Challenging Islam: Palin sex in Christian style

*****

*****

Hank Williams would love this.

No doubt that backwoods boy of the 1940's would write a song -- and dance along....

The delightful Bristol Palin exactly symbolizes what Islamic extremists resent in American life: public decadence and the peddling of easy sexuality.

Ironically the values of Muslim fundamentalists are similar to the family values Sarah Palin praises -- even as she peddles glamor and her daughter does a playful form of sex dance.

Yes, Sarah Palin is the classic "Christian nationalist."

She warns of a Muslim threat, promotes American military power and urges the defense and spread of traditional American Christian values.

While daugher Bristol symbolizes the freedoms so foreign to traditional Islamic culture: sex and pregnancy outside of marriage merchandised to earn personal fame and fortune.

We know that some Muslims find Western "decadence" appealing -- with young men sometimes enjoying strip clubs when overseas.

We know that eroticism is present in some Islamic societies -- for example the tradition of "belly dancing" (or "Arabic Dance") in Egypt, Lebanon, and Turkey.

Still, many fundamentalist Muslims circle the wagons to prevent Western cultural infiltration of their societies.

So Bristol in her modestly sexual way is a classic symbol of the "clash of civilizations."

She is the essence of a cultural force which Islamic fundamentalists fear will seep across the world to disrupt their more traditional values.

*****

"Dominionism" is closely related to the concept of "Christian Nationalism."

Stimulated by rapid domestic change and the threat of Islamic terrorism, it sees the very rise of Islam as a Sharia Law threat to Christian life.

It calls for the assertion of Christian national power.

It is the mirror image of those Muslims who see materialism and sexual license in the West as a threat to Islamic life.

Dominionism is so prevalent in U.S. life that we rarely notice it.

It is a partner in dance with Islamic extremism.

Together they help shape our world.

Christian nationalists can fear that imported Sharia law may undermine the West.

Islamic fundamentalists can fear post Gloria Steinem liberated women conveyed by movies and internet may subvert their ways.

So, everyone, why not just relax a bit?

Enjoy the View. Humanity deserves a laugh.

Understanding Islam: "howling at the moon"

*******

The Korean War raged as Hank Williams neared his death in 1953.

Who knows how this Alabama boy interpreted the seemingly simple clash between communism and capitalism.

But he would surely be "howling at the moon" if he were alive today -- as Americans debate "what to do about Islam."

In the wars of this century Americans are most deeply involved in parts of the world which they are least prepared to understand.

The nuances and "remoteness" of Islam for the U.S. make it virtually impossible for large numbers of Americans to understand the challenges -- let alone respond in a rational way.

We live in rich fields for demagogues to spin history -- to enlist media to build emotion to build their political careers.

The journalistic principle of balance guarantees ideologues and demagogues will have plenty of voice.

For every person with knowledge of Islam interviewed by media, a shrill demagogue will be chosen to demonstrate fairness.

One purpose is to promote the controversy that will draw audience interest and boost ratings.

*******

Just as important there are few American Muslims in the public eye.

Unlike American Jews, they have not widely penetrated into the media, university faculties, American political races, or the diplomatic service.

Thus most Americans have little concept of Muslims other than as strange foreigners wearing funny clothing -- or even carrying bombs.

The worlds of university and scholarship are just as useless as the media world in enlightening American public. They offer little that is understandable, concrete and useful to the non-specialized reader.

Serious scholarly books and magazines are far too complex and time consuming for most Americans to understand.

Most "serious" published work on Islam is largely irrelevant except at the "elite" highly educated level.

Islam is distant, exotic, full of bizarre names, leaders and sects -- ever changing, wrapped in historical nuance.

Without travel and or detailed study very few Americans can understand it.

Too many negative images already deeply enshrined by war, terrorism, 9/11, degradation of women, and the seemingly unending hostility to Israel found so widely in the Islamic world.

This leaves an enormous vacuum for demagogues and ideologues to fill.

And so lots of us are "howling at the moon."

The bottom line is that dogmatic anti-Islam feelings are becoming a mainstay of American conservativism -- at the political, intellectual, religious and grassroots level.

Like anti-communism in the days of yore, anti-Islam is the current platform on which extreme American nationalism is built.






Political scientist, historian, and former CIA analyst Graham Fuller has just published a provocative book to probe the nuances of Islam, "A World Without Islam."

To help Americans grasp the nuances of this issue that raises fear and confusion among many.

Fuller, former Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council of the CIA, and formerly CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan, is now adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia.

He rejects current notions of a clash of civilizations or of conflicts fundamentally based on religion. He calls for a rethink in some of our discussion.

He sees radical Islam as sometimes giving expression to grievances flowing from interaction of the West with the Middle East.

But he focuses on enduring "geopolitical conflicts" which might well have been there even without Islam.

Conflicts between tribes, over territory (as with Palestine), over resources, over who holds power.

"If there had never been an Islam, if a Prophet Mohammad had never emerged from the deserts of Arabia, if there had never been the saga of the spread of Islam...wouldn't the relationship between the West and the Middle East today be entirely different? No, I would argue, it might actually be quite similar to what we see today."

(Listen to Graham Fuller interviewed on NPR or watch this interview with him below)

There are many other ways of understanding Islam's history and contemporary challenge.

Most, like Fuller, are not easy reading.

*******

Television and newspapers are largely useless for educating Americans on Islam.

For many the subject is incomprehensibly "boring" -- unless hyped with images of savage violence or argumentative rhetoric.

Red hot political controversies (such as the proposed Islamic center near "Ground Zero") drive out programming with perspective.

Talking heads with not so hidden agendas spout out slogans aimed at inflaming emotion.

"In time of war the first casualty is truth."

Despite the confusion and fear, there are deep reservoirs of tolerance in the U.S which are likely to carry the country through.

But do not count on understanding.

Taliban in Battle

Americans in Battle

There's not "a snowball's chance in Hell" that Hank and most other Americans can understand the nuances of Islam's complicated history -- or of how and when it may become extreme, a threat which must be countered.

Hank could make a beginning stab by consulting "Islam" on Wikipedia.

There is even a Wikipedia Site for him to check out if he wants information on Islam and Secularism. Still another Wikipedia site deals with controversial Islamic Sharia Law.

The Wikipedia entry Islamic Symbols contains a chart of Islam links and a link to Wikipedia's "Islam Portal."

Would Hank really have the patience to dig further through a website on Islam and Islamic Resources? He would quickly notice many of these links do not work.

Google shows there are only fragmentary web resources on Islam. Most of them are clearly slanted in one direction or another.

There seems to be no real on the ground literature or website which brings to life the wide variety of Islamic life in terms of concrete life styles from country to country.

In human, understandable terms.

The absence on the web of reliable and understandable resources on Islam is a fundamental threat to American understanding and national security.

It virtually guarantees that journalists writing on Islam will have few reliable resources.

The absence of serious web resources submitted by Americans or others is truly remarkable given the decades of American involvement in the Islamic world.

Not to mention continuous warfare with Islamic states since 2001.

A wealth of resources is scattered on many varied websites, but little systematically brought together as "links" on "gateway" pages linking to Islam-related information.

For Americans a focus on topics such as pre-emptive war, weapons of mass destruction, and the Arab--Israeli conflict appears to have crowded out focus on the cultures and histories of the Islamic world.

It is a recurring American weakness to be ignorant of the minds and cultures of other peoples.

*******

Hank would be the first to concede we are a country largely unprepared to understand the relationship between al-Qaeda and Islam.

He would scratch his head when asked if all Islam is a Nazi like force threatening the U.S. He would know little of the varieties of Islamic experience in a variety of "remote" countries, and how that experience has changed over time.

*******

It is unrealistic to expect to educate the American people on Islam.

Anyone seeking to change American views will need to manipulate them with skilled propaganda and public relations.

"In time of war the first casualty is truth."

Fuller's "A World Without Islam" can be a whiff of fresh air -- if you are not willing to be herded like sheep, if you would liberate yourself from media, if you would like to think about alternate views.

It may help you stop "howling at the moon."

But it will take work, very rewarding work -- especially if your knowledge of world history is weak.

One thing we know about Americans: they are "babes in the woods" when it comes to world history.

Images of Islam: they vary

Saint Joan: be very careful where you lead us

******

Analyzing a Saint's Intelligence Data
(The Messenger, 1999)

Does a saint about to go to war "see what she wants to see."

When a saint goes to war, it is more than her motives she must check.

Her intelligence analysis must be sound. Does the evidence require the sword -- or are there other alternatives?

"God's signs" can be misleading even if the CIA approves them.

A saint's decisions are as sound as her "signs," her visions.

Did God really mean what he seemed -- or was the data ambiguous?

Even a saint such as Joan must face her "Conscience."

Did she sacrifice for God or kill for her own "pleasure?"

Here are some eternal questions for all who go to war.

Does it take a saint to wage a "just war?"

Can even a saint be corrupted once "just war" begins?

Does even a saint get dragged down into cruelty once battle flames?

The Banner and the Sword

"Just War" Defined

Even if noble at the outset, can the saint become addicted to a love of winning?

Even if she seeks to inspire with the banner, can she end up taking pleasure in conquests by the sword?

A saint can lead by inspiration -- but ultimately she must take responsibility for the deaths her sword caused.

Even in Joan's day, there was no free lunch.

The Seduction of Battle

Now, let us see how it can work if you are not a saint.

When men and women go into battle -- and get dragged beyond their "just" intentions into cruel results.

Meet former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara -- surely no saint.

He died in 2009 -- not before leaving as atonement this movie, The Fog of War (2003)

In it he takes upon his long anguished self to explain how he helped kill hundreds of thousands in WWII and Vietnam.

A man who woke up one day to be a villain examines how misplaced visions and flawed intelligence led him and others to be not saints but angels of death.

Saint Joan, President Obama, be very careful where you lead us.

We would be wise not to trust you.

For in your righteousness you may be deluded.

******

Saint Joan, Is This Where You Led Us?

Ah, Saint Joan, explore thy motivation.

Here the secretly filmed hanging of Saddam Hussein reveals the final act of Bush family revenge.

George W. Bush went to war in part to eliminate a long time family enemy, the man who tried to assassinate his father, George H.W. Bush.

The leader of a great nation used an American invasion to execute by proxy a personal enemy.

Thy motive, dear Joan, keep thine eye on thy motive.

For motive can be one part of the puzzle when deciding if a war is "just."

Fire, light: but must it come so cruel, so bright?

*******

Hank Williams was no Catholic.

His lonely backwoods ballads were worlds away from the lonely suffering of a warrior saint.

It's a long, long road from the Alabama woods to the Canadian Jewish poet Leonard Cohen.

The singer song writer who has synthesized Jewish and Catholic traditions.

A poet and songster lights up a Catholic saint as only a Jew can.

For the two traditions are cut from the same cloth: martyrdom.

Let us honor those who sacrifice:

******

"But the souls of the upright are in the hands of God, and no torment can touch them.

"To the unenlightened, they appeared to die, their departure was regarded as disaster,

"their leaving us like annihilation; but they are at peace.

"If, as it seemed to us, they suffered punishment, their hope was rich with immortality;

"slight was their correction, great will their blessings be. God was putting them to the test and has proved them worthy to be with him;

"he has tested them like gold in a furnace, and accepted them as a perfect burnt offering.

-The Book of Wisdom, Chapter 3, New Jerusalem Catholic Bible

(often attributed to a Hellenistic Jew, of the 1st or 2nd century BC, Alexandria, Egypt)

******

The Song: set against "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928)

"The Messenger," 1999

It is Done: 1928



It is Done: 1999



In the spirit of Jean Anouilh's "The Lark:"
Let Us Honor not only the dying "Bird in Flames" --
but also the soaring "Bird in Flight"

******
Joan of Arc Archive
Was Saint Joan Raped?
Saint Joan's Sexuality
Was Saint Joan Mentally Ill?
A More Thorough Discussion of Joan's Visions
George Bernard Shaw: Saint Joan
Jean Anouilh: The Lark

******

Now the flames they followed Joan of Arc
as she came riding through the dark;
no moon to keep her armour bright,
no man to get her through
this very smoky night.

She said, "I'm tired of the war,
I want the kind of work I had before,
a wedding dress or something white
to wear upon my swollen appetite."

Well, I'm glad to hear you talk this way,
you know I've watched you riding every day
and something in me yearns to win
such a cold and lonesome heroine.

"And who are you?" she sternly spoke
to the one beneath the smoke.

"Why, I'm fire," he replied,
"And I love your solitude, I love your pride."

"Then fire, make your body cold,
I'm going to give you mine to hold,"
saying this she climbed inside
to be his one, to be his only bride.

And deep into his fiery heart
took the dust of Joan of Arc,
and high above the wedding guests
he hung the ashes of her wedding dress.

It was deep into his fiery heart
he took the dust of Joan of Arc,
and then she clearly understood
if he was fire, oh then she must be wood.

I saw her wince, I saw her cry,
I saw the glory in her eye.
Myself I long for love and light,
but must it come so cruel, and oh so bright?

*******

Those Who Came Before

*******


*******

Saint Joan of Arc or The Maid of Orléans (French: Jeanne d'Arc, ca. 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a national heroine of France and a Catholic saint.

A peasant girl born in eastern France, she led the French army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War, claiming divine guidance, and was indirectly responsible for the coronation of Charles VII.

She was captured by the Burgundians, sold to the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, and burned at the stake when she was nineteen years old.

Twenty-four years later, on the initiative of Charles VII, Pope Callixtus III reviewed the decision of the ecclesiastical court, found her innocent, and declared her a martyr.

She was beatified in 1909 and canonized in 1920. She is, along with St. Denis, St. Martin of Tours, St. Louis IX, and St. Theresa of Lisieux, one of the patron saints of France.

Joan asserted that she had visions from God that told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War.

The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of a relief mission.

She gained prominence when she overcame the dismissive attitude of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims and settled the disputed succession to the throne.

--From Wikipedia

With thanks to another Joan:
a friend who knows the meaning
of sacrifice

Tipping point: some bridges are not worth taking

*******

*******

No, folks, it's hardly rocket science.

True, it is not yet "closing time."

Men still chase women. Nations still chase empire.

But the "tipping point" is very near.

*****

It has been an easy assumption that anything is possible.

That "no bridge is too far."

Now is the time to put aside the illusions.

Some bridges, no matter how enticing, just cannot be taken.

*******

We must ask if the American superpower has approached, is approaching, or will approach what the Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz called the "tipping point"

We must ask whether for a well seasoned man, well seasoned women are still worth the trouble of the chase. Everyone has just too much "baggage."

Tipping Point:

When a nation on the military offense reaches the point in its aggressive operations where it is ever more costly to defend its acquisitions.

Or when a well seasoned man decides that new relationships are no longer worth the "lifting of never ending heavy baggage."

Where garrisoning troops, supplying them, defending them drains a nation's power and eventually requires retreat.

As did Napoleon after he sent his forces in to occupy Russia in 1812.

As did Hitler after he attempted to do the same thing in 1941.

As the U.S. did after it attempted to occupy and and shape Vietnam.

Both men and nations must stop to ask "is the objective worth the cost of the chase?"

In their sixties men and women are like firmly potted plants, more like rigid Redwood trunks than like flexible saplings. Preformed by decades of living, they are unlikely to freely dance in a rhythm of fresh romance, of new union.

Yes, there can be friendship and an occasional date.

But no more overseas "wars of occupation."

*******

Now is a magical moment.....

Let's put together President Obama, Carl von Clausewitz, Afghanistan, Iraq, the American Medical Association, healthcare reform...

Let's add to that shrinking credit cards, shrinking credit, unending exploding deficits -- and the prospect of spending one million a year for every additional American soldier sent to Afghanistan.

Remember "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

A slogan by Americans who resisted the Vietnam war....

Back when President Lyndon Baines Johnson thought he could have "both guns and butter."

The choice is different today.

"Can we have both guns and doctors?"

As Obama has ramped up his decision on more troops to Afghanistan, scarcely anyone has asked the question:

"What can the United States afford?"

It has been an easy assumption that anything is possible.

That "no bridge is too far."

Now is the time to put aside the illusions.

Take note, 'O Men and Nations.

Some bridges just cannot be taken.

Ah, but maybe it is not quite too late. Maybe just one more...

******

Berkeley: where ignorance and idiocy triumphed

*****

It was 1964, 1965 -- the "Free Speech Movement" at the University of California, Berkeley.

Long ago -- surrounded by the swirls of Berkeley radicalism -- this writer found the seeds of independent journalism amidst the deafening rhetoric piped out to enraptured crowds.

The lesson I learned:

Do not trust the rhetoric of establishment professors; do not believe the rantings of power seeking radicals, do not let the authoritarian posturing of any kind of ideologue kill the quest for learning.

Rely instead on direct investigation, talking with people of all backgrounds and belief.

Establishments both Left and Right can be cacoons which block out the sunlight and justify the most horrendous atrocities. They can exploit emotion and rhetoric to draw the crowd into a vise of predictable orthodoxy.

And so there was an abysmal slide toward idiocy.

Berkeley's staid Establishment apologized for the savagery of America's war in Vietnam.

While the screaming Left, as it did with Stalin's totalitarianism of the 1930's, surrendered any consistent concern for human rights.

It championed civil rights in the American South, but portrayed the brutality of China's Communism with its millions of death as "paradise on earth."

Idiocy and ignorance triumphed at one of the world's great universities.

There lies a lesson for today.

Bottom feeders: "suckup artists" of the modern world

******

A "bottom feeder" seeks sustenance from others

One of America's greatest industries is the care and feeding of the "bottom feeder:"

That would be a person with total lack of responsibility for him or herself -- who relies on friends, family, neighbors, social workers, judges, lawyers, or anyone else for sustenance.

A defining characteristic of the bottom feeder: one who makes bad decisions and then expects someone else to bail him or her out.

President Dwight Eisenhower once cited the growing importance of this group when he warned of the "the bottom feeder industrial complex."

Bottom feeders of all races cycle through the prisons and courts, the child custody hearings, divorce courts .

They rely on social services such as Medicaid to treat their unwanted pregnancies, relying on lawyers and judges to sort out the complexities of their lives.

Bottom feeders live off of public indulgence and chew up billions of dollars in social services. They cloak themselves in controversies about spousal abuse and child support

They leech off those who work hard but have real unmet needs. They fuel the practices and line the pockets of lawyers and social workers.

In the end, despite their ability to "work the system," bottom feeders frequently fall victim to both themselves and others.