Since the news media canât stop mentioning his Vietnam service every time his name comes up (much like a U.S. Senator from the Baystate) , I thought Iâd collect as many facts as possible. This is not a hunt for any dirt, just the truth. The information available on Google is pretty thin. Several searches flesh out what is available on his own website, but little else:
John Patrick Murtha, Jr.
Born in New Martinsville, Wetzel County, W.Va., June 17, 1932
Graduated from Ramsey High School, Mount Pleasant, Pa., 1950
Attended Kiskiminetas Spring School, 1951
Enrolled in Washington and Jefferson College, but dropped out in 1952 in order to join the United States Marine Corps
Now quoting his website: âHe learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.â
After his first tour of active duty was over (1955) he was discharged as a Lt., and remained in the Marine Corp Reserve. In 1959, Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. In 1966, Major Murtha volunteered to return to active duty and go to Vietnam, where he was made the intelligence officer of the 1st Marine Regiment; he held that job for a year. While he was there he received a Bronze Star with Combat "V", and two Purple Hearts along with a Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. After being sent home from Vietnam he remained active in the Reserves (1967 â 1990), retired as a colonel and was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
Decorations listed on his website : American Spirit Honor Medal of the Marine Corps Recruit Department, 1952; Bronze Star with Combat V, 1966, Purple Heart, 1966, Purple Heart, second award, 1966, Vietnamese Cross of Galantry, 1966, Meritorious Service Medal, Pennsylvania's second-highest honor, 1976, Distinguished Service Medal, Pennsylvania's highest honor, 1977, Distinguished Service Medal of the United States Marine Corps, upon his retirement from the Marine Corps Reserves for 37 years of distinguished service to his country, 1990. No citations are posted that I can find.
In 1974, he became the first Vietnam veteran to be elected to Congress; he travelled to Vietnam early in 1975 to evaluate the question of supplementary aid, which as a Democratic Party hawk he supported, and again in 1978 in connection with the search for MIAs. And thatâs it. In his book; From Vietnam to 9/11: On the Front Lines of National Security, the first chapter includes Murtha's Vietnam service, but I donât have access to a copy. If anyone has his book and can give us details on his tour in Vietnam, please post a comment. Thanks.
Steve (AoS)
Posted by: Steve ||
12/03/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Defense bill aids Murtha brother Tuesday, June 14, 2005By Ken Silverstein and Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- When Congress passed the $417-billion Pentagon spending bill last year, Rep. John P. Murtha, the top Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, boasted about the money he secured to create jobs in his Pennsylvania district.
But the bill Murtha helped write also benefited at least 10 companies represented by a lobbying firm where his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, is a senior partner, according to disclosure records, interviews and an analysis of the bill by the Los Angeles Times.
Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill.
more at link I know you are looking for Vietnam service and this may have been posted already - but thought it was interesting.
#2
This is interesting too...though still no vietnam service. sorry. But this is interesting because was from 2/2004, before the flap and the guy fingers Murtha, Cunningham, and Hunter and Kerry. I'd be really bummed if Hunter is on the take.
Kerry under fire over missiles contract
LOS ANGELES The Herald, February 20 2004
John Kerry, the Democratic presidential front-runner, pressured Congress and
the Pentagon to fund a missile system on behalf of a San Diego contractor
who, years later, pleaded guilty to making illegal contributions to the
senator and other politicians, according to the Los Angeles Times.
>From 1996 to 1999, Kerry sent 28 letters urging the freeing of funds for an
upgraded guided missile system which Parthasarathi Majumder was trying to
build for US warplanes, the newspaper said on its website.
The letters were sent at a time when Majumder and employees at his Science
and Applied Technology company were donating money to the Massachusetts
Democrat, the article said, citing court records.
Kerry received about £13,000 during the period, according to Dwight Morris
and Associates, which tracks campaign donations.
Last week, Majumder pleaded guilty to two counts of illegal campaign
contributions and defrauding the government. He could face up to six years
in prison and more than £130,000 in fines when he is sentenced.
The plea follows a December 18 civil settlement in which Majumder agreed to
pay the government about £2m for submitting false claims under a government
contract.
He acknowledged making more than £50,000 in illegal donations to Kerry, and
Republicans Duncan Hunter, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, John Murtha and Joe
Scarborough, who is now retired.
None of the lawmakers or their staff was charged with any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, Kerry received the endorsement of the 13 million-member AFL-CIO
union coalition yesterday, a move that could help him rebut his rival John
Edwards' challenge on jobs and trade. AP
#5
It's always been my understanding that there is supposed to be no such thing as an ex-Marine; once you've joined the Corps, you're always a member of the Corps even if you're no longer in the service.
May I respectfully suggest that we make an exception to this rule in the case of one John Patrick Murtha, Jr.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/03/2005 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
He acknowledged making more than £50,000 in illegal donations to Kerry, and
Republicans Duncan Hunter, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, John Murtha and Joe
Scarborough, who is now retired.
Gotta love how the reporter slipped Murtha in there after the "Republicans" label. They sure do work hard to hide the political affiliations of crooked Democrats...
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/03/2005 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
good catch, Robert.
I've been thinking about this...and sorry Steve, I know you are looking for Vietnam experience, but...
These Senators probably started out with good intentions, and then realized there were many personal perks involved in steering govn't contracts in certain directions. You can even see themselves telling themselves that they were just rewarding themselves for doing good deeds for their country.
Cunningham, and Hunter (?) are easy for the libs to smear away. We'll see endless articles about Republicans claiming to be for the military but in fact are really just part of the industial-military conflict that creates war for profit.
But Murtha is going to be more difficult to deal with, as he was steering those profits towards Nancy Pelosi. And that's a big problem for the Dems.
So now what we see is Murtha and Pelosi doth protesting too much. Who us? We don't even support the war! It's all just a Republican smear game.
Still, I think it's going to be a problem for them as the article I posted was from 2004, long before the evil Shrub decided to eat the heart of John Murtha. I think this get-out-of-the-war-now was Murtha just trying to provide himself some politcal cover, believing that the Republicans probably wouldn't do anything about it - but it's backfired now and Murtha - new champion of the left, has not only backed himself into a corner, but Nancy Pelosi as well.
It will be interesting to see the lemmings on the left rush to support Nancy Pelosi, who in fact represents everything they deluded themselves that they are against. We know they will. It will just be fun to watch them sell out one more piece of their pious souls for the good of The Party(TM).
#8
IIRC - Hunter returned unknown illegal contributions, as is the custom. I've seen Hunter's house in EC, don't know what he lives in back east, but it ain't the Cunninghamansion.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2005 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm impressed Murtha, as a Dem member of the class of 1974, voted to not to cut off aid to South Vietnam and leave them defenseless.
Posted by: ed ||
12/03/2005 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
First off let me say that anybody who has raised their hand in defense of this country deserves respect for serving honorably. But just because you put on a uniform should donât get a blank check to say anything you want about the military. John Murtha gives the impression that he commanded troops in the field in combat while serving in Vietnam. He also likes to throw out that he was awarded a Bronze Star with V and two purple hearts. Near as I can tell John Murtha was assigned to Intelligence company/battalion in Vietnam. Now given that he had no training, doesnât speak Vietnamese, and was a field grade officer I doubt John was out stomping in the boonies looking for Charlie (more than likely he was a staff weenie assigned to a intelligence unit). For the uninitiated please donât get mad at my analysis and debunking of his service. I donât know the numbers but I will bet all my next coming retirement check that almost all field grade officers and most of the company grade left Vietnam with at least a Bronze Star with V device. Most were given as an end of tour award and not based on specific heroic act. If john had seen combat I would have expected a Silver Star because that is what most of them deserved. Lord knows how he got two purple nerples but I would really like it if he released his medical records and we could know the whole story. You can bet that if he had an Audie Murphy type story all the Networks would have movies coming out this week. But even if he had one Murtha would still be wrong with his stance on Iraq and the WOT. Just my 2 ½ cents.
Via RealClearPolitics - visit and read - they have a lot every day
By J. Peter Mulhern
When he took the nationâs highest office, George W. Bush famously called himself a uniter, not a divider, signaling a kinder, gentler approach to Washington politics. Fat lot of good it did him. He faces opponents who offer no quarter, even when the national interest is at stake. It is well past time to take off the gloves and return fire.
The Presidentâs speech at the United States Naval Academy this week was powerful. It said most of the things that need saying about our war in Iraq and it left the Democrats backpedaling as they gasped for breath. At the heart of the Presidentâs argument, however, was a contradiction which undercuts his case for the war in Iraq.
The President castigated those who demand an âartificial timetableâ for an American withdrawal, but only after making this remarkable disclaimer:
âMany advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere, but I believe theyâre sincerely wrong.â
But then the President went on to say
âSetting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.
âTo all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief.â
How is it possible that purportedly patriotic American public officials can be sincere when they conspire to cut and run from our deadly enemies, to portray America as a weak and unreliable ally and to invite new attacks on our homeland? The President canât have it both ways. If he is right about the dire consequences of preemptive withdrawal, he must be wrong about his opponentsâ sincerity. When he concedes their sincerity he calls his own into question. The average listener hears him say that the Democrats are sincere and concludes that their policy prescriptions canât be as outrageous as he says they are.
As it happens, the Democrats arenât sincere. They arenât anywhere in the vicinity of sincerity. When they call for withdrawal from Iraq, as Nancy Pelosi did again in a response to the Presidentâs speech, they are damaging their country. As the President pointed out, this is obvious. No Democrat has even tried to argue that scheduling a withdrawal would not have the consequences the President outlined. We must conclude that the Democrats know they are working counter to Americaâs interests at the same time they present themselves as patriotic public servants. This is the antithesis of sincerity.
The Democrats are, in fact, so insincere that they will not even acknowledge their own words, let alone defend them. Senator John Kerry, responding on behalf of his party, whined that Democrats never wanted a timetable for withdrawal, just a timetable for success.
This is the same Senator Kerry who, on October 27, 2005, called for an immediate withdrawal of 20,000 troops with the great bulk of the remainder to follow by the end of 2006. The Washington Post certainly thought Kerry was proposing a timetable for withdrawal. It noted that Kerry was âthe highest-profile figure in either party to back a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.â
Maybe Kerry is so complex and profound that even the Washington Post cannot follow his interlocking nuances. On the other hand, he just might be a pompous windbag without even enough wit to gesture in the direction of consistency. Pompous windbag seems about right to me.
Kerry didnât try to reconcile what he said in October with what he said in November. Nor did he bother to explain how the President might be able to provide a timetable for success without consulting Ms. Clio. His speech was, as usual, nothing but bland, meaningless mush. It is incredible that Kerry ever rose above trying dog bite cases in Boston. In a sense, he never did.
President Bush has been extraordinarily fortunate in his political enemies. They, in turn, have been fortunate in him. He has no appetite for rhetorical hardball. Now and then he will state an unpleasant truth about the Democrats in Congress, but he never follows his own insights to their logical conclusions. The rest of us are left wondering whether he believes what he says.
A war leader canât afford to raise that kind of doubt.
As every parent learns, leadership is largely about consistency. When the President describes outrageous conduct but fails to condemn it or to show outrage he is sending a mixed message. No war leader can afford mixed messages. President Bush, in particular, needs to speak with clarity and urgency.
We canât lose in Iraq; the balance of forces favors us overwhelmingly. We can, however, lose the political battle at home. Everything depends on the Presidentâs ability to fight that battle. If he is going to do that effectively he has to start treating the Democrat Party as the domestic enemy that it is. Continuing to pretend that the Democrats are a loyal, if misguided, opposition will only introduce more confusion where we most need clarity.
Of course, the President may be engaging in a bit of insincerity of his own when he concedes his opponentsâ good faith. He may be following in the tradition of Marc Anthonyâs funeral oration from Shakespeareâs Julius Caesar. Marc Anthony punctuates his praise for the assassinated Caesar by saying repeatedly âBut Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man.â The scene ends with Mark Anthonyâs audience storming off to burn Brutusâ home.
Subtlety worked for Marc Anthony but, he had historyâs greatest speechwriter in his corner. Saying exactly what you mean in consistent, direct declarative sentences is a better approach, particularly if you have the verbal grace of George W. Bush.
If the President is trying to sweeten his image by avoiding any direct attack on his domestic enemies he is going to be disappointed. His enemies include the entire Democrat establishment (with the sole exception of Senator Lieberman), all the major daily newspapers and all three of the old line television broadcasting networks. Their hatred for him is white hot. They will remain implacably hostile even if he blows them kisses and throws roses at their feet. They will view everything he does and everything he says through the prism of their hostility. He has nothing to lose by telling the truth about them. He might as well be hanged for a sheep as a goat.
The President has nothing to lose by attacking the Democrats and a great deal to gain. Democrats are extremely vulnerable right now and President Bush should press his advantage. It isnât enough to beat their pathetic arguments. The goal is to beat them and to do so decisively. That goal is well within reach.
The Democrat Party has just entered the McGovern Zone. The nation is at war against deadly enemies and the Democrats are going into an election committed to capitulation. They are gambling everything on failure in Iraq. If, in six months, successful elections have been held in Iraq and we have begun reducing our troop levels there, only a few hardcore nutjobs will still cling to the idea that Iraq is a hopeless quagmire. That idea is all the Democrats have to offer and when it dies the Democrat Party itself will be teetering on the edge of extinction.
We know what an election looks like when one party nails its colors to the mast of the SS Surrender while the other makes steady progress toward âpeace with honor.â It happened in 1972. If the Democrats want a rerun it is up to President Bush and the Republican Party to make that rerun as devastating as possible.
Make them pay through the nose for their defeatism, Mr. President. Remember Al Gore sweating and frothing and the mouth as he bellowed that you âbetrayed this country.â Throw it back at them with interest.
Attack until they stop twitching and then attack some more. If this seems unpresidential, the Vice President can do it. But one way or another, itâs past time for a serious offensive on the home front.
Fortune favors the bold.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2005 18:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
wanted to add: Sounds like Rove could use an assistant...I nominate this guy
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2005 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I've had it with the left. It's time to start hitting them with with the same sort of rhetoric they've been using, let them know what "hate speech" really sounds like. Anyone know where I can find a t-shirt that says, "Die Lefty Scum"?
Over the past six months, the Bush administration has upgraded its budding âstrategic partnershipsâ with India and Japan. Along with the steady "special relationshipâ with Great Britain, what is beginning to emerge is a global coalition system--it is too soon to call it a true alliance--for the post-Cold War world. Much work remains to be done to translate the expressions of similar political interests and values into usable military strength. Still, the prospects for expanding the number of genuine âstakeholdersâ in the Pax Americana are quite bright.
Posted by: john ||
12/03/2005 15:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Temperamentally and culturally, the US is closer to Australia than any other country, and we should develop close relations at all levels. But with only 20 million people, Australia won't the the fifth member of a Big Five.
Posted by: ed ||
12/03/2005 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Australia won't be the fifth member of a Big Five.
Posted by: ed ||
12/03/2005 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
population does not equal strength. Diego Garcia could very well be a member.... :-)
Aussies have earned the same special relationship that brits have. We need to include Howard in all the planning and ops - they have better location when it comes to the SE Asia portion, and as a pincer on China
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2005 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Frank,
I like Australians and they have a top notch military for its size. But the Australian miliary is only 50,000 troops and their reserves are small. They already spend more GDP than any NATO (except US) so their size or capability won't increase soon.
While Australian special forces and light infantry is very good and welcome in Afghanistan, the Australian military is not set up for power projection. They have their hands full keeping the Indonesians at bay. In a South Asian crisis, the US will have to pour troops into Australia to make sure nothing bad happens to a friend. If the ball ever goes up with China (e.g. Taiwan), I expect the Australians will stay neutral, positive if Labour is in power.
Posted by: ed ||
12/03/2005 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
PS. They already spend more GDP than any NATO (except US) is not strictly true, Turkey spends more than any NATO member. But I have bad vibes about Turkey as the Ataturk secularists withdraw and Turkey moves to an islamic republic.
Posted by: ed ||
12/03/2005 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Well, maybe we could give Australia statehood, but only as a blue state until it permits basic freedoms like legalizing guns.
#10
Ed - I was only speculating on basing, logistic resorces, etc. The Aussies fight above thir weight, but not that high
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2005 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#11
A strategic partner does not have to have the power projection capability. Japan can't get out of the box either. The Ausies have world class SF troops, and their strategic location is critical to power projection in the world. They are our only true friend in the region, the Phils are cowards and ran in Iraq, and will be there when the world needs them. they have more to offer than Japan and should always be one of our top allies.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/03/2005 21:23 Comments ||
Top||
Milblogger Major John Tammes takes aim at Congressman Murtha and fires for effect. EFL'd just a touch. Hat tip to the Instapundit.
With all the eagerness of a dog returning to something it has vomited up, the conventional media has latched onto Rep. Murtha's rambling discourse about the Army being "broken" and "has done all they can."
Unmitigated crap. And I don't say this out of defensiveness or service pride - I'll tell you about how far we have had to come in a bit. First, though, a little material for you to mull over.
The US Army is quite open about how it works, what it sees for its future, what it has been told to do in the future by the civilian authorities we serve. You can see its budget, strength, recruiting, retention, doctrine and philosophy. And not just official sources. US Army Soldiers tell the world about things that go right and wrong. Also, what we do on our own. We are our own strongest critics and staunchest defenders.
What really infuriates me is that someone like Rep. Murtha knows better. Ask any veteran who served between 1975-1982/3 what the Army (or the rest of the Armed Forces for that matter) were like. Drugs everywhere, low pay, morale was non-existent, equipment was falling behind or scarce, there was no great sense of mission or purpose. Only the heroic measures of a few dedicated officers and NCOs saved us from absolutely bottoming out. We needed the Reagan Era build up (hell, even Jimmy Carter, not the brightest or strongest to even stumble across the White House threshold, realized things had gone down too far, too fast, by the last two years of his miserable term in office) but almost as important, we got our elan back - we were told we mattered, we were the shield of liberty against Soviet totalitarianism. I felt that deeply, and in March of 1985 I walked straight into a recruiter's office and signed up.
Oh my Lord - I had joined an Army National Guard that was about to get dragged into readiness, professionalism and competence, whether it willed or no. The first field exercise I went to featured Miller High Life to wash down the first generation MREs. By 1988, things were WAY different. I remember taking a 14 hour convoy from central Illinois up to Ft. McCoy, WI. We went straight to the field site, tactically, and didn't come out for 12 days. When we did come out, it was just in time to take a strictly graded Physical Fitness Test, clean up, pack and convoy home the next morning. The look on some of the old-timer's faces was something I will NEVER forget. . . .
As anyone who has read this blog knows, . . . I served in Operation Enduring Freedom V (Afghanistan, March 2004-March 2005). We stood at the end of the longest sustained supply line in the history of human conflict. We were in war-torn Central Asia. Af-frickin'-ghanistan. We had decent food, e-mail, phone (OK, sometimes they weren't always working, but almost all the time) excellent medical support, good pay, regular (if slow) mail. We had a PXs at most of the larger bases, and coffee places sprang up too. We had so damned much ammunition that we needed to build a bigger ammunition supply point at Bagram, AF. We had so many vehicles that we were constantly squabbling over where to put them all - and we had enough up-armored ones too. Our supply warehouses were stuffed with clothing, boots, body armor and the like. "Living hand to mouth" is the worst lie of the bunch.
The constant stream of re-enlistments was a revelation to me. When I was the Executive Officer of the garrison at Bagram Airfield (a job I gladly traded away after 5 months) I had to find room to more than double the size of the Retention Office. I personally administered the oath of re-enlistment to an E-5 and an E-7. The E-5 was a mother of two young children and the E-7 was eligible to retire when we got home!
Broken? Hardly. Is it difficult work? Yes.
Do not mistake hard work for foundering. Respectfully, Rep. Murtha - you are wrong. Dead wrong.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/03/2005 09:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
At one point common wisdom had it that bloodying our nose would make us run. I think common wisdom has changed.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/03/2005 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
the fact Murtha lets a sucking remora like Pelosi ride his back tells you he's sold out and should be shamed into retirement...will be interesting whether he looks for another term.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2005 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
A debate between Daniel Pipes and Reuel Marc Gerecht.
âTo give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government; that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind.â âEdmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France. Penguin Books: London, 1986, p. 374 [Orig. 1790]
âDemocracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that are tried from time to time.â âParaphrase of Winston S. Churchill quote
Now more than ever, the question of whether to invite Islamists or curtail their participation in budding Arab democratic elections is critical to the debate over the War on Terror. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has scored stunning victories, gaining â29 more seats in weekend parliamentary runoff electionsâ and as a result âthe organization will control at least five times more seats in the new legislature than it does now.â We are at a crossroads and it is this vital juncture that was addressed last month in a debate between Daniel Pipes and Reuel Marc Gerecht. --Michael Lopez-Calderon
The question, âShould the United States support Islamists?â is counterintuitive to conservatives; indeed, it is a question we expect from the defeatist voices of the American Left which makes it all the more astonishing that it was the topic of a debate between Dr. Daniel Pipes and Reuel Marc Gerecht that took place October 24, 2005. Moderated by Ms. Zeyno Baran of The Nixon Center, the debate between the men was civil, informative, and marked by a few moments of profound clarity. One such moment occurred when Marc Plattner of the National Endowment for Democracy asked Dr. Pipes if he considered Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani an Islamist. âSistani is not an Islamist,â according to Dr. Pipes.
However, Dr. Pipes warned that the Islamist threat is one that cannot be remedied by a rush to democracy in the Middle East. A different perspective was offered by Mr. Gerecht, who argued that America must be prepared to accept the occasional unacceptable effects of unfettered democratic elections in the Middle East, and we must be prepared to countenance such outcomes now. Mr. Gerecht left a few of us stunned when he stated that should democratic elections in Egypt lead to a legitimately-elected Islamist government, the United States and the West would have to bear this outcome as part of the âdifficult growing painsâ process of democracy.â His central point is that the pro-American Arab governments lack legitimacy, and should elections that bar Islamists occur under the auspices of the U.S., they will be viewed by discontented majorities as illegitimate. Dr. Pipes placed his faith in Middle Eastern strongmen committed to gradual democratic reforms over a twenty- to twenty-five year process; Mr. Gerecht considered delay untenable, counterproductive, and doomed to bitter failure. Distinctions of time and process became the central points of contention between these two men.
Mr. Gerecht opened the debate after Ms. Baranâs introductory statements, and he argued that while the U.S. government should not support Islamists, it is inevitable that Islamists are going to triumph in some, perhaps most Middle Eastern countries should full-fledged democratic elections be permitted. He stated âDemocracy in the Middle East is going to be frontloaded, that is, elections first, organic democratic institutions second.â President George W. Bush, though lacking Middle Eastern âexpertise,â was credited by Mr. Gerecht for understanding that the status quo in the Middle East had become dangerously dysfunctional; political extremism necessitates a fundamental change in the U.S. âbusiness as usual approachâ toward undemocratic Arab regimes. Mr. Gerecht warned that the business of building democracy in the Middle East was going to be messy and at times unsatisfactory to U.S. interests; however, we had to accept these possible outcomes â trauma and anti-Americanism â as part of the âfever-breakingâ process of moving from decades of tyranny to lawful, democratically-elected, representative governments. âYou donât get Thomas Jefferson unless youâve had Martin Luther,â said Mr. Gerecht, although he was quick to disclaim Luther as a role model, given the Christian reformerâs legacy of religious wars. Still, according to him, we have to accept the risks and Egypt is one of the linchpins of change. Legitimacy is central to successful electoral processes and the slow formation of democratic culture. A recent AP story of an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood female candidate, Makarem Eldery Ph.D., 55, campaigning for office, reveals the prevailing sentiment among large sectors of Egyptians: ââWe draw our legitimacy from the people. We don't need a despotic regime to recognize us,â she said. âIt's the regime that lacks legitimacy.â" In Gerechtâs view, restricting the participation of Islamists only further endangers Middle Eastern stability as emerging democratic ideas mixed in with older forms of Islamic identity vie to compete in the open market. Driving out Islamists will drive them underground as well as lead large Arab majorities to conclude the electoral process a fraud. âThe Genie is out of the bottle,â said Mr. Gerecht, and if we encourage an Algerian solution âholding elections and then negating their results when they result in the election of Islamic parties, we risk driving Islamists further away from the political process and into armed struggle or terrorism. He added, âAnd we will hit a dead end if we do not open up the process now.â
Dr. Pipes cautioned against unfettered democratic elections in which the result could be âone person, one vote, one time.â He outlined the four goals of the radical Islamist agenda: Implement Shariâa as an exclusive system of law; the transformation of personal faith into a radical Utopian ideology, similar to Fascism and Communism; rejection of Western influence by dividing the world into two mutually exclusive camps; the drive to power. The Islamist movement is a unitary one and uses both the violent and nonviolent components as a means to power, said Dr. Pipes. Similar to Italian communists who did the Sovietsâ bidding while posing as nonviolent alternatives to revolutionary communism, the so-called âpeacefulâ Islamists adopt to their immediate environment, argued Dr. Pipes. He made no distinction between the two sides of the same Islamist coin. âAll Islamists are bad,â said Dr. Pipes while the anti-Islamists are fractured and weak. âIslamists are the ones dominating the agendaâ and âBetween 10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide are actively Islamists,â according to Dr. Pipes. However, like the German Nazis, the Islamistsâ will to power, their effectiveness, and the overall weakness of moderate Muslims gives the radicals a level of power that exceeds their actual numbers.
Only moderate Muslimsâ resistance to Islamism can lead to a victory over radical Islam, but a premature move to democracy is not the solution, according to Dr. Pipes. He opposed Mr. Gerechtâs proposition by arguing, âYes democracy, but not democracy now.â He invoked a Burkean argument for slow, gradual change declaring that people traumatized by decades of tyranny could not possibly develop democracies while simultaneously under assault by Islamo-fascism. âDemocracy is counter-intuitive. Democracy takes time to learnâŠit is a slow, long deliberative process. By jumping too fast, Islamists âŠgain and we will unfortunately assist our worst enemies to power,â concluded Dr. Pipes.
Dr. Pipes answered my two-fold question about what I call the âX-factorâ, namely, the skittish American public. While both men debated the Middle Eastern response to change, I asked Dr. Pipes if he believed the American public had the patience to endure a potentially decadesâ long conflict, and if American leadership has sufficiently steeled the publicâs resolve. He answered that the American people had the resolve although he acknowledged that âthey do not see the threat the way they saw the Soviet oneâ and that American leadership had done an inadequate job in conveying to the American public the threat posed by radical Islam.
Both men agreed on the need to establish democratically-elected, representative governments in the Middle East that are built upon the solid foundations of a written constitution, and that these governments will reflect Middle Eastern and Islamic traditions which the West need not fear nor oppose.
As I departed The Nixon Center, Mr. Gerechtâs proposition that we may have to accept an Islamist Egypt bothered me deeply. Islamists in control of the Suez Canal and inheriting fairly modern American weaponry are not comforting thoughts, to say the least. Egyptâs air force alone consists of over 500 combat aircraft including âsixty-seven multi-mission F-16 A/Cs and thirty-three F-4Es from the United States, as well as sixteen Mirage 2000s from France.â Recall that just three years ago, the Bush Administration floated the possibility that Iraqi Unmanned Aerial Vechicles (U.A.V.) could be launched perhaps from terror cargo ships and that these aerial devices could spray a major U.S. city with anthrax, for example. Much of the public scoffed at such views but few would laugh at the prospects of the high-performance F-16, one of the worldâs leading fighter-planes, in the hands of Islamist Kamikaze pilots. After all, the last time Jihadis manned the controls of modern aircraft, they sent an entire nation into shock.
Michael Lopez-Calderon is a freelance writer who lives near Washington, D.C.
Posted by: The Happy Fliegerabwehrkanonen ||
12/03/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
THE SOUTH ASIAN earthquake struck at the epicenter of a principal recruiting ground and logistical center for global terrorists, leveling a number of terrorist nurseries and training camps in an area that serves as the last main refuge of al-Qaida. Much of the quakeâs destruction occurred in the two terrorist-infested areas of northern Pakistan where Osama bin Laden may be holed up -- Pakistani-held Kashmir and the North-West Frontier Province.
The Oct. 8 calamity brought foreign teams and troops to that restricted region in Pakistan and gave the international community the potential leverage to steer the area away from terrorism. NATO is sending up to 1,000 troops to the quake-hit region in addition to about 1,200 U.S. military men already there. International donors, which have pledged $5.4 billion in quake aid to Pakistan, can ensure that their aid is not used to rebuild the terrorist infrastructure destroyed by the forces of nature.
Several hundred members of underground terrorist groups were reported killed when the earthquake flattened their hideouts and training schools in the two mountainous regions. Several of these groups have enjoyed long-standing ties with the Pakistani military, especially its infamous agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, which reared them as part of its covert war in Indian Kashmir and its success in bringing the now-splintered Taliban to power in Afghanistan.
Pakistan granted outside rescuers access to its restricted areas because it found its own disaster management capabilities woefully inadequate. Now, the access foreign teams and troops have gained to the stricken parts -- combined with Pakistanâs need for continuing international aid -- can be leveraged to help that military-ruled country clean up its terror act. The urgency of that task has been underscored by the death of about 70 festival shoppers in the Oct. 29 New Delhi, India, bombings, which were blamed on the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba group.
Pakistan has emerged as a common thread in the investigations of most acts of international terrorism. As Pakistan military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf acknowledged July 21 in an address to the nation after the London subway bombings, âWherever these extremist or terrorist incidents occur in the world, a direct or indirect connection is established with this country.â
Two U.S. reports issued earlier this year presented a bleak picture of Pakistanâs future.
The Congressional Research Service warned that Pakistan is âprobably the most anti-American country in the world right now.â The National Intelligence Councilâs Global Futures Assessment Report projected a scenario in 2015 of Pakistan as a âfailed state ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries, lack of command and control of nuclear weapons and lurching toward extreme fundamentalism.â
Musharraf has since 9/11 ridden two horses -- extending selective anti-terror cooperation to the United States, symbolized by some high-profile al-Qaida arrests, and maintaining a political alliance with Islamist parties at home. That way he has managed to pocket billions of dollars in U.S. aid and helped marginalize the political mainstream. His standing at home, however, has been undercut by his inept handling of the earthquake.
The latest calamity highlights the need for international action to help move Pakistan toward a better future by encouraging Musharraf to uproot the terrorist complex and take measured steps toward democracy.
The massive international relief operation can aid the global war on terror by helping the injured and the displaced in the stricken areas of what remains the last bastion of transnational terrorists. Donors have pledged to build civil infrastructure of a kind that didnât exist there before.
That makes it necessary to ensure that international aid is not illicitly diverted to terrorist groups or employed to rebuild the âhate factoriesâ that churn out trained and committed extremists. The aid needs to be used to help foster development and societal de-radicalization in a region steeped in religious bigotry and teeming with Islamists of different hues and nationalities.
This necessity has been underscored by the way the earthquake relief effort is being directed by young militants wielding AK-47 rifles and walkie-talkies at some of the field camps set up in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. In fact, underground extremists, seeking to shore up their standing among the local people are competing with international teams in relief work, with the lead being taken by Jamaat ud-Dawa, an offshoot of the terrorist group that is the main suspect in the New Delhi bombings. Children orphaned by the quake are being âadoptedâ by terrorist groups for imparting what the Jamaat ud-Dawa calls âIslamic education.â
The disaster has opened the first real opportunity for the international community since the post-9/11 launch of the global war on terror to help Pakistan drain its terrorism-breeding swamps.
In Pakistan, where the culture of jihad is deeply woven into the national fabric, cleansing the stricken areas of their terrorist nurseries will not be easy. Despite the large losses they suffered, underground groups have not slowed their activities, as is evident from the killing of dozens of their members by Indian border troops while attempting to sneak in since the quake. What is needed is not just action against such groups, which keep changing their names, but the complete dismantlement of the infrastructure of terror in Pakistan.
Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, India.
Posted by: john ||
12/03/2005 14:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
In short, every day the American people should have been reminded of, and congratulated on, their countryâs singular idealism, its tireless effort to reject the cynical realism of the past, and its near lone effort to make terrible sacrifices to offer the dispossessed Shia and Kurds something better than the exploitation and near genocide of the past â and how all that alone will enhance the long-term security of the United States.
That goal was what the U.S. military ended up so brilliantly fighting for â and what the American public rarely heard. The moral onus should have always been on the critics of the war. They should have been forced to explain why it was wrong to remove a fascist mass murderer, why it was wrong to stay rather than letting the country sink into Lebanon-like chaos, and why it was wrong not to abandon brave women, Kurds, and Shia who only wished for the chance of freedom.
Alas, that message we rarely heard until only recently, and the result has energized amoral leftists, who now pose as moralists by either misrepresenting the cause of the war, undermining the effort of soldiers in the field, or patronizing Iraqis as not yet civilized enough for their own consensual government.
What he said...
Posted by: Jim ||
12/03/2005 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
Ramsey Clark admits that his client is guilty.
By Christopher Hitchens
All must agree that Saddam Hussein is entitled to the best legal defense team, and that it is a very special responsibility of the Coalition authorities to provide cast-iron protection to those who undertake the task. (This remains true even if, as is strongly implied in a Nov. 29 article by John Burns in the New York Times, Saddam and his lawyers have been caught hinting at involuntary changes in the composition of the prosecution team.)
I was wondering when Clark would pop up in Baghdad, and there he was last Monday, presenting his credentials to the judge in the Saddam Hussein case and being accepted at his face value as a defense spokesman. He lost no time in showing what he is made of.
The first charge being brought against Saddam Hussein is that in 1982, after his motorcade came under fire near the mainly Shiite town of Dujail, he ordered the torture and murder of 148 men and boys. It's a relatively minor item in the catalog, but there it is. The first prosecution witness in the case, Wadah al-Sheikh, has actually testified that he knows of no direct link between Saddam and the killings. The defense team has to hope that it can prove the same, or perhaps suggest that no such massacre occurred. Not so Ramsey Clark. In a recent BBC interview, he offered the excuse that Iraq was then fighting the Shiite nation of Iran:
He (Saddam) had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt.
ust go back and read that again. Ramsey Clark believes that A) the massacre and torture did occur and B) that it was ordered by his client and C) that he was justified in ordering it and carrying it out. That is quite sufficiently breathtaking. It is no less breathtaking when one recalls why Saddam "had this huge war going on." He had, after all, ordered a full-scale invasion of the oil-bearing Iranian region of Khuzestan and attempted to redraw the frontiers in Iraq's favor. Most experts accept a figure of about a million and a half as the number of young Iranians and Iraqis who lost their lives in consequence of this aggression (which incidentally enjoyed the approval of that Nobel Peace laureate Jimmy Carter). And Ramsey Clark says that the aggression is an additional reason to justify the massacre at Dujail.
Rather than say what substance I think Ramsey Clark is made of, I shall quote from Jeffrey Blankfort. There are various Web sites devoted to undermining the war effort in Iraq, one or two of which are also devoted to attacks on my own moral turpitude. I can't read them all but I do usually look at the e-mail I get from Blankfort. He is a very serious guy with whom I have had a few exchanges. He is one of the few to have noticed what Ramsey Clark said, and here is his comment:
The problem is ⊠that Clark is one of the most well-known representatives of the anti-war movement and represents the ANSWER coalition and in my mind this is more than the conflict of interest that it unquestionably is. Thus, the message that it sends to the Iraqi people is that the anti-war movement doesn't really care about any Iraqis other than those who have been killed by US and UK forces, that it, in fact, does not condemn Saddam for his long history of human rights violations and for his launching a bloody war against Iran that took well over a million lives.
That is to say the least of it. He adds:
It is long past time for the anti-war movement to drop its double standards. It can begin by saying Ramsey Clark does not speak for us. He certainly does not speak for me.
This is a nice twist on the self-regarding "Not In Our Name" slogan under which the anti-war movement filled the streets to hear speeches from Saddam sympathizers, Fidel and Kim groupies, and Islamic fundamentalists. Not really anti-war at all, but pro-war on the other side. It was more like a single standard if you ask me, but let's put this to the test.
So, how about it, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and Tim Robbins and all the rest of you? Do you need any prompting to say what you think? Or is the only crime scene to be found in the Downing Street memo and the identifying of a CIA bureaucrat? We know what Clark is made of: What about you? I meanwhile shall recline, happy in the knowledge that Saddam Hussein has engaged the services of an attorney who proclaims him to be guilty as charged.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/03/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
In 1984, the Supreme Court launched one of Americaâs worst traditions: Christmas Agonistes. This is the ritual where everyone goes batty about what to âdoâ about Christmas. The court invented it in a decision called Lynch vs. Donnelly, the upshot of which was that if someone is offended at a crÚche or Christmas tree at city hall, they can go whining to a judge about it.
That raises the question of whether those of us who're offended by the bitching, moaning, and whining have any legal recourse.
Just this week, the Capitol performed its own minor Christmas miracle of transubstantiation. At the beginning of the week, House Speaker Denny Hastert unveiled a "holiday tree." But a few days later, after some entirely predictable bah humbugs, he rechristened it a "Christmas" tree. (Similarly, when the city of Boston tried to unveil its official "Holiday tree," the premier of Nova Scotia, which had provided it as a gift, called it a nifty trick since, "when it left Nova Scotia, it was a Christmas tree.") These miracles arenât exactly up there with keeping lamp oil burning for eight days, never mind rising from the dead, but theyâre pretty good for government work.
Personally, I take no offense at the government unveiling a Christmas tree on the grounds of the âpeopleâs house.â Besides, a place that in love with pork is hardly kosher to begin with.
I don't take any offense, either. Holidays and festivals in the Christmas season have been around for a couple thousand years now, and before that as Saturnalia and probably a half dozen other festivals. It's not a coincidence that Christmas and Hanukka fall at approximately the same time. The campaign against it focuses on its religious aspect, but it's actually a campaign to divorce the present from the past. I don't think it will be successful â the Soviets found they couldn't suppress Christmas, and ended up celebrating the new year in approximately the same manner. The Soviets are gone, except for Berkeley and a few similar places, and Christmas is back in Russia.
Lamenting the war on Christmas has become something of a cottage industry for conservatives, just as lamenting the perfidious intrusion of Christianity on the public square is a grand source of fundraising and TV time for segments of the Left. Fox Newsâs John Gibson has even come out with a definitive brief on the war on Christmas aptly titled The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.
That's because we're at the tipping point with the nonsense. The national patience is running out. We're still feeling Miracle on 34th Street and It's a Wonderful Life, and the disloyal opposition is trying to feed us Battleship Potemkin. When the grinches come out, We the People start thinking pitchforks and torches.
And for some it does seem like Christmas is under siege. Not just Christmas, of course, but religious expression generally. Traditionalists of a certain bent are at a particular disadvantage because they have a handy label to define their morality: religion. And religion has a special status in our society. Secularists, misreading history, claim that the Constitution requires that wherever government and religion intersect, religion must vanish. This is terribly wrongheaded in my opinion, but weâve all heard those arguments before.
Over and over, each and every Christmas season, year after year. The season of Good Will Toward Men is under assault by people with teeny tiny souls, too small to be seen with the naked eye, always assuming souls could be seen, of course.
What I think secularists donât appreciate is how unfair this feels to religious people who believe that the secularists have, for all intents and purposes, a moral faith of their own. For example, back in the Dark Ages when John Ashcroft ruled with an iron fist, and decent people everywhere quaked at the prospect of borrowing Catcher in the Rye from the library lest they land in the gulag under the Patriot Act, Ashcroft was unable to ban a Gay Pride Month celebration at his own Department of Justice. I donât think that celebrating Gay Pride Month would lead to the end of civilization, but I donât think Christian Pride Month would either. And yet we all understand that Christian pride is a nonstarter on government premises.
I'm a lot more uncomfortable with Gay Pride Month than I am with Christmas. What happened to Sluts' Pride Month? When did we start celebrating the things we may or may not do with our pants off with entire months?
The idea that liberalism operates â or should operate â like a secular religion, complete with its own dogmas, rites and customs, has a very old pedigree stretching from ancient Rome to such modern figures as August Comte, Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Thurman Arnold, and up to the liberal philosopher Richard Rorty. Without wading out into those weeds, what I think secular liberals could work harder at understanding is that whether contemporary liberalism is a secular religion or not, for its non-adherents it might as well be one.
I'm as secular as the next guy, but I still like Christmas. I like having time set aside for Peace on Earth and Mercy Mild. I'm usually pretty happy to see the Mannheim Steam Roller put away on December 26th, but that's because we've overdosed on it by then, enough so to last us through until the following November.
Liberals use the state to impose their morality all the time, and they get away with it because their faith isnât called a religion. Yet conservatives should be wary of launching a backlash. Just as it is counterproductive for a secular liberal to take offense at a well-intentioned âMerry Christmas,â it doesnât help if a conservative says âMerry Christmasâ when he really means âEat yuletide, you atheistic bastard!â If youâre putting up a Christmas tree in order to tick off the ACLU, youâve really missed the point.
Is it okay of I just feel a bit of snide self-satisfaction that they're cheezed, even while opening my presents and exuding good cheer?
Of course, none of this would be problem if judges in Washington minded their business to begin with. But thatâs the real heresy for some liberals.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/03/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Liberals use the state to impose their morality all the time, and they get away with it because their faith isnât called a religion.
Yes. But "Gay Pride month" is just the tip of the iceberg, a tiny issue only noticeable because it's still a point of controversy between liberals and many conservatives.
There are much earlier and thus well-established examples of "imposition of morality" as efforts at gender equality, and opposition to racial discrimination. There's also "imposition of morality" when you are banning drug use or put age limits on the lawful consumption of alcohol. That the state allows marriage but doesn't allow bigamy. If you ban public nudity or public sex: that's an imposition of morality. If you ban prostitution: an imposition of morality.
I'm not making any point as to whether such impositions are positive, negative, productive or counterproductive. I'm just saying they're as common as air and supported by both sides of the political spectrum. To talk about Gay Pride Month as such an "imposition", pfft... just a tiny example in the midst of many much more prevalent ones.
Only libertarians are seeking a wall of separation between state and *morality*. Neither most liberals nor most conservatives do. (And ofcourse the libertarians also have their own moral articles of faith, e.g. that property is something satrosanct rather than a social construct, or their acceptance of contracts as binding and enforceable by the state)
When you use the word 'imposition' you have taken a stand.
I have? So, should I use "enforcement of morality" perhaps, as a more neutral word? "Promotion of morality"? What replacement in vocabulary would you recommend, you being a native speaker that understands all the nuances, and me not being one?
Stop pissing on our country and us, and telling us its our fault we're wet, you Hellnic bastard
You've gone off the deep end, haven't you? What did I do now? Tear down one of your favourite myths, namely that supposedly only liberals try to shove their morality down other people's throats? Poor little conservatives.
On my part, I've no problem with the state being used to "promote" (since the word "impose" irks you) several moral ideas -- including democracy, freedom, racial and religious tolerance, gender equality, gay acceptance and parental responsibility.
And if you disagree with that, if you feel that the state *shouldn't* promote the concepts of freedom and democracy for example, that has just made you an enemy of the Bush policy in the Middle East.
Frank> I've stopped thinking you'll ever start responding with non-sequiturs. But as you seem to want it, here's my opinion on the issue of festivities: I've no problem with labelling Christmas trees as "Christmas trees", especially since, coming from Greece, I know how you can honour a tradition without promoting the religion it derived from. We may have the head of goddess Athena on the city flag of the Athens, but not even the people who designed it were believers of the pagan Greek religion.
Likewise you may fill the city with Christmas trees, and it can just be a festival tradition that promotes in reality no religion. (after all I also decorate a Christmas tree and am not religious either -- same as Santa Claus, the Christmas tree has become very secular in mood)
#5
sheesh, Aris. Only you could take a baisically fun article and turn it into an "all about Aris" thread.
Why does it not surprise me that you decorate a tree with a nary a thought in your Aris head about deeper meaning noted by Fred and you only manage to see in it your own decorating skills and a reason to ponder how others are "forcing you" to shove their morality down your throat.
#6
That's teh great thing about the Christian faith, Aris. I get to believe and worship my Savior without worrying about what smarmy, pencil dick know-it-alls like you say.
#7
So far, it's three people here that are clearly determined to read their own preconception into my words and didn't actually read a thing I said (the definition of non-sentient debaters yet again).
As for your claims that "I made it all about Aris" I never referred to my self at all in the first post in this thread -- I discussed the *issue*. After which the personal attacks ofcourse, began.
That's teh great thing about the Christian faith, Aris. I get to believe and worship my Savior without worrying about what smarmy, pencil dick know-it-alls like you say.
And when your saviour puts you on His left hand, and says "I was a fellow forum debater and you unjustifiably insulted me.", what are you gonna say?
Why does it not surprise me that you decorate a tree with a nary a thought in your Aris head about deeper meaning
Oh, I celebrate the deeper meanings of "Good Will Toward Men" and "Peace on Earth and Mercy Mild". I'm sorry that it so terribly offends you that I can be celebrating positive messages of Christmas without actually being a believer in the Christian religion.
and a reason to ponder how others are "forcing you" to shove their morality down your throat. you are such a prissy victim.
*rolls eyes* You really didn't read a word I said. In the whole thread I've NOT been arguing in favour of the idea of victimhood, but against it. Poor little conservatives victimised by Gay Pride Parades. Poor little secularists victimized by Christmas trees. (Poor little alcoholics victimised by drinking age limits, poor little deadbeat dads victimized by child support laws, poor little nudists victimized by public decency codes, etc, etc)
#8
Aris isn't that far off from the truth. Don't agree with everything he's saying, but he's purdy damn close.
My problem is with people like Newdow, who are trying to get their religious point of view passed off as the established religious viewpoint of the government. They will never admit that, but it is exactly what he is trying to do.
What Aris is saying isn't far off from this. No need to knock him on this matter.
I'm an astute Libertarian. All should be able to express and worship as they see fit, and none should be able to hinder that right. At the same time, the Athiest should be free to refrain from being forced to admit anything to God. I don't see the Atheist being forced to do anything. The Atheist shouldn't force the rest of the nation to bow down to his ideals as well.
#9
The issue here is not Christians versus secularists. Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality.
Spoken as an athiest and utilitarian (almost a libertarian).
#10
Aris: As for your claims that "I made it all about Aris" I never referred to my self at all in the first post in this thread -- I discussed the *issue*. After which the personal attacks ofcourse, began.
And at which point the thread became "All About Aris". That's what I was talking about. I'm going to resist the urge to respond to your other comments, though it's tempting to set the record straight. However your posting is some sort of wierd masturbation
self-gratification for you which is quite frankly, kind of creepy. So, thanks for the offer, but I'm not into doing Aris.
#11
Phil_b said: The issue here is not Christians versus secularists. Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality.
Spoken as an athiest and utilitarian (almost a libertarian).
#12
The old debate was the imposition of religion with the help of government. I've known people who were at Indiana University when Kinsey was invited in, with the intention of provoking the religious-government that had ruled the place for years. That was, by doing profane research about !sex! in the middle of the bible belt. Horrors. It had the desired effect of showing that the emperor had no clothes, and busted up the old partnership.
This old debate still continues, for example the recent efforts by that University in Kansas to have a theology class on the mythology of "Intelligent Design" compared to other religious myths, openly with the intent to fight back against those trying to integrate such nonsense into science curriculum.
The new debate, as has been suggested, is not to oppose the forced imposition of beliefs by one person on others, but to corrupt the beliefs of those who believe such things.
This new debate uses some interesting tactics. At first, it complained about Xmas being too "materialistic". Why should Christian materialism trouble a non-Christian? It was an effort to make Xmas less public; that people should just celebrate it quietly in their homes, with no outward display. Hand-in-hand to this was complaints about all the public trappings of Xmas, from music and decorations, to Santa in shopping malls.
But of late, there is a great pressure to downgrade the holiday. If you go to a store looking for Xmas cards, you'll note that only a few still have "Merry Christmas" written on them, thought there are plenty "Happy Hannukah" and "Feliz Navidad" cards. This shows a corporate infiltration of the anti-holiday effort.
In a way, the anti-Xmas efforts are the mirror image of the old religious-government oppression. Except now it is an effort to attack the icons and traditions of Christianity. Especially in entertainment, Hollywood and the art crowd feel free to desecrate all the trappings of one particular religion. Not in any way to protect themselves, but to oppress others.
And as before, government is also used as a tool to oppress others.
#13
2b, a supposed-Christian calls me "arrogant f*cker" and "Hellnic bastard" (all in the spirit of Christmas I gather), while Frank calls me "Know-nothing": when I'd levelled no insults towards anyone at all in this thread.
Thus of course you, with your tremendous moral clarity, blame me for turning this thread personal. Congrats, 2b. You are really praiseworthy at how you can pinpoint responsibility so accurately. This achievement of yours is only overshadowed by the way you managed at post #5 to read everything I said 180 degrees reversed from their actual content. Such complete misunderstanding must have really taken effort.
Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality.
Certainly progressives want society to progress (and thus by definition they want to change it) while conservatives want to conserve and thus by definition maintain it. That a morality is "new" doesn't make it either inferior or superior -- the same way that the fact something is traditional doesn't make it inferior or superior.
Other than that I also feel that it'd be a much worthier battle to fight against the religious lunatics that oppose the teaching of evolution, rather than go against harmless trappings of religions.
There are much earlier and thus well-established examples of "imposition of morality" as efforts at gender equality, and opposition to racial discrimination. There's also "imposition of morality" when you are banning drug use or put age limits on the lawful consumption of alcohol. That the state allows marriage but doesn't allow bigamy. If you ban public nudity or public sex: that's an imposition of morality. If you ban prostitution: an imposition of morality.
I'm not making any point as to whether such impositions are positive, negative, productive or counterproductive. I'm just saying they're as common as air and supported by both sides of the political spectrum.
In short, laws usually embody moral judgments. I think that's a point everyone here can agree with.
Let me take this to the next step, if you don't mind. When someone like Michael Newdow complains about "imposition of morality by the state," what he's really saying is "you're advocating a political position on the basis of a morality I don't share, but rather than debate you on the merits and try to persuade people--a fight I can't win--I'm going to accuse you of 'moralizing' and rely on the secularization of the public square to do my dirty work for me." That trick has worked, more often than not, for quite some time because we've had an opinion elite which is not-so-openly hostile to religion and all that goes with it, and has been working for decades to drive religion out of the public square. However, as Fred said, we seem to be reaching a tipping point.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/03/2005 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#15
2b, a supposed-Christian calls me "arrogant f*cker" and "Hellnic bastard" (all in the spirit of Christmas I gather), while Frank calls me "Know-nothing": when I'd levelled no insults towards anyone at all in this thread.
Nothing in my faith says I have to fight and behave the way people like you the way you think I should. So STFU and take it like a man or go run home and toss some Greek Salad.
#17
I think that Aris was just making a point that "imposition of morality" is a thin reed to base a complaint about a creche on. Unless you are a radical libertarian who wants a total divorce of the state and morality, you're being rather selectively hypocritical on the subject, to say nothing of looking like an easily-offended jackass of the type non-believers flee "religion" to avoid in the first place.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/03/2005 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#18
We may have the head of goddess Athena on the city flag of the Athens, but not even the people who designed it were believers of the pagan Greek religion.
We're going to do something about that soon as possible.
Posted by: abu to U ACLU ||
12/03/2005 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Certainly progressives want society to progress (and thus by definition they want to change it) while conservatives want to conserve and thus by definition maintain it. That a morality is "new" doesn't make it either inferior or superior -- the same way that the fact something is traditional doesn't make it inferior or superior.
This in my mind is at the heart of the liberal, progressive world view. NOTHING is better or worse than anything else, so anything goes. I admit, I'm a Christian, I don't like to get into name-calling, especially with those like Aris, but I call you on this one, Greek-boy. I lean toward the Constitutionalist side of the spectrum, meaning I believe in the rule of law (with some libertarian beliefs)! I would have to argue (like others have), that ALL law is based upon moral "standards." So, Aris, you have no problems with gays, with agnostics, supposedly with Christians, and I would assume Muslims. That being said, I for one KNOW that some cultures, laws and ways of Government are better than others. Next time the moose limbs try and take over Greece, let me know if you feel they're any better or worse than you. The logical extension of your arguments is that nothing is better or worse than anything else, so you end up in anarchy. Where does it stop? Laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. (and even your other examples of bigamy, drugs, etc.) are ALL based on a moral reading of society and are thus turned into laws. So, if the muslims come to Greece, and call themselves "progressive", you're o.k. with them installing sharia law?
Posted by: BA ||
12/03/2005 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#20
wow, this actually turned into an interesting thread.
#21
Imposition, et al.: nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a Right to Not Be Offended. Do I actually have to say Freedom OF, not FROM Religion?
Libertarians, athiests, Aris or whatever, seriously, get over it. Find a job and pay some taxes. Go read our Nation's first public school textbook (the Bible), the one that Thomas Jefferson first recommended for moral education of children. You know, the guy who ordered up the Establishment Clause. Golly, he didn't think that was the Government establishing a religion or a church.
What the Hell is wrong with you revisionists? Do you have any concept of History?
Sorry. But, you people just piss me off sometimes. Drop dead and don't worry about Hell, ya ain't gonna make it that far.
/rant off
Posted by: ArmChair in Sin ||
12/03/2005 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#22
count backward from 20 by threes.
Please, Mom. let me count down by two and then I'll be quiet, I promise.
#23
This in my mind is at the heart of the liberal, progressive world view. NOTHING is better or worse than anything else, so anything goes.
Well, I don't know if you intentionally or accidentally misunderstood my post, so I'll make the correction mildly: I obviously meant that a moral system being traditional or a moral system being new doesn't *inherently* make it inferior or superior.
Namely that other, *moral* criteria need be found to evaluate it.
Now have I answered you completely and filled up the hole you had thought you had discovered and rambled about on and on? If not, let me know what you feel remains to be said on my part.
That being said, I for one KNOW that some cultures, laws and ways of Government are better than others
So I believe also. I'm not a moral relativist, BA, not by far. As you'd have known if you had noted e.g. my repeated condemnation of the torture of innocents.
If anything it's me who always tries to put forwards moral arguments for the positions I take, while other people often rely to emotional appeals like "How would you feel if your mom was killed by Islamofascists?", non-sequitur truths like "The Greek government is worse!", and ofcourse slurs like calling muslims "moose limbs".
It's supposedly partly for those limbs of moose, that Americans went to fight and die in Iraq, BA. So I suggest not finding such nice little verbal slurs against the "moose limbs", not unless YOU want to diminish the sacrifice American armed forces have suffered there.
And BA, having repeated it a hundred times already, I don't feel the need to continuously repeat that, yes, the Islamofascists are *obviously* worse than the American government. I've repeated it time and again, and I'm repeating it yet again, for clarity's sake. Even when America descended to torture, it still remains better than the genocidal fanatics of Al Qaeda and their ilk.
#24
A note about the US Constitution and the American culture.
The US was established to be a de jure secular state, not a de facto one. This means that God is set aside temporarily for the Constitution of the US. The assumption is, "That no matter if God exists or not, or in whatever form, the Constitution is written of men, by men, and for men."
That is, the Constitution begins "We the people...", not "God having ordained from above...", the form that was previously used by kings to justify their crown. A very novel idea for the time, that power derives from the ruled, not from heaven.
And this translates into the American culture as the difference between "morality" and "ethics". A subtle definition not seen in the dictionary, but very recognizeable on the American street, in the common man.
When a politician is "ethical", we as a people think that it means he obeys the law. The written law, codified by men. The public is whole heartedly in favor of ethical leaders, save Wm Jefferson Clinton. They are "honest" politicians. They follow the rules in the law books.
When a politician is "moral", however, we have an inherent problem. Whose morality? By our common street definition, morality is obeying religiously provided ethics. Laws written in heaven and either given out via a priest, reverend, rabbi, imam or shaman; or directly interpreted from some scripture. There is little commonality in morality.
So even if we want a "moral" leader, the question remains, "Do I really know what his morals are?", as in "What church does he go to, again?"
And this distinction, more than anything else, really has defined and should define how America approaches religion and government.
We should be suspicious of a politician who is overly concerned with "morality", and mentions it frequently when speaking. Because it is hard for a man to have two masters. Eventually the written laws, of men, by men, and for men, will come into conflict with the dictates of heaven, told to that politician by his holy man. And then what happens?
Does he become "unethical", violating the laws of our republican democracy for his own personal beliefs, or does he become hypocritically "amoral", violating his religious beliefs to perform the job for which he was elected?
For those of you who are of a religious bent, I would also remind you that there are secular philosophies in the world that are almost indistinguishable in their "morality" from religion, as abhorrent to us as their "morality" is.
And I do not wish to offend by comparing, say, communists with the religious, except in one way, that they also obey laws not recognized as laws of our nation, and they, too, have two masters. And all too often, the "morality" of communists is terribly, terribly erosive to our way of life.
So for this reason alone, that their "morality" is insidious, they clarify the distinction between it and ethics.
A religious man in a moderate belief system can be highly ethical. He can participate fully and honorably in our government finding no conflict at all between his faith and his ethical obligation.
But beware those whose faith is less moderate. Until there is some way for them to wear their beliefs on their sleeve, we may only judge from their words and their actions if they will serve all of the people, or if they intend to use the law to force us all to obey the dictates of their idea of God.
#26
Quit with the insults. Aris makes a valid point. Law is an imposition of will, if not morality. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need law in the first place. It seems that some are uncomfortable with the idea that they are imposing on others. You need to get over that. That's how we get ignorant sh*t like "holiday trees" in the first place - somebody complains that they are being imposed upon, and everyone flinches back and says, "Really? I had no idea. Please accept our apologies, and here's a nice $10 billion Womyns Studies Center to go with it."
The correct answer when somebody tells you that you are imposing your will/morality/ethics/whatever on them is, "Shut up and deal." I impose my will on my six-year-old every time I make the stinky little beast take a bath. If you want your culture to remain the dominant one, you must get over this revulsion toward imposition. Otherwise, you find yourself the one being imposed upon. And the "fundie leftists" aren't going to give a sh*t if your feelings are hurt by Gay Pride Day or anything else.
#27
But beware those whose faith is less moderate.
It's a good post, Moose. But I see a major flaw in it that is made by someone who does not understand the concept of "faith" as experienced by the "moderates" to whom you are referring.
I have faith that the sun will rise every morning. I have faith that if I go to the gym every day and work out, that I will get into better shape. I have faith that if I exercise more and eat less that I will lose weight. I have faith that if I get a good education, I will have an easier time in life than if I do not. And I have faith that if I follow the 10 commandments and Christ's teachings regarding, faith, hope, charity, forgiveness, that, in the end, I will have a more full life. I have faith that there is much more beyond.
I get your point, it's valid - but I think a better word would have been fanatics.
#28
OK Moose - so if we have no national (i.e.: economic or security) interests, an ethical President would avoid intervening in a genocide, while a moral (AND ethical) President would? Laws were written based on societal mores (back to my UCSD undergrad humanities: Hobbes, Rousseau, et al)).
I prefer a President of known ethics (naturally....no Republican could make it to the WH with Clinton's Arkansas baggage without a willing and complicit press) and a known morality, as expressed by moral choices they've made in their life. I would expect someone who would fake PH's to get out of the military never to be allowed with a mile of the Presidency, obviously, I was wrong. Don't even start on the TANG lies by the MSM
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2005 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#29
were written based on societal mores
right. Which brings us back to Phil_b's point - which I think is a good one, "The issue here is not Christians versus secularists. Its about eroding the cultural basis of society by replacing traditional festivals and their mores with ersatz PC psuedo-festivals that are trying to impose a new (psuedo)morality."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
In 1984, the Supreme Court launched one of Americaâs worst traditions: Christmas Agonistes. This is the ritual where everyone goes batty about what to âdoâ about Christmas. The court invented it in a decision called Lynch vs. Donnelly, the upshot of which was that if someone is offended at a crÚche or Christmas tree at city hall, they can go whining to a judge about it.
