An etiquette guide for the religious?

Why am I helping the fundies? I’m glad you asked. I got Jesused again by the neighbors today, only this time they sent their daughter to give me “you’re going to hell” literature. Seems I was right–we didn’t fool them after all. Anyway, the tackiness of the approach struck me again.

Tip #1: Sincerity - Be genuine for once.

For starters, if you’re going to be gung-ho about your religion try introducing yourself to the person you’re trying to convert. My family and I have been “witnessed” to twice by the neighbors, both times by surprise, and we don’t even know their fucking names.

Start out with,”Hey, my name is Joe.” The idea is not revolutionary. In fact, most normal people introduce themselves when they first meet somebody. I’ve always found that people are more receptive to “Hello” than “Accept Jesus or you’ll burn in hell.”

Tip #2: Patience - Good things come to those who wait

Alright, now you’ve sniffed each other’s butt, figuratively speaking. Do you go straight into your holy sales pitch? NO!

Now that you’ve established contact with your target, stay as far away from the topic of religion as you can. There are three things you never talk about with people you don’t know well: sex, politics and religion. Especially religion. This is a very touchy subject for many people. If your goal is to make the other person avoid you from now until Judgment Day, ignore what I’ve just said.

A friend of mine recently brought his girlfriend from overseas to meet his father. He introduced himself, but completely failed tip 2. Shortly after they arrived, he pulled out a brand new bible and handed it to her as a gift. My friend, knowing what his father is like but still not expecting this, looked for any reason he could to get the hell out of there.

Get to know the person. There are plenty of things you can find out just by talking to them. Don’t ask them what church they go to or whether they’re on “the winning team.” Be a friend. You can’t convert people by badgering them about their beliefs.

Tip #3: Humility - Do us all a favor and shut up.

Countless are the times I’ve heard fundamentalists interject “God” or “Jesus” or some random fundie catchphrase unexpectedly and without context. It’s almost as if they’re attempting to insert subliminal messages into the conversation. “We’ve been blessed, praise Jesus, to have so many pens lying around here.”

*record scratch* WHAT? Yes, it is a miraculous event! Jesus had nothing better to do with his eternity and powers so he focused them on guiding the fates of the universe to ensure that you were well stocked on pens.

Talking like a fanatic makes less-religious and non-religious people very uncomfortable. Does this serve your interests? I didn’t think so either. The only purpose this serves is establishing street cred with other holy rollers.

Tip #4: Conversion - The art of preaching without preaching.

As I said yesterday, the best way to win people over is by being genuine and kind to others. I’ve often heard fundamentalists rail the Catholic Church for their practice of Christ-worship, calling it a system that is based on good works instead of faith.

First, you’re not impressing anybody by condemning others for believing in god differently than you do. Second, you’re forgetting something: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

I think what bothers the irreligious most about outspoken fundamentalists has to do with this. You try selling your religion as one that only requires faith… then many of you practice it in such a way. Easy as pie! All I need to do is “accept Jesus,” whatever that means, and I’m home free! Don’t need to put any time or effort into it, I’m as good as can be.

To me, that gives one a license to sin, not a deterrent. “Well I’m saved so I can do whatever I want because Jesus will forgive me.” Good deeds are a required part of Christianity as said in the doctrine. Having faith is not enough; you must actually do something that shows your faith. And I’m not talking about picking up poisonous snakes and dancing with them.

If you people do give a shit about “saving people’s souls,” maybe it’s time to get off your ass and actually practice your religion the way it commands. There’s not a damn thing you can do to convert someone who isn’t already seeking some form of acceptance. People come to faith of their own means and volition, not by someone forcing them to. Doing the things you’re supposed to do as a Christian is the best way to get people to want your values. Requiring their kids to pray to your god at school is not one of them.

Good luck.

Introduction

Welcome to Fundie Week 2008! By now you’re probably wondering what bug crawled up my ass to give me cause to dedicate an entire week of blogging to fundies. Well, For months I’ve been toying with ideas to address the issue of fundamental Christianity and its impact. I just haven’t had the motivation.

Then, last week, I was called intolerant and fearful by a typical fundie for saying that Creationism belongs in a church, not a classroom.

Many of my friends and readers know me as being openly hostile to religion. I’m tolerant of it, but I’ve run out of patience with certain elements of it in several faiths. Why am I not targeting radical Islamists this week? Well, I’d written a lengthy blog about it, but I apparently missed it while transferring everything from my old host. There was also one about fundies and the election.

The reason Christianity is in the spotlight is, well, American Muslims aren’t trying to turn us into a theocracy while Christian fundies are trying desperately to make their beliefs into law, even going so far as to lie about being founded as a Christian nation, something I’ll be covering later this week. By the way, I sometimes use the name “Jesus” as a verb. You’ll understand when you see it.

Anyway, introduction over. Here’s the entry for Day 1. Enjoy.

A Secular View

I’m of the belief that people ought to be able to practice their religion freely, but not to the point where it involves the subjugation or oppression of others, both those within the religion and beyond it. I do not believe people should be told how to practice their faith until it meets this condition.

I also believe that it is Christianity’s mission to spread love rather than hate; to be charitable, to love and accept without preconditions. I think living in such a way sets such an example that makes others want to emulate it as well as the most effective way to convince people to keep their faith.

As such, I wouldn’t dare question the positive impact or significance of Christianity in the greater human story, nor would I challenge the message of love and acceptance it seeks to spread. To me, Christians who practice their faith according to these instructions are among the most admirable people in this society.

So what is this all about, anyway? What do I mean by “fundie?” The term is shorthand for “Fundamentalist Christian.” Fundamentalists are traditionally characterized by their belief that the bible is completely infallible (and even try using science to prove it), their active roles in politics, activism on certain social issues such as abortion, as well as aggressive attempts to make Christian beliefs a mandated part of public institutions (prayer in schools, creationism/ID taught alongside or replacing evolution in educational curriculum, religious symbols on public property, etc.). They’re also known for uncompromisingly supporting for the Republican party and the fanatical rejection of all things deemed “liberal.” They are generally intolerant of secular or otherwise non-Christian thing or ideas.

There are always exceptions to this, but not many.

In short, all of you normal, reasonable Christians out there, don’t get too offended. This isn’t about you. Any fundies out there who read this paragraph and think they’re off the hook, nice try. Quit kidding yourselves–you don’t fit into this category.

I don’t know what’s scarier: fundie behavior or the fact that they see themselves as reasonable. Let’s start with their methods of spreading the gospel.

“And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” - Matthew 4:19

A few days after my family moved into our new house, we received a knock at the door. I was on the couch feeding the baby, so my wife answered it. I heard the whole conversation.

A man from next door had shown up to welcome us to the neighborhood. We’d previously been warned about the neighbors by my mother in law, herself a practicing Christian. These people, she warned, were Baptists, and there was a good chance they’d come over to preach to us.

As soon as I figured out who it was, I knew what to expect. He said welcome to the neighborhood, then immediately went into his speech. With feigned, heartfelt sincerity he eventually asked,”If you die tonight, do you know where your soul will go?” After asking us if we had a church yet, my wife, who thankfully thinks quick on her feet, said we were Methodists and went to a different church across town. The guy sounded disappointed at this, and I haven’t heard from him since. I still don’t know what he looks like.

I don’t think we fooled him, though. The car hasn’t been out of the driveway on a Sunday morning since my last all-nighter on the computer, when I left to restock on cigarettes.

Obviously, the conversation would have gone a bit differently had I answered the door. This is not the first time I’ve been Jesused. Even back in my conservative Christian teen years, these door-to-door salvation salesmen came Jesusing. Even though I’d marked the “saved” box on the newcomer form some places pass out during gatherings, some errant youth pastor’s assistant would come knocking. In hindsight, maybe they wanted a check mark instead of an “x” and needed to verify my standings on the roster of eternal judgment.

In a nutshell, I’m familiar with the speech. Even back then I found myself offended that some guy was invading my space to drill me on my beliefs. Now that I’m a secular humanist, that is, one who adopts Humanistic philosophy but is agnostic in respects to the supernatural, my view on this method of “Jesusing” people is that it is very rude.

As I said in the beginning of this article, the best way to spread faith is to be charitable and loving. What fundies read is to be “fishers of men.” What they don’t seem to catch is the rest of the chapter where Jesus goes around helping people: healing the sick, teaching.

In the next chapter Jesus goes on to give a speech of hope. Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are they that mourn. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are the peacemakers. And let’s not forget this one:

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” - Matthew 5:16

Remember when I said that living by example is the best way to win people over? I came across this passage long after I wrote that. I wanted to see whether the “Jesusers” were acting according to the bible. I mean, I can’t be too angry at them for knocking on my door to sell me their religion if that’s what it commands.

As it turns out, it isn’t. It’s easy to quote the “fishers of men” verse and put the Jesus-fish on the back of your car. But in doing that while ignoring the rest of what he has to say, the fundies are missing the forest for the trees, aren’t they? Looks like Mr. Christ agrees with me.

Besides that, knocking on someone’s door to Jesus them but disguising it as a friendly welcome to the neighborhood is very tacky, and it makes you come off as fake and insincere. Want to make newcomers receptive to you and perhaps eventually your attempts to convert them? Start by welcoming them to the neighborhood and actually meaning it. Be genuine, because first impressions last. If you come with ulterior motives, I’m infinitely more likely to see you as a fraud than a friend on future occasions.

“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” - Luke 6:37

Wow, what a proposal! “Be accepting and benevolent to one another.” Can you imagine the age of peace and enlightenment we’d enjoy if people in this country followed this verse?

This is among the most quoted passages I’ve seen used by Christians and non-Christians alike. Usually, when a non-Christian pulls this one out it’s to throw scripture back in the face of a fundie with an axe to grind.

No, there’s no shortage of judgment among the fundamentalists. Everything from gays to scientists have a special place in hell carved out for them, and they’re not shy about repeating it over and over. Wait.. what happened to all that talk about judgment and forgiveness and not condemning each other, or about the merciful being blessed by God?

Don’t want to hold gay wedding ceremonies in church? Fine, that’s your business. Telling the state it can’t declare them a couple while condemning any who are in favor of these rights? Not so much.

From an outside perspective, we don’t see Christian soldiers fighting the holy war against Satan. We see hypocrisy, and that’s never appealing in any situation. And the fact that men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could amass such a following and wield such power serves only one purpose: to convince us that we’re right about you fundies and your hypocrisy.

“The Bible is the infallible Word of GOD!” - Fundie slogan.

One of the things that befuddles me is the complete absence of flexibility on this point. Even when you point something out and quote the verses that conflict, they act like they didn’t hear it, or that it doesn’t exist, or they say you’re lying.

For instance, let’s do a little exercise:

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” - Matthew 1:16

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” - Luke 3:23

So which is it? Last I checked, men don’t give birth and according to fundies it’s a sin for two fathers to raise a child.

Can’t we just accept that, hey, maybe the bible isn’t quite as infallible as we want it to be. There are hundreds of direct contradictions and holy inconsistencies throughout the tome, so either the angelic branch of God Press which does the copy editing needs to hire some better staff, or the bible isn’t a perfect text.

Can’t they just concede this one point? Inconsistencies and contradictions don’t invalidate your whole faith. God-inspired they might be, they were still penned by the hands of men.

And why all the focus on these details anyway? Is the fundamentalist faith so weak that it requires infallibility? Is the conviction they claim so fragile as to need scientific backing? Must faith be instituted by the state and be taught in schools in order for fundies to maintain it?

If not, then why bother with it? Why all the hostility towards secular things, why the demand for religious conformity?

From my perspective, it is the sum total of stubborn ignorance and blind faith of a weak-minded group of people who have no problem thumping their bibles but either haven’t read them or are wholly incapable of comprehending the concepts therein. I dare you to prove me wrong.

From an outside perspective, one which is at least respectful to the message of Jesus, they’re a disgrace to their religion and an embarrassment to their fellow believers. It’s pretty god damn bad when someone with a secular mindset finds more value in the bible’s teachings than those who are so zealous as to eagerly condemn others to hell for not believing the way they want us to believe.

Not all Christians are like this, thankfully. But the ones who are are outspoken and motivated enough in their intolerant crusader mindset to have the ability to overturn elections and, by extension, cause the rest of us to suffer as a result of their ceaseless stupidity. The only solution I can offer is vigilant resistance and constant ridicule, because reason doesn’t work. We tried that already, and if any fundies out there get wind of this week’s roster, I’m sure they’ll be more than willing to give us an example.

In closing, I’d like to take this moment to offer a way out. I’d like it to serve as a reminder not just for fundies, but all Christians. It needs to be said once in awhile to remind them: this is what you’re up against. When you go out into the world and are hurt or confused by its reaction to your beliefs, this is why. When the rest of the world is constantly reminded of the bitter closed-mindedness and hatred that seems to consistently emanate from the religious right, fundamentalists aren’t the only ones who get a bad rap.

If any Christians out there are reading this message, fundamentalist or otherwise, take these words of advice: Love your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Love your neighbor as yourself. When pride comes, then comes shame. Judge not. Condemn not. Forgive. Those of you who actually read the bible might already recognize it.

But then again, maybe I’m just wasting my time: “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.” - Proverbs 23:9

NOT!

So I’m listening to NPR on the way to work this week, and I hear Steve Inskeep talking to the Chinese ambassador about the riots and violence in Tibet over the past few weeks. I was floored. The ambassador (Zhou, I think his name was) consistently ignored Inskeep, who repeated the same question at least three times that I recall.

Zhou claimed that the Dalai Lama is not looking for autonomy or socio-cultural preservation, but an independent state. He characterized the attacks not as a riot or the culmination of many problems bubbling beneath the surface, but as violent criminal acts without reason or provocation. He said there was no evidence of ethnic conflict and that they were only doing this to disrupt the 2008 Olympics.

The question Inskeep repeatedly asked was something along the lines of,”Do you think the rioting happened because of legitimate concerns about Tibetan autonomy/grievances with the Chinese?” Zhou ignored it every time until the end, where he finally said (to paraphrase),”no, it’s not about autonomy, it’s not about ethnic conflict, these people are nothing but criminals.”

When Steve pointed out that the Chinese were ignoring the four days of peaceful protests before that, or that the fact that Chinese- and Muslim-owned businesses were targeted specifically indicates ethnic conflict, he was again ignored.

Shitty.

Listening to the Chinese ambassador speak was an exercise in patience. It mirrors the frustration I feel when I see the current administration dodging or ignoring important questions or completely stonewalling investigations. We may bark about how China is communistic while preaching the evils of communism, but if we do we will miss the similarities to what our government has been up to in recent years.

Now is a great time to inventory of all the ways our government has been running an authoritarian regime, for it is not Communism that makes the Chinese oppressive, but authoritarianism. Forced integration with Tibet, state-run media, tightly controlling what foreign journalists are allowed to see, throwing dissenters in prison, excessive use of execution. These aren’t Communist principles, they’re the outcome of authoritarian governing.

Dictionary.com defines the word “authoritarian” as follows:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an /????r??t??ri?n, ????r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] –adjective

1.	favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

2.	of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

3.	exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

–noun

4.	a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

This is one of those rare cases where every definition seems to apply. Let’s start with number one: Obedience and subjugation to authority. In the United States, this can pretty much be summed up with Cheney’s recent answer to the figures that show 2/3rds of Americans oppose the Iraq war: “So?”

I think more than anything this shows the natural attitude of resentment that those with authority can have towards those without. “I’m in charge here, you’re under me, you’re supposed to obey me, I know what’s best.” It’s my will over your will.

Other examples can be observed through the actions of President Bush. Telling Joe Lieberman that the reason we should trust his decision to go to war with Iraq, the reason we’ll succeed, is because of his instincts rather than because of actionable intelligence or a reviewed case by experts and advisors. This is typical of the arrogance that often accompanies authoritarian policy: we believe we’re right no matter what.

Another example is the administration’s treatment of the press. Certain questions dealing with serious or otherwise important matters are considered unacceptable and are usually not answered. One grievance of the press is the administration’s intentional lack of availability. At a press conference during John McCain’s recent publicized visit to the White House, at the end of the session one reporter demanded weekly press conferences with the president or White House spokesperson. In response, Bush ignored the question and instead chided the group for their bad behavior. It’s the media’s job to report, and the administration is telling them what is and is not acceptable in a society where freedom of the press is a guaranteed right.

China may run the media and control what gets inside Chinese borders or what gets beyond, but our officials ignore reporters, deny them access, attempt to cover up their activities and do their best to hinder any kinds of investigations or investigative reporting.

The 9/11 Commission is a good example. Bush and Cheney, after intially opposing the panel being created, finally agreed to be interviewed–but not by the whole panel. Instead, they’d meet with the panel’s top two officials and limit the questioning, if that is indeed what took place, to a mere hour. The meeting took place in private at the White House, neither Bush nor Cheney were under oath and no recordings were allowed–no media was allowed. No camera, no pictures, no transcript. Cheney, whom many see as some kind of evil puppeteer for Dubya, was with him the entire time. Condoleeza Rice also refused to publicly testify.

There’s an old adage in Washington that goes “if you have nothing to hide, don’t act like you do.” Remember all those 9/11 conspiracies gaining popularity a few years back? Ever wonder how people come up with them?

Other less-benign examples include the quashing of protests ahead of the 2004 Republican National Convention. The story linked here is pretty long, but definitely worth the read. In short, a large group of people were peacefully marching down 16th Street in NYC and were trapped as the police blocked off the entire block with orange construction netting, arrested, hauled away in busses, put in what was described as parking garages for hours and hours before being taken to a jail for many more hours. Last I checked, it’s illegal to hold someone for over 24 hours without being charged. But it wasn’t only the protesters. Some people just happened to be passing by, or saw the commotion and were curious, or were coming out of shops and diners. Some were journalists. Everyone on the block was arrested and harassed, and some were even assaulted by what appeared to be random selection.

It settles any and all debate over the Bush administration’s unconstitutional and authoritarian tactics. But of course, supporters will call the writer a liar and attack his credibility rather than the merits of the story, which are myriad. But then again, if one must see it to believe it, the article has photos, audio and video. Go ahead and click the last link I posted. Then watch the rest of the videos. Suffice it to say, China isn’t the only country that suppresses protest. What the NYPD did was violate the Constitutional First Amendment right to assembly and the Fourth Amendment protection against being arrested for no god damn reason. I’ve linked to the wikipedia entries in case you Conservatives out there, who love misquoting the Constitution and claim to uphold and defend it, get confused.

I wouldn’t be surprised if any Republicans arrested in that incident were Democrats by the time the day was over. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just accepted being abused like that and blamed it on the protesters. Sigh. Naturally, the mainstream media didn’t devote much attention to it, as it wasn’t yet stylish to publicly criticize the administration on important things like accountability, moral or legal. They were content with making fun of Bushspeak.

The PATRIOT Act, government-sanctioned police brutality, just about any Act or Law having to do with Homeland Security or domestic terror written since 2001… The list goes on and on.

Number two: centralization of authority and lack of constitutional accountability to the people. The examples in this case are plentiful and many are common knowledge, and many fall into both categories: suspension of habeas corpus, torture, the lack of Executive Branch accountability to Congress or the Judicial branch, getting away with direct disobedience to Congress, abuse of Executive privilege, using “National Security” as an excuse to completely obfuscate any matter of public record, blatant abuse of personal information for political purposes, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Number three: Excercising complete control of others’ will. I should just say “Fox News —> Conservatives” and leave it at that, but while the current administration is pro-Fox, Fox isn’t the government. For this, I’ll simply make a passing reference to certain police “compliance” tactics and, the big one, Bush’s leash on the DoJ, as evidenced by Alberto Gonzales’ protect-at-any-cost policy with the Bush administration, as well as the subsequent refusal by Michael Mukasey to enforce Congressional contempt charges against White House staff. Suffice it to say when the president (or vice president) wants something, it’s carried out or else. For evidence, one need look no further than the Iraq War commanders who’ve resigned after criticizing Bush’s policy. Heh, number four could be summed up as “Neo-Conservatives and Bush supporters.” But really, many of these examples fit into multiple definitions.

However, when observing the government’s trend in authoritarian policies it is important to acknowledge that it did not start with George W. Bush, nor will it end with him. In terms of the police, more hardline tactics were used under Janet Reno than any that come to mind when I think of Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey. Waco, Elian Gonzales, numerous cases of brutality, etc.. You don’t have to be a right-winger to be a bastard.

It was Benjamin Franklin who remarked about the Constitution and the government it describes,”…this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” Seems Mr. Franklin sees the historic pattern. And now, in the way he predicted, we’re approaching the end of the cycle. If nothing else, shouldn’t this be a cause to look at mistakes of past governments and learn something from them? Jingoist reasoning won’t suffice; “That won’t happen, this is ‘merica” is not a valid argument.

While listening to the Chinese ambassador explain his country’s actions in response to the rioting in Tibet, I thought the similarities were astounding. We’ve a way to go before we catch up to the Chinese government in terms of magnitude, but we have a hell of a good start and a mindset and determination to get there. We haven’t had our own Tienanmen Square yet, we don’t persecute the religious, and we don’t jail our journalists for doing their jobs… oh wait, yes we do.

Strange… the left is supposed to be comprised of “Commies,” yet it’s the right-wingers with business interests who buddy up to China and kiss their ass. Oh, that whole human rights/Communism thing? It gets swept under the rug.

Yet, who are the ones proposing a boycott of the Summer 2008 Olympics in Beijing? Could it be the stalwart champions of democracy, those unrelenting routers of Communism, the Conservative Republicans? From all their talk, I’d think it would have to be, wouldn’t you? Well, we’d be wrong. Instead, it’s the same group of so-called Anti-American liberals who are protesting about Darfur and Tibet, those liberal Hollywood actors, dubious organizations such as UNICEF, Reporters Without Borders, the Genocide Intervention Network, along with Nobel Peace Prize winners and various news organizations.

I wonder, is Fox News among them? They’d have to be, since they’re all about fighting the liberals and their pro-Communism ideology, right? Nope. Wrong again. I guess I’m just not with it today. The International Olympic Committee, who must certainly be dedicated to the spirit of brotherhood and world peace as symbolized by the Olympics? Nope. As David Kilgour points out, the IOC stands to gain tremendous profits off the games. Really, though, listen to the audio. The IOC committee member gets her ass handed to her on a platter.

The end result of all this? Not only is our government coming closer to mimicking China’s policy on human rights while offering a weak rhetorical slap on the wrist over it, we’re now abetting it by participating in the games and muting our criticism. I offer a different proposal: in the spirit of the Olympics, how about the rest of the world unites… elsewhere? We can have the Olympics still. In the spirit of peace, we could hold our protest event at one of the many Olympic stadiums that have served the games in the past, all around the world. China thinks it can use U.S. business interests as leverage in asking us to tolerate their disregard for humanity. But if the rest of the world (or at least most of it) locks arms in protest, maybe the greedy corporations will realize that they can take their business elsewhere. Maybe it will send that message to any government in the world: play by the rules or be left behind, because when it comes right down to it, either we accept their policies and abet their crimes or we don’t.

How about it, world?

I knew I was taking a gamble by defending Pastor Wright a few weeks ago. I knew that until I saw the video, I wouldn’t have an informed opinion or a solid defense of the man. I also knew that Obama is a reasonable, intelligent man. I know that when people preach messages of hate, the few listen, not the many.

I knew what would happen. It’s what usually happens: I was right.

It also proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the blatant bias, divisiveness and lies of the Fox News Network and any Rupert Murdoch production. It proves my accusations of knee-jerk nationalism by the Right as well as the absurdity of their hateful, uninformed views. Since these videos have been around for at least a week and so-called Conservatives are still preaching the same old lie, it proves my point about their self-imposed, willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.

America’s chickens may be coming home to roost, but my ducks are neatly in a row. I can’t help but say it: I told you so.

Thanks to Grandma’s Attic for alerting me to the existence of these videos on YouTube. I’ll embed these videos within this blog, knowing they’ll probably not be viewed and even if they are, most Conservatives will stubbornly refuse to accept defeat and resort to straw-man arguments, ad hominem and hairsplitting to defend their ignorance. Chances are, I’m right about that too.

Enjoy:

I, _____________________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution to the State of Illinois, and the territory, institutions and facilities thereof, both public and private, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I, nor have I been a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State by force or violence, and that during such time as I am affiliated with the (organization redacted), I will not advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State by force or violence.

Signature: _______________________
Witness: _______________________

—

I read the oath again and again, feeling out my thoughts and conscience for an answer. The training session was almost over and volunteers were lining up to collect the forms.

“..didn’t see that one coming,” I thought to myself as the man at the front of the room made his closing statements. There’s something peculiar about a civilian volunteer force having to take an oath such as this before being allowed to sign up. I say the pledge of allegiance, isn’t that enough?

No, that wasn’t it. At that point I was only kidding myself–I knew the reason why I was confused, but didn’t want to face the reality of it: it was an oath I couldn’t take. I couldn’t bring myself to sign it. I just couldn’t figure out why.

I folded the application between the pages of my training manual and shuffled towards the door.

—

“Did you forget to turn in your form?” On the way home, my wife had been flipping through the manual with casual interest and discovered my dirty little secret.

“Oh, that. Yeah, I think I need some more time to think it over.” Not a lie, just a way of postponing it. Both my wife and my in-laws are involved and want me to join. They were happy enough that I showed interest in the training course tonight, but I suspect they might hope for just a little bit more. The advanced class next, perhaps, then full-fledged membership. It’s not that they’re pressing it, or even thinking about it for that matter, just that the subject is bound to come up at some point.

“Why didn’t you join?” they’d eventually ask. I didn’t have an answer I thought they’d understand.

What was so hard about signing the dotted line, anyway? Why not just fork it over? No conflict, no guilt, no conundrum. Any possible family expectation concerning the matter would be satisfied, I’d have a volunteer service to list on my resume and, hey, it could be lots of fun. Besides, I’m sure this is one of those standard, required forms that gets filed with all the rest.

Still, something didn’t feel right about signing it.

I read over the oath page again, looking over each section. Defend the U.S. Constitution. Check. I do that every chance I get. Defend the State Constitution. Sure. It could use a little tweaking given the traditionally corrupt state of politics in Illinois, but hey. Defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. You betcha. No mental reservations. Check.

“And I do further swear,” I continued to read aloud,”that I do not advocate, nor am I, nor have I been a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or this State by force or violence.”

Bingo. No mental reservations: uncheck.

“I will not advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization that advocates…” I was getting the picture.

Insert thought bubble here.

It’s not as if I was in favor of overthrowing the government, nor was I harboring any fantasies that I could if I tried. On the contrary, I’ve been actively working to change the government and make the country a better place for all. Sure, we have an imperfect system, but is it truly beyond repair? Why was this so hard for me?

Imagine a light-bulb appearing over my head as I sat, searching for reasons why I would ever find myself in a situation where I was trying to overthrow the government by force. Two words made their way into my mind, and when they did they brought with them a mingled sense of curiosity and fear: “What if?”

What if the government’s spiraling trend towards some sort of nightmare police state continued? What if it were amplified and accelerated by some unforeseen event? What if organizations who opposed it became outlawed and oppressed? These were all symptoms of a much more basic question:

What if defending the Constitution meant overthrowing the government by force?

It asks to defend against all enemies “foreign and domestic.” Hey, even with the current trend in fascist policies and secretive decision-making, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility, though it won’t get to that point for a long time. Suppose, however, that we have another 9/11 type of event. And another.

Just like last time, we’d huddle together out of fear, screaming for the blood of the perpetrators while condemning the government for failing to protect us. “There should have been some way to stop this,” we’ll claim,”you didn’t do enough to keep it from happening!”

Again, we’ll willingly surrender more and more of our rights in exchange for feeling safe again. The Right Wing will boast of how they knew, all along, that this would happen if the Liberals were in power.

Forget that terrorism is, by its very nature, random and unpredictable. Nobody expects someone to walk into a football stadium and blow themselves up, taking with them as many people as they can. We’re also stumped for ideas of how to prevent such a tragedy, yet we knowingly turn a blind eye to the kinds of policies that have pushed people to such depths of desperation.

“That’s what this is about, isn’t it?” I knew the answer before I asked the question.

What would it be like if I were on the receiving end of this oppression? I tried to imagine myself getting to the point where I was desperate enough for change that I’d be willing to do anything to get it.

It forced me to visit the darkest depths of my mind as I imagined my family being taken away from me, never to be heard from again. I thought of being held in a dirty cell for months at a time, being beaten and shocked, starved and mocked daily for some of the things I’ve said on this very blog.

I imagine losing my dignity to those who were incapable of giving a fuck about you or your problems. They’re the patriots, right? You’re just some luckless shit that happened to be in their path.

Would regaining my Constitutional rights to be protected from this kind of situation be worth such a fight? Would it be worth dying for? I think it would.

The government would brand me a terrorist while claiming to uphold American values and vowing to protect them from the likes of me. People like me, who only want their lives back. People like me, who speak out and are labeled traitors by their jingoist countrymen.

Who am I kidding? This is already happening.

Even now, the imperialists and the fascists within our own government are working day and night to ensure that power is centralized in a way that could make all of this possible. While they’re doing it, they turn on the charm and smile before the cameras while selling us on the same old insipid lines: “We’ll protect the values of this great nation.” “We’re behind the average Joe.” “We want everyone to live the American Dream.” “It’s time to get tough on crime.” “We’re the freest, greatest nation on earth.”

We ritually misquote the founding fathers for political gain. We insult your intelligence. We lie.

These days, the domestic threats are more of a danger than foreign ones.

Even so, I pondered, could I ever imagine myself walking into a subway and pressing a button that I know will result in the death of every man, woman and child on that train? I’d like to think I’d have the sense to target those responsible rather than people whose death will only fuel their rhetoric. I haven’t experienced anything as painful as what has led so many people to believe this is the only way. Maybe after a certain point, desperation turns into apathy. I don’t know. However, I’m certain that if it ever did get to that point, it wouldn’t be about change; it would be about revenge.

“No,” I thought to myself,”I’d never get to that point.” I’m satisfied enough with my own answer, though I hope never to experience the kind of oppression that would lead me there. Yet still, I found it harder than ever to take such an oath upon myself.

It sits in front of me as I type this, causing me to wonder how a pile of words could get me so worked up. Why not just sign it and forget about it. I’m probably just reading into it too much. Jeez, it’s not like I’m signing over my soul. On the other hand…

No, I don’t think I will sign it, because if push comes to shove, I’ll have to make a choice between being a good German and doing what I’m told, or standing up for what I believe in regardless of the cost. I’m sticking with my principles on this one.

Thank you for reading.

I had heard the name Keith Olbermann before, but have never bothered with his show on MSNBC, as I tend to prefer direct-from-the-source (CSPAN) and print media to media pundits. After discovering him and reading his stuff (then later watching him on his site), I feel bad about putting him in that category, especially since he doesn’t host a show with a “yell louder than the other guy” format.

The proprietor of the blog Grandma’s Attic and my partner-in-crime over on peoriaspeaks.com alerted me to one of his rants and, I gotta tell ya, it felt like I was listening to myself. Only a bit more elegant and experienced. Anyway, I’ve added him to my blog roll and strongly suggest checking him out and viewing his videos if you can. The fervor expressed just doesn’t translate well to print, and adds a layer of depth to what the man has to say.

I was watching CSPAN tonight while taking care of the boy. Gotta tell ya, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a hell of a guy. Apparently, after having their secret session concerning the FISA act, House Democrats were as incensed as ever over the Republicans’ demand to grant retro-active immunity to the telecom corporations that assisted in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Republicans’ argument against the Majority-supported bill went something along the lines of,”If we don’t protect these American corporations from opportunist trial lawyers’ lawsuits, then we haven’t done our job to protect the American people from the terrorists.” Throughout the counter-arguments, the telecommunications companies in question were referred to as “good Samaritans” and having “answered the call in this country’s hour of need.”

First off, let’s get a few things straight. One, while the House-proposed bill does not provide retro-active immunity for the telecom companies, it does (at least according to the CSPAN ticker at the bottom of the screen) make it “easier for telecom companies to defend themselves” should they be confronted with one of these “opportunist” lawsuits.

Second, the FISA bill, as it currently stands (and has stood for 30 years) enables intelligence agencies to obtain all the information they need with a court order or, in emergency situations, without a court order. This is what Republicans want, right? To be able to cut through the red tape to protect Americans from terrorists when the need arises? As they’ve continued to reject this bill, I’d say they want to make a law which violates Constitutional protections against “unnecessary search and seizure” by cutting out the courts altogether. Wait… didn’t they claim to be the holy defenders of the Constitution back when Clinton was in office? Tsk.

Third, and this is something I’d really like to touch on, is about the immunity for communications companies. One thing House Democrats made a point to mention is that the telecom industry already has immunity–with the proper documentation: court authorization via a warrant. It was argued that telecom companies, who have the means to full immunity for wiretapping, willingly chose to bypass the rule of law and suddenly want protection from it, when the mechanism for their immunity was already available if only they had followed the procedure.

That’s like illegally downloading something online, getting caught, then asking for a receipt as a proof of purchase without actually buying anything. The conditions for getting a receipt to avoid charges have not been met. Likewise, American citizens’ phone records, conversations and internet activity have all been handed over to the government without following the law, the People found out, and now they’re wanting immunity–their receipt–even though the conditions of getting it haven’t been met. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? The point: they had their chance at immunity and knowingly blew it.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the telecom industry actually is a victim in all this. I’ll bet they were told–or assumed–that they were being given full legal authority to do this for the Bush cabal. They were led to believe that what they were doing was perfectly legal, and maybe, just maybe, they complied out of naivety rather than complicity. I don’t think that just because their crimes were tied to the White House, that they share the same operating procedure and philosophy as the Bush regime. We don’t have all the information regarding who did what yet, so I’m willing to suspend judgment on the companies themselves while this gets sorted out in Congress. If it can be shown that they acted egregiously (and not merely gregariously), then let the chips fall where they may.

Bushie, however, is obviously by this point beyond any benefit of the doubt.

Naturally, the Senate says this is a “step in the right direction” but are still babbling about reaching a compromise. In other words,”If the House adds immunity to this thing, because we’re all getting creeped out by Dick Cheney’s evil stare and want to get this over with as quickly as possible, we’re willing to overlook any earmarks you glue to this sucker.” I’ll bet the “compromise” is at least similar to this.

Originally Posted on January 15th, 2008:The esteemed Chef Kevin replied to my post from a few days ago about the RealID, and he said something that I think is a good point. My reply ended up being a bit long, so I decided to be lazy and make it a blog post. It explains a bit about my philosophy behind some statements as well as how I perceive and make judgments about certain things. Here’s what he had to say:

And for the US Government vs. Nazi Germany. My father grew up and lived through Nazi Germany. 60+ years later he still doesn’t talk about it. Makes you wonder if we are really that close. Not an argument vs. your blog…just a thought.

By all means, argue my blogs! If there’s something wrong with ‘em, I want to know.

No, we’re not Nazi Germany and I hope we never get there. But we are doing a lot of things Nazi Germany did. Aggressive militarism, propaganda spin machines and politicians stirring up belligerent nationalism, the systematic discrediting of opposition as “unpatriotic,” disarming the public, stifling dissent, using the police in, ahem, totalitarian ways… the list goes on and on. I doubt the Germans of that generation thought they’d go down in history as the villains of the age.

Heh, we’re not rounding people up and gassing them (yet), but the troubling part of this is in the resemblance. If it looks like fascism, if it smells like fascism, if it tastes like fascism, it’s probably fascism. The question we need to ask ourselves when these things surface is whether they’ll create more freedom or less? How can it be abused?

Not a single world leader wakes up in the morning and says “It’s a fine day! Means there’s not enough evil being done out there!” People who do evil from conviction usually believe they’re doing something good, whether it’s for “your own good,” “their own good,” or “our own good.” Even though Hitler did some horrendous things, in his mind he must have thought it was for a “greater good”–the worst “good” of them all. The kind in which we’re willing to justify any act of barbarism to achieve that lofty-though-often-ultimately-misguided goal. Notice that it’s never the collective idea of what the greater good ought to be, it’s always the version of one man/small group’s greater good that is sought after.

In fighting terrorism, we’re doing it for the greater good. What that greater good is depends on who you ask. Take a look at what the people (and their sponsors: follow the money) implementing this identification system stand to gain from it. What do the rest of us have to lose? Have the steps we’ve taken to fight terrorism at home led us closer to liberty, or closer to tyranny–and more importantly, is that something we’re actually considering as an option?

What we’re doing in this country is building a castle upon a glass foundation. Sooner or later, something is going to give out. Heh, it’s pretty bad when you actually have to try not to destroy yourself, but such is the human condition: so much potential for good, so much potential for evil.

I believe that in the future, historians will say that there were signs. They will say that there was a pattern to how it all unfolded, something we should have seen but missed; something we should have learned from history. I believe they’ll recollect that the boldest among us didn’t realize the error of their ways until it the moment everything crumbled, and even then, they were too proud to admit it. Future generations will knowingly shake their heads then likely go on to repeat the same mistakes. The lesson they’ll have forgotten is the lesson we seem to have forgotten: the one about greed.

With that, I’ll leave you with the last stanza of T.S. Elliot’s “The Hollow Men:”

This is how the world ends

This is how the world ends

This is how the world ends

Not with a bang, but a whimper