Interesting and not-snide article from the Kansas City Star on the Song of Songs. Apparently, some people -- meaning some US evangelicals -- are rediscovering the naughty thrills of the Song, and using them to draw crowds.
I know these thrills well. In a long-gone Confirmation Class, my lay catechist described it as "the Bible's dirty book," and said that in some pious households the pages were glued together to keep children from reading them. Always an oponent of censorship, I rushed home and read the thing start to finish.
Honestly? I was a little disappointed. Great poetry, but not the easiest stuff to read. There seems to be an underlying narrative, but the details are awfully hard to figure out. Readers usually wind up imposing their own heavy-handed interpretations on the text. (To judge from the Star article, the Kansas evangelical preachers choose a narrative that is very, very different from my own. I see -- and have preached -- a tale of forbidden love, love outside the boundaries of social convention, perhaps even the law. They seem to see a married couple on the honeymoon. Well, as we said in the Seventies, whatever gets you through the night.)
But here's something interesting: several of the editors and professors quoted for the article mentioned that they had never seen (or presumably heard) a sermon on the Song. Okay, the Song is one of those books -- like Esther -- that lectionary committees have traditionally skipped over. So it's an understandable omission for those of us who use the lectionary -- but passing strange in the free-church world. This is great stuff, and powerful stuff, and if you spin it jussssst right, it can even be stuff that speaks clearly about God's love.
Here's my proposal: Let's make 2006 the Year of the Song. I challenge my free-church readers (there must be one) to lead a summer series on it. For the rest of us, perhaps a mid-week Bible study. Or thinking about it in relation to our appointed texts -- surely a creative mind can find in the Song some relationship to St. Mark's Gospel.
Yes, there will be a few repressed pew-sitters who wig out. But there always are -- if not over this, then over a sermon explaining that torture is bad, that the poor need our help, or that God is not actually in the White House. And isn't that always one of the joys of priesthood?
Monday, March 06, 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Renewing Worship?
Lutherans -- or at least their publishing house -- have long felt the need for a new hymnal and service book. (Unlike our Anglican cousins, we typically combine the two). Be careful what you feel the need for.
1978's Lutheran Book of Worship is a masterpiece of liturgical scholarship. Inter alia, it restored to the Eucharist an eschatological dimension; eliminated faux-Jacobean worship dialect; offered three practical Mass settings, appropriate for congregations with differing levels of musical skill; acknowledged that the introit had become an anachronism; and offered elegant orders for daily prayer, which have drawn praise from no less an authority than Robert Taft. And plenty more.
But it was never perfect. It lacked a complete psalter. The hymn choices and harmonizations were sometimes questionable, and the texts were frequently altered to dubious effect. The emphasis upon German, Scandinavian and "traditional" 19th-C. American hymnody became ever more limiting, as Lutherans struggled to receive the gifts of African and Latin American Christianity.
So now comes "Renewing Worship," the culmination of a 15-year process, now in its last stages. A new book will be published soon -- and this is a big event in American Lutheranism. We take our "new books" seriously. Which makes the readily apparent problems with Renewing Worship especially worrisome. Here are a few preliminary concerns. I'll raise more later:
Inclusive language. Well, the Egg is all for it. Strongly, loudly, frequently. The LBW rightly eliminated the "masculine neuter," an historically questionable grammatical trick by which both men and women were referred to as "man" or even "men." God -- as Trinity, Christ, Father and Spirit -- remained "he." A few congregations have adopted the practice of emending the texts to remove masculine pronouns for God -- a common enough practice among US Protestants. (The Romans flirted with this, but Rome told them to stop.) Most haven't.
RW goes further in this direction. A few more hymns lose their pronouns -- hardly a surprise.
And the truth is that hymn texts have always -- always -- been subject to ideological editing. We love Luther's Lord Keep Us Steadfast, but it is a long time since we sang about "murd'rous Turk and papist's sword." How many of us have ever sung the true verse 3 of Lift High the Cross? (It's about "false sons" of the Church, "those who hate her," all meaning exponents of the Higher Criticism). Or verse 3 of "Faith of Our Fathers," about how "Mary's prayers" will overthrow Anglicanism?
But RW goes a step too far: It gender-neutralizes the Psalter. We are not talking about the sort of gender-accurate translation that the NIV publishers tried a few years ago, before Southern baptists threatened a boycott. We are talking about translations which distort the Biblical text. Psalm 1 -- "Blessed is the man" -- becomes "blessed are they." In Hebrew, it's "ha-ish." That's "the man." A person in general, or humanity in general, is "enosh."
More typically, this business involves a change from third to second person -- God is not "he" but "you," which the publishers call "the language of prayer." Oh, piffle. The psalms themselves are the language of prayer -- they have been for millennia. And they aren't like hymns -- they are are Scripture. They shape the way we pray, and we dare not reshape them to fit our desires. If we don't like them, we should pray something else (and find another religion. Taoism is sort of nice).
The publisher's note is a little deceptive. It claims this second-person business is common in Hebrew poetry, and brags about the "Lutheran Old Testament scholars" who have been consulted. All well and good, but it skips over the basic, irreducible fact that the words are being mistranslated. People in the pews deserve, at the very least, to know this.
But this isn't really what burns our britches at the Egg. As I said, we like inclusive language. We really, really do. Here's what gives us agita:
Dumbing It Down. There's a great song by folk-rock-Lutheran guy Jonathan Rundman about how often leaders dumb down the language -- and content -- of worship. This idea is always to welcome strangers, by making worship accessible even to the uninitiated. So they make it sweet and easily digestible, like baby food. Get rid of the hard words. Replace the crucifix with a cross, and the cross with a painted angel. or better yet, an abstract design, so people can project onto it their own hopes and dreams for a religion.
But you are supposed to grow out of strained carrots and applesauce. The problem with these dumbed-down services is that they take away the substance, and never bring it back. And so the depth of the Christian message goes missing, and is not retrieved. Rundman's refrain ends, prophetically, "we're creating monsters." Damned right we are, with an emphasis on the "damned."
There aren't many good Transfiguration hymns. The best is probably "O Wondrous Type, O Vision Fair." Or was, until RW rendered it "O Wondrous Image." These words are close in meaning, but not the same. An image is, etymologically, an imitation -- as human beings are of God, or a picture of the thing depicted. In Christian theology, a "type" is something rather different -- a prefiguring, as the Ark is of the Church, say, or in this case, the Transfiguration is of the Resurrection. (In fairness, the original Latin of this hymn has the less precise word "forma;" John Mason Neale made the typological point explicit in his translation.)
Worse yet, consider one of the brilliant Eucharistic hymns by Thomas Aquinas. "Thee we adore, O hidden Savior" is the traditional, and accurate, translation of Adoro te devote, latens Deitas. The hiddenness of God is the whole point here -- that even though we cannot see or taste the presence of Christ, we nonetheless trust that he is present because he said so. A very Lutheran idea, by the way. Or it was, until RW butchered it: "Thee we adore, O Savior God most true." Still an accurate idea theologically -- but simply not the point of the verse or, indeed, the hymn. For an idea of how badly endumbed the RW version is, compare the seven-verse original seven-verse original to RW's four bastardized verses. (You'll have to scroll to find them; it's a long document, but the hymns are alphabetical). Worse yet, RW credits its translation to Gerard Manley Hopkins, whose actual version is so scrupulously good. (And we don't much like Hopkins, generally).
So what shall Lutherans do, if all this ticks them off a bit to much? Well, RW can't be stopped; it's almost in print. But that doesn't mean we have to buy it. The LBW is good for a few more years. This Far By Faith is a pretty good book. The Episcopalians have a hymnal, and their prayerbook is okay, except for the Calvinist parts. or maybe we should go back to the Common Service. I'm game if you are.
1978's Lutheran Book of Worship is a masterpiece of liturgical scholarship. Inter alia, it restored to the Eucharist an eschatological dimension; eliminated faux-Jacobean worship dialect; offered three practical Mass settings, appropriate for congregations with differing levels of musical skill; acknowledged that the introit had become an anachronism; and offered elegant orders for daily prayer, which have drawn praise from no less an authority than Robert Taft. And plenty more.
But it was never perfect. It lacked a complete psalter. The hymn choices and harmonizations were sometimes questionable, and the texts were frequently altered to dubious effect. The emphasis upon German, Scandinavian and "traditional" 19th-C. American hymnody became ever more limiting, as Lutherans struggled to receive the gifts of African and Latin American Christianity.
So now comes "Renewing Worship," the culmination of a 15-year process, now in its last stages. A new book will be published soon -- and this is a big event in American Lutheranism. We take our "new books" seriously. Which makes the readily apparent problems with Renewing Worship especially worrisome. Here are a few preliminary concerns. I'll raise more later:
Inclusive language. Well, the Egg is all for it. Strongly, loudly, frequently. The LBW rightly eliminated the "masculine neuter," an historically questionable grammatical trick by which both men and women were referred to as "man" or even "men." God -- as Trinity, Christ, Father and Spirit -- remained "he." A few congregations have adopted the practice of emending the texts to remove masculine pronouns for God -- a common enough practice among US Protestants. (The Romans flirted with this, but Rome told them to stop.) Most haven't.
RW goes further in this direction. A few more hymns lose their pronouns -- hardly a surprise.
And the truth is that hymn texts have always -- always -- been subject to ideological editing. We love Luther's Lord Keep Us Steadfast, but it is a long time since we sang about "murd'rous Turk and papist's sword." How many of us have ever sung the true verse 3 of Lift High the Cross? (It's about "false sons" of the Church, "those who hate her," all meaning exponents of the Higher Criticism). Or verse 3 of "Faith of Our Fathers," about how "Mary's prayers" will overthrow Anglicanism?
But RW goes a step too far: It gender-neutralizes the Psalter. We are not talking about the sort of gender-accurate translation that the NIV publishers tried a few years ago, before Southern baptists threatened a boycott. We are talking about translations which distort the Biblical text. Psalm 1 -- "Blessed is the man" -- becomes "blessed are they." In Hebrew, it's "ha-ish." That's "the man." A person in general, or humanity in general, is "enosh."
More typically, this business involves a change from third to second person -- God is not "he" but "you," which the publishers call "the language of prayer." Oh, piffle. The psalms themselves are the language of prayer -- they have been for millennia. And they aren't like hymns -- they are are Scripture. They shape the way we pray, and we dare not reshape them to fit our desires. If we don't like them, we should pray something else (and find another religion. Taoism is sort of nice).
The publisher's note is a little deceptive. It claims this second-person business is common in Hebrew poetry, and brags about the "Lutheran Old Testament scholars" who have been consulted. All well and good, but it skips over the basic, irreducible fact that the words are being mistranslated. People in the pews deserve, at the very least, to know this.
But this isn't really what burns our britches at the Egg. As I said, we like inclusive language. We really, really do. Here's what gives us agita:
Dumbing It Down. There's a great song by folk-rock-Lutheran guy Jonathan Rundman about how often leaders dumb down the language -- and content -- of worship. This idea is always to welcome strangers, by making worship accessible even to the uninitiated. So they make it sweet and easily digestible, like baby food. Get rid of the hard words. Replace the crucifix with a cross, and the cross with a painted angel. or better yet, an abstract design, so people can project onto it their own hopes and dreams for a religion.
But you are supposed to grow out of strained carrots and applesauce. The problem with these dumbed-down services is that they take away the substance, and never bring it back. And so the depth of the Christian message goes missing, and is not retrieved. Rundman's refrain ends, prophetically, "we're creating monsters." Damned right we are, with an emphasis on the "damned."
There aren't many good Transfiguration hymns. The best is probably "O Wondrous Type, O Vision Fair." Or was, until RW rendered it "O Wondrous Image." These words are close in meaning, but not the same. An image is, etymologically, an imitation -- as human beings are of God, or a picture of the thing depicted. In Christian theology, a "type" is something rather different -- a prefiguring, as the Ark is of the Church, say, or in this case, the Transfiguration is of the Resurrection. (In fairness, the original Latin of this hymn has the less precise word "forma;" John Mason Neale made the typological point explicit in his translation.)
Worse yet, consider one of the brilliant Eucharistic hymns by Thomas Aquinas. "Thee we adore, O hidden Savior" is the traditional, and accurate, translation of Adoro te devote, latens Deitas. The hiddenness of God is the whole point here -- that even though we cannot see or taste the presence of Christ, we nonetheless trust that he is present because he said so. A very Lutheran idea, by the way. Or it was, until RW butchered it: "Thee we adore, O Savior God most true." Still an accurate idea theologically -- but simply not the point of the verse or, indeed, the hymn. For an idea of how badly endumbed the RW version is, compare the seven-verse original seven-verse original to RW's four bastardized verses. (You'll have to scroll to find them; it's a long document, but the hymns are alphabetical). Worse yet, RW credits its translation to Gerard Manley Hopkins, whose actual version is so scrupulously good. (And we don't much like Hopkins, generally).
So what shall Lutherans do, if all this ticks them off a bit to much? Well, RW can't be stopped; it's almost in print. But that doesn't mean we have to buy it. The LBW is good for a few more years. This Far By Faith is a pretty good book. The Episcopalians have a hymnal, and their prayerbook is okay, except for the Calvinist parts. or maybe we should go back to the Common Service. I'm game if you are.
Because I Do Not Hope To Turn...
The line, of course, is from T.S. Eliot's poem for today, Ash Wednesday. Great poem, to be sure. But the first verse is misleading to a casual reader.
Ash Wednesday is all about turning. That is, turning away from sin and toward God. It is about repentance, reconciliation, return. For Christians, these things are always possible. No matter how far we have strayed, how low we have fallen, the presence of a loving God is no further away than one prayer, one sacrament, one turn in the opposite direction.
We have a lot to repent, no matter who we are. Republicans lie, Democrats are cowardly; the press asks foolish questions and fails to ask the ones that might make a difference; the rich forget the poor, and the poor burn with envy. America is fighting a war in which neither side uses just tactics, or even tries. (Here's more scary documentation of the Bush Administration's effort to make torture legal). Gay activisits want immediate change, and don't care if they split their churches; and their opponents want to live in the past forever, and don't care who they prevent from hearing the Gospel. And as for us who serve in the clergy ... well, our sins are at least as scarlet as anybody else's. At least.
But maybe this year we will change. Maybe this year we will repent, and be reconciled to God, and renew our spirits. Probably not -- but maybe. The possibility is always there. Whenever we want to come home, God is always willing to receive us. That's the point.
Ash Wednesday is all about turning. That is, turning away from sin and toward God. It is about repentance, reconciliation, return. For Christians, these things are always possible. No matter how far we have strayed, how low we have fallen, the presence of a loving God is no further away than one prayer, one sacrament, one turn in the opposite direction.
We have a lot to repent, no matter who we are. Republicans lie, Democrats are cowardly; the press asks foolish questions and fails to ask the ones that might make a difference; the rich forget the poor, and the poor burn with envy. America is fighting a war in which neither side uses just tactics, or even tries. (Here's more scary documentation of the Bush Administration's effort to make torture legal). Gay activisits want immediate change, and don't care if they split their churches; and their opponents want to live in the past forever, and don't care who they prevent from hearing the Gospel. And as for us who serve in the clergy ... well, our sins are at least as scarlet as anybody else's. At least.
But maybe this year we will change. Maybe this year we will repent, and be reconciled to God, and renew our spirits. Probably not -- but maybe. The possibility is always there. Whenever we want to come home, God is always willing to receive us. That's the point.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
David Irving Stinks. Now Cut Him Loose.
The Globe and Mail gets it right. David Irving is "a Holocaust-denier, an anti-Semite and a racist," whose grotesque ravings include the claims that "Anne Frank could not have written her famous diary, that Hitler never gave an order to exterminate the Jews and that 'Auschwitz is a legend, just like the Turin Shroud.' " Although they don't say it, Irving is by any civilized standard a creep, a jerk and a buffoon.
But he doesn't belong in prison.
It does not take a genius to see that the German and Austrian laws against Holocaust denial are powerful symbols of the damage that Nazism did to, and through, those nations. They are a powerful sign of the commitment those nations made to acknowledge the crimes of their own citizens and governments, and to brook no neo-fascist foolishness.
But the laws are wrong.
Freedom of speech is not an option for a free society. It is a requirement. It cannot be dispensed with simply because the person speaking, or the things he says, are wicked. Irving's madness has made him a contemptible laughginstock among historians. But -- even if he has incidentally given comfort to the most wretched remainders of a justly defeated ideology -- he has not incited violence or given away national security information. (The question of whether he has slandered anybody is a bit dicier, but can surely be dealth with by a nation's usual laws).
If we are going to be repelled by Islamofascist fatwas against offensive Danish cartooning, we have little choice but to be equally repelled by Austrian imprisonment of a man for the presentation of offensive (and patently false) historical claims. And it is no contradiction to find Irving no less repellant than the laws which have convicted him.
But he doesn't belong in prison.
It does not take a genius to see that the German and Austrian laws against Holocaust denial are powerful symbols of the damage that Nazism did to, and through, those nations. They are a powerful sign of the commitment those nations made to acknowledge the crimes of their own citizens and governments, and to brook no neo-fascist foolishness.
But the laws are wrong.
Freedom of speech is not an option for a free society. It is a requirement. It cannot be dispensed with simply because the person speaking, or the things he says, are wicked. Irving's madness has made him a contemptible laughginstock among historians. But -- even if he has incidentally given comfort to the most wretched remainders of a justly defeated ideology -- he has not incited violence or given away national security information. (The question of whether he has slandered anybody is a bit dicier, but can surely be dealth with by a nation's usual laws).
If we are going to be repelled by Islamofascist fatwas against offensive Danish cartooning, we have little choice but to be equally repelled by Austrian imprisonment of a man for the presentation of offensive (and patently false) historical claims. And it is no contradiction to find Irving no less repellant than the laws which have convicted him.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Yowza -- Cheney Takes Responsibility!!!
In his interview with (who else?) Fox News, the Veep took complete responsibility for shooting a guy in the face. He disavowed, in particular, any effort to "make it Harry's fault." (Are you listening, Pudgie McClellan?)
For a moment, we at the Egg were thrilled by all this. Wow, we thought. Cheney's really standing up here. He's admitting he made a mistake.
And then our heart sank. This shouldn't be such a big deal. Most of us learned the lesson in grade school, when Dad marched us back to the candy store to apologize for filching that Hershey bar. It shouldn't surprise us when our elected officials take responsibility for their mistakes. The fact that it does come as a surprise -- and a relief -- only shows how conditioned we have been by decades of executive lying. From "I am not a crook" to "I did not have sex with that woman," we have come to take for granted that Presidents will lie to us.
Still, let's be clear: when it comes to evading responsibility, the Bush Administration achieves new levels of shamelessness. Yellow-cake, Plamegate, WMDs, torture and secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, you name it.
And it's not just about lying and evading responsibility, but about blaming other people for their own screwups. The Administration, and "movement" Republicans generally, continue to blame the CIA for "intelligence failures," even though it is pretty obvious that the warmakers rejected outright any intelligence that wasn't flawed the way they needed it to be. (Don't believe me? Click here.)
By the way, we love Chuck Hagel's comment: "If [Cheney'd] been in the military, he would have learned gun safety."
For a moment, we at the Egg were thrilled by all this. Wow, we thought. Cheney's really standing up here. He's admitting he made a mistake.
And then our heart sank. This shouldn't be such a big deal. Most of us learned the lesson in grade school, when Dad marched us back to the candy store to apologize for filching that Hershey bar. It shouldn't surprise us when our elected officials take responsibility for their mistakes. The fact that it does come as a surprise -- and a relief -- only shows how conditioned we have been by decades of executive lying. From "I am not a crook" to "I did not have sex with that woman," we have come to take for granted that Presidents will lie to us.
Still, let's be clear: when it comes to evading responsibility, the Bush Administration achieves new levels of shamelessness. Yellow-cake, Plamegate, WMDs, torture and secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, you name it.
And it's not just about lying and evading responsibility, but about blaming other people for their own screwups. The Administration, and "movement" Republicans generally, continue to blame the CIA for "intelligence failures," even though it is pretty obvious that the warmakers rejected outright any intelligence that wasn't flawed the way they needed it to be. (Don't believe me? Click here.)
By the way, we love Chuck Hagel's comment: "If [Cheney'd] been in the military, he would have learned gun safety."
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
So the guy Cheney shot had a heart attack. Well, I would too, if somebody shot me in the face, neck and chest. And I'd feel damn lucky to still have a heart that could be attacked.
Here's my question: if Harry Whittington dies, does that make the Veep a murderer? Or anyway, a manslaughterer? I'm not kidding. There are laws about this sort of thing.
Or don't our laws govern the Executive Branch anymore?
Here's my question: if Harry Whittington dies, does that make the Veep a murderer? Or anyway, a manslaughterer? I'm not kidding. There are laws about this sort of thing.
Or don't our laws govern the Executive Branch anymore?
Dear Dick
Dear Mr. Cheney,
The National Rifle Association is a group dedicated to gun safety. I think they also do some advocacy work on the side. Perhaps you've heard of them?
Anyway, they have a pamphlet with some rules for staying safe. I thought you might be interested in Rule # 1:
1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.
Boy, does this sound like a great idea! Bet you wish you'd thought of it before you tried to take off Harry Whittington's head with birdshot the other day, huh?
They even teach courses in this stuff. There aren't any in the District of Columbia, where you live, but maybe you could take a class in Virginia. Here's the list of classes. After all the embarrassment you've caused him, I'll bet your boss would pay for it. Or maybe Mr. Whittington would. Or maybe the Senate Democrats, now that know what you're capable of.
The National Rifle Association is a group dedicated to gun safety. I think they also do some advocacy work on the side. Perhaps you've heard of them?
Anyway, they have a pamphlet with some rules for staying safe. I thought you might be interested in Rule # 1:
1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.
Boy, does this sound like a great idea! Bet you wish you'd thought of it before you tried to take off Harry Whittington's head with birdshot the other day, huh?
They even teach courses in this stuff. There aren't any in the District of Columbia, where you live, but maybe you could take a class in Virginia. Here's the list of classes. After all the embarrassment you've caused him, I'll bet your boss would pay for it. Or maybe Mr. Whittington would. Or maybe the Senate Democrats, now that know what you're capable of.
Cheney Bags Lawyer
The headline, a new classic, is courtesy of the Herald of Glasgow. But the link gets you to the WashPost, for a nice, thorough description of the Darth Cheney shooting incident. Highlights include:
Cheney was hunting illegally. At least technically: he lacked a $7 dollar out-of-state hunter's credential that Texas requires. No big deal, really. So do lots of people who hunt birds in Texas; but they aren't (a) multi-gazillionaire war profiteers; and (b) Number 2 in the Executive Branch.
Catch the spin: Yes, accidents will happen, and that's all part of the sport. We get it. But Scott "Pudgie" McClellan is going one step further, and trying to blame the victim: "The protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington when it came to notifying the others that he was there."
We prefer the response from a lawyer at the National Shooting Sports Foundation: "You're hunting together; you need to know where everyone is." Or from another Texas quail-hunter: "If you pull the trigger, you're responsible for it, no matter what…. In hunting, the shooter is responsible for knowing where the shot is going. That's the bottom line."
The White House delayed about more than 18 hours before talking about this, and would have kept silent altogether if it hadn't been reported in a local paper. Great PR move, guys. If they don't think we deserve to know about hunting accidents, of course they don't think we deserve to know about wiretapping, torture and secret prisons.
Cheney was hunting illegally. At least technically: he lacked a $7 dollar out-of-state hunter's credential that Texas requires. No big deal, really. So do lots of people who hunt birds in Texas; but they aren't (a) multi-gazillionaire war profiteers; and (b) Number 2 in the Executive Branch.
Catch the spin: Yes, accidents will happen, and that's all part of the sport. We get it. But Scott "Pudgie" McClellan is going one step further, and trying to blame the victim: "The protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington when it came to notifying the others that he was there."
We prefer the response from a lawyer at the National Shooting Sports Foundation: "You're hunting together; you need to know where everyone is." Or from another Texas quail-hunter: "If you pull the trigger, you're responsible for it, no matter what…. In hunting, the shooter is responsible for knowing where the shot is going. That's the bottom line."
The White House delayed about more than 18 hours before talking about this, and would have kept silent altogether if it hadn't been reported in a local paper. Great PR move, guys. If they don't think we deserve to know about hunting accidents, of course they don't think we deserve to know about wiretapping, torture and secret prisons.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Homage to Peter Zenger
If Zenger means nothing to you, check the link. Meanwhile: I'm sorry, but I can't let go of the Cartoon Riots. First, they are getting worse -- deaths in Afghanistan today.
Second, and more important, I am troubled by the fuzzy thinking that surrounds them.
I am troubled by the apparent conviction that, because Muslims do not draw pictures of Muhammad, neither should anybody else. I am troubled by the implication that non-Muslims ought to obey the strictures of Islamic law. As Sullivan said today, I don't ask atheists to genuflect in front of a church. Or, more to the point: polygamy is against the law in every Western nation. It is legal, and not uncommon, under Shariah. So Muslims violate the Western sense of decency on a daily basis, but you don't see us rioting.
I am troubled that after decades of routinely publishing cartoons that depict Jews as hook-nosed devils, Muslims worldwide suddenly develop a passion for cultural sensitivity.
I am troubled by the number of Western governments, religious organizations and news outlets that seem willing to accept the idea that free speech shouldn't hurt anybody's feelings. The idea is nonsense, of course. Worse, it plays into the hands of those Western powers -- the Bush and Blair administrations, the Vatican and now South Africa -- who have their own political reasons to put limits on free expression.
I am troubled that when a Hizbullah official says that "If any Muslim had carried out the fatwa [against] Salman Rushdie, those despicable people would not have dared to insult the Prophet Muhammad - not in Denmark, not in Norway, and not in France," there are still Western governments and press organizations which ignore the danger of going wobbly on free speech. He is arguing that murder is the right way to shut up the people he disagrees with.
And I am troubled by how few of the news reports seem to acknowledge what is surely obvious: the rage of the rioters isn't really about perceived blasphemy per se. A drawing of the Prophet is at most the spark that lit the fuse. They may not like it, but other representations of the same man (such as the one at the Supreme Court) have provoked letters and petitions, not mobs and torches. The rioters are enraged because the cartoons -- at least the one most widely reported -- draw a connection between Muhammad and violence.
Whether such a connection is fair or not seems to be, at the very least, open for debate. Unlike Jesus or the Buddha, Muhammad led troops in battle. While Christianity and Buddhism both have plenty of violence in their histories, of these three faiths only Islam has as its central historic figure a person who voluntarily engaged in combat. Not metaphorical battle, not spiritual warfare, but actual swords-and-bloodshed fighting. This doesn't translate into something simple-minded on the order of "all Muslims are violent." The evidence is clear that most are not. But it does leave open the possibility that for many adherents of the religion he preached, the example of Muhammad may seem to validate and even demand religious violence.
And no, I don't imagine it is very pleasant to be reminded of the fact. But don't blame the messenger. Or burn down his embassy.
Second, and more important, I am troubled by the fuzzy thinking that surrounds them.
I am troubled by the apparent conviction that, because Muslims do not draw pictures of Muhammad, neither should anybody else. I am troubled by the implication that non-Muslims ought to obey the strictures of Islamic law. As Sullivan said today, I don't ask atheists to genuflect in front of a church. Or, more to the point: polygamy is against the law in every Western nation. It is legal, and not uncommon, under Shariah. So Muslims violate the Western sense of decency on a daily basis, but you don't see us rioting.
I am troubled that after decades of routinely publishing cartoons that depict Jews as hook-nosed devils, Muslims worldwide suddenly develop a passion for cultural sensitivity.
I am troubled by the number of Western governments, religious organizations and news outlets that seem willing to accept the idea that free speech shouldn't hurt anybody's feelings. The idea is nonsense, of course. Worse, it plays into the hands of those Western powers -- the Bush and Blair administrations, the Vatican and now South Africa -- who have their own political reasons to put limits on free expression.
I am troubled that when a Hizbullah official says that "If any Muslim had carried out the fatwa [against] Salman Rushdie, those despicable people would not have dared to insult the Prophet Muhammad - not in Denmark, not in Norway, and not in France," there are still Western governments and press organizations which ignore the danger of going wobbly on free speech. He is arguing that murder is the right way to shut up the people he disagrees with.
And I am troubled by how few of the news reports seem to acknowledge what is surely obvious: the rage of the rioters isn't really about perceived blasphemy per se. A drawing of the Prophet is at most the spark that lit the fuse. They may not like it, but other representations of the same man (such as the one at the Supreme Court) have provoked letters and petitions, not mobs and torches. The rioters are enraged because the cartoons -- at least the one most widely reported -- draw a connection between Muhammad and violence.
Whether such a connection is fair or not seems to be, at the very least, open for debate. Unlike Jesus or the Buddha, Muhammad led troops in battle. While Christianity and Buddhism both have plenty of violence in their histories, of these three faiths only Islam has as its central historic figure a person who voluntarily engaged in combat. Not metaphorical battle, not spiritual warfare, but actual swords-and-bloodshed fighting. This doesn't translate into something simple-minded on the order of "all Muslims are violent." The evidence is clear that most are not. But it does leave open the possibility that for many adherents of the religion he preached, the example of Muhammad may seem to validate and even demand religious violence.
And no, I don't imagine it is very pleasant to be reminded of the fact. But don't blame the messenger. Or burn down his embassy.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Suddenly, I'm in Bed with the Conservatives
Sullivan is all over this like a cheap suit. Good on yer, Andy. (The passage from Beaumarchais is especially apt.)
Michelle Malkin's blog has a scary photo essay. "Freedom go to Hell" pretty much says it all.
Michelle Malkin's blog has a scary photo essay. "Freedom go to Hell" pretty much says it all.
Vatican Chokes.
We almost used a stronger word. While Muslim mobs burn the Danish embassy in anger over cartoon representations of Mohammad, the Roman hierarchy comes across with gems like this: "Freedom of the press, including satire, must stop where religious belief begins."
That's Ersilio Cardinal Tonini, erstwhile archbishop opf Ravenna. Cardinal Silvestrini, head of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, offers a similar gem: "We, too, here in Europe, should rebel against the idea of mocking religious symbols," Silvestrini said. "Freedom to satirize which offends other people's feelings becomes prevarication."
What's wrong with this picture? Well, apart from the fact that either Silvestrini or his translator doesn't know what "prevarication" means, there's the fact that these remarks are sheer nonsense. Undemocratic, tyrannical, pre-Enlightenment nonsense. I invite Tonini to make his point to the ghosts of Diderot and Voltaire, or even Erasmus. (Not to mention Monty Python and the Simpsons). And I invite Silvestrini to find any examples of satire properly so called that do not offend somebody's feelings. He certainly won't find them in Juvenal or St. Jerome.
There is more to this than the Vatican's well-documented history of affection for certain kinds of tyranny, both intellectual and political. Rome shows signs of joining the frightened governments of Western Europe (yes, Mister Blair, this does mean you) in limiting free speech. The motivations may be different -- the governments are afraid of riots; Rome is probably trying to prepare a case against the next Andres Serrano. But the point is that both impulses are wrong. Even if well-intentioned, they are steps away from liberty and toward an accommodation with tyranny.
Of course there are limits to free speech. Mischief-makers can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Embedded reporters can't broadcast troop positions (thank you, Geraldo). Burning a flag is pure symbolism; burning a building is arson and sometimes murder. There are limits -- but nasty cartoons, foolish displays of tasteless museum art, public exposure of persons and ideas whose folly needs to be exposed -- these are not things that a free society can with justice limit. Because then it is not free.
That's Ersilio Cardinal Tonini, erstwhile archbishop opf Ravenna. Cardinal Silvestrini, head of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, offers a similar gem: "We, too, here in Europe, should rebel against the idea of mocking religious symbols," Silvestrini said. "Freedom to satirize which offends other people's feelings becomes prevarication."
What's wrong with this picture? Well, apart from the fact that either Silvestrini or his translator doesn't know what "prevarication" means, there's the fact that these remarks are sheer nonsense. Undemocratic, tyrannical, pre-Enlightenment nonsense. I invite Tonini to make his point to the ghosts of Diderot and Voltaire, or even Erasmus. (Not to mention Monty Python and the Simpsons). And I invite Silvestrini to find any examples of satire properly so called that do not offend somebody's feelings. He certainly won't find them in Juvenal or St. Jerome.
There is more to this than the Vatican's well-documented history of affection for certain kinds of tyranny, both intellectual and political. Rome shows signs of joining the frightened governments of Western Europe (yes, Mister Blair, this does mean you) in limiting free speech. The motivations may be different -- the governments are afraid of riots; Rome is probably trying to prepare a case against the next Andres Serrano. But the point is that both impulses are wrong. Even if well-intentioned, they are steps away from liberty and toward an accommodation with tyranny.
Of course there are limits to free speech. Mischief-makers can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Embedded reporters can't broadcast troop positions (thank you, Geraldo). Burning a flag is pure symbolism; burning a building is arson and sometimes murder. There are limits -- but nasty cartoons, foolish displays of tasteless museum art, public exposure of persons and ideas whose folly needs to be exposed -- these are not things that a free society can with justice limit. Because then it is not free.
Angry Muslims Burn Stuff.
I'm sure they threw rocks, fired shots in the air, and tried to recruit a few suicide bombers as well. We get the idea, guys.
And the idea that the Islamofascists want us to get is this: "Hey, West. Abandon your principles. Abandon your commitment to free press, free speech, the free exchange of ideas, even offensive ones. Replace all this with a society in which Islamic laws (such as those which forbid depictions of the Prophet) are respected even by non-Muslims, and in which Muslims themselves are judged only by Muslim courts. In other words, let us slowly cripple your legal systems, and exempt ourselves from them entirely. We'll call this 'respect.'
"And if you 'respect' us, we won't burn your stuff. You know, your flags, your buildings, your people who work in those buildings. That kind of stuff."
Here's something noteworthy, though. The mobs have been angry at the Danes over some cartoons lately (see below). So, as angry mobs will, they set fire to something -- the Danish embassy in Damascus. (The picture is from the AP). And wouldn't you know: the same building houses the Swedish and Chilean embassies. Which gets to the real point: " 'Respect' us, or every aspect of your societies -- those which offend us and those which do not -- will be burned."
To be fair, the American military (which has torched an embassy or two itself) has a similar doctrine. They call it collateral damage.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Muslims Outraged. Again.
Ho-hum. Muslims worldwide -- for which read "radical Islamists and those they have suckered with their demogogic divel" -- are up in arms over some cartoons in the European press. Tasteless, silly cartoons that included caricatures of Muhammad.
They want Denmark to apologize. That is, they want the government to apologize for what appears in the press. They want this, of course, because as subjects of the world's worst totalitarian regimes, they can't imagine anything appearing in a newspaper that hadn't been approved by the government.
(I waited years for the Nixon Administration to apologize for leaking the Watergate story.)
They want Denmark to apologize, as well, because they know that there is a symbolic war being waged between their Islamofascism and the ideals of an open society. Now, Western governments don't always do a great job of upholding those ideals (see above, under "Watergate;" or latterly, headings for Gitmo, Gonzales, Abu Ghraib and Wiretapping), but still, we are the only game in town. As often as Islamofascism can make the West apologize, it can make itself out to be the offended party, the victim rather than the aggressor. As often as it can achieve that goal, it can pull otherwise decent, loving and humane Muslims into its clutches.
(Yeah. And Southerners still call their attack of Fort Sumter the fuse that lit the "War of Northern Aggression." Go figure.)
But here's the part that really burns our britches at the Egg. They are ticked off over a newspaper caricature of Muhammad? Christians in the West have been forced to spend years listening to Pat Robertson's caricature of Jesus. Do you hear us complaining?
(And if not, why not?)
They want Denmark to apologize. That is, they want the government to apologize for what appears in the press. They want this, of course, because as subjects of the world's worst totalitarian regimes, they can't imagine anything appearing in a newspaper that hadn't been approved by the government.
(I waited years for the Nixon Administration to apologize for leaking the Watergate story.)
They want Denmark to apologize, as well, because they know that there is a symbolic war being waged between their Islamofascism and the ideals of an open society. Now, Western governments don't always do a great job of upholding those ideals (see above, under "Watergate;" or latterly, headings for Gitmo, Gonzales, Abu Ghraib and Wiretapping), but still, we are the only game in town. As often as Islamofascism can make the West apologize, it can make itself out to be the offended party, the victim rather than the aggressor. As often as it can achieve that goal, it can pull otherwise decent, loving and humane Muslims into its clutches.
(Yeah. And Southerners still call their attack of Fort Sumter the fuse that lit the "War of Northern Aggression." Go figure.)
But here's the part that really burns our britches at the Egg. They are ticked off over a newspaper caricature of Muhammad? Christians in the West have been forced to spend years listening to Pat Robertson's caricature of Jesus. Do you hear us complaining?
(And if not, why not?)
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Lutherans Just Like Catholics -- In the Bad Way
High-church types, yr. obdt. svt. included, suffer from occasional bouts of "me-too-ism." Lutherans and Anglicans ape bits and pieces of Roman Catholic practice; Romans sometimes crib from the Orthodox playbook, etc.
So I suppose an ELCA pastor convicted and sentenced for soliciting sex from a 14-year-old boy over the Internet was inevitable. Thank you, Michael Anthony Harris, formerly of St. Paul's, Pensacola. You've proved that we are capable of just as much betrayal of trust, sexual violence, and general clerical malfeasance as our tonsured brothers.
Word of advice: once you get out of prison, keep your distance from Father A. That guy has a quick temper and a long memory for creeps like you..
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Impeach Bush
Follow the link to see the Egg's New Year's wish. About as likely as dancing sugarplums, but what the hey.
Christus Belli
Christmas has come and gone (at least for those who aren't down with the whole "twelve days" business). And with it, we may hope, has gone the War on Christmas promoted by Bill O'Reilly and his ilk.
For my Hanukkah gelt, the funniest take on this bit of festal foolishness was Stephen Colbert's. He started with spiral-cut ham, and built to ... well, you'll see. Follow the link, scroll down if you have to, and then click the box for "Xmas."
For my Hanukkah gelt, the funniest take on this bit of festal foolishness was Stephen Colbert's. He started with spiral-cut ham, and built to ... well, you'll see. Follow the link, scroll down if you have to, and then click the box for "Xmas."
NY Man Changes Name to "Jesus Christ"
Merry Christmas. Sigh.
My favorite part of the Daily News article is the, err, revelation that Jose Luis Espinal, of Washington Heights, is the second person this year to have his name legally changed to the Savior's.
My favorite part of the Daily News article is the, err, revelation that Jose Luis Espinal, of Washington Heights, is the second person this year to have his name legally changed to the Savior's.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Alleged Pope Incarnate is Excommunicated
That's the actual CNN headline. But what we love best is the subhead: "Bishop also issues warning to woman claiming to be Virgin Mary."
Seems a Puerto Rican firefighter believes that John Paul II has taken over his spirit, and that Benedict XVI is "the antichrist." (Okay, Martin Luther occasionally muttered something about the Pope being antichrist, but the context was different.)
Geeze, Louise. The Egg is old enough to remember when crazy people just claimed to be Napoleon and let it go at that.
Seems a Puerto Rican firefighter believes that John Paul II has taken over his spirit, and that Benedict XVI is "the antichrist." (Okay, Martin Luther occasionally muttered something about the Pope being antichrist, but the context was different.)
Geeze, Louise. The Egg is old enough to remember when crazy people just claimed to be Napoleon and let it go at that.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Anglicans Restore the Taurobolium
Anglicans in South Africa aroused some consternation over their plan to ritually sacrifice an ox in celebration of opening a new diocese. The SPCA, needless to say, objected.
The Beliefnet comments on this one got sorta bogged down in the history of Jewish and Zoroastrian demonology, and for the less obscurely minded, on the question of whether the sacrifice was okay as long as they planned to eat the animal. Well, fine, everybody has a perspective. Our thinking here at the Egg is that this sounds like the Mithraic rites of intiation -- slaughter a bull, and take a bath in it's blood. Ick.
But here's the thing: Last I checked, Anglicans were Christians (despite Bishop Spong). And Christianity has historically taken a pretty dim view of animal sacrifice. And yes, I understand the nuance that Paul (in 1 Cor 8) is talking about animals sacrificed to pagan deities. And I try to be sympathetic to calls for enculturation. But still -- what possible purpose can an animal sacrifice serve for Christians, given that whole Hebrews 10 business about how we are made holy by the sacrifice of Christ, once and for all?
We Evangelicals have always been a little skeptical about the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Mass as an "unbloody sacrifice." But, whatever its limitations, that has to be safer theological ground than, well, an extremely bloody sacrifice. I mean, do you know how much blood an ox has?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Why We Like Bush Now
Don't get all huffy now. The Egg hasn't been wild about W., and isn't changing its position much. (We know the White House is heaving a sigh of disappointment).
But let's give the proverbial devil his due. On his recent swing through what the pre-PC crowd used to call the Orient, President Bush has been undiplomatically blunt in criticizing China's continued denial of human and civil rights to the Chinese, and especially of its religious oppression.
You know what? Good for him. Here's a story about official government torture of eight "house church" members, as well as the kidnapping of a Beijing pastor. Here's one about a Tibetan monk who has been barred from coming home. And here's the latest on Falun Gong.
Mind you, it isn't just the Chinese. Anastasia Yezhova has a theory that one reason Muslims settle in Europe -- apart from the grinding poverty of their homelands -- is that in Europe they are free to practice their religion. You heard me. It is easier to practice Islam in Europe than in all those "Islamic Republics" we keep reading about.
So, yes, I still think the President lied his way into a war, which he has since waged brutally but ineffectively. Yes, I think he has made absurdly bad political appointments, squandered the budget surplus, robbed from the poor to fatten the superrich, and -- yes, that old chestnut -- stolen one if not both elections. But there's no way around it: He's speaking truth to power on the question of religious freedom.
I may hate myself once I get sober, but ... You go, George.
But let's give the proverbial devil his due. On his recent swing through what the pre-PC crowd used to call the Orient, President Bush has been undiplomatically blunt in criticizing China's continued denial of human and civil rights to the Chinese, and especially of its religious oppression.
You know what? Good for him. Here's a story about official government torture of eight "house church" members, as well as the kidnapping of a Beijing pastor. Here's one about a Tibetan monk who has been barred from coming home. And here's the latest on Falun Gong.
Mind you, it isn't just the Chinese. Anastasia Yezhova has a theory that one reason Muslims settle in Europe -- apart from the grinding poverty of their homelands -- is that in Europe they are free to practice their religion. You heard me. It is easier to practice Islam in Europe than in all those "Islamic Republics" we keep reading about.
So, yes, I still think the President lied his way into a war, which he has since waged brutally but ineffectively. Yes, I think he has made absurdly bad political appointments, squandered the budget surplus, robbed from the poor to fatten the superrich, and -- yes, that old chestnut -- stolen one if not both elections. But there's no way around it: He's speaking truth to power on the question of religious freedom.
I may hate myself once I get sober, but ... You go, George.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)