverence to God by showing reverence to His creation is because this statement has nothing to do with Islam. The fact that Thomas Friedman has made a religion of his humanism does not mean that humanism is an inherent part of any historical religion.

I find it very telling that after decades of repeatedly excusing “the rage of the Arab street”, the legacy media has finally deigned to notice the hair-trigger, nonsensical nature of Muslim violence now that the alternative would be placing the blame for the riots on Newsweek.

This still amuses and annoys me. An old Amazon review:

“Although the events in The War in Heaven are fictional, the invisible world of spirits in describes is not.” This sentence, from the author’s note at the end of this novel, illuminates the difference between [X] and other writers of fantasy. Mainstream fantasy authors like George R. R. Martin, Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, Piers Anthony and the like all understand that the mythical concepts they create for their novels are just that, mythical. [X] does not. If religion constitutes the ultimate confusion of fantasy and reality, then that confusion sees its purest expression in religious entertainment.

I’ll admit right off the bat I’m an atheist. So why, you may ask, am I reviewing this book at all? I was sent free promotional copies of The War in Heaven and its sequel The World in Shadow by publisher Pocket Books so that I might review them for a different website I write for. After determining that site wouldn’t be the appropriate venue for reviews of these books, I couldn’t help wanting to post SOME kind of commentary after reading things in The War in Heaven that profoundly offended both my sensibilities and intellect.

The War in Heaven, for the most part, reads like a poor episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer written by a Christian fundamentalist. Sure, there are some entertaining passages, but it is sheer folly to claim, as one other reader did in his review, that the book isn’t preachy. The book preaches throughout its length. Characters pray everywhere. Now it’s not as though that sort of thing would be unexpected in a Christian novel; [X] is dutifully giving his audience what they want. But unlike mainstream fiction, Christian fiction is of course MEANT to evangelize. Otherwise, what’s the point? You might as well write a secular novel.

But what really irked me were passages in the aforementioned “author’s note” that I found so wrong-headed that they deserved comment. They indicate the difference in perspective between rationalists and the religious with crystal clarity.

[X] writes that “a rational, post-Enlightenment world has a difficult time admitting evil’s reality.” On the contrary, rationalists simply reject the notion that evil has a supernatural source. To claim that someone who does bad things does so out of demonic influence is not merely irrational but irresponsible. People who do bad things should be held accountable for their actions. “The devil made them do it” unjustly absolves those people of being held accountable and clouds the real reasons behind why someone might do a bad thing. Blaming imaginary beings for real problems solves nothing.

[X] then gives us a brief bit of autobiography where he describes his pre-Christian life as, apparently, a hotbed of “sin” and debauchery. “I could feel my mind slipping away with the shards of my morality,” [X] writes of himself, “as I became less and less interested in anything but sin.” Well, how nice for him, but I can say that as an atheist, my own life looks nothing like this, nor am I headed “straight for self-destruction.” Nor does [X]’s past reflect the lives of any of my other atheist friends either, all of whom are hard-working, upstanding, family-oriented people. If [X]’s past really was as irrational and self-absorbed as he claims it was, it’s no surprise religion was able to hook him when he was at his most vulnerable.

[X] also makes an attempt to defend the Christian doctrine of Hell by claiming that “in my experience, it is not God who sends us [to Hell].” I don’t know if, by referring to his “experience,” [X] is implying he has personally checked out Hell, but I can say that the scriptures do indeed make it clear that it is God’s wrath that determines who suffers eternal torment. Every Christian loves John 3:16, but try reading John 3:18 or 3:36 sometime. A God who says, in effect, “I love you, but if you don’t love me back, you’ll be tortured for eternity!” cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called good or loving. To do so strips the very word “love” of any meaning it could possibly have. As long as Christianity holds to the doctrine of eternal punishment for simply not being Christian, it will never be able to lay any legitimate claim to being a moral belief system. If you want a good example of evil, I say “belief in Hell.”

Finally, I was disgusted by [X]’s remark that “Hell is our natural destination. Each of us is drowning in a sea of self-destruction.” Such a profoundly misanthropic statement reveals that, at its core, Christianity has a deep loathing of humanity and life itself. It is diametrically opposed to the positive, humanistic outlook most atheists subscribe to. I ask you, honestly, which is the heathier, happier outlook? You know, there just might be something to a rational, post-Enlightenment worldview after all!

I suppose it’s a small step forward to base your book review on the afterword instead of the cover. While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with disliking a book or slamming it based on your opinion that it is boring or poorly written, the characters are cardboard cutouts or the plot makes no sense, this is not so much a review of a novel as an assault on a rival worldview.

And as such, it is also more than a little nonsensical; since when do Christians absolve people of responsibility for giving into temptation? I was always under the impression that “the wages of sin are death” was a fundamentally Christian teaching. For a religion with a deep loathing of humanity and life, it’s interesting to note that Christians are the one’s holding up the birthrate in the West, it’s post-Christian Europe and the atheist-leaning Blue states that can’t be bothered to procreate and raise children.

In any event, it’s hard to get too worked up over the opinion of someone who gave a Peter Gabriel CD five stars. The horra, the horra! Anyhow, if you happen to have read WAR or WORLD, I’d encourage you to review it on Amazon. People do read those things, including publishers, and they do make a difference.

I also vehemently disagree with the reviewer’s statement that all Christian fiction must evangelize, although many in the CBA would probably take no exception to it. What is the point otherwise? As Umberto Eco, among many, many others, have demonstrated, the Christian worldview is a rich and deep treasure trove of metaphor, symbolism and even plot devices. Regardless of whether one believes it or not, it can make for an excellent foundation around which to tell a story.

From a random email:

Dr. Vendyl Jones, the inspiration for the “Indiana Jones” series, told Israel National Radio that he is sure he will uncover the hidden Ark of the Covenant before the Fast of Tisha B’Av this summer….

Dr. Jones dismisses the current Israeli governments plan to uproot the Jews of Gaza and northern Samaria from their homes, saying “there will not be any disengagement, nor will there be any Palestinian State.” According to Jones, the Sharon government will soon be history and the Sanhedrin (the Jewish High Court of 71 judges) will take its place and lead the Jewish people. “The Sanhedrin was established October the 13th of last year. Now all we have to do is have an election to elect counselors. The Sanhedrin is like a Senate and the elected counselors are like a House of Representatives.”

I like specific predictions of this sort, whether they are market predictions or something rather more esoteric. If it’s correct, we’ll know soon enough. If it’s not, you can safely disregard the source in the future. And yes, I’m talking about you, Abby Joseph Cohen.

While the Sharon government falling would not exactly come as a surprise – it’s a tossup whether his original supporters or George Bush’s are more disenchanted with their former hero – I think its replacement with a ruling Sanhedrin would rock the entire theologically aware world to its core.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury….

Roberts’ planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said. Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.

So, too, would a provision that authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists who operate without clear ties to a particular terrorist network.

Amerika, mein Amerika, nur die Gedanken sie sind frei…. In other words, they want the ability to spy on people who have no ties to terrorism. This is not exactly surprising, as it follows the usual pattern of expansion of government power.

1. Find a legitimate-sounding cause to violate the rights of a specific group of people on a temporary basis with oversight.
2. Get rid of the temporary basis.
3. Get rid of the oversight.
4. Expand the definition of the suspicious group.

They did this with the income tax, which once affected only the top one percent and now affects everyone. They did this with the Alternative Minimum Tax, which once affected only the top ten percent and now affects one-third of taxpayers. They did this with RICO, which was intended for use against the mafia and is now used against any group of unfavored protesters.

Patriot 1 and Patriot 2 will eventually be expanded to apply to all Americans, because every American is a potential terrorist in the eyes of the government.

From England Expects:

“Europa ist nicht einfact eine Konstruktion der Politik. Europa ist geistiger Lebensraum?”

Europe is not actually a political construction. Europe is spiritual Lebensraum.

That’s courtesy of Hans Gerg Poetterung, a theoretically conservative member of the European Parliament. The EU is the Fourth Reich; remember, the Austrian Anschluss was peaceful too. If it wasn’t a good idea for Germany to rule over an undemocratic Europe in 1940, why is it a good thing in 2005?

After all the complaining I did about a certain Nebula novel winner from a few years ago, I need to compliment the Academy for getting it right this year. Lois McMaster Bujold’s THE CURSE OF CHALION is a solid book, entertaining from start to finish and with the added bonus of being one of the few fantasy novels to ever feature a convincing structure of an alternate religion.

Congratulations, Lois!

Craigp sees similarities:

Libertarians on the war:
“Its a disaster”

The left on the war:
“Its a disaster”

The republicans on the war:
“Its a good thing”

Libertarian worldview: The repubs keep moving left to the point where they are no different then the democratic party so what good are they.

At least in the example of the war in Iraq, its the libertarian party that sounds exactly like the left.

The difference is that the libertarian Right is opposed to the war because it and many things inspired by it are violations of libertarian principles. The Left opposes it because George Bush is for it.

You may recall that both the libertarian Right and the Republicans were against the Balkan war as well, while the Left was for it. As is all too often the case, of the three parties involved, only the libertarian Right is consistent in applying the same principles to different situations.

You know they’re hopeless when they can’t even outwit a swimsuit model:

KATHY IRELAND: “Is it all right for the government to allow the murder of an innocent human being? The evidence I see tells me the unborn is a human being. From the moment of conception, a new life comes into being with a complete genetic
blueprint. The sex is determined. The blood type is determined.”

COLMES: “Well, we have a system of laws and a Supreme Court decision that does not define life the way you do. So legally, that’s not how it would be defined. If you want to define it that way for your personal — that’s how you want to do it, that’s fine, but that’s not the standing law of this country.”

Of course, it does help to have scientific fact and logic on your side. But still….

Jack Cashill explains the sentiments of many, including me:

In March of this year, Dresch had received highly convincing information from imprisoned mobster Gregory Scarpa Jr. that a cache of explosives remained hidden in the old house of his jailmate, Terry Nichols of Oklahoma City notoriety.

For four frustrating weeks, Dresch could not get the FBI or the media interested in the story. Even after the FBI finally heeded Dresch’s warning and extracted the explosives on March 31 – conveniently, hours after the death of Terry Schiavo – Isikoff turned a deaf ear to the story. “Isikov [sic] essentially contended that I had to prove to him that the FBI’s recovery of the cache in Herington, KS, was a result of the Scarpa intelligence,” Dresch wrote to me on April 5.

“To add insult to injury,” Dresch continued, “Isikoff demanded that I identify my intel-org-security colleague and his NSC and DHS conduits. In short, I’ve rarely dealt with such a pompous, ludicrous a–hole (if you will excuse my Mongolian).”

This week, Dresch learned just how flexible Isikoff’s standards were. Isikoff and Newsweek had inflamed the Middle East with a reckless bit of anti-American agitprop that had but one unnamed, uncertain source.

Like many of you commenting yesterday, I have little sympathy for the Muslims slain in their ridiculous riots. I also find it both hypocritical and ludicrous that Muslim moderates find it easier to criticize reports of ripping up a book, however holy, than hundreds of murderous attacks around the world on the part of their co-religionists.

It would be one thing if Isikoff’s “mistake” had taken place in a vaccuum. But it didn’t. We know, from observance and Cashill’s evidence both direct and second-hand, that even copious proof isn’t enough to get Isikoff and Newsweek to cover a story they prefer to see buried. But, on the other hand, mere hearsay from an anonymous source is more than enough for them to run with something that might damage the current administration.

I am no fan of the president and despite its successes, I still believe this continuing ur-war will prove to be a disaster for the American people in the long term. RealID is only one of the many evils that I expected the Bush administration to force upon the citizenry from the time my very first column for WND. Even so, this does not excuse the lowlife Isikoff and his masters at the magazine from having to face the music for their tawdry attack blowing up in their faces.

They’ve been careless and slipped-up enough to hand us a hammer. We’d be remiss if we failed to hit them with it.