How stupid is the public, really?

I just wrote a couple of notes on the government and media’s incredible ability to insult the intelligence of the public. That is, they never cease to amaze me with ground-breaking news stories like that unleashed by the NIE report. If that wasn’t enough, here’s another spectacular bombshell from CNN.com’s  front page:

 

“Rumsfeld: Insurgency was underestimated”

 

It’s bad enough that they are shoveling tripe down our throats. Now we are asked to wash it down with a nice warm glass of ipecac.

 

-W.

My kingdom for some decent rhetoric!

I’m no fan of past totalitarian regimes, but at least some former propaganda machines respected the intelligence of the general populace!

 

Everyone has heard of the NIE report by now. It says that the invasion of Iraq has galvanized the terrorist base, made recruitment easier, and thereby made the world less safe. At age 13, those of my generation might reply, “DUH!”

 

Yet the response has been nothing short of hilarious. Democrats have pounced on the report, in the hope of turning it into election fodder. No surprise there. Mr Bush & Co. have likewise remained true to form. Witness the inane logic that follows: (1) It is specious at best to make assumptions on the basis of a fragmentary account taken from a much larger document. (2) They can’t declassify the document, because it would jeopardize our intelligence-gathering apparatus. (3) The NIE report further proves that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror.

 

All three of these claims are probably true. However, taken together, they might be satisfactory explanation for an adolescent. If you tell me that the rest of a report proves my assumptions wrong, but then tell me that you can’t tell me what the rest of the report says, am I to take your claims on faith? When I tell you that invading Iraq has increased the number, resolve and viciousness of terrorists, you respond that it is paramount we defend Iraq against an increasing number of resolute and vicious terrorists. Haven’t we come full circle? Didn’t you just confirm my assumption?

 

As I have always maintained, I sadly agree with the administration that the WORST thing we could do now is withdraw from a mess we created. But the amazingly transparent irony of the situation is, WE CREATED THE MESS! They admit as much when they directly state that Iraq is THE central front in the war on terror. Retort: was it 4 years ago? Of course not! Say what you will about Saddam Hussein. Like any good dictator, he kept the peace. Sure he crushed those who even whispered about political opposition, but scores weren’t dying in the streets every single day. That is the result of our alchemy: regardless of why we went there, we have done, and continue to do a bang-up job breeding generations of terrorists.

 

Apparently the American Dream now includes investing in a self-lobotomy kit. Otherwise I’m not sure how one is supposed to make it through the nightly news.

 

-W.

Why I'm an Independent (Part 1 in my new 536 part series)

The New York Times recently printed information taken from the classified National Intelligence Estimate which states that the Iraq war has “helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” (Article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159070400&en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage.) This document, which is the result of 16 different intelligence services within the government and which is the first of its kind since the invasion of Iraq, has now spread across all manner of media outlets. In short, the report states that “the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” according to one intelligence official.

 

On the one hand, it pains me to hear that this would be news to anyone. We invaded two predominantly Muslim countries within two years, the situation of the Palestinians has all but fallen on deaf ears, etc. However, as the NYTimes reminds its readers, this estimate flies in the face of pretty much everything that the administration has stated regarding the Iraq war and the overall war on terror. Not only is Iraq the central front in the war on terror, we are winning that war.

 

Are we though? Permit me a quick digression: on September 11 of this year, Mr Bush gave a prime time address wherein he stated that we are in “a struggle for civilization” itself. Further, he stated that this war “is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21^st century and the calling of our generation… The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.” (Full text at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/bush.transcript/index.html.) As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show noted soon after this address, this is a choice insult of our intelligence as citizens. Put simply, if that is the case, why do we only have 130,000 + troops in Iraq? Indeed, why don’t we have forced conscription? Why aren’t we ALL there? If civilization is at risk, why don’t we do some simply means/ends mathematics and nuke the entire nation? A few million lives lost for the sake of civilization itself? We made that decision before rather easily with Hiroshima and Dresden, no? So, either Mr Bush is completely stupid, or he does not in any way intend his highfalutin rhetoric.

 

(Incidentally, “highfalutin” has not been picked up by my spell-checker. Is the OED starting to incorporate the redneck terminology of my native South?)

 

On the other hand, the Democrats failed to provide anything intelligent (to my knowledge) in response. In their continual attempt to prove themselves the opposition party according to the two most wretched strategies in history (saying whatever the administration claims is wrong and doing whatever they think will win them votes, regardless of intelligence or consequences), they have proclaimed that the document is proof the administration has followed a “failed strategy” in Iraq. As for an alternative, I haven’t heard much. Either they deflect the question with their own brand of hollow rhetoric: “This administration is trying to change the subject. I don’t think voters are going to buy that” (Re. Jane Harman, ). “It is abundantly clear that we need a new direction in Iraq by strategically redeploying our troops to fight and win the real war on terror and make our country safer… It’s only the Republican leaders who have their heads in the sand [!!!], stubbornly refusing to change course and making the war on terror harder to win” (Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass). And, the most common line: “It’s time for a new direction in this country” (Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill).

 

I’m all for the Democrats finding a unified voice, which can be condensed into a phrase that the country can simultaneously understand and remember. Yet if in the process they seem to be devolving into an entity even more depraved than that which they decry. They are doing well emulating the current regime in their shameless attempt to obtain power, regardless of the means. Nevertheless, they can’t take the next step: attempting to force their philosophy at home and abroad without any strategy for achieving it. That is, the Democrats don’t seem to have a philosophy, save “We are not them.” At least the Neocons had the Contract for the New American Century (however insane that may be) and the invasion of Iraq (however little they considered it). As far as I can tell, the Democrats’ response seems to be (VERY loosely) to withdraw troops as soon as possible.

 

John Negroponte, national intelligence director, provided some sanity in all this tripe: “The conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create.” (Compare that to Mr Bush’s delightful quip: “America is safer… but it is not yet safe.” Gee, maybe this is why those in Washington so rarely talk straight. Whenever they try it, they look so colossally transparent that, should it become habit, the stock market would plunge and all our enemies would be so emboldened as to instantly attack.) This is undoubtedly true: regardless of what the rest of the NIE document contains, it is sheer folly to make assumptions based on fragments leaked to the press by those who have their own agendas. Likewise, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA): “I think there is a much more fundamental issue how we respond. And that is what we do with the Iraq war itself. That’s the focal point for inspiring more radical Islam fundamentalism, and that’s a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to” (CNN’s Late Edition).

 

As much as I like Mr Specter, I don’t think he has been paying attention lately. Many, many folks—Middle Eastern experts of all stripes, media specialists, policy and intelligence personnel, etc.—agree that there is a very, very simple answer to the problem: make them love us. Make Iraq and Afghanistan the best places to live this side of Eden. Meanwhile, regain the moral higher ground. Admittedly, these “answers” are simple in the saying; no one has quite figured out how to do them at present. But what amazes me is how incredibly obtuse those in charge of both parties would have to be to not recognize some immediate steps that could lead toward these ends. Instead, we have one group trying to scare the hell out of us (amazing how we are suddenly hearing the name of bin Laden again) while the other is trying to promise us new leadership and an end to war (as if we can merely give the Iraqis a date whereby we will disappear, after destroying their entire country)…

 

Every semester, I try and make my students vote by giving them extra credit. Regardless of whether I am teaching philosophy of law of Asian philosophy, I show them how it is infinitely relevant to that which we are studying. I tell them about people in other countries who make this a day of celebration, who become elated at the prospect. I try to make them ashamed of their own apathetic dereliction of such an august duty.

 

Times like these, I find it hard to blame those who choose apathy.

 

-W.

 

Jerusalem - own worst enemy

This is too good to let slip by.

 

A recent brochure produced by and for the city of Jerusalem to promote a music/arts festival has either made a hilarious mistake, or Iran (et al) took control of production just before it came to print. The “sightseeing pamphlet” was translated from Hebrew to English; they intended it to read: “Jerusalem – there’s no city like it!” Unfortunately, a translation error resulted in the following: “Jerusalem – there’s no such city!”

 

According to the BBC, tens of thousands of them were distributed before anybody realized that there was a mistake.

 

After all these years of diplomacy, trying to get Arab nations and Palestinian groups to recognize the State of Israel, maybe those in Jerusalem have given up. Or, maybe this is a much more subtle PsyOps plot: if the bad guys don’t think it’s there anymore, what are they fighting for?

 

-W.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5364192.stm

 

American media

On the front page of the BBC World News website, their second story reads as follows: “State sues car firms on climate.” The blurb beneath says, “The state of California sues six of the world's biggest car-manufacturers over greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

Big story, no? I checked FOX and CNN. Nowhere on the front page of either is there anything regarding this story. I checked MSNBC. They had it: it was buried under their “Environment” section.

 

Ugh.

Separating the Powers

Here is a question, particularly for those who know anything about the Constitution: Why are both Houses of Congress debating bills which delineate Mr Bush’s domestic spying program?

 

On Wednesday the Senate “torpedoed” (to use CNN’s choice of words) an attempt by Democrats to put limits on Mr Bush’s NSA wiretapping program. Indeed, both Houses of Congress are debating the issue at present. The administration has fervently pressed Congress to get something passed. Much like one of my previous posts, this issue makes one wonder whether a benevolent administration is trying to keep the focus on security to help the GOP, or a desperate administration is grasping any bit of power they can get because they are convinced the GOP will be replaced soon by a less-than-sympathetic crew. But I digress…

 

On August 18th, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretapping program was illegal. Specifically, her vitriolic opinion included the following: “It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights… The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.” She rejected the government’s position that the president “has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress [re: the 1978 F.I.S.A. bill] but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.” She also stated that the program violated the separation of powers: “There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all ‘inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution.” She ordered the program to halt, effective immediately. Obviously, the administration appealed.

 

To recap, the program is illegal four times over: (1) it violates the I Amendment, (2) it violates the IV Amendment, (3) it violates the 1978 F.I.S.A. act of Congress, and (4) it violates the separation of powers doctrine outlined in the Constitution. Even if one wanted to be as generous to the administration as possible, striking bases (1) and (4), (2) is backed by a great deal of Supreme Court precedent as well as Congressional statutes, and (3) could not be more specific in its denying the legality of the program.

 

Here is what I don’t get: Why is Congress debating the program at all? I’m not being cheeky. Unless Congress intends to amend the Constitution to specifically allow the executive the power to spy on American citizens, thereby overturning a great deal of precedent involving both the IV Amendment and the “penumbral” right of privacy, I’m not sure what the House and Senate bills entail aside from pissing in the wind. A federal justice declared that the executive has violated the Constitution of the United States in at least three separate ways with this program, and thereby ordered its immediate cessation. Even if Congress wrote a bill that negated the F.I.S.A., this still would not overturn Judge Taylor’s ruling. What’s more, how is it that the CIA can continue to administer the program with impunity while the appeals process rolls on? I thought it went the other way around; I thought that they had to cease until the ruling was overturned on appeal. Indeed, even if I’m wrong about that, and even if Congress passed a law nixing F.I.S.A. and allowing the program, the ACLU would pounce and Congress’ new law would be ruled unconstitutional on the basis of Judge Taylor’s ruling. For, it seems to me, this case must control any latter ones resulting from any action by Congress (save, of course, amending the Constitution).

 

Therefore, I ask all of you: what the hell is Congress doing right now? I don’t know too much about law, but it looks like they are pissing in the wind.

 

-W.

The Do-Nothing-est Congress

Fun facts for the day:

 

“The People's Representatives have been in session for all of 80 days this year, and with 15 days remaining on the legislative calendar, the House is on pace to shatter all records for inactivity. The ‘Do-Nothing’ House of 1948 was positively frenetic by comparison, passing 1,191 measures in 110 days in session.

 

The current House has passed barely 400 measures, including this week's lineup of legislative priorities: H. Res. 912, ‘Supporting the goals and ideals of National Life Insurance Awareness Month’ and H. Res. 605, ‘Recognizing the life of Preston Robert Tisch and his outstanding contributions to New York City, the New York Giants Football Club, the National Football League, and the United States.’”

 

Although this doesn’t need further comment (no one needs explanation as to why this is despicable), I find it interesting that Congress voted to increase their pay by $3300 this year, capping out at almost $170,000. In the last nine years, “members of Congress have voted to give themselves pay raises -- technically ‘cost of living increases’ -- totaling $31,600, or more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, according to the Congressional Research Service” (CNN). By contrast, Congress has not increased the federal minimum wage since 1996 (the last change taking affect in September 1997).

 

Now I know better than anyone that working hours cannot be judged on the basis of clocked hours; although I’m only in the classroom and office a few hours a week I easily work over 50 a week doing research. Nevertheless, it would be particularly instructive to do the math with consideration for their actual time in session. And if we are interested in comparisons, don’t forget to subtract the changes caused by inflation; as of today the real value of minimum wage is lower than it has been since 1955.

 

I wonder if, in Congressional restrooms, instead of toilets they just have poor people. Poor people sit there all day, keeled over, waiting for Reps and Senators to come in and do their business on their backs or heads.

 

Better still, I wonder if there is some grassroots group somewhere which has been instructing all of its members for years and years to save their poop, all the while clandestinely planning a massive Poop On Congress Day wherein all members will travel from all corners of the country to spread their collective, collected dissatisfaction on the lying white purity of Capitol Hill. I can hear their spokeswoman now: “O thou weed, who are so lovely fair and smell’st so sweet that the sense aches at thee. Was this most goodly book made to write ‘whore’ upon? Heaven stops the nose at it.” And then, the drum of their chant as they do what needs be done: “Impudent strumpet! Impudent strumpet! Impudent strumpet!”

 

The revolution will not be televised.

 

It will be poop.

 

Pope postscript

I came across a BBC article from April 18^th of this year, which discussed the somewhat unimpressive first year of Joey Ratz. The article is summed up nicely in a quote by Dr Lavinia Byrne, former nun and Church scholar: “We know who his tailor is [believe it or not, Prada], and whose sunglasses he wears [honest to God: Gucci], but we do not know much about what he thinks. People say he enjoys being pope, and wearing the clothes, but he has said and done nothing, and delivered little.” Holy crap.

 

But the rest of the article was quite prophetic. For reasons left unexplained, Joey Ratz fired Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, the Vatican’s expert on Islam and the Arab World. Specifically, the guy was demoted and moved to Egypt. Says Father Thomas Reese, S.J., of the decision: “The Pope’s worst decision so far has been the exiling of Archbishop Fitzgerald. He was the smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with Muslims. You don’t exile someone like that, you listen to them. If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East. It would be better for Pope Benedict to have Fitzgerald close to him.” Indeed.

 

Again: “Oops.”

 

Since the pontiff’s remarks: an Anglican church and an Orthodox church were firebombed in the West Bank by some folks who cited the  Popes comments in an apparent attempt to illustrate how little they know about Christianity. There have been official statements, some at rallies, by the leaders of Pakistan, Malaysia, the Saud, Egypt, the Palestinians, India, Iran, Turkey, etc. (Cf. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348436.stm for an astonishing list.) The Pope will probably cancel his upcoming trip to Turkey. (Not a bad idea; while Cardinal Ratz he opposed their bid to join the EU, “saying [Turkey] belonged to a different cultural sphere,” and that Turkey’s “admission would be a grave error against the tide of history” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5349808.stm). And you better believe that every paper in the world is reprinting his comments, which means that there are a lot of angry people in the streets around the world right now and more to come. Best of all, the Vatican’s official position is that Mr Pope regrets the misunderstanding of his words, yet will not and cannot retract them (because, in context, he was actually trying to state how violence is bad while dialogue is good; if he retracts his statement, he would then condone violence… you get the picture.)

 

Probably shouldn’t have fired that guy.

 

Ah, but no matter. If history has shown us anything, it is that Muslims don’t tend to have long memories for offenses against their peoples or religion.

 

 

 

 

Five Years On: Hubris

I have used the ancient Greek word many times in the last 5 years, but I have been particularly impressed in the last week.

 

Just days before the 5 year anniversary of September 11^th, Mr Bush gave an unprecedented speech. In this speech, Mr Bush not only admitted (for the first time) to the existence of the secret CIA interrogation centers (a.k.a., “black sites”), but he further provided intimate details of the intelligence that had been garnered thereby. He admitted that top terrorist officials had been interrogated in the program, and that when they clammed up the interrogators had used “alternative methods.” Through these alternative methods, Mr Bush continued, these prisoners were basically exhausted of their intelligence worth. They have now been transferred to the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Mr Bush then used his platform, surrounded by 9/11 family members and other sympathetic faces, to tell his Congress that their top legislative priority is the delineation of military tribunals, in order that these 14 high profile prisoners may be tried and that the victim families may finally see some justice.

 

My first thoughts on this speech were somewhat mundane. From what I’ve heard, the beginning of September is the prime moment in which to capitalize in an election year. That is, if you have an ace, you use it then: earlier and people will forget, while later is too late. Thus, by handing over these folks and shifting all debate back to a combination of fear (“They’re still out to get you!”) and paternalism (“See? Only I can keep you safe!”), he was trying to keep his own party in power.

 

But then I thought about the specific wording of the speech. In June the Supreme Court decided that the president of the United States does not have sole authority when it comes to military tribunals. That is, Congress must provide specific guidelines upon which these people can be tried. Mr Bush thus used his speech to lay all of the onus on his own party: get a bill written immediately so that these terrorists can be brought to justice and so that the American people (not least of all the 9/11 families) can seek some recourse (read: retribution) for their pain.

 

Here is where things get sticky: there are many in Congress, not to mention the Pentagon, who are completely against Mr Bush’s guidelines for tribunals. The administration still insists that the prisoners must be tried without full access to the evidence against them. This has been met with astonished indignation by people like Senator Lindsay Graham (who, before working in Congress, was a military lawyer), Senator John McCain (who was held in solitary confinement while a POW in Vietnam) and former Secretary of State and 4-star General Colin Powell, among many others. There are a few reasons for this. First, unlike many constitutional issues wherein one must attempt to divine the intent of the Founders, the authors of this nation were pretty blunt when it came to tribunals. In short, being tried in court without the ability to face one’s accusers and all related evidence was one of their principle concerns. In the history of this nation, and for most democratic peoples around the world, to be tried without such due process has been considered a defining attribute of tyranny. Second, as Senator Graham has continually stated, to act in such a manner would endanger our own troops and civilians in every subsequent venture overseas. There is simply no reason to expect any foreign power to treat our troops any differently than we are treating these people, regardless of differences in their respective offenses. Mr Bush is well aware that many people in his party have such reservations. Indeed, four Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee joined Democrats to endorse their own version of the tribunal guidelines. Finally, there is that issue about “alternative” means of deriving information. Although Mr Bush (et al) has continually asserted that the United States does not torture people, most of the world is unconvinced. And why should they believe him? The legal advisors who wrote that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists and that torture needs be redefined have been promoted to Attorney General and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff. Meanwhile, on the same day that Mr Bush spoke, the Pentagon announced that a new field manual had been made which strictly states our adherence to the Geneva Conventions. Did our military and civilian personnel on the ground need to be reminded? Congress has already passed one bill which seeks to remove the courts from having any say in such cases involving terrorists and their ability to sue, and the president is seeking further laws which will retroactively protect all military and civilian personnel from being sued for any actions (e.g., physically torturing or ordering torture or condoning subordinates torturing, etc.) since September 11^th. Best of all, the Washington Post revealed a few days ago that CIA personnel have been buying up a new type of insurance policy in which, should they be sued for any actions against folks in the war on terror (e.g., torture), the government pays any legal fees and damages. If the US doesn’t torture, we sure are putting a lot of safety nets in place to protect ourselves from that which we don’t do. But all of this leads many to believe that much of the evidence against such individuals like the 14 just sent to Gitmo, should it be transparent and released to the detainees, lawyers, and public, would be inadmissible in court due to the information’s being derived through coercive, illegal means. In short, no matter how guilty these people may be, the government would be unable to put together a case to try them.

 

So where does the hubris come in? The president all but said in his speech that the voters would judge Congress on the basis of whether they were capable of passing a bill that brought these people to justice. His own party is in deep trouble come November. This speech, with all its revelations and investiture of Congress, should only serve to bolster his base, no? Of course, but that only helps those in Congress who are willing to go along with the speech itself. In other words, a president with terribly sagging approval ratings who faces the possibility of losing both Houses to his opponents just strong-armed his own party to cede him more power. If they buck him now, they face the wrath of their own constituents for presumably letting terrorists “get off” (even though they will just face illegal imprisonment for life) and thumbing their noses to the 9/11 victims’ families.

 

I don’t really want to believe this, but I haven’t seen a better explanation of it. Somebody point me in a less cynical direction, please.

 

-W.

 

Postscript: On Friday, September 15, the BBC reported that Bush responded to his critics in the following manner:

 

“‘Were it not for this programme our intelligence community believes that al-Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland…’ Mr Bush said he would work with ‘members of both parties to get legislation that works.’ But he warned that ‘time is running out’, and urged Congress to pass a ‘clear law with clear guidelines’ before it goes into recess in two weeks, ahead of November’s mid-term elections.”

 

The Master of Non-sequitur strikes again: Mr Bush is defending the practice of extreme rendition (flying high profile folks off to non-disclosed locations, i.e., black sites, in countries that either condone or allow torture) to support his call for Congress to give the Executive unprecedented power with tribunals? How now?

Pope: "Oops."

For those of you who missed it, our newest pontiff Joseph Ratzinger (a.k.a. “Joey Ratz,” a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI, is all over the news. The top story at BBC World News is entitled, “Pope ‘meant no offence’ to Islam.

 

What is all this about? Though quite-old, Joey is nevertheless new at being the Voice of God on Earth. While visiting his homeland (where as a young lad he frolicked in the countryside of Bavaria with his comrades in the Hitler Youth), he gave a speech in which he “quoted a 14th century CE Christian Emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only ‘evil and inhumane’ things” (BBC World News). The Vatican immediately made the following statement: “It certainly wasn’t the intention of the Pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and of Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers… It is clear that the Holy Father’s intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam” (Federico Lombardi, chief Vatican spokesman).

 

The BBC has fallen prey to a common media mistake, that of not giving context to quotation. However, the rest is not encouraging. The segment of Joey’s speech reads as follows:

 

(START QUOTE) I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats." (END QUOTE)

 

There are so many issues with this quote that I don’t know where to begin. The foremost, to my mind, is not even the irony of a X-ian emperor saying this to a Muslim in the context of the crusades. The most startling is Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword. For I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law; a person’s enemies will be the members of his own household…” etc. But let’s forget for a moment the emperor and pontiff’s abilities at casuistry, and just think about the appropriateness of this quotation.

 

The only word that comes to mind is, “Oops.” Too bad Joey Ratz can’t say that, now that he is the Holy See. But then, if I’m a good Catholic, apparently I have to think that it is really God who is saying this, no? That it is God’s desire to piss off Muslims around the world, no?

 

Yikes. I think I’ll stick with Siva. He’s much cooler than these other gods (He dances all the time. Literally.), and with his multiple arms and destruction/creation portfolio, he could definitely kick both their asses.