the sawpit

Sean Hannity's Favorite Black Leader

Earlier this year I received an email forwarded to me by a conservative uncle. The email contained the rantings of anti-civil rights leader, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Below is my belated reply.

Dear Uncle,

I usually don't reply to your emails, but I couldn't ignore this one. The appended article you forwarded to me by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson demonizes poor black people for being hurricane victims -- since when is that a Christian value?

Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:

1. What would you do?
2. What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.

To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.

For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, then you'll probably wait for the government to save you.

Yes, many people thought they could buckle down and survive Katrina because that's what they always have done with bad storms. They didn't think "when my home is flooded, FEMA will pick me up in a boat, and I'll get some free water." The levees had not broken in recent memory, and many people didn't think it would get that bad. Hell, even the President claimed that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.

Of course, many people did realize that Katrina could flood the city, but how can you say that those who could not leave are to blame for the pathetic FEMA response? I can send you highly researched article about how, under the leadership of James Lee Witt, FEMA went from being scorned to being praised for its relief successes in the 90s. I remember when Bush and Gore boasted about traveling with Witt to disaster sites. But after September 11th, the previous Congress moved FEMA under the umbrella of The Department of Homeland Security. Bush appointed avery under-qualified Michael D. Brown to head FEMA. And then they underfunded it and changed its focus from natural disasters to terrorist attack response.

And you can blame the past several administrations for not making sure the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers had the right leadership and funding to fortify the levees properly. And you can blame the Mayor and Governor for not doing enough to get people out and prepare. There is blame to go all around.

Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.

The overblown accusations that Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan may make has no bearing on the fact that FEMA and Homeland Security dropped the ball on Katrina -- and yes, that cost black people's lives. Why do all these types of letters mention Sharpton, Jackson etc? Is that to distract people from the uncomfortable facts? To get our blood boiling? Yea, it's all about personalities, perception and spin.

President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.

How can a black man of God make such a sweeping statement about his own people? It's outrageous! President Bush is responsible for his own rampant immorality -- as in starting a war with a country that never attacked us, and was not a real threat. Where is Rev. Peterson's outraged letter about the thousands of dead troops and civilians in Iraq thanks to the lies of George W. Bush?

And finally, I ask you -- is the black face on the letter to make whites feel good about agreeing with the racist message? I think so. Sean Hannity's face on Peterson's website sends an unmistakable message to white folk: here's a black man who will carry our water for us. And indeed he does.

Ralph

The Never-Ending War for God, Part 1

The fall of the Soviet Union caused many to question whether the Cold War had just been a ruse. There were rumors on the short waves that Reagan, Gorbachev, socialist think-tanks and secret societies were preparing for the New World Order by the year 2000. Reports came that Russian troops were being trained and housed somewhere in Nevada. The United Nations became the new One World Government threat to American sovereignty. There were quite a few conservative alarmists and conspiracy theorists who claimed that Janet Reno and Bill Clinton were waiting for the right moment to declare martial-law and dispatch United Nations peace-keeper troops to kick down doors and confiscate all the guns from proud God-fearing patriots.

After the killings at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, the federal government was seen as part of the problem. Watergate plumber, G. Gorden Liddy started advising his radio show listeners to aim their guns at the heads of federal agents who trespass on their property. The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 seemed to be the logical outcome of years and years of anti-government propaganda spewing from the radios, books and newsletters all across the country. But there are some unanswered questions involving John Doe No. 2, and who was really involved in that attack. A number of militia groups were members of Christian Identity, a branch of British Israelism which claims that White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are God's true Chosen People. I've heard one of their popular short wave broadcasts hosted by a certain Pastor Bob who lectures his listeners on the importance of racial purity.

Today, we have come full circle. Now the government and military are part of the solution for them. For it has become clear to many people that our military has been infiltrated by religious extremists who believe in Fundamentalist Christianity. I have recently been made aware of The Military Religious Freedom Foundation who, along with U.S. Army Specialist Jeremy Hall have filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Major Freddy Welborn in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas claiming a pattern of discrimination against non-Christians. The lawsuit also cites overt government support of private civilian religious organizations and activities:

The complaint, filed in US District Court in Kansas City, Kansas names as plaintiffs the nonprofit (MRFF), and Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist. In August of this year, Specialist Hall, after receiving permission from a chaplain at Contingency Operations Base Speicher, Iraq, posted flyers around his base announcing a meeting of atheists and other non-Christians. When Hall attempted to convene the meeting it was disrupted by Major Freddy Welborn who threatened to initiate an action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice against Hall. In the lawsuit, Hall and MRFF claim that Welborn's conduct is part of a larger pattern of DoD intolerance for religious diversity.

Moreover, the complaint alleges Hall received permission from an Army chaplain to post flyers around the base to announce the meeting of other non-Christian believers. Army Major Freddy Welborn disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against Hall by charging him with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and vowed to block Hall's reenlistment in the Army because of Hall’s role in organizing the meeting, a violation of Hall's First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

The complaint charges that Hall, who is based at Ft. Riley, Kansas, has been forced to "submit to a religious test as a qualification to his post as a soldier in the United States Army," a violation of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

(To be continued)

Bergman Confronts the Shadow

Since the recent death of Swedish director Igmar Bergman, I’ve been thinking of his many films I’ve seen over the years. The one that still haunts me today is his 1961 Academy Award winner, The Virgin Spring. I first saw it twelve years ago, shortly after being laid off from my print shop assistant job. One day I decided to borrow a few movies from the local library. In my melancholy state, I was naturally drawn to the small foreign film section. Later that night, I was transported to a much simpler time where the young virgin daughter of a devout Christian farmer rides horseback for miles to bring candles to the nearest church. I didn’t know what to make of the film at first, but it made me forget my unemployment woes for a little while.

The only other Bergman film I’d seen at the time was The Seventh Seal, but it didn’t affect me the way this story had. I realize now that Bergman was not just re-telling a 14th-century Swedish legend, he was presenting universal archetypal symbols which transcend the simple Christian allegory of redemption. I found that C.J. Jung's use of the shadow to represent repressed aspects of all the darker and neglected parts of our lives was very useful to understanding this film. The shadow is not all evil, for it can contain sound instinctive reactions also, which is why we must always be on guard against it.

Karin's dark haired, pregnant sister, Ingeri, prays to the Norse god, Odin. Because Ingeri hates Karin for being the favorite daughter, she slips a toad into her bread. One might say that the Ingeri character is the shadow cast by Karin’s virgin light. Ingeri follows her sister and watches her being raped and murdered by two herdsmen with whom she had innocently shared her lunch. Ironically, the herdsman and the child they are traveling with end up at Herr Töre's farmhouse where they ask to be put up for the night. When they try to sell Karin's clothes to the mother, they realize that the herdsmen had murdered her. Herr Töre waits until his guests fall asleep, then kills them both, along with the child. That morning the family sets out to find Karin’s body. Falling to his knees, Herr Töre vows to God that he will construct a church on that same ground. As he and his wife lift up her body water begins to spout from the grassy earth where her head had laid. The dark sister Ingeri is suddenly converted to Christianity, as she desires to purify herself with the water.

Crazy All The Time

Jerry Falwell: segregationist, racist, homophobic, greedy, superstitious, spurious liar, and character assassin. Did I mention greedy? This was the man who had the audacity to partly blame feminists, gays and liberals for causing the attacks on September 11th, 2001. As the Reverend Barry Lynn wrote in his book, Piety and Politics, "Falwell's god is so alien to me that he might as well be worshiping Baal." Jerry Falwell will not be missed.

The Zappa Prophecy

Back in 1986 Frank Zappa was a guest on Crossfire attacking the PMRC and their attempts at music censorship. At one point he looked Robert Novak in his smirky face and informed him that America was on the road to becoming a theocratic dictatorship. Laughter erupted all around. How could you say that with all this sex and profanity in the culture? Zappa calmly explained that what Novak was so upset about was not sex, but titillation. Novak scoffed. Apparently for many conservatives in the 80s, Duran Duran and Prince videos were no different than a porno flick. Zappa was trying to warn viewers that the separation of church and state was slowly being eroded by the Christian right. Ronald Reagan was just the beginning of this trend.

Flash forward to 2006: President Bush delivers a speech asking the nation to protect the family by ratifying an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. According to the president, the American family is under attack by activist judges who are striking down anti-gay marriage laws all over the country. Bush stated that "changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." But how exactly would gay marriage undermine or weaken heterosexual marriage? Where is the evidence? Can one really make this type of argument based on reason? The same question could be asked about the anti-flag burning amendment: how does protecting the flag ensure that the principles symbolized by the flag are preserved? So what we have here is an attempt to legislate theology. Whether the majority of Americans support it or not, it's still wrong. But we should expect this administration to play the fear card whenever they need to stir up the base. In this case, the fear of homosexuality is exploited in the most cynical ways. Chalk another one up for the Gipper.

Mona Lisa Yawn

Despite the protests and bad reviews, The Da Vinci Code performed very well at the box office this past weekend. But as the closing credits of The Da Vinci Code slowly crawled up the Port Chester movie screen Friday night, my friend and I found ourselves asking the same question: did Ron Howard actually read the book? And if so, how did he manage to adapt the book into an unbearably slow and plodding film? The Oscar-winning director has simply failed miserably in re-creating the puzzle-solving, cat and mouse game scenes which are the heart of the novel's appeal (see Wikipedia's long list of differences between the book and film). The Da Vinci Code should have been fast, light, and filled with quick-witted code breaking. It should have been fun. Instead, the film moves at a snails pace, and leaves the viewer cold from start to finish. Compared with the book, there's less da Vinci, and even less 'Code' in this dark, brooding film. The zombie-like acting of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou, along with the the ever-present bombastic score, makes this film almost unbearable to sit though, especially if you've read the novel. The only relief comes in the form of Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing.

One of the most important aspects of Sophie Neveu's relationship with her grandfather, Jacques Sauniere, is her memory of accidentally walking in on a Priory of Sion ritual involving her grandfather who was being penetrated by a woman playing the male role to his female. Yet, in the film, this traumatic event is given barely passing reference. The audience doesn't even know that it's the main reason she hadn't spoken with him for ten years. In the novel, Langdon and Neveu start an intimate relationship at the end of the story. But in the film, Langdon kisses Sophie on the forehead after she reunites with her family and heads back to Paris without her. Perhaps Howard changed the ending when it became clear to him that Hanks and Tautou had zero chemistry on the screen. So, what the went wrong? Ron Howard ended up making a heavy drama, not a conspiracy thriller. Perhaps he just didn't understand how to pace this film because of the dialog. Perhaps he forgot what made Raiders of the Lost Ark such a joyride of a film. In a perfect world the novel would have been written by Umberto Eco, and the film would be directed by Peter Jackson, or M. Night Shyamalan. But, alas, we live in a fallen world. Maybe someday a director will have an opportunity to get it right.

Meanwhile the Catholic faithful continue to protest the film even though they are probably helping the film's box office performance. The photo above shows people protesting the film by the main entrance of the new Lowes multiplex in Port Chester. I spoke with them about the poor reviews, but they don't see bad reviews lessening the film's dire impact on Christianity. One woman explained that the movie will cause many to doubt the New Testament, and the authority of the Catholic Church, and that's why they were all going to be back next weekend to protest the film again. I didn't have the nerve to tell them I thought it was a good thing for people to question long-held beliefs, especially since they were saying the rosary for all us sinners passing by.

Update: Here are some of the differences between the book and film listed on Wikipedia:

There is no second cryptex inside the first. The solution to the cryptex (and the mirrored writing found on the panel behind the rose logo on the box) is the same as the second one in the book. This is one that annoyed me the most. The reader is excited as the first cryptex is solved with Sophie's name as the five letter password (Sofia). However, instead of finding the map, there is a smaller cryptex inside the larger one which protects the final clue to the location of the holy grail. Sophie mentions in the novel that it was just like her grandfather to create "codes within codes" in order to test the puzzle solver.

In the book, the fact that Sophie was a cryptologist was used to solve puzzles, whereas in the movie, it was only mentioned once at the Louvre. Code breaking is really at the heart of this book, and what saves it from being a cookie-cutter thriller. By almost ignoring this fact, Howard creates a Sophie Neveu character much less dynamic and pro-active than in the novel.

In the movie, Langdon counsels Sophie that it may not necessarily be important or right to prove the bloodline; that it will have to be largely her choice, and that it could be a matter of faith and of deciding which set of beliefs to promote; asking if the proof really matters, anyway. In the book, an explanation is given earlier that the "two" versions of history are merely different, not necessarily making one totally correct over the other, an explanation missing from the movie. This is another crucial point that the film misses: the Code simply presents another version of the greatest story ever told.

The Da Vinci Code Heresy?

In the past few months Catholic organizations around the world have been placing ads in print media and posting attacks on Catholic websites denouncing the novel, and soon to be released film, The Da Vinci Code as heretical. The best selling book is merely fiction, they say, and the novel is supposedly based on 'facts' which have no credibility. One of the books which Dan Brown borrows from is Holy Blood, Holy Grail which is dismissed as merely a 'New Age' book. And we know what that means (Satanic!). The website Catholic Answers has posted a page called "Cracking The Da Vinci Code" which attempts to refute every story point considered offensive. The website claims that the book 'promotes' many ideas which are strongly in conflict with the Catholic faith:

Why should a Catholic be concerned about the novel? Although a work of fiction, the book claims to be meticulously researched, and it goes to great lengths to convey the impression that it is based on fact. It even has a 'fact' page at the front of the book underscoring the claim of factuality for particular ideas within the book. As a result, many readers-both Catholic and non-Catholic-are taking the book's ideas seriously.

Now Opus Dei has asked Sony Pictures to include a disclaimer in the upcoming movie which would say it's only fiction and not historically accurate. Sony Pictures has refused to say what they will do, and they are under no legal obligation to grant Opus Dei's request. I find it interesting that a work of fiction is being taken so seriously by people who should be confident in their faith. Me thinks they protest too much. I suppose that doesn't say much for the faith of your average Catholic. Maybe they're worried that people might start researching and thinking for themselves.

What the Catholic Church doesn't understand is this: they don't own Jesus! He is not their sole intellectual property. They have no right to throw a fit every time someone imagines him differently than they do. Many different religions revere Jesus Christ for different reasons. Many people in the world who are not religious respect his teachings also. Scholars believe that some of Jesus' more esoteric teachings are found in the Gnostic Gospels. Recently the lost Gospel of Judas was released to the public and has drawn attention to the other 52 early Gospels which were discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. Biblical scholar Elaine Pagels has been at the forefront of bringing these fascinating texts to the average reader with her award winning books. In these other Gospels, which were eventually judged as heretical, a different picture of Jesus is painted than the one in the New Testament. For example, one passage in the Gospel of Philip reads:

...the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her [mouth]. The rest of the disciples were offended... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?"

It is not surprising to learn that women are often considered equal to men in these heretical texts. Early Christians debated about such issues as the Virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. So the Catholic Church's arrogance regarding The Da Vinci Code should not be surprising to anyone. They have claimed Jesus Christ as their sole property since the second century. I remember the stink they made about The Life of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ and it was all for nothing. As they defend their version of Christianity against a fictional book and a Hollywood movie, one wonders if they can sink any lower. It's quite possible that if Jesus came back tomorrow he would immediately hold a press conference and announce that the Catholic Church does not speak for him or his Father. Stay tuned.

The End of Faith

An Open Letter from Michael Dorian:

As you all may well know, I keep a pretty low political profile, for various reasons.

However, in light of the recent events in London, I feel compelled to offer some insight or commentary, for what it's worth. Also, coincidentally, I just started reading a book called "The End of Faith," by Sam Harris. It makes, more effectively and more credibly, the precise arguments I've been making for years against God and religion. Please do yourselves, and the rest of the world, a favor and read this book. Then give it to someone who needs it—that should be easy to find.

So, as for last Thursday's bombings, this is what happens, and what will keep happening, as long as humans maintain their irrational and archaic beliefs in God. As long as people continue to have tolerance for this absurd and outmoded system of beliefs, and as long as they believe that their God is on their side, these problems will never go away.

If George W. Bush went on TV tomorrow and said that America has "Zeus" on its side, people would throw him in a padded cell, but because he uses the word "God", people think that's perfectly acceptable—well, not me. I think it's stupid, a bit silly at this point, and very dangerous. Only when enough people realize that this is the root of many problems will we finally start to get past all this crap.  Until then it's Allah vs. Thor vs. Dionysus vs. The Easter Bunny vs. Santa Claus—if you get my meaning.

And one last question, why the hell do many "intellectuals" the world over think polytheism to be some inane system of beliefs, but they roll right over when it comes to monotheism? Anybody else see a glaring disparity here? Realistically, I doubt we'll have this sea change come about in most people's ideology within our lifetimes, but I certainly believe this is something to strive toward. And I don't even plan to have children.

Signed,

A Reasonable Atheist

Michael Dorian is the author of The Nektonic Facteur, and president of Cat Price Productions which has recently completed a documentary about pizza and the pizza industry scheduled for release this year.

Blowback and Blowhards

For those of you who were shocked by the recent terrorist attacks on London, may I remind you of what president Bush said back in July 2003? He stated: "There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on!" Of course he was speaking of the growing insurgency in Iraq, practically taunting them to continue attacking our soldiers and those seen as collaborators. He was, in effect, declaring to the world that the US military is invincible. It seemed like he was declaring that since God is on our side, we will still be victorious no matter what they throw at us. Maybe so, maybe not. Since then, hundreds of US soldiers have died and terrorist attacks have increased world wide. Apparently, they heard you  George, and they are eager to meet your challenge anywhere in the world. I believe those words (the verbal equivalent of pouring gasoline on a growing fire) have reached far beyond the occupation of Iraq. Last year's train bombings in Spain was an example of this post-Iraqi invasion blowback.

In the aftermath of the bombings, Tony Blair predictably stated: "The free world is united in its resolve: We will never yield to terrorists and murderers. In the face of such adversaries, there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy, and we will fight until the enemy is defeated." What is the Al-Qaeda agenda to which Blair asserted we will not yield to? A Congressional Research Service report, entitled "Al-Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology," states that Al-Qaeda believes that "non-Islamic government is unacceptable, and Muslims should join Al-Qaeda and other sympathetic groups and movements in opposing those seeking to establish secular democratic governments or maintain existing governments deemed to be insufficiently Islamic." So it seems to me that overthrowing the secular government in Iraq, which considered Islamic fundamentalist groups the enemy, is really yielding to the Al-Qaeda agenda because it opens up the possibility that an Islamic government hostile to US interests may be installed.

Condoleezza Rice recently rejected any suggestion that the war in Iraq was "fueling" terrorism. She told the BBC that nothing is being "fueled here except the fact that the terrorists are finally being confronted." What the heck is she talking about? You cannot "confront" terrorist cells on some battlefield and defeat them. They are often members of the general population who were radicalized in the countries they live in. The war on terror is a lie. This enemy is invisible. You must use deft intelligence and crack police investigative work in order to thwart them. You cannot use military tactics. In fact, by invading Iraq we have played right into the hands of Osama Bin Laden who told his followers years before the invasion that the United States had imperialist designs on the Middle East. There is no doubt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the recruiting power of Al-Qaeda and similar groups, while decreasing the numbers of Americans signing up for the armed services. What more could Bin Laden want?

A Supreme Court of Cowards

The Supreme Court has sent mixed messages by ruling that it is permissible to display the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, but it is not permissible to post them in Kentucky courthouses. I believe that the Supreme Court has betrayed the spirit of the US Constitution by attempting to have it both ways. They are letting personal religious beliefs pervert their constitutional obligations. By falling for the argument that the Ten Commandments are the basis for our secular republic, they have opened the door for religious extremists to eventually destroy the ideal of freedom from religion for those of us who don't believe. Justin Levine from the Calblog posted this past March:

There is no longer any discernible Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The Supreme Court simply decides such issues on a complete case-by-case basis according to the personal desires and biases of the Justices. The decisions are based neither on law nor Constitutional wording, but rather on a results-oriented process wherein the justices will split factual hairs to an infinite degree in order to reach an outcome that jibes with their own personal comfort level in regards to religion.

If the Founding Fathers had wanted to establish a Christian nation than why didn't they create one? Why is there no mention of God, the Bible or reference to the Ten Commandments? The basis of our government has more to do with English common law, than any book in the Old or New Testament. And although the thirteen colonies eventually ratified the Constitution, there was considerable opposition to the idea of non-religious tests for public office. Actually there is a religious test for public office in the United States although it's not written down anywhere in our laws or statutes. Don't believe me? Well, just try to imagine a politician in America running as an Atheist. They couldn't be elected to any office. As I explained to a good friend of mine, it just shouldn't matter what religion our president confesses to believe in, what matters is how he or she governs. Of course he didn't agree and there was really nothing I could say to persuade him. You cannot have rational Constitutional arguments with people who think that non-Christians are going to Hell.