Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Fear holiday

Patriot Day is a dishonest holiday because it is supposed to be an opportunity to remember the losses on September 11, 2001, perhaps to grieve. However, America, over the past ten years, has been characterized not by grief but by fear. There is nothing wrong with simply being afraid (unless one does not wish to feel this way), but it’s best to address fear if fear is what one mostly feels. Sadness is not the only appropriate feeling.

When I learned that September 11 is called Patriot Day, I winced, I think, because of the symbol that 9/11 has become and how the word “patriot” means, instead of “lover of country”, “lover of state”. Any commemoration of 9/11, any call to “remember” or “never forget”, is political because 9/11 has repeatedly been invoked to enforce consent to war, rejection of human rights, and stupid things, as if people who resist any action of the government are “unpatriotic” and disrespectful towards the lives lost on 9/11.

The terror caused by the attacks on 9/11 was used to invent a War on Terror. This war wound up happening a lot in Iraq, although no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, nor was there any connection found between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, nor were any of the actual 9/11 attackers from Iraqi. Perhaps the United States had gotten too calm since the Cold War ended and 9/11 was an apt reminder to be wary of terrorism in general. It’s more likely that the terror the terrorists generated was seized as an opportunity to go to war; at 2:40 PM on 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld dictated to one of his aides, “Judge whether hit SH [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].” (Image of note) Within six hours of the attacks, Rumsfeld had managed to emotionally process through the “denial” stage of grief and had moved on to “anger”; he lingered there for a while.

Thirty times as many civilians have died in the Iraq war as died in the 9/11 attacks.

The terror cultivated by 9/11 has been used to excuse many abuses of human rights. 9/11 has been used by the United States government to justify torture, detention without due process, racial profiling, and warrantless surveillance; American citizens have suffered due to each of these. (Related: ACLU Report: A Call to Courage) The New York Police Department, with the aid of the CIA, is spying on Muslim communities without probable cause.

The PATRIOT Act and similar increases of “counterterrorist” activity have resulted in actions by the FBI that are stupid. They put a tracking device on the car of Yasir Afifi, a native US citizen, without a warrant or even probable cause other than Afifi being half-Egyptian; when he found the device, they asked for it back. FBI agents often sit in parked cars to keep an eye on Scott Crow, a spindly nonviolent vegan anarchist. In a report, they noted an object on his lawn, “It had a large number of multi-colored blocks, with figures and/or lettering…may be a sign that is to be used in an upcoming protest.” “It was a quilt,” he said, “for a kids’ after-school program.”

Law enforcement, from the FBI to state and local law enforcement, to private security in office buildings, started doing more stupid things as a result of 9/11. Many police and local homeland security departments encourage reporting of “suspicious activities” including, [being] “over dressed for the weather”, “individuals who carry on long conversations on pay or cellular telephones”, and “joggers who stand and stretch for an inordinate amount of time”.

Stupid suspicion and security theater are wasteful of time and money, but they have a worse consequence. Needless and unhelpful security measures do harm because security theater tells a story about how afraid people should be. When people take off their shoes at the security line, that’s a ritual that was invented as a reaction to the Shoe Bomber. Liquids go in 3 ounce bottles in 1 quart zip-lock bags, a reminder of the Liquid Bomb Plot. The TSA was created, and the convoluted screening process it uses in airports was instituted as a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. These do not make people safer, these policies make people more afraid.


My grandpa died one Sunday. I was 18. His funeral was the next Saturday. My parents asked me if I wanted to spend the night at their house and go to church with them the next day. I decided not to. I drove back to campus that night, and then went to a church I’d never been to where no one would know about my grandpa’s death. I was sad that my grandpa died, and it was important to be with my family as we grieved. I’m sure that other people at my church were sad for my family, and I’m thankful for their sympathy, that they cared about my family, but I didn’t want to deal with them telling me repeatedly how sad it is that my grandpa died. They didn’t know him.

After the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, many college students changed their Facebook profile pictures to the Virginia Tech logo and joined Facebook groups with names like, “We are all Hokies”. This was crass. Virginia Tech students are Virginia Tech students, and other college students are other college students. The Virginia Tech shooting was sad, but it was particularly salient to other college students. College students everywhere were afraid because people like them got shot; this made it easy for them to imagine dying in a similar fashion. Saying that one is a Hokie when one is not is an attempt to borrow someone else’s sadness as a cover for one’s own fear.

The deaths of the people on 9/11 are notable because of the scale of the hateful attack that killed them. They were striking because other Americans could not help but imagine being victims of a similar attack. They continue to be remembered, not just out of sadness, but as symbol they have served; they had no choice about what their deaths would come to mean, how this event would be used to further political aims.

Many people who lost close friends or family members on 9/11 are still mourning; this is appropriate. To me, though, and to most Americans, the victims on 9/11 were strangers; all we have in common with them is our Americanness. It’s wonderful to have the empathy to be sad on someone else’s behalf. It’s harmful to expect one’s self to have sadness equal to that of the victim. Grief is not a competition.

Patriot Day is supposed to be a day of remembrance and grief, but grief is not the only appropriate emotion when considering 9/11. Fear has dominated American political behavior since 9/11, so honestly expressing fear is appropriate, too. Masking fear with shows of grief mocks the grief felt deeply by the families and friends of the victims. Remembering 9/11 without careful consideration grows fear.

If safety from terrorism is still under-addressed, more fear is not what Americans need; Americans need more perspective. Airport security is an example of the repeated loss of perspective to fear. The 9/11 attackers used airplanes as missiles, so the TSA took over airports. Then, Richard Reid tried to blow up his shoes on an airplane, so now we have to take off our shoes when we go through TSA security. Then, there was a plot to attack airplanes with bombs made of, among other things, hydrogen peroxide, disposable cameras, and Tang, and so the TSA and other agencies around the world banned a phase of matter. In each of these cases, the changes in security policy were in response to a previous attack, not in anticipation of a future attack. It’s myopic to consider commercial passenger air travel as a particularly significant terrorist attack vector when there are cargo planes, private planes, trains, cars, motorcycles, boats, horses, canals, and Segways, and threats that have nothing to do with transportation. Fear drives this decision making. Fear inhibits creativity and forces people to revisit their pain, to remain subject to it.

If Americans are concerned about safety from terrorists, they need to ask, What will al Qaeda do next? and, Who else, besides al Qaeda, wants Americans to be afraid?

In Refuse to be Terrorized, Bruce Schneier writes,

I’d like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics.

The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act. And we’re doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we’re terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists’ actions, and increase the effects of their terror.

(I am not saying that the politicians and press are terrorists, or that they share any of the blame for terrorist attacks. I’m not that stupid. But the subject of terrorism is more complex than it appears, and understanding its various causes and effects are vital for understanding how to best deal with it.)

Everyone has experienced pain, and everyone has fear that it will recur. To continue to be identified by pain is to continue to be manipulated by it. It’s important, for example, to recognize the harm that slavery caused, but to see an African American primarily as a descendant of slaves, instead of a parent or math teacher or golf player, is to continue the identification imposed upon their ancestors instead of the identity that they themselves generate; this is small compared to the wrong of slavery and institutionalized discrimination, but it is unnecessary and painful. Forgetting, in a careful way, is necessary.

The War on Terror was misnamed because it isn’t actually a war against the feelings of terror that people have, it’s a war on terrorists or a war on people that are accused of being terrorists. What if there had been a war on terror—the feeling? More than Patriot Day, a day for grief, Americans need an opportunity to admit their fears, discuss them, and find ways to overcome them. People can cultivate courage. Maintaining good health, doing good work, and loving and being loved all help develop courage. These are things are already worthwhile.

There is no end to violence. Terrorist attacks are inevitable. When threatened by attacks in the future, America will perpetuate violence unless it becomes less fearful.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

At least they aren't Dominionists

A couple of weeks ago I linked to Dominionism: Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry’s Dangerous Religious Bond by Michelle Goldberg. In discussions online, a couple of friends pointed me to these articles, Be not afraid of evangelicals by Lisa Miller and Christian Dominionism Is a Myth by A. Larry Ross. Ross and Miller both write in response to Goldberg’s article, as well as Leap of Faith regarding Michele Bachmann by Ryan Lizza and Rick Perry’s Army of God by Forrest Wilder. The part of Ross’s article that addresses these articles is,

Although her [Goldberg’s] well-intentioned article may resonate in the echo chambers of her fellow East Coast media elite, Goldberg misapplies a broad label that few, if any, evangelicals use or with which they identify. It reveals more about the author’s personal perspective and lack of nuanced understanding of the topic than it provides useful information about the subjects themselves.

Miller’s article does a clearer job than Ross of describing Dominionism, and aptly remarks,

Certain journalists use “dominionist” the way some folks on Fox News use the word “sharia.” Its strangeness scares people. Without history or context, the word creates a siege mentality in which “we” need to guard against “them.”

I don’t think that Bachmann or Perry would call themselves Dominionists, and I now agree with my friends that this label is wrong. Another valid criticism of Ryan Lizza’s piece on Bachmann is that it overstates her connections to certain extremist figures. Ross and Miller are both right to protest when people in the media try to make evangelicalism sound frightening. However, I think that Goldberg, Lizza, and Wilder, in their writing, are careful to not make blanket statements about Christians or evangelicals. They aren’t telling their readers to watch out for evangelicals, they’re telling their readers to watch out for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry and the particular people they are influenced and supported by.

I read more about Bachmann and Perry, trying to figure out if they are “Dominionists” and realized that they aren’t. That didn’t make me feel better, though. They aren’t Dominionists, but they do support their strains of Christianity having undue influence on others through government power.

It’s appropriate for religion to influence politicians. It’s great if a Christian politician sees concern for the poor in the Bible and this motivates them to legislate for justice in our society. I am glad when Christian politicians’ beliefs about God valuing life encourage them to protect lives. It’s wonderful if a Christian politician’s beliefs about God remind them of how limited and frail humans are, and take this as a reminder to be humble and careful in the use of their power.

Our government is and should be secular, though; policy ought to be based on reason and evidence. Secularism is not just important for the non-religious, it’s important for everyone because it’s not just neutral towards religions, it’s neutral towards sects. While the United States has, historically, been mostly populated by Christians, it has always been populated by Christians of many stripes. My home state, Maryland, was founded as a colony because George Calvert (The Lord Baltimore) wanted a place where Catholics could live freely, away from mistreatment in Anglican England. I don’t think that Bachmann and Perry have secret spooky connections to religious conspiracies. However, both Bachmann and Perry openly disregard the protection of everyone’s rights equally; they advance their particular religious preferences through governmental power.


While Lizza’s profile on Bachmann was speculative regarding her connections to some figures, the leadership of her law school and the close relationships that she did have with her mentors are relevant. Bachmann went to O.W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University, which had a lapse in its accreditation by the ABA because they required students and faculty to be Christian. This was not an institution that tought lawyers to practice law with neutrality towards religion. In God’s Law is the Only Law: The Genesis of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Posner writes about one of the founders of Coburn, Herb Titus,

After Moore was stripped of his judgeship for defying a federal court order to remove his monument, Titus drafted the Constitution Restoration Act, which would have deprived federal courts of jurisdiction in cases challenging a government entity’s or official’s “acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” The bill, which did not pass, nonetheless had nine Senate co-sponsors and 50 House co-sponsors; including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, now the governor of Louisiana, Nathan Deal, now the governor of Georgia, and Mike Pence, a conservative hero who’s now running for governor of Indiana.

After graduation, Bachmann stayed to work as a research assistant for John Eidsmoe’s book “Christianity and the Constitution”. Ryan Lizza recalls a conversation with Eidsmoe,

Eidsmoe explained to me how the Coburn School of Law, in the years that Bachmann was there, wove Christianity into the legal curriculum. “Say we’re talking in criminal law, and we get to the subject of the insanity defense,” he said. “Well, Biblically speaking, is there such a thing as insanity and is it a defense for a crime? We might look back to King David when he’s captured by the Philistines and he starts frothing at the mouth, playing crazy and so on.” When Biblical law conflicted with American law, Eidsmoe said, O.R.U. students were generally taught that “the first thing you should try to do is work through legal means and political means to get it changed.”

Bachmann’s not simply affiliated with anti-secularism, and not only in ancient history. Speaking at the EdWatch National Education Conference in 2004, she said,

It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.

and

If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.

Anti-gay opinions don’t have to be religious, but Bachmann’s views on gay rights clearly do come from her religious beliefs.

While in the Minnesotta State Senate, she co-wrote a bill regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools:

Notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary, when science academic standards are taught that may generate controversy, including biological evolution, the curriculum must help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society. A quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science.

I agree with every word of that bill. It’s entirely unnecessary, though. Science education already teaches how we come to understand nature, and includes discussion of controversy; this helps students develop critical thinking skills, and science instruction should include more consideration of disagreement among scientists. Appropriate teaching of the controversy about evolution would include the fact that it ended years ago. The “full range of scientific views” on evolution does not include intelligent design, which Bachmann wants taught in schools,

I support intelligent design. What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.

Support of intelligent design is support of religion. Intelligent design as a political movement is just a re-brand of creationism, a re-brand that was rightly struck down as being inappropriate for teaching in public schools, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This movement is dishonest because the scientific community does not support intelligent design. If intelligent design proponents were concerned about advancing their hypotheses appropriately, they would be campaigning for more research funding on the matter, instead of demanding that opinions that are not grounded in science be taught as science in public schools. The Discovery Institute is the primary organization in the intelligent design movement. In its Wedge Strategy document, it stated the goal of having a hundred scientific publications supporting intelligent design by 2003. This did not come close to happening. They tried to start their own journal, Origins & Design, but didn’t publish a new issue since the year 2000. Political support for teaching creationism in public schools is based on willful ignorance of the actual science, and is instead motivated by religious beliefs.

Bachmann wants tax policy to be influenced by her religious beliefs,

What Jesus said, “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God’s,” so there certainly is a place for us to pay taxes to government. That’s legitimate. We should do that as Jesus instructs. But we render to God that which is God’s and the Bible calls for, approximately we are thinking of tithe, maybe 10 percent that we are giving to God, but beyond that we also give to charity. Jesus didn’t ask government to be the charity; he asks the the individual and the church to be charitable.”

Bachmann thinks that God is speaking through natural disasters,

I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, “Are you going to start listening to me here?” Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.

This interpretation of these events, ironically, is unsupported by I Kings 19:11.


Criticism of Rick Perry for being anti-secular is more relevant because he is currently more popular than Bachmann. In April, he issued a proclamation calling for three days of prayer for rain. (Unfortunately, this year, Texas is having its worst drought in history.) Again, he officially declared August 6 to be a day of prayer. I have no problem with politicians praying, and I don’t even mind when they personally urge people to pray. Issuing public proclamations for such is a misuse of power, though. In particular, Perry’s August 6 day of prayer included an invitation to a rally at Reliant Stadium; Wilder’s article on Perry covers this event in detail. Five days later, Rick Perry announced that he is running for president.

Regarding homosexuality, in his book, On My Honor, Perry writes,

Though I am no expert on the “nature versus nurture” debate, I can sympathize with those who believe sexual preference is genetic. It may be so, but it remains unproved. Even if it were, this does not mean we are ultimately not responsible for the active choices we make. Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink. And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.

A loving, tolerant view toward those who have a different sexual preference is the ideal position — for both the heterosexual and the homosexual. I do not believe in condemning homosexuals that I know personally. I believe in valuing their lives like any others, as our God in heaven does. Tolerance, however, should not only be asked of the proponents of traditional values. The radical homosexual movement seeks societal normalization of their sexual activity. I respect their right to engage in individual behavior of their choosing, but they must respect the right of millions in society to refuse to normalize their behavior.

His respect for the rights of homosexuals to “engage in individual behavior of their choosing” has evidently arisen since 2002, when, regarding Texas’ not-yet-declared-unconstitutional-by-the-United-States-Supreme-Court anti-sodomy law, he said, “I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books.” He is “for the federal marriage amendment”; granted, this is expected of Republicans these days. The anti-sodomy law, though, intruded into people’s homes. Oscar Wilde said, “Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.” Perry’s support for the anti-sodomy laws, and even bans on gay marriage, is selfish.

Regarding evolution and creationism, he said,

I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.

Rick Perry supports Israel for religious reasons, saying,

I’m a big believer that this country was given to the people of Israel a long time ago, by God, and that’s ordained.


What sort of treatment would a candidate receive if they went to a law school that required its students and faculty to be Muslims, where they were taught to change American law if it disagreed with Koranic law? A Sikh who saught to sneak Sikh beliefs into public school curricula? A Buddhist who wanted tax policy based on their beliefs about mendicancy? A Hindu candidate who said that God was speaking through natural disasters? A Wiccan who declared days of prayer? A Muslim candidate who believed that God had given Israel to Palestinians?

How about a premillenialist politician that wanted to conduct foreign policy based on the expectation that the world was going to end soon? A politician from a mainline church who tried to force all clergy to marry gay people on request? A Catholic politician that tried to ban contraception? Secularism is not important just for nonreligious people, or for non-Christians, it’s important for everyone because at some level, everyone’s beliefs are not those of the majority.

When John F Kennedy ran for president, he had much opposition because he was a Catholic. Was the Vatican going to have a direct line to the Oval Office? Clarifying his role, he said,

I am not the Catholic candidate for President.

I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views—in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

Politicians are not given switches they can use to turn their religious preferences on and off. We should expect their preferences to influence their attention and give them passion for the wellbeing of the people, and this is often a good thing. The policies, themselves, though, must have a secular basis. Concern regarding inappropriate influence of religion on politicians is not new. JFK faced it, drawing a clear line between what he thought was appropriate and inappropriate influence of his religion on his decisions as president. In the last presidential election, Obama was compelled to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright, and John McCain rejected support from John Hagee. Michele Bachmann’s and Rick Perry’s beliefs about the role of religion in government should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other politician.

Bachmann and Perry are not Dominionists, and calling them Dominionists is characteristic of politics of fear and it’s bad rhetoric. It is also unnecessary because they don’t need to be Dominionists to be opposed to fair secular policy. Bachmann and Perry are both clearly drafting policy based on their religious beliefs, rather than reason and evidence; there is no need for conspiracy theories. The influences that Bachmann and Perry have been subject to, for example, Bachmann’s law school and Perry’s support from his prayer rally are relevant in light of this, but these are not the primary reasons why they are unfit to govern.

Restricting people’s rights to marry and forcing the teaching of bad science is not in the national interest. Tax policy should be decided based on the national interest, not on Levitical law. Support for Israel should be determined based on the national interest, and global human interest, not on God-given land deeds. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are both unfit to govern, not because of the connections they may have to extremists, but because they themselves are enemies of a society that treats people of all religious beliefs equally.