"One step closer to theocracy…"

March 22, 2005

Please see Juan Cole today on “The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party”:

The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.

The Muslim fundamentalists use a provision of Islamic law called “bringing to account” (hisba). As Al-Ahram weekly notes, “Hisba signifies a case filed by an individual on behalf of society when the plaintiff feels that great harm has been done to religion.” Hisba is a medieval idea that had all be lapsed when the fundamentalists brought it back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Read the whole thing; it’s informative and sobering, and concludes:

Republican Hisba will have the same effect in the United States that it does in the Middle East. It will reduce the rights of the individual in favor of the rights of religious and political elites to control individuals. Ayatollah Delay isn’t different from his counterparts in Iran.


Why, indeed?

March 22, 2005

Salon’s Eric Boehlert wonders why the press is studiously ignoring public opinion polls showing that the American public overwhelmingly support Michael Schiavo’s case:

Recent polling data, in outlets from Fox News to the Washington Post, shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans back the position of Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, that he, and not his wife’s parents, should have the final say about removing the feeding tube of his wife, who has been severely brain-damaged and incapacitated for the past 15 years. The polling data seriously undercuts the notion that Americans are deeply divided on the Schiavo case. Yet ever since March 18, when Republicans began their unprecedented push to intervene legislatively in a state court case that had already been heard by 19 judges, the press has all but disregarded the polls.

The Schiavo episode highlights not only how far to the right the GOP-controlled Congress has lunged — a 2003 Fox News poll found just 2 percent of Americans think the government should decide this type of right-to-die issue — but also how paralyzed the mainstream press has become in pointing out the obvious: that the GOP leadership often operates well outside the mainstream of America. The press’s timidity is important because publicizing the poll results might extend the debate from one that focuses exclusively on a complicated moral and ethical dilemma to one that also examines just how far a radical and powerful group of religious conservatives are willing to go to push their political beliefs on the public.
[...]
Just as every judge who has heard the Schiavo case so far has ruled in Michael’s favor, so has every poll taken shown that the majority of the public supports the husband’s position. In survey after survey dating from 2003 to the present, asked who should have the final right-to-die decision, the majority of Americans have answered: the spouse. From national polls (e.g., ABC News/Washington Post, 65-25; and Fox News, 50-31) to statewide polls (e.g., KING-TV in Washington, 67-19; and St. Petersburg Times in Florida, 75-13) to unscientific, interactive polls (e.g., CNN, 65-26; and MSNBC, 63-37), the response has always been the same. A 2003 poll by CNN/USA Today had a similar result: Eighty percent agreed that a spouse should be allowed to decide whether to end the life of a person in a persistent vegetative state.

Which is why it has been so startling to find so few mentions by major news outlets of the recent polls regarding the Schiavo controversy…

It’s an important story - the case of the disappearing poll data - and I hope it shows up on a non-registration site, soon, for those unwilling to watch the ads on Salon.


Co-blogger!

March 22, 2005

You’ve probably noticed a new profile in the sidebar, and a couple of new posts from the same! ‘abc‘ is one of the folks I promised (last fall) would be joining Left At The Altar and I’m thrilled to say “welcome! and thanks!”


Where were they when we really needed this?

March 22, 2005

So the U.S. Catholic bishops have launched a new campaign against the death penalty. Too bad they couldn’t have made this move before November 2, 2004. It would be nice if more religious leaders could get in front of public opinion on issues like this, rather than (as the bishops did) wait for the polling data.


March 22, 2005

Sound familiar? But progressive Christians in the UK are trying to learn from the mistakes of their American counterparts:

Don’t hand religion to the right

The secular left must stop sniping and realise it has Christian allies

Giles Fraser and William Whyte
Friday March 18, 2005
The Guardian

For decades, the political class on this side of the Atlantic has prided itself on the absence of religious culture wars. The obsession with abortion, gay marriage and obscenity, the alliance between the secular and religious right - these are peculiarly American pathologies. It couldn’t happen here. After all, we’re just not religious enough.

Except it does seem to be happening here. In making abortion an election issue, Michael Howard has prompted the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, pointedly to warn against assuming “that Catholics would be more in support of the Labour party”. Elsewhere, the Christian right targets the BBC, and the Church of England is being colonised by homophobic evangelicals with broad smiles and loads of PR savvy. No wonder the cogs are whirring at Conservative central office on how best to exploit the voting power of religion.

In contrast, the left continues to push religion away. They “don’t do God”, in Alastair Campbell’s famous phrase. Even those politicians of the left who “do God” privately have to be effectively outed, as Ruth Kelly was over her membership of Opus Dei. It never used to be like this. There has long been an affinity between the church and the left. The Liberal party was sustained by the so-called nonconformist conscience and the Labour party famously derived more from Methodism than Marx - Keir Hardie once describing socialism as “the embodiment of Christianity in our industrial system”. Later both CND and the anti-apartheid movement were inspired by Christian socialism.

Even comparatively recently things were looking up for the religious left. Tony Blair is a member of the Christian socialist movement and in Rowan Williams the Church of England has a self-confessed “bearded lefty” at the top. Yet instead of a renaissance there has been a decline. The Archbishop of Canterbury is now a virtual prisoner of the religious right. And Labour Christians seem silent and impotent. How did we get to here?

In the first place, the religious left has found itself constantly challenged by the secular left. Whilst the religious right and neo-conservatives have worked together, progressives have split and split again. Blair is too embarrassed to talk the language of faith because he knows it would alienate his allies. Some object to religion on principle. Others insist that a Christian response is inevitably intolerant, exclusive, even racist. So left secularists welcomed Jubilee 2000 but ignored the fact that the Jubilee is a biblical concept.

But progressive Christians also seem incapable of confronting the religious right on its own terms. Jesus offered a political manifesto that emphasised non-violence, social justice and the redistribution of wealth - yet all this is drowned out by those who use the text to justify a narrow, authoritarian and morally judgmental form of social respectability. The irony is that the religious right and the secular left have effectively joined forces to promote the idea that the Bible is reactionary. For the secular left, the more the Bible can be described in this way, the easier it is to rubbish. Thus the religious right is free to claim a monopoly on Christianity. And the Christian left, hounded from both sides, finds itself shouted into silence.

Does this matter? Well, yes. Religion isn’t going away; if anything, it is making a comeback. Nearly three-quarters of the population declared themselves Christian in the 2001 census. The old belief that religion would wither and die has beenexposed as simplistic. In this environment, the secular left needs to suspend worn-out hostilities and realise that many people of faith are fellow travellers in the fight for social justice. Otherwise, the coalition of Christian and secular conservatives will grow stronger. That will further damage the church, turning it into an intolerant sect. But it will also undermine progressive politics.

All of which requires a new courage from the Christian left. They need to toughen up, get organised and invoke the spirit of millions of Christians, from St Francis to Donald Soper, who have fought against injustice throughout the ages. Twenty years ago, Faith in the City was a prophetic call to Britain: condemning the selfishness of Thatcherism and the greed of 1980s Britain. The current campaign, Make Poverty History, is a similarly significant moment.

But the present situation also demands a reassessment by the secular left of the religious left. Because only the religious left is capable of challenging the religious right with the language of faith. The secular left, in short, needs to stop sniping and start making new friends. In America, the Christian right and the neocons have grown strong by working together. Now so must we.

ยท Dr Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney; Dr William Whyte is Fellow in History at St John’s College, Oxford


March 22, 2005

A friend sent me this new essay by Bill Moyers. It’s a bit repetitious of his recent writings, but it never hurts to repeat observations like:

There are times when what we journalists see and intend to write about dispassionately sends a shiver down the spine, shaking us from our neutrality. This has been happening to me frequently of late as one story after another drives home the fact that the delusional is no longer marginal but has come in from the fringe to influence the seats of power. We are witnessing today a coupling of ideology and theology that threatens our ability to meet the growing ecological crisis.

Indeed!

Moyers spends some time looking at the role of fundamentalist readings of one of the most curious and fascinating texts, the Book of Revelation. For an interpretation that is both more authentic and meaningful for progressives, see this study by Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther. (I long to teach this book in a Sunday school class, but have been rebuffed so far.)


Do you have an advanced directive?

March 21, 2005

In case the Terri Schiavo travesty has got you thinking about having advanced directives in place (and according to the group Aging With Dignity, requests for forms are up tenfold - they’re sending out 2000 living wills a day), here are some resources:

  • The American Bar Association tool kit
  • The American Academy of Family Physicians
  • U.S. Living Will Registry (which electronically stores living will and organ donor info and makes the info available to health care providers 24 hours/day)
  • California’s resource page is terrific. Your state may have one, too. (Check the ABA site.)

    If thinking about this stuff gives you the creeps, please read the book Talking About Death Won’t Kill You by Virginia Morris, excerpted here.

    This is a very simple thing to do, it will give you peace of mind, and it could help to prevent exactly the kind of pain and turmoil the Schiavo/Schindler/US Congress case is heaping upon an already tragic situation.


  • March 21, 2005

    Got this email plea from Truthout.org:

    Thursday 17 March 2005

    Sorry guys the fund-raiser is going slowly so far, if you have not jumped in please do.

    Please consider our monthly/quarterly support plans. One low payment per month or quarter is easier on your pocket and provides us a budget we can plan around.

    Just click this link for our Secure donation form:
    https://secure.entango.com/donate/pkXd5Fr9GE4?mail

    (t r u t h o u t is a non-profit independent news source. Your contributions are completely Tax Deductible.)

    FOR LOW INCOME READERS: Don’t send cash, just help by spreading the word!

    THE TO NEWSLETTER IS FREE! Your place on the TO mailing list is always free. We never cut anyone off for any reason.

    REMINDER: The TO service is FREE to all. Donations are strictly voluntary. If you stop receiving the TO Newsletter please notify us at once.

    Or if you prefer to donate by check:
    Make payable to: truthout
    P.O. Box 55871
    Sherman Oaks, CA 91413-0871

    To donate by Phone: (213) 489-1971

    Thank you!

    Marc Ash
    Executive Director | t r u t h o u t

    If you check their site as often as I do, you know they’re doing good work. Throw ‘em a bone if you can. I’ll model the behavior and go do that right now.


    March 21, 2005

    This Jonah Goldberg column illustrates why some people should never attempt complex reasoning exercises without adult supervision. (Thanks, J!)


    March 21, 2005

    Here’s how well those abstinence-only sex “education” programs (the ones getting the only education-related increase in the Bush Budget this year) are working. Sociologists studied data from a study of 11,000 teenagers and young adults tested for sexually transmitted diseases. A portion of this group had taken virginity pledges.

  • There was no statistically significant difference between the percentage of people who took a so-called virginity pledge and were infected with an STD and those who didn’t pledge.
  • 88% of sexually active people who took the pledge had intercourse before marriage.
  • People who took an abstinence pledge were less likely to get tested and treated for venereal disease, which means they may be infected longer than others.
  • Sexually active pledgers were less likely to use condoms the first time they had sex.