Book Review: Beyond Chutzpah – On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, by Norman G. Finkelstein

The impetus behind Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s book Beyond Chutzpah is Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard lawyer and author of The Case for Israel, a book replete with historical fictions and ridiculous assertions. Finkelstein became exasperated with Dershowitz’s brazen lies, self-serving drivel, and ridiculous distortions of reality not because such behavior is particularly uncommon but because Dershowitz was being assisted and promoted by the entire mainstream Jewish establishment.

By acting as Israel’s defense attorney Dershowitz is distorting truth in order to shield a very guilty party from the criticism and harsh condemnation they would otherwise be receiving for their egregious behavior. Finkelstein recognizes that the extremely biased rhetoric of people like Dershowitz is not helping Israel or Jews but is in fact is fuelling injustice and will eventually lead to violent reprisals against Jews everywhere.

New York Times reporter Chris Hedges has observed regarding his stint in Gaza, “I had seen children shot in other conflicts I have covered … but I had never watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport." Israel was "the only country in the world," according to B'Tselem, "where torture was legally sanctioned." Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israel has "routinely tortured Palestinian political suspects" (Amnesty International). Due to this "systematic pattern," Human Rights Watch estimated in 1994, "the number of Palestinians tortured or severely ill-treated"—often without even a pretense that these detainees were guilty of any wrongdoing—"is in the tens of thousands." ...
Israel is "the only democratic country" that regards political liquidations as a "legitimate course of action" (B'Tselem), placing it "among an infamous group of states that grossly violates basic moral and humane norms that the international community considers binding" (Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights). Israel presents no evidence supporting its charges against those targeted for assassination. The targets typically don't pose any imminent danger and, alternatively, could have been apprehended, while numerous bystanders have been indiscriminately killed and injured. ...
 Mainly on account of Israel's closure policy, the West Bank and Gaza currently verge on a "humanitarian catastrophe" (U.N. Com mission on Human Rights). Finally, Israel's "regime of separation" in the Occupied Territories "is the only one of its kind in the world," according to B'Tselem, "and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."

Yet, against this copiously documented record of egregious human rights violations, Alan Dershowitz contends, and purports to have proven, that Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories is "generally superb." [p. 221-222]

Since about 1967 two myths have come to predominate: you cannot be Jewish without also being a Zionist, and all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. Finkelstein combats both of these myths primarily by countering the written and public statements of Alan Dershowitz.

In The Holocaust Industry, this writer documented that American Jewish elites didn't become enamored of Israel until after the June 1967 war; when it became politically and personally expedient to be a Zionist. Likewise, they didn't discover the Nazi holocaust until after the June war, when it proved useful for deflecting criticism of Israel. Alan Dershowitz perfectly fits this profile. He reports that it was only in 1967 that "I first began to make the case for Israel on university campuses, in the media, and in my writings" (p. vii)—that is, when it required roughly as much pluck as for his counterpart at Moscow University to make the case for Cuba. …
"My friends from Brooklyn and I, who never discussed the Holocaust when we were growing up, talk about it all the time now." No doubt they do, since, in contrast to the 1950s, it's now politically convenient to invoke the Nazi holocaust. Dershowitz's convenient love affair with Israel and anguish over the Holocaust points to the ugliest truth about his wretched book. Throughout the past year this writer has stated in public lectures that The Case for Israel is replete with egregious falsehoods. Yet the biggest fraud is the title itself. Dershowitz hasn't written a case for Israel. How could anyone genuinely concerned about the Israeli people counsel policies certain to sow seeds of hatred abroad and moral corruption within? What he has in fact written is the case for the destruction of Israel. Letting others—Palestinians as well as Jews—pay the price while he plays the "tough Jew": isn't this what Dershowirz's chutzpah really comes down to? [p. 225-226]

Finkelstein tells the world everything that the Jewish establishment doesn’t want the world to hear. Not surprisingly he is often under personal attack from Israel’s blind supporters and their moneyed interests: they can’t assail his facts so they resort to attacking the messenger. The main tool used by the Jewish establishment to stifle criticism and shut-down free and open discussion about the roots of conflict in the Middle East and Israel is, of course, the slander of anti-Semitism.

Each campaign to combat the “new anti-Semitism" has coincided with renewed international pressures on Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories in exchange for recognition from neighboring Arab states. [p. 22]

Here are a few examples of today’s “anti-Semites”: 

One possibility the [Nathan and Ruth Ann] Perlmutters [publishers of the book The Real Anti-Semitism] didn't entertain was that Israel might be in the wrong. Real anti-Semites didn't just include usual suspects like the National Council of Churches, which "called on Israel to include the PLO in its Middle East peace negotiations," and the United Nations, which "has become an arena for vicious assaults on Jewish interests"—such as supporting a two-state settlement. Rather, defined by the damage, however indirect, they might inflict on Israel, anti-Semites, in the Perimutters' lexicon, was a catchall for, among others, those wanting to "scuttle the electoral college" in the name of democracy, which would diminish the clout of American Jews (concentrated in swing states) and concomitantly diminish Jewish influence over Middle East policy; those calling for peaceful resolution of conflicts and cuts in the military budget, on account of which "nowadays war is getting a bad name and peace too favorable a press"—plainly a disaster for Israel; those opposing nuclear power, which would increase "the West's dependency on OPEC oil … “ [p.28]

Finkelstein has a sharp sense of humor, making his book fun to read and since so much of what he writes about concerns ridiculous statements and outrageous behavior perhaps laughter really is the best way to deal with it. Indeed, the slander of anti-Semitism leads to some absurd yet highly revealing situations:

[I]t's hard not to savor—or not to be revolted by—the ironies of this episode: a Jewish professor at a German war college defending the use of torture is publicly reprimanded, after which the Jewish professor, wrapping himself in the mantle of The Holocaust, accuses of anti-Semitism those Germans deploring his advocacy of torture and, explicating the lessons of The Holocaust, declares that while The Holocaust forbids Germans (and everyone else) from being perpetrators, it entitles Jews to do as they please. [p. 48]

The malleable definition of anti-Semitism deflects criticism of Israel, Jews, Israeli government policy, and anything else the Jewish establishment wants shielded.

[I]f mainstream Jewish organizations lend uncritical support to every Israeli policy, however criminal, indeed, abetting the most virulent tendencies inside Israel and muzzling principled dissent outside Israel; if Israel defines itself juridically as the sovereign state of the Jewish people, and Jews abroad label any criticism of Israel anti-Jewish— the real wonder is that the spillover from antipathy toward Israel to Jews generally hasn't been greater. [p. 82]

Anti-Semitism is used to beat the German public into submission:

If Germany was once the European hotbed of anti-Semitism, it has now become the hotbed of philo-Semitism: on the one hand, "politically correct," utterly cynical public officials and media ferret out anti-Semites where a smattering are to be found, resembling nothing so much as the medieval witch hunts; and on the other, Israel's apologists, holding Germany in thrall, exploit the Nazi horrors to strike down any criticism of Jewish leaders or Israel, stifling public discourse and stoking private resentment.

This isn't the first time German public opinion has been manipulated into fighting a phantom "new anti-Semitism." In 1981, as pressures mounted on Israel to negotiate a two-state settlement with the Palestinians, the Union of Jews and Christians issued a declaration entitled "On the Danger of a New Anti-Semitism" at the German Evangelical Churchday. It cautioned that "signs of a relapse into hostility towards Jews are currently on the rise," alleging in particular that '[b]ehind the criticism of the Israeli government, . . . the old anti-Semitism is visible." [p.36]

The ‘new anti-Semitism’ and the ‘War on Terrorism’ are cut from the same cloth:

The consequences of the calculated hysteria of a new anti-Semitism haven't been just to immunize Israel from legitimate criticism. Its over-arching purpose, like that of the "war against terrorism," has been to deflect criticism of an unprecedented assault on international law. [p. 45]

Finkelstein’s analysis of the historical record is extremely informative, for instance on the creation of Israel:

That a U.N. General Assembly majority approved the Partition Resolution, Louis recalls, was due in no small part to Zionist machination: "[T]he Zionists were able to launch a campaign that left the President and officials at the State Department reeling under a bombardment of letters, telegrams and telephone calls. Truman wrote in his memoirs that he never 'had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance.' . . . Emmanuel Cellar and Sol Bloom in the House of Representatives exerted their considerable influence on Congressional colleagues, the executive branch, the State Department, and in particular on the United Nations representatives from the Philippines, Liberia, and Haiti. Ten Senators sent telegrams to the President of the Philippines, who also received the friendly admonition of Felix Frankfurter and another Supreme Court Justice. . . . The Cuban Ambassador, who remained recalcitrantly pro-Arab, complained that the Costan [sic] Rican vote had been bought with a $75,000 bribe. Niles [a pro-Zionist adviser to Truman] used business connections in an abortive effort to swing the Greek vote. Bernard Baruch let the representatives from China and France know that nothing less than economic assistance would he in jeopardy if they failed to vote in favour of partition. Harvey Firestone brought Liberia to heel. As Robert Donovan summed it up in an understatement in his biography of Truman, intrigue was rife." In addition, '[i]n 1947, there was not yet a solid 'anti-colonial' bloc" in the U.N. Finally, the "overriding Russian aim" in supporting the resolution was not achieving justice but “the disruption of the British Empire.” [p. 284-285]

Sadly, Alan Dershowitz isn’t the only clown on the this pathetic stage. Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) get some well deserved criticism for their hypocrisy and disingenuousness as defenders of civil liberties:

Returning to this side of the Atlantic, Foxman also waxes ominous on the "dark underbelly" of the Internet, "where the virus of anti- Semitism is ready to be spread." Although he professes opposition to government censorship, one must take with a shaker of salt his avowal that "the best antidote to hate speech, I've always maintained, is more speech." In the very same pages he boasts that "ADL has worked closely with several major Internet companies to establish and enforce clear guidelines regulating what is acceptable and unacceptable on their sites," and laments the fact that "some Internet service providers have been less willing to establish firm policies against hate speech." He cites as an egregious offender Earthlink's "acceptable use policy," which "supports the free flow of information and ideas over the Internet" and allows for the distribution of "Hitler's Mein Kampf and more than two dozen of Hitler's speeches. It's not illegal activity, but the message is clearly hateful." Beyond the fact that Hitler's Mein Kampf and speeches are primary historical sources and clearly ought to be studied if we are to learn from the past, it bears keeping in mind Foxman's definition of hateful. [p.55]

And now Elie Wiesel’s turn in Finkelstein’s spotlight:

Wiesel professed bewilderment that "60 years after the worst tragedy in human history," and although he had been "convinced that anti-Semitism had died in Auschwitz," jew-hatred was once again on the rise. In his OSCE speech, Wiesel similarly lamented that after the war he "naively thought that, for years and years to come, whenever a Jew would be seen anywhere in Europe, he or she would be carried on people’s shoulders and enveloped by everyone." …

In his U.N. speech Wiesel called anti-Semitism "the oldest collective bigotry in recorded history," as well as one that uniquely combined all other forms of bigotry. Everything about Jews is unique: anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, Israel, Jewish nationhood and peoplehood ... Beyond its repellent chauvinism, this intellectually hollow doctrine of uniqueness serves the useful ideological function of allowing Israel to claim unique moral dispensation: if Jewish suffering was unique, then Israel shouldn't be bound by normal moral standards. [p. 62] (italics added for emphasis)

With so many people too cowardly and afraid to speak up and risk being slandered as an anti-Semite the Holocaust has subsequently been turned into an extortion-based cash-machine by the Jewish establishment with a complicit mass-media to legitimize the scam:

Just as it's too simple (and convenient) to label accusations of Jewish responsibility for Israeli policy anti-Semitic, so it's too simple (and convenient) to label the notion of Jewish power anti-Semitic. Jews now rank as the wealthiest ethnic group in the United States; with this economic power has accrued substantial political power. Their leaders have wielded this power often crudely, to mold U.S. policy regarding Israel. These leaden have also utilized this power in other realms. Under the guise of seeking "Holocaust reparations," American Jewish organizations and individuals at all levels of government and in all sectors of American society entered into a conspiracy—this is the correct word—to blackmail Europe. It was on account of "Jewish money" that the Clinton administration went along with this shakedown operation, providing—even to the detriment of U.S. national interests—crucial support for it at every juncture. And who can seriously believe that the pro-Jewish bias of the corporate media has nothing whatever to do with the influential Jewish presence at all levels of it? "It's undoubtedly true that there are prominent Jews among the producers, directors, studio executives, and stars in Hollywood," Foxman concedes. "It's even true that, proportionately, there has always been a relatively prominent Jewish presence in the movie, TV, and record industries." [p. 83]

Israel’s state policy of assassinating opponents comes under harsh criticism by everyone except the Jewish establishment. The true intention of the Israeli government is not to seek peace but to continue war because they believe they can win something from it.

The evidence strongly suggests that the main, anticipated, and intended effect of political liquidations has been to stimulate terrorist attacks. "Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman’s agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority" Israeli journalist Alex Fishman wrote in Yediot Ahronot after the November 2001 assassination of a Hamas leader. [p.140]

The unnecessary and hateful cruelties inflicted upon the Palestinians by the Israeli war-machine could fill volumes, yet most is never reported by the U.S. mass-media.

Disputing Israeli claims that this massive destruction was inflicted due to military necessity, HRW found that "armed Palestinian resistance ... was light, limited and quickly overwhelmed within the initial hours of each incursion." During one attack, the IDF destroyed, in a "time- consuming and deliberate act" lacking any military justification, a zoo in Rafah: "The zoo was one of the few recreational areas in an over crowded camp whose residents have been denied access to the sea by Israeli settlements for the past four years. Thousands of animals, including jaguars, crocodiles, wolves, snakes and birds escaped from the zoo or were killed during its demolition." [p. 184]

Unfortunately, most of Israel’s state violence is supported by the vast majority of Israeli citizens.

When Israel's violent repression of the first intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israelis supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent . . . saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.' " (iii) Operation Defensive Shield (March—April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and “war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israelis. Beyond the emotional support that Israelis have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity." Finally, Israel couldn't commit such crimes without unconditional political and economic support from the United States, and it's the likes of Dershowitz who, through shameless apologetics and brazen distortions, crucially facilitate this unconditional support. What if Dershowitz's home were subject to the "benign form of collective accountability" (p. 168) he urges for Palestinians? [p 177]

Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah is an excellent book, thoroughly researched, informative, revealing, and well written; anyone concerned about world events should read it. 12.01.08

Beyond Chutzpah – On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, by Norman G. Finkelstein, University of California Press, 2005, hardcover edition.

* * *

Here's some revealing  additional context for Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah:

Klinghoffer's murder was properly viewed with horror and is very famous. It was the topic of an acclaimed opera and a made-for-TV movie, as well as much shocked commentary deploring the savagery of Palestinians - "two-headed beasts" (Prime Minister Menachem Begin), "drugged roaches scurrying around in a bottle" (Chief of Staff Raful Eitan), "like grasshoppers compared to us," whose heads should be "smashed against the boulders and walls" (Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir). Or more commonly just "Araboushim," the slang counterpart of "kike" or "nigger".

Thus, after a particularly depraved display of settler-military terror and purposeful humiliation in the West Bank town of Halhul in December 1982, which disgusted even Israeli hawks, the well-known military/political analyst Yoram Peri wrote in dismay that one "task of the army today [is] to demolish the rights of innocent people just because they are Araboushim living in territories that God promised to us", a task that became far more urgent, and was carried out with far more brutality, when the Araboushim began to "raise their heads" a few years later.

We can easily assess the sincerity of the sentiments expressed about the Klinghoffer murder. It is only necessary to investigate the reaction to comparable US-backed Israeli crimes. Take, for example, the murder in April 2002 of two crippled Palestinians, Kemal Zughayer and Jamal Rashid, by Israeli forces rampaging through the refugee camp of Jenin in the West Bank. Zughayer's crushed body and the remains of his wheelchair were found by British reporters, along with the remains of the white flag he was holding when he was shot dead while seeking to flee the Israeli tanks which then drove over him, ripping his face in two and severing his arms and legs.

Jamal Rashid was crushed in his wheelchair when one of Israel's huge US-supplied Caterpillar bulldozers demolished his home in Jenin with his family inside. The differential reaction, or rather non-reaction, has become so routine and so easy to explain that no further commentary is necessary. From: 'The world' according to Washington, by Noam Chomsky, ATOL, February 28, 2008.

Book review: Ken Smith’s Guide to the Bible, by Ken Smith, 1995, Blast Books.

Some people claim that the Bible is the most read book in the world. Although the Bible may well be the most widely circulated book it seems that most people have a Bible simply for appearances alone and rarely, if ever, read what’s inside it! That’s where Ken Smith, author of Mental Hygiene and Raw Deal, enters the picture. Ken Smith goes where even the most devout Christians fear to tread by reading and reviewing even the stuff they would rather forget is in there, you know, all the glaring contradictions, the terrible moral and ethical rules and examples littering the Old Testament, and of course the just plain bizarre.

Smith doesn’t take what’s written in one version of the Bible as gospel but actually reads several of them giving us some interesting, and amusing, comparisons in the process. Ken Smith’s Guide to the Bible is a short and revealing book that’s fun to read too. Here are a few notable excerpts:

Jacob and his extensive family, from whom the nation of Israel descends, are some of the sleaziest, trashiest people in the Bible. [Page 25]

Smith proceeds to cite numerous examples, here’s a typical one:

Jacob becomes rich by cheating his father-in-law out of his best sheep and goats. Jacob then skips town with his booty and his women and tells Rachel and Leah that his prosperity is an act of God. - Genesis 30:31-34, 37-42; 31:4-5, 8-9 [page 26]

Consider for a moment that these characters are role models and heroes for Jews!

God confesses that the only reason ~ chosen people while they were in the wilderness is that it would have made Him look bad. - Ezekiel 20:13-14

God admits that He gave His chosen people purposefully bogus laws and rituals in the wilderness to make their lives miserable. - Ezekiel 20:25-26

God decrees that no matter how much the chosen people may want God to go away and leave them alone, He will never let them go. - Ezekiel 20:32-33 [all page 69]

On the colorful prophet Daniel:

Daniel's ravings are just the kind of material that religious wackos relish; they sound so ominous and important that they should mean something, yet they're so opaque and muddled that they could mean anything. They will never lack for interpreters; someone will always be around, earnest, eager, and self-assured, to explain them.

The only appearance of the word "intelligence" in the Bible is in Daniel, and only in the archaic English of the King James Version. It means "favorable regard." It has been revised out of every modern translation. – Daniel 11:30 [page 74] Explains a lot doesn’t it?

Paul explains that God specifically chooses poor and stupid people to be Christians so that He'll seem more powerful when the Christians triumph over rich and smart people. - I Corinthians 1:26-29 [page 122]

More of the New Testament’s Paul:

... women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home...." - I Corinthians 14:34-35 [page 126]

Much of the Holy Bible is either blatantly contradictory or simply absurd depending on how you look at it.

"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His faithful ones." - Psalm 116:15

Really more than anything Ken’s book is just frightening when you realize that millions of people actually believe the Bible with some even going so far as to take all of what is written within as literal truth and not simply as a parable, a morality lesson, or a weird historic relic. 27.05.07

Quiverfull: When Missionaries Aren't Enough

Have you ever encountered stupidity so intense that it makes your head hurt just trying to comprehend it? Well get out the bottle of aspirin because all that and more is on display in this startling article in The Nation magazine, Christian Mothers Breed 'Arrows for the War', by Kathryn Joyce. These Christian mothers are part of a loose movement that  literally interprets a line from the first book of the Bible (Genesis 9:7) in order to have as many children as they physically can. “As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." These people call themselves "Quiverfull".

They borrow their name from Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement but as an army they're building for God.

Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies--the Lord's temple--are a seizure of divine power.

Quiverfull is the deleterious fusion of biology and human stupidity in a wonderfully revealing package, just read the full article and you’ll see why, but nevertheless the political and demographic situation they are responding too, as well as the underlying biological rules they are operating on, are something to respond to.

Many belief systems spread their faith through missionaries that canvas the planet to convert others from their wayward ways. Quiverfull has gone one step further and decided to simply make their own converts through biological reproduction (less room for error). Hence the need for home schooling and cloistered social lives so the new ‘warriors for God’ don’t get any dangerous ideas from the outside world.

So the most obvious reason for unrestrained reproduction in this case is to spread the belief system, but there is also a subtext of politics, culture and race too. By studying current demographic trends it is evident that the conservative voters in the United States have more children than the liberal voting regions, think central versus coasts. Over decades voting patterns will, hypothetically, become more religiously oriented and socially conservative thereby moving the country towards bans on abortion, homosexuality and every other hot-button issue for Christian fundamentalists in America. The other motive in play has to do with racial demographic trends.

Population is a preoccupation for many Quiverfull believers, who trade statistics on the falling white birthrate in European countries like Germany and France. Every ethnic conflict becomes evidence for their worldview: Muslim riots in France, Latino immigration in California, Sharia law in Canada. The motivations aren't always racist, but the subtext of "race suicide" is often there.

Reproduction rates for the White race are at below replacement level in Europe and about break even for North America with the exception of Mormon Utah. Conversely the rest of the (developing) world is reproducing very rapidly and growing in numbers despite war, disease and lack of resources. It is also worth mention that the technologically developed Asian nations, such as Japan and South Korea, are running well below replacement fertility rates.

A connection definitely exists between technological development and reproduction levels but if we step back and establish some historical context we can avoid the need for panic over the narrow snapshot given to us by current demographic trends. Actually population concerns are probably blown out of proportion. We have more people on this planet today than ever before in world history yet our finite natural resources are in decline. Fish stocks in the ocean for example are predicted to be exhausted within 50 years and already many parts of the sea have been over-fished and turned into deserts. Large fish species are rapidly disappearing through rampant fishing to be replaced with smaller and smaller ones. Conservation of natural resources to sustain our current way of life is one very powerful reason for limited, or no, human population growth.

Human reproduction rates can self-balance when people, especially women, have the power to control it. Remember that just fifty years ago the major crisis of the future, meaning our today, was a global time bomb of overpopulation but in actuality the world’s population didn’t hit 10 billion in the year 2000 and in fact has tapered off. In the developed world the current crisis is now under-population with birth rates below replacement levels. Back and forth, back and forth. The point is that planet Earth is already filled to the brim with people, we don’t need more quantity we need better quality! Any country that allows women the ability to control their reproduction will not have a problem with over-population, while regressive and religious countries that deny women the right to control their bodies will have a major crisis with all the ensuing problems of violence, resource scarcity, poverty, war, disease, and so on. The process is like shifting gears, we are gong from the archaic method of survival to the modern method. Instead of breeding for quantity because of high death rates from environmental factors coupled with a low standard of living we are moving towards breeding for quality through fewer numbers and a higher standard of living.

But overpopulation and resource scarcity are not concerns for religious fundamentalists since, according to them, God will provide and the Earth belongs to Satan anyway.

Pastor Heneghan of Gospel Community Church sees the issue of population growth in more biblical terms, specifically those taken from Genesis and Revelation. "Some people think that what I'm doing--having eleven children--is wrong. I don't really get into that much. The Bible says 'be fruitful and multiply.' That's my belief system. They don't believe in God, so they think we have to conserve what we have. But in my belief system, He's going to give us a new earth."

The Quiverfull movement is part of a reaction to modernity, especially ‘feminism’ in this case, that many Christians equate with all the ‘moral evils’ of contemporary society from divorce and homosexuality to contraception and women competing with men in the workplace.

People that aren’t burdened by religious beliefs tend to have fewer offspring but they have more money and influence because they recognize the issues and problems that affect us all right now, they live for life instead of living for death and a vague promise of benefits upon final arrival. It seems like the more that secular reality intrudes into the cloistered world of the religious the more extreme they become in order to maintain a separate identity and to react against modernity. In many ways this is evidenced in the Middle East where extreme religious regression is colliding with modern influences. Saudi Arabia for instance was nothing but nomadic tribes 50-100 years ago before oil made the king rich and turned tents in the desert into cities. Severe regression in a religious package is not surprising given the rapid pace of change.

This struggle is as old as technology. Many people try to turn back the clock and recreate the past. Sometimes these regressionists seize power and start wars, sometimes the whole scheme implode into civil war, but they always fail one way or another because all it takes is a small group of forward thinking individuals to embrace the future and defeat everyone else that rejects the new and innovative.

What’s the Appeal?

Probably the most glaring issue, and the particular focus of the article’s author, is why the women support this ‘plop ‘till you drop’ reproductive plan. There’s no personal benefit to doing this, parents don’t need many kids to care and provide for the family like they do for economic reasons in the developing (non-modern) world. In fact having more than three kids is a major economic burden on families that pretty much guarantees the parents will live in poverty for their entire lives. Too many children is also a disservice to the future of the kids, depriving them of the resources to get a quality education, at least without massive state assistance. Kids and parents will be less healthy because they are less able to afford health care for all of them. The mothers are burdened most of all even though in this case they seem to be enthusiastic about their subservience to patriarchy and voluminous reproduction. Child-birth and large family maintenance is hardly a walk in the park for fun, one has to factor in a hefty does of ignorance and social isolation to make the equation balance out, in other words all they know is what the Bible tells them.

So why do this? Why have a dozen kids despite the fact that it confers no economic benefits to the parents and family and despite the fact that it reduces just about every other facet of healthy and productive modern life? It does give the women a purpose in life and an established place in the social framework. Like all religion it fulfills a need to conform and be accepted into a social group and a sense of identify is achieved through adherence to an arbitrary belief system. Religion is especially appealing to weak intellects because it so neatly absolves the individual of the need for critical thought and analysis of life’s problems since every problem already has an answer pre-packaged in the Holy Book, and if you can’t find it you just re-arrange the words to get the answer you want to see.

The mental reasoning driving Quiverfulls is that they are just doing it out of belief, based on a religious principal. But there are cultural and biological reasons involved too expressed as race competition and belief competition. Whether they realize it or not what the Quiverfulls believe in is social fascism straight out of the Plato handbook.

In both Carlson's writings and in the work of Mary Pride and the Hesses, this is reflected in their description of patriarchal families as the basic "cellular units of society" that form a bulwark against Communism, as well as in the military-industrial terminology they assign to biblical gender roles within such "cells": the husband described as company CEO, the wife as plant manager and the children as workers. Or, in alternate form, the titles revised to reflect the Christian church's "constant state of war" with the world: "Commander in Chief" Jesus, the husband a "commanding officer" and his wife a "private" below him. And the kids? Presumably ammunition, arrows, weapons for the war.

Troubling Times

This article really bothered me on a visceral level, I think maybe it is just the archaic, alien nature of the beliefs these people are actualizing. It’s the crude primitiveness of it that is so shocking because it is such an anachronism given contemporary problems and technological and resource development. ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ interpreted as have a s many babies as you possibly can is like the philosophy of cave people from 15,000 years ago, it is what they desired but couldn’t achieve because of severe environmental pressures and lack of resources. Yet today this is what we can achieve but shouldn’t desire! Just like the same cave-people wished they could eat until they were fat as a walrus, but now we can because we have the nutrient resources but shouldn’t because it kills us. The genetic impulse to reproduce in unlimited numbers is just like the genetic impulse to overindulge until obesity and eventual death from the health complications of being grossly overweight. Clearly, if biological impulse was the only factor driving human behavior the human species would have gone extinct millions of years ago. But we are still here because we have this thing in our head called a brain, and when it is used properly we can make objective, rational decisions that over-ride the short-term gains from impulse and deliver long-term gains from planning and careful decision-making. Imagine that.

Here in one of the more dimwitted states of the American Midwest we had a ballot issue this November concerning the regulation of stem cell research. So of course the conservatives and the religious types were opposed to making stem cell research legal, but in this case voting ‘yes’ wasn’t quite that simple for you see the law to approve stem cell research also makes human cloning illegal! So as it is now, since the law barely passed, it is illegal to produce human clones in this state. So my question is will parents that produce identical twins be charged for breaking the law?! Besides the humor involved in this absurdity my point is that if the if some people are so reactionary in response to their ignorance of natural biological functions already and constantly in a state of panic over the change inherent within modern life, what are they going to do in 25 years when the stunning nanotech and biotech breakthroughs of today become practical reality? We could be exploring the stars and distant planets but instead we’re battling the regressionist tendencies of millions of people that spend their time scouring the Bible for trenchant insight while trying to have more babies than the Mexican family next door so they can vote America into a Christian theocracy. As vast as our human potential is, why should we be weighted down in the mire by the most fear-ridden and narrow-minded?

Even for racial competition this doesn’t seem like that great of an idea because it isn’t numbers that matter as much in the modern developed world so much as it is command of resources. Skill, intelligence and merit will take an individual much farther than the color of their skin.

Former religious fundamentalists and especially their children make some of the most militant atheists around when they finally break free. If they want a war then the rest of the world will be ready to oblige but the final outcome won’t be as black and white as Christian evangelicals and the rest of the world’s religious fundamentalist think it will be.

 You can run from reality and progress but you can’t hide from it. 19.11.06

1. Christian Mothers Breed 'Arrows for the War', by Kathryn Joyce, The Nation, November 27, 2006 issue. 

The Jewish State by Theodor Herzl, 1896

Zionism is such a major factor in 20^th century events, and continues to be a major force in in the 21^st century, that it only makes sense to read what the source of Zionism had to say on the topic. Theodor Herzl was born into a Jewish family in Budapest Hungary in 1860. He is responsible for authoring and selling the concept of a state specifically for the Jewish people. Herzl’s conception of a Zionist homeland for Jews came about from his concern over the continual animosity and conflict between Jews and Christens in Europe. Although intentions are often difficult to discern from writing alone, Herzl seemed to honestly desire a solution that would be acceptable to Europeans and that would still be beneficial to Jews.

Although a journalist by trade Herzl acts the part of a salesman with The Jewish State as the sales pitch he published in 1896. The author spins his arguments every way he can to make it seem credible to his audience. Despite the questionable reliability of some of his statements he does make many convincing points and the overall message is a win-win argument for both Jews and gentile Europeans. The book is often too long on details that clearly were not going to matter greatly upon implementation and a little short on the important concepts. Like any visionary Herzl had to strike a balance between specifics and generalities in an environment full of critics and pessimists.

In his analysis of the ‘Jewish Question’ Herzl found many reasons for trying to create a separate state for Jews and one was his keen awareness of the social vulnerability of Jews within a foreign society.

At the same time we continue to produce an abundance of mediocre intellects who find no outlet, and this endangers our social position as much as does our increasing wealth. Educated Jews without means are now rapidly becoming Socialists. Hence we are certain to suffer very severely in the struggle between classes, because we stand in the most exposed position in the camps of both Socialists and capitalists. [Page 87]

Herzl was cleary Influenced by turn of the century socialism and labor reform. He firmly believed in a new labor standard of seven hour work days and was so enamored with this idea that he even wanted it worked into the new flag of Zionism:

We have no flag, and we need one. If we desire to lead many men, we must raise a symbol above their heads.

I would suggest a white flag, with seven golden stars. The white field symbolizes our pure new life; the stars are the seven golden hours of our working-day. For we shall march into the Promised Land carrying the badge of honor. [Page 147]

Like so much of the Herzl’s Zionist dream the flag didn’t make it beyond the drawing board either.

Herzl threw out the idea of negotiating with the Ottoman Empire for land. He also foresaw a continuing obligation on the part of Europe to protect the new Jewish state.

Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. [Page 96]

Zionism was a heterodox notion for Jews and even though he intended moving to the new state to be voluntary it was not instantly popular in the Jewish community at all. Herzl had to deal with multiple impediments in tradition such as Jewish culture being tethered to the dead past. The entrepreneurial spirit was active but the pioneering spirit lacking.

We have cradles, we have graves, and we alone know how Jewish hearts cling to the graves. Our cradles we shall carry with us—they hold our future, rosy and smiling. Our beloved graves we must abandon— and I think this abandonment will cost us more than any other sacrifice. But it must be so. [Page 123]

Herzl thought that land for the Jews could be gained through legal agreement, but then he was living in the age of Empires where Sultans and Kings made decisions by fiat.

But the Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies. [Page 153]

Nor did Herzl seem to think democracy would be desirable for the new Jewish state.

A democracy without a sovereign's useful counterpoise is extreme in appreciation and condemnation, tends to idle discussion in Parliaments, and produces that objectionable class of men—professional politicians. Nations are also really not fit for unlimited democracy at present, and will become less and less fitted for it in the future. For a pure democracy presupposes a predominance of simple customs, and our customs become daily more complex with the growth of commerce and increase of culture. [Page 144]

The Jewish State is an interesting visionary document that served to motivate many people to establish the state of Israel but it seems so distant from the actual events that lead to the formation of Israel that it’s difficult to know how much weight of importance to put into it beyond that.

The state of Israel’s trouble really boils down to the land that was needed to start it and the deals that were made to gain it. Although various regions of the world had been seriously discussed for a Jewish homeland the religious argument for Palestine was the easiest to sell to the Jewish community. After World War I the Ottoman Empire lost and subsequently collapsed with the British Empire taking control over Palestine. Influential Jews offered their support for the British Empire from their community in return for giving them Palestine, i.e. the Balfour agreement. The existing population in Palestine was not consulted on this deal and this is where the now infamous conflict in the Middle East begins. Very few Jews actually lived in Palestine before the Balfour Agreement and the ones that did were culturally very different from the Jews spread across Europe. Jews from Europe began to move into Palestine and establish themselves with the absolute religious belief that they and they alone had the right to the land. Consequently the real Zionism that built the state of Israel was revealed during the infamous forcible expulsion of the remaining Arab population of Palestine in 1948.

The obvious problem with Zionism, as is obvious today, is that by using religious justification to seize Palestine, what was a potentially secular Zionism was mortally undermined by Jewish religious beliefs. So while the state of Israel was hypothetically (but not in actuality) better glued together by a shared faith, in fact it instantly created widespread animosity through its formation based on the theft of land. This fact demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws in anti-Semitism: it’s not who the Jews are that generates the animosity, it’s what they do. Anti-Semitism is a very dangerous delusion for Jews to maintain because of the self-righteous way it so neatly absolves the Jews of all blame for any and all actions. The standard Jewish conception of anti-Semitism maintains that they, the gentiles, hate us by their very nature so it doesn’t matter what Jews do or don’t do. Few things are more pernicious than self-righteous delusion, and an uncritical belief in religious superiority offers this up in unlimited amounts.

Although he was not referring to Israel, the Jewish state has became what Herzl wrote about concerning despotism: The mere preservation of obsolete institutions is a task severe enough to require the enforcement of all the despotic measures of an autocratically governed State. [Page 88]

Source: The Jewish State by Theodor Herzl, Dover Publications, 1988.

Book review: Religion Explained

Religion Explained – The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, by Pascal Boyer, 2001, Basic Books. The author maintains that the true reasons for why religion is around are more complex and counter-intuitive than most people assume, hence the 300+ pages book. Basically the author is trying to do a Richard Dawkins’s Selfish Gene masterpiece for religion but as seen through the lens of an anthropologist and social scientist. Pascal Boyer's main hypothesis, and he has a substantial and often counterintuitive argument to back it up, is that religious beliefs and practices are a byproduct of the way the human brain processes and attempts to explain perceived events.

Religious concepts are particularly successful because people represent them in a way that makes use of capacities they have anyway. At the beginning of this book, I mentioned that religious concepts are parasitic upon intuitive ontology. If you have all the inference systems that are found in a normal human brain, then some concepts become particularly easy to represent and will generate all sorts of salient inferences. This is what makes a floating island or a bleeding statue or a talking tree likely to have some cultural success. [Page 202]

Religion Explained is an extensive work that makes use of anthropological examples and an analysis of how the mind develops and thinks in order to explain the origin and function of religious beliefs and practices. Perhaps the best way to review is to list what we do know and note what’s still left out.

1. First of all we know, as we should have been able to see even before reading this book with its heavy emphasis upon comparative anthropological examples, religion is not factually valid in and of itself because it comes in so many forms that can be effectively interchanged and replaced. This is equally true of rituals and similar seemingly arbitrary manifestations of human culture. The actual social utility of these things resides in the practice of doing them, for instance in providing the benefit of enhanced social cohesion and group identity.

2. The author makes a convincing argument that no one is more religious than anyone else, i.e. that religion is not a product of some special region of the brain or even a weakness within the mind meaning intellectual negligence. Rather religion, because it can be found around the world, is really a byproduct of the pattern forming methodology of the human mind that has evolved over thousands of years of interacting with the natural environment. Religious beliefs are like a mistaken judgment, a misperception of cause and effect, events and forces.

Our evolution as a species of cooperators is sufficient to explain the actual psychology of moral reasoning, the way children and adults represent moral dimensions of action. But then this requires no special concept of religious agent, no special code, no models to follow. However, once you have concepts of supernatural agents with strategic information, these are made more salient and relevant by the fact that you can easily insert them in moral reasoning that would be there in any case. To some extent religious concepts are parasitic upon moral intuitions. [Page 191]

Religious beliefs are a byproduct of the pattern forming methodology of the human mind.

3. Morality is not a result of religious beliefs but is actually the other way around; religion is an expression of inborn moral concepts. Unfortunately at this point the author moves on without addressing the implications of universal moral concepts. This is a glaring weakness especially from the pen of a self-described social scientist.

The study of the social mind by anthropologists, evolutionary biologists and psychologists gives us a new perspective on the connections between religion and social life. Consider morality. In some places people say that the gods laid down the rules people live by. In other places the gods or ancestors simply watch people and sanction their misdemeanors. In both cases people make a connection between moral understandings (intuitions, feelings and reasoning about what is ethical and what is not) and supernatural agents (gods, ancestors, spirits). It now seems clear that Voltaire's account—a god is convenient: people will fear him and behave—got things diametrically wrong. Having concepts of gods and spirits does not really make moral rules more compelling but it sometimes makes them more intelligible. So we do not have gods because that makes society function. We have gods in part because we have the mental equipment that makes society possible but we cannot always understand how society functions. [Page 28]

It still takes more than what the author uses to explain some elements of religion. One element is the ego, the sense of self-awareness extended outward into the realm of others. Religion clearly contains a significant element of ego expression because it tries to answer the question of why events happen to me personally. Events and forces within the mystical religious realm are always personalized.

This leads us to a second explanation for the fact that people explain so many events in terms of supernatural causes. The idea is this: some events are such that they naturally suggest questions (Why me? Why now?) that are simply not answered in terms of ordinary causal processes. That is, people who do all this know perfectly well that disease strikes most people at some point or that mud huts will eventually collapse in a termite-infested village. No one could be unaware of these general principles. But general principles are just that—general. That is their weakness. They have nothing to say about particular cases. People are understandably concerned with the particulars of each case, not its general aspects. Hence the value of supernatural explanations, which are relevant to the particulars of the situation. [Page 196-197]

But it’s skipping a step, it's a mistaken question to answer. The issue seems like ego displacement at best, or paranoia perhaps. Why would one think the action of random events to be not only malicious and intentional but also aimed directly at oneself? Why and how the leap?

Pascal Boyer brings up an interesting point, although he doesn’t address it in this manner, it seems clear that one should not participate in the rituals of those they don’t approve of or wish to be associated with:

Rituals do not create social effects but only the illusion that they do. When people perform rituals, they combine some ritual gadget—easily acquired because it activates our precaution-contagion system— and a particular social effect—for which they have intuitions but no good concepts—in a single package. Thoughts about the social effect and thoughts about the ritual sequence are combined since they are about the same event. So rituals are naturally thought to produce the social effects.
This illusion is strengthened by the fact that not performing a particular ceremony, when others do, very often amounts to defecting from social cooperation. For instance, once you attach a particular ritual (initiation) to full cooperation between men, or another one (wedding) to mate-choice, then not performing the ritual amounts to a refusal to enter into the same social arrangements as other people. In a place where everybody signals their openness and reliability by keeping their windows open, drawing your curtains is a clear signal of non-cooperation. So the illusion that the ritual is actually indispensable to its effects, although untrue if you consider human societies in general, becomes quite real for the people concerned, as their choice is between going through the actions prescribed—which seems to con firm that the rituals are a sine qua non—or defecting from cooperation with other members of the group, which is not really an option in most human groups. [Page 255]

Another missing fact is that isolated people have no examples with which to refute established beliefs! What about cultural context that builds the substrate for beliefs in the first place? People will go through any routine no matter how ridiculous it is when they have no other knowledge or examples to compare to.

After reading Religion Explained I feel like the author explained how an engine works but didn't discuss what the vehicle is that uses the engine. Is that meant to be a topic left up to the reader to analyze, a second volume perhaps, or just a topic the author is intentionally avoiding? Nevertheless, Religion Explained is a fascinating book and certainly well worth reading. No book is perfect but even with some of the weaknesses this one has, in this case, they should at least lead the reader to start asking more questions and thinking of ways to build upon the bright ideas and interpretations that Pascal Boyer presents to us. 09.07.06

Manufacturing Armageddon

Usually the graphic is made after the text is written to enhance the conceptual understanding of the essay but in this case it was done the other way around with the image first and the text last. So to begin with click on this image to the right to read it. The title is Achieving Total Dominance of the Information Battlesphere, an unlikely string of words that serves as an example of typical Air Force jargon-speak, meaning: give us a few hundred billion more dollars and well conquer the universe in ten years.

Multiple elements of American society are being criticized in this art-graphic. The blatant, inconsistent, and arbitrary censorship of the content of an open news source is meant to highlight the ‘we’ll censor the facts because we can’ attitude on the part of authorities and the complicity of mainstream media in the charade, their quickness to roll-over when ever government or special interests complain. In this case the source text is from an actual New York Times article that was simply too outrageous to just toss it back into the memory hole without getting some more use out of it. Now, the source here is a NYT article, but it could just as easily be Newsweek and the recent blurb in their magazine conveying allegations of Koran abuse by officials at the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay. Although the story of abuse of the Koran by officials was conceptually correct, Newsweek still retracted the article after massive pressure from the White House and a source that changed his mind afterwards.  

This graphic is also a vignette of the effort that military and partisan government institutions will exert just to warp and spin objective events to fit their transitory agenda. The real threat to the collective well being of American’s doesn’t come from a handful of terrorists, it comes from a runaway military and defense industry colluding with federal policy-makers and a mass-media that is tasked with accurately informing the public but is really only concerned with quick profits.

But pausing for a moment, let’s look back and try to figure out just how we got into this mess in the first place. How did the free, pluralistic and open society of the United States turn into an empire that seeks to dominate earth, space and everything in between for interests of ‘national security’, whatever that really means? First we need to get inside the mindset that characterizes the motivation and direction that Empire America is headed in. The Vietnam ‘war’ is an apt place to start. The political and social conservative mindset, so prevalent inside the military, really believe that America lost the conflict in Vietnam because the mass media, composed of “liberals”, reported all the terrible things that were actually going on and subsequently turned the majority of American public opinion away from support of continued direct involvement in Southeast Asia. No, in this view they didn’t lose because they were propping up a succession of wholly corrupt and brutal puppet regimes in South Vietnam, they didn’t lose because combat operations were consistently killing, maiming and alienating Vietnamese and world opinion, and they didn’t lose the conflict in Southeast Asia because of the continual tactics of brutality and illegal strategic actions, such as the bombing of Cambodia. No, this conservative view of historical events believes that America lost the (undeclared) war in Vietnam because Americans saw bad things happen on their TV screens every evening. The black and white mindset of the conservatives disregards the fact that, yes, these bad things actually did occur in Vietnam, but that's not important because brutality is an integral part of war and war is good because in the case of Vietnam it was to defeat ‘godless’ Communists. Vietnam was a good war because, just like World War II, it was fought to defeat pagans, atheists and other non-Christians. Similar, the current war in Iraq is another good war because it is being waged against Muslims and non-believers in Jesus as well as to support Jews in Israel who share a belief in the Old Testament of the Bible. Of course this chain of thought and set of beliefs is total garbage, riddled with ignorance, flawed assumptions, and flagrant logical errors but again, it doesn’t matter to them because they can’t see themselves and there is no internal criticism in belief.

In the aftermath of the Vietnam fiasco the United States military had basically collapsed internally with morale in the toilet and a public that had lost its enthusiasm for large-scale conflict, nor did they have any remaining desire to be conscripted into active duty service. As the military was rebuilt into a volunteer force the Christian conservatives exploited the opportunity to integrate their beliefs into the culture of the new military, and they succeeded to the point that now soldiers pray together in groups under the lead of a General or commanding officer before heading into combat or a mission and the Air Force Academy is so rife with Christian fundamentalists that they are currently being sued for discrimination. [1] Ironically, the all volunteer military means that the active character and consequent culture of the institution lacks a necessary element of social and economic diversity necessary for preventing the rise of a dominant monoculture that can wield undue influence out or proportion to the wider national population and its views, beliefs and opinions.

Along with altering the culture of the military a major push was made to tightly control the flow of information in subsequent conflicts and prevent the leak of images and facts deemed harmful to the continuation of another brutal conflict overseas. This task has two main arms. The first arm is the use of what’s called psychological warfare to spread the propaganda message that the Executive branch and the military commanders want the public to hear both at home and on the battlefield. The second arm is the direct control of public media. The culmination of this policy can be seen today with embedded news reporters in Iraq, which serve as virtually the sole source of domestic American information on the course of the conflict on the ground.

The tight control of information coupled with the cultural shift towards Christian fundamentalism in the military is clearly evident in the current war on Iraq lead by George W. Bush, a ‘born-again’ Christian, in conjunction with the Christian conservatives so influential in the United States military. But also backed by a considerable portion of the American public that shares the belief in the noble quality of a religious war in 'Middle East' i.e. West Asia. And if that wasn’t dangerous enough, the same Christian Fundamentalists also believe, as they interpret the Biblical book of Revelation, that Iraq is the Babylon mentioned in that book, that Armageddon is at hand and that this final battle will usher in the second coming of Jesus and ‘rapture’ all the ‘born-again’ Christian believers up to heaven while the ‘anti-Christ’ takes over back on Earth! Yes, the same people that control thousands of live nuclear warheads on land, sea and air-based missiles believe that an Armageddon conflict will result in their hasty ascension to heaven so they can be with Jesus!

If this sounds too outrageous to be taken seriously, hold on because it gets better. Not long ago a brief flurry of concern erupted over the speeches to church groups (in military uniform) given by Lieutenant General William Boykin, stating things like: "Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers … His name is Satan." and “Why is this man [President W. Bush] in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." [2] Well readers, by now you should know that making inflammatory religious statements like that won’t get you fired in the Bush administration, but it may well get you promoted. So guess what? General Boykin is still around and busier than ever having traveled from Delta Force to the Joint Special Operations Command via the CIA, to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. [3]

Do we really want to be giving these people even more billions of dollars? Do we really want them to have space-based weapons that can obliterate any spot on the planet in 15 minutes? Do we want people in positions of immense authority, and responsibility who are convinced that ‘our’ God is greater than ‘their’ God, and who believe with all their heart and soul that America is a Christian nation to the exclusion of everyone who isn’t, a Christian empire, a light unto the world whose mission is to spread the gospel of Jesus with a Bible or a bomb, and a nation that can do no wrong because it is divinely sanctioned by God? Are they really working to improve national security or are they actually destabilizing international relations and making the world a more dangerous place all the while blinded by religious zeal?

If the answer to any of those questions is no then America and the entire world is faced with a very serious problem: delusional maniacs with the zealous belief in an impending Armageddon have taken control of the most powerful and destructive military machine in world history.

1) Christian fundamentalist bigotry reigns at US Air Force Academy, by Patrick Martin, WSWS, April 30, 2005
2) God put Bush in charge, says the general hunting bin Laden, by David Rennie, The Telegraph, October 17, 2003.
3)Thank God for General Boykin, by Tony Blankley, October 22, 2003.

The I’m Not Worthy Syndrome

The Catholic Church has used various tricks to emotionally exploit the flock for centuries but not always in the same way, most notable is the use of specific imagery to generate the desired reaction in the public. Before around 1400 the primary aim was to convey the basic stories and allegories of the Bible to an illiterate public. The art was mostly flat and two-dimensional, fairly sterile as far as emotion; it was just the basic storylines, enough for the public to get the message. But