Whose Islam is it anyway?

I've noticed more articles like this lately, about Muslims who live in Western countries, complaining about being asked to apologize for terrorist acts that have nothing the do with them:

This British teen hilariously captures why Muslims are tired of being told to condemn ISIS

Within hours of the attacks in Paris, the familiar ritual began: the calls for Muslims to denounce ISIS rolled in, as they inevitably do after a terrorist attack by a group claiming to act in the name of Islam.

This is a common occurrence, and Muslims — myself included — are tired of it. We're tired of being held responsible for the atrocities committed by individuals whose actions and beliefs are abhorrent to us and completely at odds with our values and our understanding of our religion. We're also tired of people acting as if we haven't already condemned ISIS, al-Qaeda, and terrorism over and over and over, loudly, publicly, "unreservedly," and in great detail.

It just starts to get old after a while.

[...]

It wasnt the views or opinions of politicians that made me respond but the views of the general public when fridays terror attacks happened which were extremely unfortunate there were only 2 opinions on my twitter time line the first was of people demanding an apology for what happened which was met by either muslims apologising for the acts that occured or the other view, which was my view of muslims asking why we should apologise as ISIS has nothing to do with Islam? [...]

The last part I put in bold. I get tired of hearing Muslims saying that. Why? Because ISIS and other terrorist groups commit their acts in the name of Islam. Looking at it quite objectively, the majority of terrorist actions in the world are being committed by Muslims, in the name of their religious beliefs. To keep saying that it has nothing to do with Islam, treats the rest of us like we are stupid, or not paying attention.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that ISIS has nothing to do with YOUR interpretation, YOUR understanding of Islam? In fact, the author of the article practically says as much later on:

[...] This isn't the first time Muslims have used social media to express irritation at being told to "do more" to counter extremist ideology and to apologize for the actions of strangers who have perverted our beliefs and who actually kill way more Muslims than they do any other group. [...]

Yes, very true. As is true the fact that many Muslims and Muslim groups often denounce the acts of terrorists, which is good news. Which is ironically, why you don't hear about it much. The Media tends to focus primarily on bad news. Muslims denouncing terrorism, not so much. If you follow the above link to the article, there are embedded links to many such denunciations. Much like many I've seen elsewhere. But it's not typically front-page, headline news.

I essentially don't disagree with the author. I would just balance it a bit by adding that the reasons people ask for denunciations by Muslims living in Western countries is, that we like to believe that our Muslim neighbors and coworkers really do denounce the violence, that YOUR interpretation of Islam genuinely is peaceful, and therefore you wont murder us at the next holiday office party.

It's human nature for you to complain about the unfairness you feel in your situation. It's also human nature for us to not want to be murdered, to wish for and welcome immigrants who want to join us and support our culture, not kill us and destroy it. We have already had too many refujihadis. If people are getting fed up with that, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Ideally, peace loving Muslims who wish to join Western cultures should be our allies against terrorism. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to tell who is who, or when a seemingly integrated immigrant may "convert" to more extremist views and act on them. It's doubly unfortunate, because the extremists want us to be distrustful and alienated from those Muslims who would be our natural allies.

And talking about "Whose Islam is it anyway", have a look at this really, uh, "different" perspective:

How a Blonde Tattooed Texas Girl Became an ISIS Twitter Star

Last Monday, I had 60 followers on Twitter. Today, I have more than 4,300. Not to brag or anything, but that's more than Benjamin Wittes; more than Bobby Chesney; more than Jack Goldsmith; more than my boss, Daniel Byman. But here's the problem: A healthy number of them are Islamic extremists, including no small number of supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). A lot of them live in Saudi Arabia.

And some of them want to marry me.

The reason is a single tweet.

Early last week, the hashtag “#MuslimApologies” began trending on Twitter. The hashtag was a tongue-in-cheek response to those—such as right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham—who, in the wake of the beheadings of Westerners by ISIS, have questioned why Muslims have not been more vocal about denouncing terrorism carried out in the name of Islam (except that many have). Tired of constantly being asked to apologize for the acts of a few vile individuals who twist Islam to justify their barbarism, Muslims on Twitter decided to take a humorous stand—by apologizing for everything: the Twilight saga, World Wars I and II, that Pluto is no longer a planet, and, my personal favorite, that Mufasa had to die in The Lion King. Some also used the hashtag to sarcastically apologize for the important contributions Islamic culture has made to the world, from algebra to coffee to the camera obscura.

Of course, I wanted to get in on the fun.

[...]

If you were to pass me on the street, you would never suspect I’m a Muslim: I don’t wear hijab. I have platinum blonde hair and blue eyes. And I am heavily tattooed. I grew up in Texas and was raised Southern Baptist. I use the word “y’all” a lot—and not ironically. But I am Muslim. I also speak Arabic and hold a Master’s degree in International Security with a focus on terrorism and the Middle East. Several years ago, I realized that although I had long studied, analyzed, and written about Islamic political theory and how jihadist ideologues like Osama bin Laden use the Qur’an to justify their heinous acts of violence, I had never actually read the Qur’an. So I read it—and what I found in its pages changed my life. I found answers to questions about faith and belief and morality that had been plaguing me since my youth. I found the connection to God I thought I had lost. And three years ago, I converted to Islam.

Just to be clear: I detest the twisted interpretations of Islam espoused by the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS just as much today as I did before I converted—in fact, probably more so, since now I see it not only as a sick bastardization of a beautiful religion, but a sick bastardization of my beautiful religion. When I read the Qur’an, I find a God who is beneficent, who is merciful, and who cherishes mankind. I find a religion that encourages independent thought, compassion for humanity, and social justice. The jihadis claim to love these same things about Islam, but have somehow decided that the best way to share God’s message of mercy and compassion with the world is to blow up mosques and behead humanitarian aid workers. Great plan, guys.

After sending my tweet, I went to bed. When I awoke the next morning, I was pleasantly surprised to find that my humble little tweet had been retweeted numerous times and I had picked up dozens of new followers. Several people—almost all Muslims—had responded expressing their happiness for me and welcoming me to Islam. So that was nice. I also got a few trolls, of course: people telling me I was brainwashed, trying to convince me that the CIA created ISIS, or asking me if I had engaged in female genital mutilation yet. That was less nice, but to be expected; it is Twitter, after all. Then things took an unexpected turn. My tweet went viral—at last check, it had been retweeted more than 11,300 times—and I soon began to notice a disturbing trend: of the thousands of people who were retweeting and following me, many of them had the black flag of ISIS as their Twitter profile photos. Others had pictures of themselves holding swords, standing in front of the black ISIS flag. Uh-oh.

[...]

You know all those articles (some better than others) that have sprung up lately about how ISIS is this social media juggernaut that is remarkably adept at spreading their propaganda online? Well it turns out that you don’t become a propaganda juggernaut by conscientiously vetting your sources or fact-checking. Who knew?

So it doesn’t matter that I also happen to tweet things in support of LGBT rights, post YouTube videos of The Clash, or actively try to get the “#No2ISIS” hashtag trending. All that matters are the tweet about becoming Muslim and the tweet with the picture of pro-ISIS graffiti.

Here’s the thing: it’s clear that my tweet about becoming Muslim struck a nerve with a lot of Muslims, both here in America and in the broader Muslim world. Non-Muslims sometimes don’t realize how much hatred and negativity gets thrown at Muslims and how utterly soul crushing it can be to have to defend yourself and your beliefs on a daily basis, and it’s really nice to see someone saying something positive about Islam.

At the same time, though, it’s precisely the actions of ISIS and their followers and the words of intolerance emanating from the Salafi camp that provoke this reaction against Muslims. And I, for one, do not appreciate having my conversion story used to attract more people to a repugnant ideology that spawns suicide bombings and beheadings. [...]

Read the whole thing for embedded links, her twitter posts, responses to those posts, and more. Not to mention her photo; she definitely IS a platinum blond without a hijab. Her story is fascinating. Just when you think you have it figured out, it takes another twist or turn. Two things I gained from reading this are:

One: There certainly is more than one way to interpret Islam. Your mileage may vary. And...

Two: Be careful of what you say on social media, and who you say it to. Your words can easily be taken out of context and used by other people for purposes you never intended.

At first it confirmed what I've always thought about social media like Twitter; that it is inherently shallow, and because you can't use it to speak about anything in depth, it's way too easy to be misunderstood. But, on the other hand, any one who follows up her story (actually bothers to find out more about it and her) might have their minds blown.

Islam isn't going away, and if it finds more ways to peacefully coexist with the rest of the world, so much the better. Many of it's adherents keep insisting it's a religion of peace. Well, let's see more of it, folks. Seeing is believing. Actions speak louder than words. Although I'm sure many would argue that the majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful, are not terrorists, and in fact are often victims of terrorists. So, what do we do?

I would like to see a follow up to this story, to see what happens next. Will Jennifer regain control of the Twitter message SHE wants to communicate? I'll be watching.


Also see:

Bombing Syria Won’t Make Paris Safer

The CAIR Effect: See something, do nothing
     

Republican complacency. But whose agenda?

Do they need a stronger agenda? Some would argue yes:

Get With the Program

[...] If GOP consultants who are advising the party to avoid embracing a substantive agenda prior to the November elections get their way, this will be the pitiful Republican dance for the next three-and-a-half months.

We understand the Republicans’ temptation to believe that they can beat the Democrats with nothing. The public has recoiled from President Obama’s agenda and seems set to swing to the Republicans as a check against his liberal overreaching. Why not just play it safe and ride the wave that’s already building?

One, this wouldn’t be as safe as it seems. The consultants think Republicans risk putting targets on their backs by associating themselves with particular policy ideas. But Republicans will be targeted regardless. The White House wants to define them as mindless apostles of “No,” and as “Bush Republicans.” Both of these charges could hurt, and they are more likely to stick if Republicans lack a forward-looking agenda of their own.

Two, a campaign agenda is, if nothing else, a sign of seriousness for voters. The danger in the kind of cynical calculation urged by the consultants is always that the public will recognize it for exactly that and react accordingly.

Three, if Republicans plan on having a majority in either house after November, they had better have some idea in advance of how they will conduct themselves in power. If they have an agenda that has won at least loose assent from voters, they’ll be better-off than if they were trying to come up with something on the fly in the flush of victory, when giddiness will rule and special interests will all want a piece of the pie.

Fourth, Republicans should have confidence in their ideas. If they can’t offer an alternative to Obama now — with the president sagging in the polls, with tea partiers in the streets, with conservative sentiment on the upswing across the board in the public — they should be in a different business. This needn’t entail recklessness. The Contract with America of 1994 wasn’t a radical document, but it did point in a clearly different direction than the Clinton Democrats. This is what Republicans need now (watch this space for our ideas) and what House Republicans have been planning on — so long as they don’t flinch. [...]

My fear is though, that the Uber Conservatives are going to push social issues as the spearhead of the party. That would be a mistake.

Spain's economy is collapsing. It's been doing poorly for a while. Conservatives there have not been able to win elections, despite the poor economy. Why? Because their conservative party is dominated by people who wish to push unpopular social issues, that the majority of voters don't agree with. So the economy there continues in it's downward spiral.

Here at home, the Republican's need an agenda, but it must be one that the majority of voters can gather behind. It should be about jobs and the economy, first and foremost.

I don't expect social conservatives to give up their issues, but those issues should not be the spearhead of the party. We need a large tent, with a spearhead that the majority of voters can rally behind.

Swing voters matter. People who are not rigid social conservatives are not RINOS. If social conservatives insist on drumming all who are unlike themselves out of the party, then we will follow the path of Spain. Or worse.

This next election is ours to win or lose. And it may be the last chance to save our Republic.

And for an agenda that many can rally behind, perhaps Paul Ryan's roadmap would be a good place to start:

'Roadmap' a realistic plan to remake the tax system

[...] The Wisconsin Republican's Roadmap is not a "reactionary" document, as the left usually describes most anything that involves substantially reducing the size, scope and cost of government. It doesn't seek to turn back the clock. Rather, it breaks with a strain of libertarian logic that is always at war with the State, while staying true to the idea that the best government is the one that governs least. It advances libertarian ends by admitting the limits of libertarian means.

The key to Ryan's do-over is acknowledging that America will never eradicate the welfare state entirely for the simple reason that Americans don't want to eradicate the welfare state entirely. The Roadmap explicitly declares that the social safety net — in the form of health and retirement benefits — for those "suffering hard times" is something Americans want to keep. On this and other fronts, the document is a monumental concession to political reality. [...]

It may not be perfect, but it doesn't have to be. It only has be good enough for the majority of voters to agree with, and better than the alternative that the current administration is trying to force down our throats. And THAT, it is.

     

Religious Observances, and The Thing Itself

Taking Up the Dr. Seuss School of Catholicism

Any Sunday school kid knows that the best piece of Christian theology was written not by St. Augustine or Reinhold Niebuhr but by Dr. Seuss. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! - the story of how the Whos joyfully celebrate Jesus' birth even after a spiteful wretch robs all their holiday stuff - portrays faith more meaningfully than any church father or Yale philosopher ever did. Published for Christmas 1957, the book's obvious target was Yuletide commercialization. But its deeper message - don't confuse the accessories of religion with religion itself - seems especially relevant for Roman Catholics like me on Easter 2010.

This is the most uncomfortable Easter that Catholics have faced since the throes of the U.S. clerical sex abuse scandal in 2002. A new deluge of priest-pedophile stories, mostly in Europe, has cast another Good Friday pall over the resurrection celebration. This time some of the hierarchical cover-up may have even involved, if only indirectly, the man who would become the current Pope, Benedict XVI. And the Catholic Church's defensive response (as persecuted as the Jews?) has once again made it look like a dark fraternity in a Dan Brown novel instead of a luminous shepherd of souls, a self-interested corporation instead of the selfless ministry that Christ entrusted to St. Peter.

Little can alleviate the pain and suffering of the abuse victims. But at least in one sense, the Dr. Seuss sense, Catholics can use the Easter spirit of renewal to turn this heartbreak into something positive by putting their religion - their singular communion with Jesus' life and teachings - above their church. We're in this mess largely because we've continued to let the Catholic Church believe that it's somehow more important than the Catholic religion. And that's got to stop. [...]

Where that gets messy is, each Catholic's interpretation of what IS the Catholic Religion, what it means. I'm not Catholic, but as an outside observer, there seems to be a growing dissonance between what the Clergy in the Vatican believe, and what Catholics around the world believe.

I've always been more attracted to spirituality than religion, because while religious observances and rituals can be helpful reminders of what's important, too often the observance of them becomes more important than the thing they were meant to focus you on; then, the vessel matters more than the contents.

The Dr. Suess story was about the commercialism of Christmas not being The Thing Itself, and how the Whos of Whoville understood that when all the trappings of the holiday were taken away. The writer of this essay seems to be speculating that trappings of the Catholic church may be getting in the way of The Thing Itself, that's most important. He says it's the Catholic Religion. Yet even religion can obscure The Thing Itself; one must always be mindful of that.

I've got my opinions about what's happening with the Catholic Church, but I'm not going to get into it here; this is for Catholics to sort out. I'm sure they can, and hope they will. I just thought this essay was thought provoking, and might help move the discussion along. If the topic interests you, read the whole thing.
     

An ... "interactive" Mural. Is it Art? Is it politics?

Is it somewhat educational? Is it kinda creepy? You decide:

One Nation Under God

My vote goes to all four. From a purely artistic viewpoint, I enjoy it. It has a classic style, and the artist seems to have put a lot of... "love" into it. Is that the word? I think it is.

Politically, well... it represents the views of a shrinking demographic in America. I understand the sentiments well enough, but increasingly its... a shrinking demographic. One could endlessly discuss the many political aspects presented here.

Educationally... well. I suppose you could call it an introduction to some figures of history. It certainly could evoke some questions and discussions.

I'd love to hear how the Art Nun would describe this painting. How would she suss out the psychology of it? How would she describe it? The End of the White Christian American World? The end of the American Constitution? The End of the World, period? It certainly seems like the end of someone's world. And Satan behind the movie producer... well I suppose if ya gotta put him somewhere... anyway, creepy. Just in time for Halloween?

Andrew Sullivan had a comment about the Jesus in this painting:

Amending The Christianist Tableau

[...] What if Jesus were portrayed as, you know, Jewish, rather than as some Deutsche Christen linebacker? [...]

He gives a sample of a more realistic rendition, then suggests that it "wouldn't work". Follow the link and see. Would it work? I think not. Hence, for me, part of the creepy factor.

Christianity certainly did influence the creation of the American Constitution. The interactive mural makes for some good discussion points. Different parts of it bother me, for a variety of reasons. On the whole, I have to say it makes me uncomfortable, but then, it's meant to; and strangely, that's part of what I enjoy about it. So ultimately, I won't knock the whole thing, but neither am I going to buy the whole store.

It is what it is. It will mean more to some people than others.
     

Rick Warren: stuck in the middle - like most?

Warren: From Peacemaker to Lightning Rod

Unlike many evangelical leaders of recent decades, the Rev. Rick Warren doesn't want to be a lightning rod. When I asked him before the last election whether the Christian right had tarnished the image of American evangelicals, Warren didn't blink: "without a doubt."

"I never was a part of it," Warren said of the Christian right. "I'm trying to stake out what I call a common ground for the common good."

[...]

After Warren's recent CNN appearance, his critics on the right are as miffed about his warmth toward "all my gay friends" as they are about his specific misstatement on Proposition 8. "I hope he is not intimidated by the tactics of homosexual activists," says Concerned Women for America's Wright. "He has a unique ability to present biblical truth on marriage to a wider audience."

Gay rights groups, meanwhile, have also ratcheted up their criticism of Warren. "Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together," the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, wrote in a letter to Obama protesting Warren's inauguration role. "Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Americans."

[...]

But Warren's defenders argue that his critics on the left and right give him credibility with the majority of middle-of-the-road Americans. [...]

It would seem that Warren wants to be a bridge builder, but the extremists on both the Left and the Right want none of that; they have no use for bridges, or people who would try to build them. I can only wonder if he is like the majority of Americans; stuck in the middle, willing to compromise on some things, but being battered by extremists on both sides.

We will never all agree, nor are we meant to; a healthy democratic-republic requires debate and strong political opposition, so it's not wrong or even bad that we have that. But we also need to find common ground sometimes, to keep the extremes on either side from pulling us too far in one direction.

One thing that has allowed the left to steadily gain ground in this tug of war is that they often grudgingly compromise; they take whatever they can get, even as they denounce that it isn't enough. They still TAKE it.

The Right too often draws a line in the sand, and says "ALL or NOTHING". And they often end up with nothing. Thus the Left steadily advances incrementally, and it's gotten them quite far. The Right could do the same, if they would only abandon the all-or-nothing strategy that has not been serving them well.

For years when I lived in San Francisco, I would hear hard-core Leftists say that the best way to defeat the Right in America was to encourage the Religious Right to make demands and to be as loud, vociferous and inflexible as possible. The idea was, that if you give the Religious Right enough rope to hang themselves, they will, AND they will take the Republican party with them.

I would not paint the entire Religious Right with that brush; there are several variations of the Religious Right theme. Yet it does seem that there is at least a segment of the Religious Right that is extra loud and inflexible. If they were to adopt a less strident and more flexible, incremental strategy towards getting what they want, we might all benefit more.

But I don't see that happening; you can't force people to change. That being the case, I don't see that it's wise to let them take the lead of the Republican Party. I don't say kick them out; we need a big tent, not a small one. I just mean, that whoever sits at the head of the table, whoever leads the party, ought to be flexible and moderate enough that a broad coalition can gather around them, and around the issues that most of us can agree on.

Flexibility is a survival asset. Inflexibility often equals death.

Rick Warren may not be someone you agree with. I may not agree with him either, on all issues. I'm just saying, he deserves a place at the table. Our tent needs to be big enough. We need to take what we can get. If growing, and even surviving, as a political force, means anything to us anymore.
     

Lego Christ for Easter, debuts in Sweden

Swedish church unveils Lego Jesus statue for Easter

It looks better than I thought it would. It took a year and a half to complete. It's design is based on a famous statue, follow the link for more details.

Happy Easter!
     

Christian moralizing as a party platform

Are conservative Christians and the Republican Party one and the same thing? I wouldn't say so, although I wouldn't deny they make a up a huge part of the party. So much so, that Republicans can't win elections without them. But not so large, that Republican's can rely ONLY on them. The Republican Party needs to expand it's base, and it needs to do so while retaining most of it's current membership. How can that be accomplished?

Since Bush senior, conservative Christians have made their social issues the spearhead of the Republican party. While that may have had a short term gain for the party, in the long term, due to changing demographics, it's likely to be a losing proposition.

I'm not suggesting that religious conservatives give up their social positions, because:

A.) They WON'T.

B.) I wouldn't let anyone tell me to give up my positions on anything, so I would not expect anyone else to.

What I am talking about is, the spearhead of the Republican Coalition. In a coalition, the members have core beliefs they share, and a variety of other beliefs that can differ considerably. If the coalition is to hold together, the spearhead must be the core beliefs, so all them members can rally behind it and support it. If the spearhead is instead the agenda of one coalition member, the support drops, and the spear, through lack of support, never reaches it's target.

I think that's what we are seeing currently. Religious Republicans have been putting their social issues at the forefront, the spearhead, of the party. When they are asked not to do that, they complain that they are being asked to "give up" their social issues. I submit that that is not the case. I think what they are being asked to to is, to rally around the core beliefs that they share with other non-religious Republicans, and put those at the forefront of the party.

Why? So we can win elections. Why? Because if your party is powerless, NONE of your issues will be served well, if at all.

If you insist on all or nothing, you will often end up with nothing.

Social issues are also Hearts and Minds issues. They can't be legislated onto people against their will. If you try to impose such issues on a free people, against popular sentiment, you create resistance and even a backlash.

The political left understands this. Tammy Bruce, in her three books, goes into great detail as to how the left has succeeded in implementing many of their agendas over the years. The secret: they did it incrementally. They knew that giant, sweeping changes would only alarm and repel. So they advanced their causes piece by piece, eroding away at the opposition. Over time, it adds up, it counts, it makes a difference.

Religious and Social conservatives could do the same thing, but they tend to stick to "all or nothing" scenarios, and thus often end up with nothing; the moral purist high-road becomes a dead end.

The other factor is positivity. Who wins elections, historically? Usually it the most optimistic, positive and upbeat candidate. Democrats often loose presidential elections because their candidates whine and complain, and emphasis what they are AGAINST, more than the expound positively what they are FOR.

Obama was very upbeat and optimistic. Superficial perhaps, but it played well none the less. Conservatives (myself included) fell into the trap of constantly criticizing Obama about things the media would not cover, which ended up making the Republicans sound very negative. Furthermore, many conservatives were often negative about our own candidate John McCain. Some came around towards the end, but only half heartedly. And what did the loudest voices in the Republican party, the Religious/Social conservatives, keep pushing to the forefront? Anti-abortion and Anti-gay marriage platforms, and all sorts of things they were AGAINST.

We become the party that was AGAINST, which is usually the Democrats losing strategy, but this time it was ours. Oh sure, there was plenty of stuff we were FOR, but it was not at the forefront of what the public saw.

Are we going to learn anything from this? I keep hearing different factions of the Republican party saying, we need to kick out the religious conservatives, or the social liberals, or the small "L" libertarians, etc. Ridiculous. Kicking people out just makes our party smaller and weaker. What we NEED is, at the forefront of our party, a spearhead that we can ALL stand behind, support enthusiastically, and speak inspiringly of, and be positive about.

It's perfectly doable, but will we? Or will we continue to be perceived as the negative, all-or-nothing, divided and divisive, interfering busy-body party that non-religious voters complain about? It's up to us.

Tammy Bruce today has a poll on her blog, asking Should the GOP reach Out to Pro-Choicers?. I'm sure many Pro-Life conservatives would be tempted to automatically vote "NO", but I would ask them to think about it more deeply. I would ask them to consider, are you more interested in posturing against abortion (and getting nowhere), or changing laws to limit abortion, thus saving actual lives?

Tammy Bruce herself, while being pro-choice, has also called abortion "the Razor's Edge". She's said she doesn't approve of the way it's used as birth control, and she has a lot of sympathy for women who are pro-life. She has said that as a feminist, she wants every women to "find her own voice", and when many women do that they find that it's a "pro-life" voice, and she accepts that.

Tammy is conservative on many, probably most issues. Can we not expand our party to include people like her? Would it be such a bad thing for us to win elections?

This isn't about "giving up"; it's called "give a little, get a little". It's about the art of political maneuvering; it's about making incremental advances, instead of blunt inflexible posturing, that may feel good when you do it but in reality does NOTHING to advance your cause.

I've used abortion as an example here, but it could easily apply to just about any social issue that's important to you. "Compromise" is only a dirty word if you believe that idealism is more important than affecting actual change on the ground. Incremental change not only makes a difference, it also is a footsoldier in the battle for hearts and minds. If your cause is better served by incremental advances, then get started. Start moving things to where you want them to be, even if it's slowly, instead of just loudly complaining that you aren't there yet.

There is no political party that fits my views 100%. With maturity I've learned to compromise, because I realized that it's the only realistic way to actually advance the causes and principles that I do care about. I've understood that I can't do it alone, that I need other people, and that means agreeing with people on the things I can agree on, and agreeing to disagree about the rest. An 80% ally isn't a 20% enemy. Ronald Reagan taught me that, and it's a lesson that the Republican party as a whole would do well to strive to embrace, if it's going to survive the 21st century.
     

Change is here, whether you like it or not

Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage

[...] “It’s not ‘Yes we can,’ ” said Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco city supervisor, referring to President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign mantra. “It’s ‘Yes we will.’ ”

Carrying handmade signs with slogans like “No More Mr. Nice Gay” and “Straights Against Hate,” big crowds filled civic centers and streets in many cities. In New York, some 4,000 people gathered at City Hall, where speakers repeatedly called same-sex marriage “the greatest civil rights battle of our generation.”

“We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Brooklyn.

In Los Angeles, where wildfires had temporarily grabbed headlines from continuing protests over Proposition 8, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa addressed a crowd of about 9,000 people in Spanish and English, and seemed to express confidence that the measure, which is being challenged in California courts, would be overturned.

“I’ve come here from the fires because I feel the wind at my back as well,” said the mayor, who arrived at a downtown rally from the fire zone on a helicopter. “It’s the wind of change that has swept the nation. It is the wind of optimism and hope.” [...]

I understand perfectly well people's concerns about not wanting to change the definition of what a marriage is. But no-fault divorce has already done that. For years I worked for attorneys that dealt with divorce cases, and saw it in action. No-fault divorce has turned marriage, in it's legal definition, into nothing more than a civil contract, to be broken at will.

This is why it's being called a "civil right". As a civil contract, how can it be legally denied to gay people? Arguments against gay marriage as a religious choice will probably still hold up, because no one has to join a religion that they don't like. But that argument does not hold up in the secular sphere, nor does it enjoy popular support there. To continue to try to force it on secular people is only going to create continuing resistance... and resentment.

If conservative Christian churches want to maintain the right to not perform gay marriages in their churches because of their religious beliefs, I believe that is their choice and their right. But secular people also have their right to make their own choices. If the religious right continues to try to control secular civil marriage contracts to reflect their own views, they may find themselves in a very uncomfortable, and losing, position.


Related Link:

The anti-gay marriage votes
     

Tears of joy for "A Mighty Fortress is our God"

I got some cheap music CD's at the Dollar Store a while back, they were "Relaxation Music" to play during dinner. One of them was called "Spiritual Relaxation". It turned out to be Muzac versions of various Christian Hymns. Track number 9 was "A Mighty Fortress".

Pat thought it was an old Methodist Hymn. I recognized it as the theme music from Davey and Goliath, a claymation tv show for kids that they used to show Sunday mornings, sorta like Sunday School at home for church slackers. I was curious, so I did some googling, and found out some interesting stuff.

Starting in 1960, "Davey and Goliath" was a Lutheran clay animation series about a boy and his talking dog, that taught kids about "the love of God through everyday occurrences". The theme song in early episodes was indeed a stylized instrumental version of "A Mighty Fortress".


I read one blogger who remembers the show, describing it as "kinda creepy". I had to laugh! "kinda creepy" is what I thought of it too! That talking dog, with the low sounding voice: "Oh Daaa-veeey". But of course, when you're 6 or 7 years old, "kinda creepy" is also "kinda fun". Make no mistake, I'm not being snarky here, I did enjoy it. The pre-computer animation was really good, and was done by Art Clokey, the animator who did "Gumby", an important pioneer in the art of claymation whose work I've always been impressed with.

Here is a link to a clip from the series, adapted for a "Mountain Dew" commercial, I think: Sermon on the Mountain Dew. And here is an irreligious spoof of the show: Mad TV: Davey and Goliath II - Pet Cemetery. But what about the original episodes?

They were shown on TV up until the 90's. You can now buy most of them on DVDs. You can also see many full episodes from the show online at Youtube. Here is one of them:

Davey and Goliath: The Bell Ringer



Dick Sutcliffe, the producer who created "Davey and Goliath" and wrote the early episodes, died in May of this year due to complications caused by a stroke, at the age of 90, God bless him. The link is to his obituary. The show he created is still fondly remembered and loved by many.

But I'm digressing, back to the music. I had never heard the words to "A Mighty Fortess", so I googled the lyrics:

A Mighty Fortress

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

I could not conceive how these lyrics could be sung with the music. I found one blog by a Christian musician, who explained that "A Mighty Fortress" was not an easy song to sing, and should not be attempted by amateurs (like congregations), but only professional singers or choirs. He recommended a recording by Steve Green, as an example of it being sung correctly. So I looked it up, you can hear it at the link below:

Steve Green: "A Mighty Fortress"

When the song begins, it's just one man's voice. I was not very impressed. But it builds, and three minutes later, when it ended, I was in tears.

My glass of wine from dinner was still kicking in. Ok, it wasn't just that. You know, I don't call myself a Christian, because I'm not religious. But I am a christian culturally, and I have spiritual feelings. Good Christian music can move me. I can feel and appreciate the longing, the hope, and the joy.

The lyrics for the Hymn are a paraphrase of Psalm 46, written by Martin Luther in the 1500's. The music for the modern version we know today was written for it later by Johann Sebastian Bach.

Life today has it's hardships to be sure, but life in the 1500's was very hard for most people, and often short. If you remember that while you hear it, you appreciate it's poignancy. The Wikipedia page about the Hymn is here:

A Mighty Fortress Is Our God

As a contrast to the Steve Green version, listen to this organ and choir:



Very different, but also very moving.

     

As in Spain, so also in the world at large?

I've been thinking for some time that the entire world seems to moving Left politically, dragging the Center and Right with it. This recent article by Soeren Kern at the Brussels Journal talks about the conservative party in Spain, but I see a lot of parallels with conservatism in the USA and elsewhere:

Spanish Conservatives Face Identity Crisis, Power Struggle

Spanish conservatives are now in open warfare against each other as two opposing factions seek to gain control over the ideological future of the center-right Partido Popular (PP), the main opposition party in Spain. The internal battle has been brewing for a number of years, but has become a very public affair ever since Mariano Rajoy, the party’s leader, lost the general election on March 9.

The fact that the winner of that election, Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, was at best a mediocre candidate, one who should have been relatively easy to defeat at the polls, has added to calls for a major reform of the PP. And adding injury to insult, the 2008 vote was a virtual replay of the previous general election in 2004, when Zapatero defeated Rajoy by a similar margin. [...]

Spain's conservative party has been trying to hold together a coalition of center right groups, but there is a power struggle within the party between religious and secular elements. Unless they can find common ground for compromise, they may be stuck, and continue to lose elections. Read the whole thing for the details. But I found it not only educational about Spanish politics; I see this same struggle happening in many other countries as well. It's a new global political reality that conservatives everywhere are having to contend with.