Scott Paeth

God and Gunz Again

Via Steve Benen, I came across this story this rainy Saturday morning:

A pastor in Kentucky is redefining the tradition of wearing your Sunday best to services by encouraging his congregation to strap on holsters and bring their weapons to church.

Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church in Louisville, Ky., says that he organized an "Open Carry Celebration" to promote responsible gun ownership.

"As a Christian pastor I believe that without a deep-seeded belief in God and firearms that this country would not be here," Pagano told ABCNews.com. "I'm not ashamed of that fact. I'm proud of it."

There's a lot to mock in this story, but my favorite part is the idea that it is due to "God and firearms" that the United States exists. Of course, in the Christian tradition, most of us believe that God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who preached non-violence and suffered death by torture at the hands of the Romans. And yet ... there are large swaths of the "Christian" community who don't find any internal contradictions between believing that they are followers of that kind of God, and supporting violence, the use of weapons, the government's policies of torture, and the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

One wonders if they have ever come across the passage in the Bible where Jesus instructs his followers that they are not to carry a sword, and if so, what it could possibly mean to them.

The Reagan Legacy

This post pretty well sums it up for me. A brief excerpt, in a long list of malfeasance:

1) Treason: As a private citizen, and BEFORE the election, in contravention of both law and tradition, Reagan’s minions and handlers illegally negotiated with the Iranians to induce them hold the American Embassy hostages until after the elections,to embarrass President Carer and to prevent his successful negotiation of an “October Surprise.” Sent future VP George Bush, Sr., and future CIA chief William Casey to Paris to negotiate the deal.

2) Sent arms, including chemical weapons, to both Iraq and Iran during the decade-long Iran-Iraq war, making those two countries the two biggest US arms trading partners at precisely the time when it was illegal to trade with either due to both US and UN laws.

3) Iran/Contra: Used drug traffickers to transport illegal arms to Nicaragua, ignoring the contraband which was brought back on the return trip, creating  a massive and immediate increase in cocaine trade in urban California. Illegally used the CIA to mine harbors and ferry Contra troops in Nicaragua. Eventually, several administration staffers were convicted of crimes ranging from lying to Congress to conspiracy  to defraud the U.S. The scandal involved the administration selling arms  to  Iran and using proceeds from the sales to fund a guerrilla insurgent group in Nicaragua

4) Created alQaeda in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet puppet/occupation there

5) Sponsored right-wing, State terrorism in El Salvador,  Honduras, Haiti, and Guatemala against indigenous insurgents who were fighting the dictatorial, hereditary regimes there. Illegally invaded  and occupied Grenada, overthrowing the democratically elected President

6) Lied about ALL of this activity before Congress, and suborned his Secretary of Defense to perjury, as well.

It's worth remembering this as you reflect on his newly installed statue in the Capitol rotunda. It's also worth remembering that the new statue replaces that of Thomas Starr King, the great abolitionist Unitarian minister who fought to keep California in the Union during the Civil War.

Official Vatican Newspaper: "Obama is Not a Pro-Abortion President"

Via Amy Sullivan, the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, published an editorial yesterday praising Barack Obama, while the newspaper's editor gives an interview in which he says:

"What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president."

Snarks Amy, "Uh, oh. It sounds like the Vatican newspaper "doesn't understand what it means to be Catholic.""

The Gitmo Debate Becomes Clearer

Matt Yglesias brings to my attention the ongoing debate about what to do with terrorist prisoners ... in possession of super powers. Glen Greenwald pointed out the problem on his blog:

We've been doing that for two decades.  What are all the bad and scary things that have happened as a result?  The answer is:  "nothing."  Take note, Chris Cillizza and friends:  while it's true that "not a single prisoner has escaped from Gitmo since it was created," it's also true that no Muslim Terrorists have escaped from American prisons and our SuperMax prison "has had no escapes or serious attempts to escape."  Actually, the only person to even make an escape attempt from a SuperMax is Green Arrow, who hasn't succeeded despite the help of Joker and Lex Luthor.

Adam Serwer chimes in to correct Glenn:

Greenwald clearly doesn't remember the Magneto incident of 2003, in which the mutant supervillain escaped from his glass prison facility after Mystique increased the iron content in his guard's blood, which Magneto extracted using his ferrokinetic powers and then used to destroy his cell. Obviously, we need to discover if Gitmo inmates do have mutant abilities, which will undoubtedly require more waterboarding, and this has to be done before the administration gets a dime to close Guantanamo. In fact, I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the subject in 2002.

Matt adds:

Indeed, the 1996 non-canon DC Universe miniseries “Kingdom Come” by Mark Waid and Alex Ross is largely consumed with the difficult question of super-villain incarceration. As a fictional problem, this shouldn’t be overstated. Note also that the Powers series, which I like a lot, has to rely on the pretty odd deus ex machina of the “powers drainer” to make its “realistic” superhero noir work.

To which I'll simply add that the whole problem could just be solved if we imprisoned the whole lot of them in the Negative Zone.

Of course, at bottom, what this illustrates, beyond the fact that the comics world has become increasingly concerned with how to imprison super heroes lately (apparently they realized Arkham Asylum had outlived its usefulness for these purposes), is that underlying all of the fit-throwing of the right and their fellow-travelers regarding terrorist detention is, apparently, the belief that some of them have super powers. That explains a lot.

I Have Interesting Friends

A short film about my friend Ken:

Paranormal from Matthew Arauz on Vimeo.

Common Ground

Returning to Obama's speech at Notre Dame, I wanted to address the question a bit more deeply of what it means to speak of "common ground" on the subject.

Anonymous in comments has been raising some very good questions about the implications of, and the sincerity of, Obama's claim of seeking common ground, some of which you can read in comments. Let me just quote a bit of one of my responses, and then follow up with some detailed replies to Anonymous's counter-response.

Since I don't acknowledge the premise that a fetus is entitled to "human rights" in a fully vested sense at every stage of pregnancy, I would agree that my view of common ground excludes that discussion. That's why it WOULDN'T constitute common ground. That seems fairly clear. The point of achieving common ground is to work around the things we agree on, not argue about the things you don't.

Put it this way: Would it matter that abortion was legal if we were successful in ensuring that no unintended pregnancies took place? I'd submit it wouldn't. The issue would be moot. To rather than argue about the legality, about which we don't agree, let's strive to reduce unwanted pregnancies, about which we do That's common ground.

Anonymous replies at length, and I'm going to intersperse his reply and my responses to his points below. In invite responses from anyone else who cares to chime in on the issue as well:

It is good to hear that you don't believe a fetus bears human rights from conception; I assumed that this was your position, as otherwise your stance on abortion law would be rather monstrous.

Well, there's nothing like starting a conversation by implying your opponent may be monstrous. But apparently I'm not since I start from a different set of premises than Anonymous does. *Phew!* Dodged that bullet!

But let's examine the substance of the claim: Anonymous seems to be saying that, if I were to acknowledge the fetus as entitled to full human rights "at conception" (whatever that means), then any position which allowed for elective abortions would be monstrous. But this doesn't follow. Consider the classic "Violinist" case, elaborated by Judith Jarvis Thompson. In this case, I wake up one morning to find that I have been attached involuntarily to a life support system, and as a result I am the only thing standing between death and a famous violinist. Am I, as a result of having been attached to this life-support system, morally obligated to remain attached to it?

Jarvis Thompson acknowledges that both I and the violinist are in possession of the full complement of basic human rights. But I did not consent to be attached to the machine, and would not have consented had I been given the choice. My attachment to the machine is a matter of luck (good or bad) and happenstance. What are my moral obligations?

Jarvis Thompson argues that I cannot be morally obligated to remain attached to the life support machine.

So my own view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so--we should say that if you refuse, you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give none away, self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly, that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so; we should say that she is self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses. The complaints are no less grave; they are just different. However, there is no need to insist on this point. If anyone does wish to deduce "he has a right" from "you ought," then all the same he must surely grant that there are cases in which it is not morally required of you that you allow that violinist to use your kidneys, and in which he does not have a right to use them, and in which you do not do him an injustice if you refuse. And so also for mother and unborn child. Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand it--and we were leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases--nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.

Jarvis acknowledges, as I do, that there may be cases where you could potentially make the case that abortion would be a violation of rights in some cases, but her point, and mine right now, is that even if we grant that a fetus, like the violinist, is fully vested with human rights, there is no necessary obligation to refrain from abortion. The rights of the fetus cannot be bought at the expense of the rights of the mother. And the mother cannot be obligated to give up her rights, even if we might think her callous to insist upon them.

Anonymous continues:

It is easy enough for you to say that there's no common ground on the moral status of the unborn child, and so we should be working on aspects of the problem that we agree on, or perhaps on those things where an approximation of an agreement could be hammered out.

But your response here has everything to do with the legal default position that you enjoy. A number of abortive procedures are currently legal in the U.S.-- Does this mean that in a hypothetical situation where all abortion was illegal, you would still say, "I don't believe that fetuses bear human rights at all stages, therefore we don't have any common ground here, therefore we should work on things where there's agreement?"

I would certainly continue to say that. But I would also, to one degree or another, strive to change the mind of my opponents, and, where possible to change the law. But, more to the point, the situations are not actually parallel from my perspective, precisely because I do think a woman is vested with human rights. I think the woman's position as a bearer of rights is unambiguous, whereas, at best, the rights of the fetus are ambiguous. And so, yes, I would, in such a situation, prefer to recognize and protect rights that are unambiguously acknowledged over against rights that remain ambiguous.

But again, in the mean time, nothing would prevent me from working on whatever common ground issues were raised by the situation (it might be interesting to contemplate what that might be, but certainly stopping unwanted pregnancies would remain an issue). The situation in that sence would remain parallel to the present situation, and again, my hypothetical question would remain: If unwanted pregnancies were reduced to zero, the question of elective abortions would be rendered moot (however, issues of when an abortion would be medically necessary or desirable would still remain).

Back to Anonymous:

You are arguing for retaining the status quo on aspects of the problem where we've reached an impasse, and that sounds sensible enough. But such a position is very convenient to take given that abortion is legal in many instances. Do you really blame those who find this to be a human rights violation for pushing against this status quo, "common ground" be damned?

No, I would expect those who disagree with me to continue engaging in a discourse designed to facilitate open communication, in which the possibility of changing my mind always exists. Frankly, I have never encountered an argument that "life" (whatever that means) begins at "conception" (whatever that means) that is not, at its core, question begging. But I leave open the possibility that someone may come across with one that I will find convincing. If the attitude of someone on the other side is "common ground be damned," then I don't see how they could reasonably expect to convince me of their good will. I would expect that they're much more interested in coercing me.

Anonymous continues:

And how do you explain Obama's actions in lifting restrictions on embryonic research, or repealing Bush's (granted, 11th hour) conscience clause, or other similar policies? All of these actions were taken with no regard for whether there was "common ground", and all of them had serious ramifications for the pro-life movement's goals.

I disagree that the actions were taken with regard for whether there was "common ground." They were undertaken consistent with his frequently reiterated campaign pledges, for which he recieved a significant majority of the vote. And, at the same time, he recognized the legitimate concerns of those who differ from him on the issue:

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.  In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent.  As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.  I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research - and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance.  Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research.  I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear.  The majority of Americans - from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs - have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research.  That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree.  That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research.  We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek.  No President can promise that.  But I can promise that we will seek them - actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground.  Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly.  We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted.  We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse.  And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.  It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

There are of course other paths of stem cell research that may also prove fruitful, but recognizing that doesn't require that we abandon the potentially fruitful advances made in ESC research.

Anonymous:

But I don't blame Obama for doing that. Because unlike you, I can recognize that there are some fundamental moral battles being fought here, and that punting to the status quo isn't necessarily the morally responsible (nevermind the politically viable) thing to do.

Who says I don't recognize that fundamental moral battles are being fought here. Just because I draw the battle lines in a different location doesn't mean I don't recognize the issues at stake. Again, nothing like a bit of strawman to temper an otherwise reasonable argument.

Back to Anonymous:

During the civil rights movement, or during the abolitionist movement, or the gay rights movement, did religious leaders choose to abandon issues that they felt to be human rights atrocities for the sake of dialogue over those aspects of the debate where common ground could be found? Whether or not you would associate the current pro-life movement with these other human rights movements, it's necessary to recognize that one who is pro-life is such on the basis of what is perceived to be a massive violation of human rights. In such an instance, would you advocate for retaining the status quo because the issue does not enjoy common ground? Isn't speaking truth to power despite calls for "reasonable consensus" or "compromise" or "moderation" what prophetic politics is all about? I imagine the only reason why you don't recognize the legitimacy of this in the case of the pro-life movement is because of personal ideological differences, rather than because of any objective assessment.

Again, I don't know why this seems to be unclear: No one is asking anyone else to stop advocating for what they deem to be the right thing. The point is to work on the things we do agree on in the midst of our deeply felt disagreements, not to stop working on changing hearts, minds, and laws. The question is, in the mean time, what are you going to do? Society is constructed and functions on the basis of our agreements, and despite our disagreements. When we turn our focus exclusively to our disagreements, then society grinds to a halt.

Anonymous again:

But even where you DO propose action based on common ground... is there really common ground, or are you simply constructing it to make your case? Now, I'm not against contraceptive education or availability myself, nor am I against government welfare and social services to help young women and expectant mothers. But can you really say with a straight face that this is a point of "common ground"? Have you forgotten all of the disputes in this country between abstinence-only and "comprehensive" sex education? Or more general opposition to a contraceptive culture? Or opposition to expanded government action in social services? It seems that there's no more common ground here than there is on the question of how to deal with the legal status of abortion. What makes you think of these sorts of approaches as "common ground"?

At a certain point, there is always going to be someone who is willing to move the goal posts farther down the field. You make policy on the basis of what you think is the right thing to do. If you convince enough people, you get elected -- or reelected. If you overstep, you lose the next election. Policy isn't about making everyone happy all the time. And what Obama demonstrates that many of his opponenets don't is a willingness to listen to and take seriously other points of view. Obama is more likely, based on his recent record, to make allowances for "abstinance only" and extra-governmental social services in his policies than his opponenets seem to be to move toward him. Who in this situation is engaging in a good faith argument and who isn't? you seem to be turning your fire to Obama. I'd focus more on his opponents.

And finally:

My sense is that there is both more and less "common ground" than Obama tends to speak of. There's more in the sense that even where people disagree, we can still speak of "common ground" in a weak sense, closer to "compromise"... though we may not agree entirely, we can give some political territory here and there for the sake of the common good (with sex education, or with conscience clauses, or with some more clarifications on what constitutes "health of the mother", etc.). But there's also less "common ground" than many recognize, insofar as calls for "reducing abortions" are often altogether too vague about how exactly these abortions would be reduced, and usually the approaches to reduction just meet that many more fundamental disagreements.

Well, one way to examine this is to look at what policies actually work. If your commitment is to reducing abortions, what policies have actually be successful at doing so? This is an empirical matter, not an ideological one: Where there is comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, emphasis on women's sexual health, and a robust system of social services, abortions decline. Where there is not, abortions don't decline. Do a state-by-state comparison of abortion rates, and you'll note that where those structures exist, there are fewer abortions. Where the emphasis is on abstinance only, and where social services are lousy, there are an increased number of unwanted pregnancies, and a concomitant increase in abortions.

Preventative Detention

Obama's speech was generally well recieved yesterday, except for that bit about how there are some people who we are going to hold in prison without trial, theoretically forever. This is otherwise known as "preventative detention."

Here's what Obama said:

But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show last night, in a speech dedicated to the defense of the rule of law, it is rather striking to see Barack Obama embrace a completely and totally unconstitutional policy like "preventative detention."

Look, while I may be inclined to believe that Obama is genuinely try to struggle with the difficulties of formuating a policy to deal with the continual, eight-year screw up that was the Bush Administration, a policy like the one he is advocating here cannot stand. Even in the (dubious) case that the Obama administration acts with total good will and infallible judgment on this, it sets a precedent that can be used (and abused) by other administrations down the line.

And, let's be clear what we're talking about here: We're talking about keeping in detention people whom we cannot try because "the evidence was tainted." Let's unpack that shall we? Tainted how? Obama does not say, but the clear implication is that we cannot try these folks because they provided evidence under torture.

So, having tortured them, rendering them incapable of being tried, we're going to solve the problem by holding them indefinitely without trial! There is no way this can be constitutionally justified.

And, you know what, I suspect the Obama administration knows this. They're punting, hoping that some other solution will appear to them, before the Supreme Court definitively declares that these policies are against the constitution. What will happen then I can't imagine, but unless we can find a way to try these folks, we may have no choice but to let them go. That's how the rule of law works.

I'll give Hilzoy the last word on this:

If we don't have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we don't have enough evidence to hold them. Period.

The power to detain people without filing criminal charges against them is a dictatorial power. It is inherently arbitrary. What is it that they are supposed to have done? If it is not a crime, why on earth not make it one? If it is a crime, and we have evidence that this person committed it, but that evidence was extracted under torture, then perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the fact that torture is unreliable. If we just don't have enough evidence, that's a problem, but it's also a problem with detaining them in the first place.

...

People seem to be operating under the assumption that there is something we can do that will bring us perfect safety. There is no such thing. We can try our best, and do all the things the previous administration failed to do -- secure Russian loose nukes, harden our critical infrastructure, not invade irrelevant countries, etc. -- but we will never be completely safe. Not even if we give up the freedom that is our most precious inheritance as Americans.

Freedom is not always easy, and it is not always safe. Neither is doing the right thing. Nonetheless, we ought to be willing to try. I wish I saw the slightest reason to believe that we are.

Obama at Notre Dame

I was planning to do a roundup of the reaction to Obama's Notre Dame speech in the blogosphere, given the temperature of the debate surrounding it the last few days, but it turns out, there hasn't been much, and what there's been has been unsurprisingly consistent. Pro-lifers and conservatives hated it; pro-choicers and liberals liked it.

It was, in many ways, standard Obama boilerplate. For someone on the left end of this issue, there was little to disagree with, and little concrete to latch onto. Amy Sullivan points out that Obama made at least some news by advocating a "sensible conscience clause," which would allow people of faith to opt out of procedures with which they disagree, but this hasn't gotten much attention.

On the conservative end, there was probably litterally nothing Obama could have said short of "I renounce my support for abortion rights and fully support a constitutional ban on abortions," that would have pleased them. And, if recent history is any indication, if he had said that, they would have found a reason to disagree with him even then.

But the underlying point of Obama's speech, like his comments at Saddleback last year, was that he was willing and ready to engage directly with his opponents on this issue, and do so not from a position of conflict but from one of seeking mutual common ground. For those to whom the idea of common ground holds no attraction, this is never going to be persuasive. But one thing Obama has shown repeatedly is that his willingness to push hard on difficult topics can yeild, albeit slowly, some degree of progress over time.

As I've said before, the Democratic position on abortion has been "safe, legal, and rare," since 1992. Obama might actually succeed in making that an acceptable position for Catholics to hold, but I wouldn't put off vacation plans till he does so. It's gonna be a long haul.

Arguing About Atheism

Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones has a complaint about a frequent objection to the current crop of atheist manifestos. Representing the objection is Charlotte Allen:

The problem with atheists — and what makes them such excruciating snoozes — is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

To which Kevin replies:

Please.  This argument has become ubiquitous lately (was there some secret meeting or something?), which I suppose is a confirmation of Drum's Law: the more inane a complaint is, the more popular it becomes.  And this one is right up there.  Aside from the fact that if you so much as scratch any of these "serious arguments" you end up with a handful of air, the fact is that atheists have addressed them in sophisticated ways since the beginning of organized religion.  But they do it in journals and convocations and formal theses and other equally tedious venues, not in bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.  Just like religious believers, who are represented in the nation's bookstores and chat show circuits by sophisticated tomes like the Left Behind series and the collected works of Robert "Possibility Thinking" Schuller.

Well, in the first place, anybody who'd like to contribute to making one of my books a best seller is encouraged to do so (click the links on the left!). But let's consider what Kevin is saying here.

In the first place, he states, without foundation, that "if you so much as scratch any of these 'serious arguments' you end up with a handful of air." Well, this may be true, but in order to know that, wouldn't you have to scratch one? Kevin does exactly what the neo-atheists of all stripes have been doing -- they reach for the low-hanging fruit rather than attempt to tackle the best arguments that religious believers have to give.

It's total crap to say by way of response, "but that's not what best-sellers at Barnes & Noble are for!" Says who? If I want to write a book to be sold at Border, am I contractually obligated to write specious, dishonest, and anti-intellectual nonsense? Does the fact that lots of people buy specious, dishonest, and anti-intellectual nonsense mean that there is no room on the shelves or well-reasoned and careful deconstuctions of religion? Call me crazy, but I can't help thinking that if Christopher Hitchens, with all of his well-attested wit and ability as a writer, had chosen to take on something resembling the genuine arguments of religious believers at their best, he could have done so in a readable and engaging style. He chose not to do so, not because "that's not what best sellers are for," but because he was lazy and couldn't be bothered to take the time to actually think about what he objected to.

None of this is to suggest that the bulk of Charlotte Allen's argument holds much water. I have no more time for creationism or pretending that it's ok to discriminate against atheists than Kevin has. I was actually amused to find a scholar at the Manhatten Institute of all places citing unrepentent Marxist Terry Eagleton in support of her defense of religion. But the objection that Kevin points out is far from inane. The whole point of it is to recognize that the argument about the existence of God is rendered even more inane by the refusal to consider carefully the best arguments of one's opponents.

No one forced Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and Maher to take on the subject of religion. But if they're going to do so, then I would expect them to be held to a high intellectual standard, given the fact that this is the pose that they've taken on for themselves -- that of the arbiters of what genuinely intelligent and rational people think. If that's so, then why wouldn't they want to take their opponents at their best, rather than at their worst? It's far more interesting and offers a greater possibility of understanding. But beyond that, it's more honest than the kinds of arguments they've thus far offered, which are long on snark and condesension, and short on any actual engagement with the underlying ideas.

Donald Rumsfeld's Creepy Cover Sheets

Robert Draper has a story in this month's GQ about the means by which Donald Rumsfeld ran the Defense Department into the ground. Particularly instructive is the story of how he manipulated President Bush through the creative use of DoD report cover sheets:

The Scripture-adorned cover sheets illustrate one specific complaint I heard again and again: that Rumsfeld’s tactics—such as playing a religious angle with the president—often ran counter to sound decision-making and could, occasionally, compromise the administration’s best interests. In the case of the sheets, publicly flaunting his own religious views was not at all the SecDef’s style—“Rumsfeld was old-fashioned that way,” Shaffer acknowledged when I contacted him about the briefings—but it was decidedly Bush’s style, and Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible. No matter that, if leaked, the images would reinforce impressions that the administration was embarking on a religious war and could escalate tensions with the Muslim world. The sheets were not Rumsfeld’s direct invention—and he could thus distance himself from them, should that prove necessary.

Still, the sheer cunning of pairing unsentimental intelligence with religious righteousness bore the signature of one man: Donald Rumsfeld. And as historians slog through the smoke and mirrors of his tenure, they may find that Rumsfeld’s most enduring legacy will be the damage he did to Bush’s.

The cover sheets are something to behold, and you can at the GQ Website -- They've got a whole slideshow of them.

As Steve Benen notes:

The cover-sheets are not only creepy, they point to Rumsfeld's belief -- which was probably accurate -- that then-President Bush was easily manipulated.