True Christianity in Action!

What a week.  Numerous things I won't bother you with have conspired to keep me from posting since Tuesday, and the next week doesn't look much better.  Partly the problem is that there are too many things I meant to write about, and I couldn't choose one to start with.  But a couple of related matters intruded on my consciousness today and effectively chose for me.

A good friend posted this to Facebook today.  Predictable.  He's another one of the many otherwise sensible people who are slobbering all over the new Pope.  I could only sigh, since there's so much wrong here that I hardly know where to begin.

I suppose my first objection is to the assumption that concern for the poor and disadvantaged, opposition to exploitative capitalism, and commitment to individual kindness is somehow specifically Christian.  But Christianity got those teachings from Judaism, and in reality most religions and cultures have such teachings -- at least as ideals to be paid lip service.  Outside the Yahwist tradition, Buddhists were building free hospitals, offering free education and other such services under the Emperor Asoka in the third century BCE, when Jesus wasn't yet a gleam in his Father's eye.  Temples served similar functions in Greco-Roman paganism too, if I remember right.  As an atheist, it seems to me that the virtues Francis is preaching (and to some extent practicing, if you don't count excommunicating pro-gay, feminist priests), are human values, not specifically or uniquely Christian ones.  But that's okay; Mom taught me to share, and I'm happy to share human virtues with Christians.  They just don't get to claim ownership.

The comments under the source for this meme are predictably depressing, but maybe the most emblematic ones are from people who say things like "He's more like Jesus than any U.S. politician who claims to have his endorsement!" or "As an athiest I have to say I like his messeges, seems more christ like than anyone else i've heard" or "I can count on one hand the number of people who call themselves "Christians" who actually act Christ-like. Most of them have all the judgement and intolerance without any of the compassion." I can't think of any Christians who are really Christlike. Not one I know of can walk on water, feed 5000 people by multiplying loaves and fishes magically, still storms, drive out demons, heal the sick, or raise the dead. That includes Francis. True, there are some who threaten people with eternal hellfire for not believing the right things, as Jesus liked to do, but anybody can do that. Jesus explicitly promised that his true followers would be able to do the same miracles he did. So let's get with the program, Christians!

The same friend later posted a link to this post which reports that the Westboro Baptist Church has announced plans to fly to South Africa and picket Nelson Mandela's funeral.  My friend commented "This could be a suicide protest for them although Mandela himself wouldn't have wanted that. I honestly wish I felt worse about that possibility." Not only Mandela but that fine, exemplary Christian would probably disapprove, but it's so typical to see Christians invoking Christian virtues selectively. I was really disturbed by my friend's barely-veiled hope that the WBC people will be killed in South Africa.  I've seen that sort of thing before.  "Very Christian of you," I commented, to which my friend replied with remarks about "guilt" that made no sense to me.  I wouldn't shed a tear for them either (or for numerous other people whose lives my friend would care about more, I think), but I'm not a Christian.  Nor do I try to make myself look moderate (or morally courageous, standing out in the crowd) by yelling loudly about how awful Westboro is, as many Christians do.  Maybe that's the kind of "being Christian" Pope Francis wants to foster, though.

The post my friend linked to was even worse.  The writer piously hoped that the WBC cranks would meet their doom in South Africa.

I’m not saying that I want the members of Westboro Baptist Church to meet an ill fate in South Africa, I’m just saying it could happen. The simple fact is that the hate group is saying that they’ll venture into a country whose murder rate is the 15th highest in the entire world. And that once there, they intend to celebrate — away from the protection of American police — the death of the most beloved man in that country.

Oh yes, I'm completely convinced that this writer (who, by the bye, writes semi-anonymously, under his first name and an initial) doesn't "want" them to be killed.  The moral cowardice in those words is so typically, cravenly, despicably liberal.  To add to the fun, he begins his screed by saying:

In what has become par for the course with Westboro Baptist Church, they have jumped on the most emotionally tugging current event in an effort to get media attention.

And then he points that while the South African Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, the guarantee

doesn’t extend to “incitement of imminent violence” or “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” Well, turns out their hatred is based on their “religion.” Some may also think it’s about race, even though Westboro Baptist Church claims it’s not.  and if they do this in South Africa, there’s a good chance they’ll incite some awesome imminent violence.

("Awesome."  What a giant, pustulent, encrusted twit you'd have to be to write that.)  That being so, the South African government might well decide not to let the WBCers into the country in the first place. They're certainly not obligated to admit them.  And as the writer points out, Westboro has on numerous occasions announced its intent to picket this or that funeral, then quietly failed to show up.  Which takes me back to the writer's initial statement that "In what has become par for the course with Westboro Baptist Church, they have jumped on the most emotionally tugging current event in an effort to get media attention":  In what has become par for the course, liberal media have jumped at the opportunity to give Westboro Baptist Church all the free publicity they could wish for.  They don't even have to appear, for liberals and conservatives alike will whip themselves into self-righteous frenzy about these awful people.

The writer also complains that by not showing up, the Phelpses have deprived "counter-protesters the benefit of giving them the finger or blocking their view of the event."  (Personally, I think that liberals and progressives should hire the WBC to come to visit: it would gin up all kinds of publicity and fund-raising possibilities for local liberal causes.)  In most if not all cases, the Westboro pickets aren't near enough to see "the event."  The law in various US locales requires them to picket "on a public street 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral; they complied with the law and with instructions from the police, and they protested quietly and without violence."  But these fine, upstanding, truly Christian folk like to imagine the Phelpses standing at the gravesite, foaming at the mouth and spitting on the bereaved.  Sort of the way that more conservative Christians like to imagine homosexual orgies, or some respectable Romans liked to fantasize about primitive Christians' "love feasts," which involved blowing out the lamps, copulating promiscuously with one another, and eating a human infant.  There's nothing like prurient fantasy to show real Christianity in action.

Though I despise the WBC as well, I can't work up a whole lot of enthusiasm for giving them tons of publicity, which is what really encourages them to continue.  For that matter, I recall that when they began their career of infamy by picketing the funerals of people who'd died of AIDS, the straight media clucked disapprovingly, but the campaign to silence them altogether didn't gain any steam until they moved to less safe subjects, like fallen US military.  Then a lot of people got worked up into a lather -- but in the US, as opposed to South Africa or Canada or the UK, the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech still means something, even for the most loathsome, hateful people.  But what really dispirits me here is this complacent self-styled liberal Christian indulgence in murderous fantasy, though I guess if you pretend to be all about Love, you have to hate somebody as a safety-valve.  And come to think of it, when I consider Jesus' fondness for threatening people he disliked with endless torture in hellfire, this kind of murderous fantasy is pretty Christlike.

We're All Moderates Here

A couple of different people I know passed this along on Facebook this weekend. 

I was with Ms. Yasira Jaan until she put "Islamic" in quote marks. (The No True Scotsman move.)  But she's probably right: Most Christians use the Westboro Baptist Church to make themselves look moderate by comparison, and so no doubt do most Muslims about Islamists.  Jerry Falwell called WBC pastor Fred Phelps "a first class nut," and fretted, "I found it almost impossible to believe that human beings could be so brutal and vicious to a hurting family."  (This was the same guy who said to a hurting country a few days after September 11, 2001: "[T]he pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'")  Returning Christian love for Christian love, Phelps picketed Falwell's funeral.  Was Falwell a moderate?  Phelps also denounced Pope Benedict XVI for protecting sexually predatory priests; was Pope Rat therefore a moderate?  My Right Wing Acquaintance RWA1 loves to post links to stories detailing the offenses of the man he calls "the demon-possessed preacher."  I certainly am not surprised if Muslim "terrorists" play the same role in the mainstream Muslim imaginary.

In saying this, I don't mean to say that all Muslims are the same, or that Ms. Jaan secretly makes donations to al-Qaeda.  It's just that using Phelps or al-Qaeda as the pole star of extremism leaves self-styled moderates a lot of wiggle room.

My comment to this effect displeased one of the friends who'd posted Ms. Jaan's tweet.  He replied, "Your comment would seem to suggest you consider moderation a meaningless term."  Well, yes, I do, as a matter of fact.  "Moderate" has no content whatever, especially if the self-styled moderate is permitted to set the extremes -- which they usually do.  Many people confuse moderation of tone with moderation of content, but neither one means much.

People can and do define just about any position as moderate if they're allowed to choose the extremes. Was Jerry Falwell a moderate? Was Pope Benedict a moderate, just because Phelps denounced him?  The classic statement on moderation is in Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail"; check it out. He didn't have much use for moderates either:

... I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I don't know anything about Ms. Jaan's political or other opinions, but I notice she wears a headscarf.  Of course that tells me that she is a moderate.  An extremist at one of the spectrum would wear a chador or burqa; an extremist at the other end would walk around immodestly bare-headed.  Lest anyone accuse me of attacking women who choose to cover their heads of their own free will, let me point out I too am a moderate, because I agree that women should be free to wear the hijab if they freely choose to.  There are extremists who would ban Muslim women from wearing headscarves; at the other extreme there are those who would force them to do so.  The friend who posted this tweet to Facebook, by the way, is also a moderate: he regards Barack Obama's presidential offenses as a "disappointment," between extremists of the Right who cheer on drone strikes, NSA data mining, cutting Social Security, etc.; and extremists of the Left like me, who see them as grounds for impeachment.  Isn't moderation wonderful?

Put the Constitution on the Ground. Walk Away Slowly from the Constitution

Justin Elliott reports that Sarah Palin has tried to back down from her previous criticism of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the First Amendment. Of course, she did so while basically repeating her criticism; it's a common tactic.

“Obviously my comment meant that when we’re told we can’t say ‘God bless you’ in graduation speeches or pray before a local football game but these wackos can invoke God’s name in their hate speech while picketing our military funerals, it shows ridiculous inconsistency,” Palin told [The Daily Caller]. “I wasn’t calling for any limit on free speech, and it’s a shame some folks tried to twist my comment in that way. I was simply pointing out the irony of an often selective interpretation of free speech rights.”

As Elliott points out, Palin still doesn't understand the difference between freedom of speech and the Establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in religion. But as I wrote Wednesday, Palin is far from alone in her confusion. I believe that most Americans agree with her, especially when it comes to speech that offends them.

Jon Stewart weighed in on the topic, for example.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

You know, I get the impression that Stewart doesn't really like "Principled Behavior." But he doesn't have much to say about it, other than that he really really really dislikes Westboro Baptist Church. So do I, but how much courage does it take for him to say so? It's like Sarah Palin getting up in front of her fans and denouncing Barack Obama. Attacking Phelps is one of the safest things you can do in America. So what's the point?

Stewart goes on to address the recent dismissal of a star Brigham Young University basketball player for violating the school's honor code by having sex with his girlfriend. Like numerous other mainstream commentators, but more grudgingly, Stewart credits BYU for sticking to its principles, but you can see that it still bothers him, because as a normal American he can't understand a school's willingness to sacrifice a winning player and lose games, maybe even the season, for any reason. To show how worldly he is, he cements his point with ... a rape joke.

By the way, I don't think that BYU deserves credit for sticking to its principles. First you have to have good principles. BYU Coach Dave Rose let it slip when he told the press, "It's not about right or wrong, it's about commitment." While there is something to be said for this -- other things being equal, people should honor the commitments they make -- it is about right or wrong.

But back to freedom of speech. The other night on Facebook, RWA1 linked to a Cato Institute post on the Supreme Court's ruling, and commented that someday Phelps would say the wrong thing to the wrong person. "And?" I asked him in a comment. I presume he had in mind something like this:

A day after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest against homosexuality at military funerals, the fallen Marine's father, who unsuccessfully sued the controversial Kansas congregation, warned that the church's protests will eventually spark violence.

"Something is going to happen," Albert Snyder told CNN Thursday. "Somebody is going to get hurt."
"You have too many soldiers and Marines coming back with post-traumatic stress syndrome, and they (the Westboro protesters) are going to go to the wrong funeral and the guns are going to go off."
"And when it does," Snyder said. "I just hope it doesn't hit the mother that's burying her child or the little girl that's burying her father or mother. It's inevitable."

Well, so much for the popular notion that our troops are fighting to defend our freedoms. I sympathize with Mr. Snyder, but he's trampling on the Bill of Rights and justifying violence against people who exercise the freedom of speech that Americans supposedly enjoy. His fake concern about "the mother that's burying her child or the little girl that's burying her father or mother" is repugnant, given the history of violence, both official and vigilante, against dissenters in this country. It may be less of a problem than it used to be, but Noam Chomsky recalls how demonstrations against the Vietnam War in the early 60s were routinely attacked by onlookers. I don't believe that opponents of American wars have ever picketed the funerals of American soldiers who fought in them, but the enduring "hippies spitting on veterans" myth is a reminder that a good many Americans regard any opposition to our wars, anywhere, as an assault on Our Troops, to be answered with violence.

Mr. Snyder, who complained that the Court lacked "the common sense that God gave a goat," also said:

"When my son died, I knew two days ahead of time that they were coming ... Because of (the protesters') presence, I had police coming out of the woodwork, I had sheriffs. I had a SWAT team. I had emergency vehicles. I had media coming in," Snyder said. "All I wanted to do was have a private dignified funeral for my son. "They turned it into a three-ring circus," Snyder said.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If Mr. Snyder had won in the Supreme Court, there would still have to be police and sheriffs and SWAT teams to keep the Westboro gang away from the funerals they seek to picket. For that matter, the Phelpses "were picketing on a public street 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral; they complied with the law and with instructions from the police, and they protested quietly and without violence." If there weren't so many Americans who want to commit violence against protesters, all those police and sheriffs and SWAT teams wouldn't be necessary.

When asked what his next step will be, Snyder replied. "The thing that just hits me the hardest is all the hatred in this country."

"And I think if I wanted to look to what I'm going to do in the future, I feel like that maybe there's where I need to be," Snyder said, "to try do something with all the hatred that's in this country."

Maybe Mr. Snyder could start by looking in the mirror. Or he could concentrate on the living, and worry about Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is still being held in 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement at Quantico despite never having been convicted of any crime, with this new fillip (via):

A lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking secret government files to WikiLeaks, has complained that his client was stripped and left naked in his cell for seven hours on Wednesday. ...

The soldier’s clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand naked outside his cell during an inspection, Mr. Coombs said in a posting on his Web site.

“This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification,” Mr. Coombs wrote. “It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. Pfc. Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.”

First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private Manning’s clothing taken from him. He said that the step was “not punitive” and that it was in accordance with brig rules, but he said that he was not allowed to say more.

“It would be inappropriate for me to explain it,” Lieutenant Villiard said. “I can confirm that it did happen, but I can’t explain it to you without violating the detainee’s privacy.”

Even the AP reported the story, so it's not like the facts are either under dispute or hard to learn.

It's a good thing the Supreme Court ruled as it did, or protests like this (via) might be illegal too.



Notice that not one but two Republican Congresspeople attended the rally and egged the frothers on. As Greenwald wrote, "I think what was most striking about that video is that the presence of small children didn't give these anti-Muslim protesters even momentary pause; they just continued screeching their ugly invective while staring at 4-year-olds walking with their parents." It reminded me of old clips of black kids being escorted by soldiers into formerly segregated schools, while white yahoos howled at them.


Are those Orange County bigots entitled to their freedom of speech? Of course, though I don't think their rights are in any jeopardy. And I can imagine someone fretting that someday somebody will snap, given all the hatred in this country, and the guns are going to go off, and they pray that the bullets won't hit the innocent blond, blue-eyed child whose parents brought him along to protest against the Muslims, but It's Inevitable.