The Greatest Concern with the Protests in the Middle East

Anytime a population breaks free from the oppression of a corrupt government is good.  If you’re an Egyptian, the issue to be concerned with now, even when all of this is over, is how competent of a government the transitional government produces.  Moreover, it would be beneficial to find out which demographic the new government in power truly supports.  For example, if I were a politically active devout Christian, I would expect that the Republican Party would represent my views.  But when one actually looks at the empirical data, this is not the case.  So goes it for Egypt and the rest of the countries experiencing revolt.  Now, the question is not necessarily whether or not a new government will make the revolting population's country better off, but whether or not the new governments will make its citizens who are worse off, better.  Despite the leaps and bounds that have come out of the protests, there is still a growing concern shared by many who are wondering whether or not these protests pose a major threat to the U.S.  And although much of the public's anxiety is due to their concerns about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran, there is another, more influential player in the Middle East that poses the biggest threat.  But the public and the media seem to be ignoring it.

Egypt is the birthplace of the Islamic Brotherhood which justifies the speculation of the role the Brotherhood will play in the new government.  But the Brotherhood has spoken out, assuring that it will have nothing to do with the new government.[1]  But that does not mean that they have relinquished their power in Egypt.  They do not need a say in government processes.  Like their Near-East neighbor, Saudi Arabia, they only need a government willing to provide them with geographical petri dishes.  That is, a place where they can recruit and train volunteers without outside influences.  And there is somewhat of a reason to be concerned about the Brotherhood in Egypt.  Their move to passively defer any influence within the new government, is out of character for a group that successfully assassinated one president and conspired to do the same to Mubarak.

The impact of the uprisings in any of these countries is absolutely dependent upon whether or not extremist groups operate in those respective countries.  Although many in the extremist movement do not want to admit it, the U.S. government will know right away whether or not a newly established government is indifferent toward extremists operating in the country.  And if this is something that can be proven, those governments will eventually be sanctioned by the U.S.  This could possibly leave out the much needed assistance those countries need from the U.S.

The most significant revolution in recent years happened in Iran in 1979.  But the current protests differ from the Iranian revolt.  Whereas both are radical and Islamic, the Iranian movement sought to establish a Muslim theocracy within the country of Iran.  The rhetoric from the new movement, thus far, has yet to shift a focus to the religiosity of the uprisings.  That is, a shift to talk about tightening rules and regulations in order for the population to better adhere to Muslim Law, which is what happened in Iran.  In addition to enacting laws to better reflect the Muslim belief, Iranians were also concerned with the growing presence of Western Culture within their society.  Therefore, the Iranian revolution was guided by the push for the implementation of a theocracy as well as the goal of becoming a nation that is both more sovereign and more Muslim.

But this is not the case with the most recent protests.  Many within these new movements, including those in Iran, are seeking liberation from extreme Muslim rule.  Because of this, there is not much of a reason to expect a regime change as drastic as Iran experienced during its revolution.  This is true because part, if not all, of the causes for the 1979 Iranian revolution centered upon the fact that the West had such an influence over their government officials, economic means and natural resources.  Moreover, it was believed that the infiltration of the U.S.’s ideology of modernity was threatening Iran’s ideology of traditionalism, thus the reasoning behind the Ayatollah inheriting the duty of supreme ruler.

Despite this push against corruption and for liberalism (which may be used as “bait” for the more liberal Muslims), there is a way that it can be seen as a push for Islam.  This is the reasoning behind Iran supporting the protests.  But the Iranian view is not always made clear because many who try to keep up with Iran assume that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the ruler of Iran, but he is not.

He is a puppet.  He does what Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’I tells him to do.  To understand Iran, ignore Ahmadinejad, he is just a pawn.  It is best to listen to the Ayatollah.  Keeping that in mind, it is not surprising that the Ayatollah supports these protests.  This is true because a movement for Islam could very well unite the entire Middle East, establishing a powerful Muslim nation which could very well become a nation with the potential to hurt the U.S., primarily economically, but also militarily.  If this is the case, Iran would become more of a concern.  But it still would not be the primary concern.

There is no doubt that Iran is a threat.  But its threat can only be realized if they mobilize the protests in a way that maintains the protesters' sentiments while successfully shifting the cause of the movement from “a better life” to “Islam versus Modernity.”  But this can only happen with the cooperation of Saudi Arabia.  If the Saudi’s experience a successful revolution the U.S. is in trouble and there will be some kind of war. 
The Saudi kings make most of their money off of the U.S.  And they do like their money <cue party music>.  Therefore, the key is to keep the Saudi population from revolting - which is quite a moral dilemma, considering the oppressive nature of the Saudi Arabian government.  Saudi Arabia, though, has a very tight grip on their population.  Their intelligence agency virtually has complete control of the country's internet and communications capabilities.  If there were a chance of a revolt, the Saudi government has the capability of foreknowing any protests that could pack significance, ultimately stomping them out before they have any chance of catching on.  BUT!  The reasoning behind the financial dynamic between the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Muslim extremism is quite perplexing and might very well lead to the U.S.’s demise.

The U.S. buys the majority of its oil from the Saudis.  This has happened for a while.  It is not new news.  The Saudis take part of the money and allot it to the respective recipients including themselves.  The other part of the allotted money goes toward the evangelization of Wahhabism, a fundamentalist sect of Islam, by paying for the building of schools, mosques, etc….  So, the model, accounting for Saudi support for terrorism, looks like this:

            As the picture and its preceding explanation shows, the U.S. is not only dependent upon the Saudis for their oil, but they are also inadvertently manufacturing the terrorism they are combating.  Although this is a highly simplified model, it still represents the truth that the U.S. knowingly supports regimes that fund terrorism.  If these revolts continue to topple government after government, Iran is not the U.S.'s greatest concern because they face the task of switching the protesters' sentiments from 'liberation' to 'Islam versus modernity.'  The greatest threat is with Saudi Arabia because of its influence on those factors that play such a vital role on the everyday life of the average U.S. citizen.  If Saudi Arabia goes, American prices explode with the influence it once had over the Middle East.

---

[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/133870711/Muslim-Brotherhood-Speaks-Out-On-Egypt

Government Transparency Leads to Less Privacy

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

USAF: Accessing WikiLeaks Leaks Violates Espionage Act

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 07, 2011  05:00 p.m. EST

You may want to cover your tracks if you have accessed the WikiLeaks website.  At least that is what a new report is claiming.  The material available to the general public is still classified.  And the simple fact that it is in the public domain does not change that fact.  Issued by the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, the new guidelines state that "...the leaked documents are protected by the Espionage Act and that [any USAF employee, military or civilian] accessing them under any circumstances is [breaking] the law."  Moreover, the announcement highlights the fact that even if the relatives of USAF employees access the information on their private computer, they can be prosecuted as well.

The U.S. military has recently faced backlash for discouraging employee and servicemen and women's access to public resources covering leaked information such as newspapers, websites and most recently in the classrooms.

And the military has not been the only ones discouraged from viewing the cables.  In a knee-jerk reaction, Columbia's International and Public Affairs allotted the State Department enough time to make students fearful of talking about the leaks.  And although the State's announcement was withdrawn, it was in the students' minds long enough to feel immoral the next time they thought about accessing the still-classified files.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

The Christian Fundamentalist and Homosexual Clergy: A Critical Analysis

DISCLAIMER It does not matter if the doctrine of fundamentalism is right.  Nor does it matter if I agree or disagree with the views expounded in this analysis.  The point of this article is to provide an argument against a topic within a larger point of view.  So assuming anything about my personal views is prohibited, but pointing out the flaws in my argument is not.  I welcome and encourage your feedback.

There is a pattern that the United States is experiencing today.  Since the push for civil rights in the 1960s, our society has increasingly expected us to become more tolerant.  But the idea of becoming tolerant starkly contradicts one of the oldest traditions in the United States: Christian fundamentalism.  This analysis is not necessarily aiming to condemn or condone those who hold a belief in Christian fundamentalism.  For who is anyone to condemn an entire sect of Christianity with so little words?  The primary goal is to identify a fundamental flaw, a contradiction that many doctrines within fundamentalism share.

In America, social scientists classify Protestantism as a part of two categories: evangelicals and mainline.  Churches that practice Christian fundamentalism are evangelicals.  And one of the ways that they can be identified is that they tend to interpret the bible more literally than those mainline denominations.  Mainline denominations have a more liberal view than their Christian counterparts, the evangelicals.  The doctrines of mainline denominations tend to highlight knowledge in the theology of the scriptures as opposed to the knowledge of the contents of the scripture that the fundamentalists tend to emphasize.

Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, was a
prominent fundamentalist contributing to the rise of
what is known as the "Religious Right."

Take for example the creation story in Genesis.  Most mainline Christian denominations maintain that the story is a myth and not a verbatim account of how God created the universe.  Because fundamentalists take on a literal translation of scripture, their interpretation of the creation story is quite different, they believe that Genesis is a word for word account of how the world began.  Then it follows accordingly that if the scripture says that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib that is literally what happened.  But there have been changes in this view.

A large denomination in the fundamentalist movement, the Church of the Nazarene, has fine-tuned their statement of beliefs in a way that welcomes other arguments.[1]  And although the tolerance of this denomination is represented by the questioning of the church’s traditional stance on creationism – primarily due to the arguments of scientists at Nazarene universities – there has yet to be tolerance in sexuality.

There is an intriguing parallel that exists within the church today.  It has been brought about by a relatively recent change in cultural norms.  There have been many times when changes in the norms of society have played a significant role in influencing the grey areas of Christian theology.  The Reformation alone yields voluminous examples.  But a revolution is not needed for a change in doctrine; a doctrinal change could be  caused by the changing factors in society or an acknowledgement by the church that they have changed, maybe too much or too little, with the factors of society.

There were many times when the United States experienced such significant changes in culture that churches elected to change their position on certain issues.  One good example of this can be seen in the wide acceptance of the female’s role in church practices and position.  The suburbanization of America drew families away from their urban kinships and melded them into community groups.  This led to them becoming a more-involved part of community groups, including churches.  During this time the churches of America experienced an influx of women that felt empowered, civilly protected and ready to serve.  An increasingly liberal view which allowed women of the church to be integrated into the clergy became the norm for the churches of the United States.  

Even though there was, at first, resistance from fundamentalists to allow women to be leaders of the church, it eventually became a waning effort and, over time, many denominations came to accept it.  Keep in mind that, unlike women, it is not out of the ordinary for denominations that practice fundamentalism to condemn an acceptance of homosexual clergy in a “no matter what” fashion.  But regardless of whether or not fundamentalists are intolerant toward allowing homosexual clergy, they are tolerant in having women as clergy.  And whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this acceptance of women was spurred, in part, by a change in the culture of the society.  But regardless if there are firm theological grounds for women to be accepted as clergy, there is still a flaw in their argument for the criteria to hold a position within the church.

Fundamentalist Pat Roberson was also
a leader of the Religious Right movement.

The fundamentalist doctrine maintains that the practice of heterosexuality is the only acceptable type of sexuality, outside of celibacy, that, when practiced, can sustain purity.[2]  In addition to sex being between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, it is also necessary that they be married.  Any violation of or deviance from these specific criteria, is considered absolutely immoral as well as undesirable traits for those holding positions in the clergy.[3]  Therefore, the single act of having intercourse with someone of the same sex is a sin and the ongoing act of being in a homosexual relationship is a contradiction to the one male, one female concept in Genesis.

This is very much an argument of fundamentalists.  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and any marriage outside of the Adam and Eve covenant/model, like a marriage between two people of the same sex, goes against the perfect plan God set about in the beginning.  The basic argument here, that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve as clergy, becomes intriguing once the existential traits of a single act of sin is contrasted with those of ongoing acts of sin.

If, in having sex, a sin is committed, the violators are not necessarily obligated to continue in sin.  Jesus was the sacrifice that took the stead of everyone and therefore, anyone can be forgiven from any sin as long as they honestly repent – or, in other words, decide today what your purpose will be from here on out.[4] [5]

To sin is to err.  To continue in sin is to be devoted to sin.  And to be devoted to sin is to be a sinner.[6]  Scripture tells us that a person cannot serve two masters; to be devoted to one is to deny the other.[7]  Therefore sin can only be abolished if we truly repent from the way in which we were living our lives before we asked for forgiveness.

Take for example adultery.  If someone commits adultery, the initial act of having sex with a person outside of the marriage with your first spouse is a sin.  And to continue in the sin of adultery is to be an adulterer.  This is the same for homosexuality.  The act of having sex with someone of the gender is seen as a homosexual act.  And, as the logic goes, those continuing in homosexual acts are homosexuals.  Repenting requires both the turning away and refusal to continue the sinful act or acts from which they have asked for forgiveness.  Therefore, because no one can be forgiven for sin that will be committed in the future, those who elect to continue in sin are not forgiven, regardless if they ask for forgiveness or not.  To know forgiveness is to bear fruit.  Therefore, you will know those who are forgiven by the fruit that they bear.[8]  When Paul speaks about fruitfulness in Galatians, he highlights that those bearing the fruits of the spirit have “…crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”[9]

Those who repent are given a clean slate and are empowered by Christ to not continue in the same sins that are often treasured activities of their past.[10]  The sinner may be driven by his penitence to ask for forgiveness, but it is his repentance through the power of Christ that breaks the continuity of sin in his life.  Therefore, the sinner that is forgiven continues not in sin until he freely elects to do so.[11]

Continuing in sin implies that sin will be committed in the future.  And according to this view, even if same-sex couples often ask for forgiveness they cannot be forgiven because they obligate themselves to commit sins in the future by not repenting from their lifestyle.  But is the eschewing of the homosexual lifestyle congruent with the beliefs and practices of a fundamentalist church?  Well, not exactly, especially when considering their theological argument for a different, but rather more openly accepted group of continuing sinners.

As it has been established, the sinful nature of homosexuality is directly dependent upon the individual’s repentance of sin.  Although the repentance of sin does not, by any means, guarantee a sinless future, the individual does turn away from the particular life for which he had asked forgiveness.[12]  The interesting part of this is not in how adamant fundamentalist churches are in maintaining their stance on homosexual clergy.  It is in the absolute contradiction of holding tight to that view.

In the fundamentalist denominations, a key argument in condemning homosexual clergy is founded upon the idea of the unwillingness to repent, or, in other words, they choose to continue in sin.  But it seems they are ignoring something.  Homosexuality is not the only sin in the bible that defines a continuance in sin.  In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus defines another type of person that, in a particular situation, would be considered as continuing in sin.

Matthew 19: 1-9

 ¹ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.

² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³ Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a]

⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]?

⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

⁷ “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

⁹ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10: 1-12

¹ Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

² Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

³ “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

⁴ They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

⁵ “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

⁶ “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’^[a]

⁷ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,^[b]

⁸ and the two will become one flesh.’^[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

⁹ Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.

¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” 

(emphasis added)

The lesson that Jesus teaches here helps to shine more light upon those clergy that are currently allowed in many of the fundamentalist churches, but, as with those who are homosexual, continue in sin.

In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus teaches that divorcing for the wrong reason, those reasons outside of what is given in the bible, is sin.  Further, the person who divorces in this particular situation and marries a person that is not their first spouse, in fact, commits adultery.  As scripture says, the act of marrying someone that is not your first spouse is a sin.  And, therefore, not repenting from the sin of marrying someone other than a first spouse sets into motion a continuous string of sinful acts.  Consequently, the only option of renewal from an adulterous relationship is to divorce any spouse outside of the first.  From there, the individual only has the choice to stay single or remarry his first spouse.  And just as the disallowing of clergy that are homosexual is built upon the idea that they live in continual sin, the allowing of clergy that are continually living in sin because of an unbiblical remarriage is, in fact, hypocrisy.

Fundamentalists have become extremely tolerant on the issue of divorce.  The changes of cultural norms within society have caused a change in their doctrine.  This increase in tolerance, though, has led to the discrimination of others wanting to become a part of the church.  The prominent counterargument is that those who have remarried outside of these guidelines can be redeemed by Christ as he redeemed the woman at the well in John 4.  The woman at the well had been married before, but it was not clear that she was married after her redemption.  Therefore, it cannot be rightfully deduced that there is redemption for those who wish to marry outside of their first spouse.  And just like the homosexual who continues in sin, so do those individuals who divorce for the wrong reasons and then marry someone that is not their first spouse.

This is the reality of the doctrine of fundamentalism.  Fundamentalist denominations have to make a choice: either support the integration of homosexual clergy, or rid their sanctuaries of those that clearly violate the doctrine they follow.  The denial of one group is just as wicked as the justification of the other.  Amending the truths set forth by a specific doctrine is a part of being an established church, regardless of how difficult the adoption may be.  And the adoption of those truths that may arise over time can only come in a church that is open and willing to change when they cannot provide a comparable rebuttal to a biblically based argument guided wholly by the doctrine they follow.

---

[1] Church of the Nazarene. Manual of the Church of the Nazarene 2009-2013. Nazarene Publishing House, 2009. (p.373). “903.9. The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless

interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3). (1, 5.1, 7)”

[2] When translated literally, these verses represent the fundamentalists’ position on condemning homosexuality: Genesis 1:27; 19:1-25; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1^st Corinthians 6:9-11; 1^st Timothy 1:8-10.

[3] 1^st Timothy 3:2, 12 – Although speaking of the clergy, it is still applicable in this context: ‘overseers/deacons are to be a husband of but one wife.’

[4] Metanoeo n./ Metanoia v. – Meta meaning "after" and noia meaning "mind" – having an “after-mindedness” or deciding today what your mind will be tomorrow and there on out.

[5] http://www.heavendwellers.com/sb_107_metanoeO.htm

[6] Hamartōlos – to be devoted to sin, sinner.

[7] Matthew 6:24

[8] Matthew 7:16

[9] Galatians 5:24

[10] Romans 7:14-25

[11] Not to be confused with the forgiveness that comes with salvation, the sinner spoken of here is one who has already accepted Christ.  Both Armenians and Calvinists believe that there is freewill outside of salvation.

[12] This assumes that the individual’s repentance was pure and true and not an empty, disconnected commitment.

Wikileaks' Threat on the U.S. Citizens' Civil Liberties

There is a new terrorist on the block and he is causing quite a bit of a ruckus at the Pentagon.  Wielding a quarter million cables that hold potentially embarrassing accounts of foreign countries given by U.S. Ambassadors, Wikileaks has redefined “leaking” classified information by initiating a series of information “dumps” – or leaks in bulk.  This drive for transparency is not just focused on governments either.

In December of 2010, the figure most associated with the organization, Julian Assange, spoke about a Bank of America hard drive, ostensibly holding pre-meltdown data spurring the company to appoint a damage control council.  The organization does not just operate on a whim.  A copy of all of their files is kept by a company operating in an underground bunker that was made during World War II.  Additionally, the organization keeps a 1.4 gigabyte-sized file named “Insurance,” so if anything happens to Assange the contents would be made public.  Although the file is posted to be a dangling threat to many world governments, it could also serve as a temptation to those that think they can take on such a project.[1]  But the most important issue is that Wikileaks is, in fact, seen as a threat to national security.

Because of the threat that they now pose, the U.S. government has been driven into action.  Most notably, the CIA developed a task force to assess the impact of Wikileaks’ file dumps.  Interestingly enough, very few CIA documents have been in Wikileaks’ hands. That fact necessarily brings about the question of whether or not the task force’s acronym, “W.T.F.,” was deliberate and intent on sending a distinct message to the other agencies that contributed to the compromise of the government’s classification of sensitive information.[2]  But the fact is that Wikileaks busted on the scene quite quickly.  And considering what they have accomplished already, it is only logical to follow up with the question “who is Wikileaks?”

An organization that preaches transparency by leaking secret information should prompt the country’s citizens to demand answers for many important questions before showing any type of support for the organization.  And as a matter of principle, the organization preaching the message ought to live by the motto and values for which it advocates.  But it seems that this is not the case.  For someone who is taking such a solid stand for transparency, they seem to be peculiarly unconcerned with the transparency of their own organization.  It does not stop there.  Front man Julian Assange has been adamant with communicating to volunteers that any type of information they have on him is to be kept secret, prohibiting them from talking to anyone associated with the media.  He has had three prominent volunteers resign because he suspended them from volunteering after they gave out already-known information to the press.[3]  

The most publically criticized hypocrisy the organization has faced is the veil it has placed over its finances.  Because of this lack of transparency, many feel that Wikileaks could be financed by a number of “shady” adversaries, or even the U.S. government itself.

Another ambiguous trait of the organization is the shortage of sources that confirms its board members.  While a record of its consultative board members had been posted on the Wikileaks website at one time, many of those listed have yet to confirm anything close to a consultative relationship with Wikileaks.  But this is the most intriguing part of the organization.

A large portion of those board members listed as “advisers” had no idea they were on the board.[4]  And as far as the other board members are concerned, there are little to no sources that confirm their advising role.  These seemingly loose connections between those on the advisory board and Wikileaks necessarily shifts the focus of the original question.  And with the identity of the advisers and a financial record masked by what is often described as a dictatorship, defining the identity of Wikileaks by looking at the organization, seems to be a lost cause.  Therefore, by defining the dictator, the authoritarian shroud is gradually lifted and the face of a pure, simple quest for truth inadvertently becomes a depraved, complex attack on individual freedom.

With board members unknowingly a part of Wikileaks and key volunteers quitting because of Julian Assange’s dictatorial management approach, the task of painting a picture of the organization proves difficult.  But removing the noise and shifting the focus on Assange yields a much clearer portrait, allowing the intent of the organization to be critically examined as opposed to getting trapped in focusing on its public identity. 

The information available on Assange is limited, but it is known that he is an experienced cryptographer and hacker.  He was taken to court for hacking into “thousands of systems” including a few belonging to the Department of Defense.[5]  An email exchange posted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows Assange collaborating with NASA scientist Fred Blonder and Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Michael C. Neuman on a project nearly two-years before his prosecution.[6]  These scientists were in top positions at prominent national security research institutions.  This puts Assange connected to a seemingly tight-knit community of national security scientists.  And it’s not the only ambiguous trait of his past.

Assange has reportedly attended thirty-seven separate schools and six universities, many of which have yet to be mentioned by name.  Nor is there information or proof of his actual credentials or the work that he had performed prior to the Wikileaks project.  The best information available is in a biography which states that he is a “…prolific programmer and consultant for many open-source projects and his software is used by most large organizations and is inside every Apple computer.”  But yet he has not appeared in any sources open to the public as being a freelance contributor to Apple.[7]

The fact that an advocate for transparency has such a blurry past does very little to support the thought that they are conspiring with others.  It does, though, point out major discrepancies in Assange’s credibility by revealing the possibility of manipulating the public by manufacturing a past that can answer any questions that arise.  And even though there is a need for the anonymity of Assange and Wikileaks’ board members, there is also a need to portray the group as being open and trusted.  But that’s not the case.  Wikileaks has as sketchy and unknown of a past as the governments they seek to change.  Pot, meet kettle.  Of course, there is always the idea that Assange and Wikileaks are funded and controlled by the U.S. government to provide reasoning for internet regulation.  Although it is an interesting claim, it is difficult to prove.

Okay, it may not be a conspiracy, but there are still many questions that need to be answered before I relinquish my foil hat.  The simple fact is that Americans are now in a compromising position because of what Wikileaks has brought to the table.  The possibility of regulating the internet may be laughable, but the reality is that there were reports that both military and university leaders spoke out against reading the cables on line.  It is far from absolute regulation, but it is as close to a knee-jerk reaction that I need to register in my mind that it could very well be a route considered by the government at a later time.

It is clear that Wikileaks is a threat to government transparency.  And much of what is happening parallels a perfect storm that could both obligate and justify the government to go to extremes in combating the organization.  Therefore, even though Wikileaks may be expressing and testing our freedom of speech and press, those rights are contingent upon the extremity the government wishes to go in the name of national security.  When looking back at the PATRIOT act or Ollie North’s Rex 84, it is not so far fetched to see that because of the threat that Wikileaks poses on our government, it, inadvertently, poses a similar threat to our civil freedom.

---

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/

[2] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/cia-wikileaks-wtf.html

[3] ABC | Brian Ross Investigates: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 Season 1 : Ep. 36 (20:08) Air date: 12/17/2010

[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=22437&context=va

[5] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikirebels-documentary/

[6] http://diswww.mit.edu/menelaus/bt/204

[7] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=22437&context=va

Unconventional Warfare: The U.S. Military's 500 Pound Gorrilla

The United States has successfully led the nation through the post-war era.  While being the economic powerhouse from post-1945 up to today, it instigated a military-industrial-academic complex which led to a culture of consumerism and a boom in technological capabilities.  The post-war era became the Cold-War era and now, after the cusp of the millennium had been broken, we have ushered in the information age.  Although the information age may evoke thoughts of super-smart defense technology, infinite-distant remotes or a pulling together of the world's population, there is still one fatal flaw in the policy and operation of the United States' military - the soldiers lack of a basic training in unconventional warfare tactics supported by the U.S. military's failure to fight and win unconventional wars against, at the most, semi-stable adversaries.

After World War II the military began to focus their tactical methods more on a "shock and awe" approach of invasion.  This is the United States military's modus operandi and it is why the United States is such a force with which is not to be reckoned.  These large scale, shock and awe-type strategies were used during both Iraq wars and during both World Wars.  They were also used in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Post-Saddam Iraq.  But the differences in modern warfare and the conventional warfare of the two world wars is simply in the fact that power is limited, but dispersed in a way that is difficult to be detected even through the best of methods.  This shift in focus from an organized modern-warfare state to a dispersed, covert state has led to a unique demand.  Prior to the World War I, the military operated predominately unconventionally.  But after the Second World War the world was introduced to a stronger political state because of a push for the protection of individual rights and a focus on nuclear physics which fueled big science. The Cold War did not help much either, as a fearful nation's over-speculation about the enemy's power over the U.S. led to a drastic increase in weapon production and technological change focused on the ideological and military power of an established nation-state.  The fact that many of the authors who write about world history define it through the Cold War only supports the fact that this focus on being more powerful than the enemy ruled the policy of the United States.  More significantly, it was the focus of preparing for an attack by established nation-states with stable political systems and economies that, ironically enough, led to the most significant weakness of the U.S. military.

Because the United States saw the most powerful threat of the enemy as being an operation from afar, it established political, military and diplomatic strategies, still in place today, which were built on the enemy being a geographically-identified force.  Politically it led to a greater focus on the rights of the individual.  This idea that an individual had basic rights that could be protected, whether they are a dissenter or patriot, necessarily led to opening up the option to dissent without public backlash – whereas in the past there would be public and governmental backlash.  And although not the proverbial glue that holds the ideology of nationalism together, there is an important role that barring one from the expression of their individual rights - whether or not freely chosen - plays in actively supporting their community, state and nation.  The current lack of political unity only supports this.

The fact that the enemy has become a part of many states instead of one has demanded a set of resources which are more spread out.  The Unites State's Ambassador is no exception.  Now, instead of conversing with a representative of the body with which the US desires to relieve conflict, there is no open method of communication because there is no formal state or place to do so.  Moreover, the fact that it is the policy to "not negotiate with terrorists" only exacerbates this problem.  The foreign relations with the enemy is important, but none so important than our defense and the simple fact is that since the change in training after the first and second world war, we have become incapable of successfully waging an unconventional war where, in the end, we are declared the winners.  This is supported many times over by failures in Vietnam and the dire troubles in achieving success in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So what's next?  How does a military, seemingly untrained in unconventional warfare (except for a few special groups), go about making up for 65-years of vital training.  There is no easy answer.  But shifting the public's focus on the individual as a part of a team is a good start and is already in progress.  There could be an increase in funding to Boy Scouts to increase interest in nature, although, this is questionable, given that current funding is in jeopardy due to their stance on homosexuality.  There could be a propaganda effort geared toward the elementary and middle school-aged children to evoke a passion for the outdoors - although controversial, it is not unheard of, just think of how the lesson that "George Washington never told a lie" affected views on honesty, or how textbooks of elementary children are so patriotic, instilling a sense of nationalism.  Whatever it is to be done, it needs to be done fast.  And the issue should be addressed because it is apolitical.  There is no need for major changes in defense spending because it is not the money that brings the problem into existence.  It is simply the method that is used to train our military.  But the only way that there can be a successful change is if those in charge admit that there is a gaping whole in the future defense system and there needs to be some sort of reform to combat such a terrible threat.  Otherwise, this will become a war on our own soil which will obligate the citizenry to become involved and only lead to critical complications of domestic freedoms which play a crucial part in the solidarity of the United States.

The Gospel According to Glee

I am one of those who likes to sit in my living room with my laptop and “watch” television. Although I may not catch the show or movie in its entire detail, most of the time I do pay enough attention to know what is going on, in case my wife asks what just happened, as she often does. A few of Tuesdays ago, we sat in front of the television. We both were writing, as is often the case, when Glee came on after The Simpsons. Instead of simply acknowledging it was on and going back to our merry authoring, we were a little more attentive. This week was…well, different. In the midst of that particular week were the highly publicized suicides of homosexual teens. These events, atrocious as they were, helped shed much needed light on the ignorant act of bullying. It was something that I could have probably guessed was happening, but in my fairytale world of princes and thieves, I conveniently disregarded it as being their problem, whoever they are. Because of these events and the media’s focus on Glee, my wife and I were interested in seeing how that particular episode, “Grilled Cheesus,” would unfold.

Although important, I am not writing to address the ignorance of those who are intolerant, nor am I writing to condone or condemn a particular lifestyle. The issue of focus has to deal with truth. Not a truth that is particular to any one belief, but one that clarifies the message each of the many world philosophies attempt to communicate.

There is a certain point when a belief in one’s lifestyle compromises the belief of another. And although the current evangelical belief maintains that the United States must disallow laws which do not glorify God, it seems to be forgetting their doctrine of free will. Although there has been a great debate since the beginning of the role of free will in the obtaining of salvation, an overwhelming majority of evangelicals believe that, outside of salvation, we have free will to choose whether or not we honor God with our lives.

The philosophy that wishes to establish a semi-theocratic government actually suppresses all other belief systems and, therefore, by necessity, suppresses their own belief through the backlash of their adversaries. On the other hand, if there were a law which mandated that, from this day forward, all marriages can only be between two persons of the same sex, throwing out the thought of heterosexual marriage, there would be a need for those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong to stand up, be heard and show why it is wrong. Because of this filter of truth through reason, society could only truly glorify God when the majority of the people have the freedom to do so by their own choice. Without that filter of reason, there tends to be more intolerance.

Intolerance is the point at which one lifestyle hinders another lifestyle from practicing its belief. If the Christian’s goal is to use the country to glorify God, they need to be aware of the paradox with making non-believers glorify a God in which they do not believe. Rather than developing an approach that suppresses society, why not focus on presenting a message in a way that lets the country choose to glorify God? If society’s goal is to allow many lifestyles to coexist, then those lifestyles must be portrayed accurately.

The fact that two people tolerate one another does not necessarily mean that they accept each other’s beliefs. Tolerating another's belief without debate is not in itself a problem, but it does severely suppress the truth. For that reason, a point should be made to debate these disagreements in a civil fashion. But, more often than not, this does not happen in our society.

Many have gotten too comfortable and are not willing to even debate their beliefs. When considering today’s society, it seems the debate has turned ruthless and disrespectful. This can lead to many destructive situations. It could cause a one sided debate where one debater screams to overpower the other. It also may lead to the following of an ideology which fails to question the primary motive of those who tell their followers what they want to hear.

The classic case of an evangelical church begins with a doctrine that believes in a literal translation of the bible. In other words, they believe that the creation of earth happened in seven days, Adam and Eve were real people, and the earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old. Evolution is sometimes accepted, but only happening within a species, and never morphing into a separate species. The evangelicals also believe that America’s founding fathers intended the country to be an entirely Christian country. Although academia debates this concept and accepts that America was founded on many secular writings and non-Christian beliefs of the founding fathers, they disagree with much of the evidence that says differently. There is an immense amount of both political and ideological conservatism within this group. Even if logic contradicts their interpretation of the bible, they still stand firm and refuse to change what they believe.

There were many controversial topics that surfaced during Glee’s “Grilled Cheesus.” The most obvious one to address would be the separation of church and state. The episode sets up the issue by the cheerleading coach, Sue, recruiting a fellow atheist, Kurt, to file a formal complaint on the Glee club for singing religious songs. It is evident that an evangelical would probably find it obligatory to focus on the separation of church and state. But, as long as Christianity is allowed to be preached and practiced, they have more than enough freedom to do what they are called to do. And if the general public does not accept the message, there isn’t anything that can be done. Forcing others to accept a message isn’t biblical. It is biblical, though, for a Christian to assume that their message will not always be accepted by others.

So, if the separation of church and state is not the most significant topic of the episode, what in Glee should be addressed? Kurt was invited to church by Mercedes. Mercedes attended a charismatic, evangelical church, as previously described. Before her amazing performance of “Like a Bridge over Troubled Water,” she began to talk to Kurt. In front of the entire congregation, Mercedes singled Kurt out and explained that she knows people sometimes believe in different things. She then proceeded to console him by telling him that it is cool he had his own opinion about ‘religion’ (“to each [his] own”), but he had to believe in something. Adding to the inconsistency, the members of the congregation shook their head in agreement.

I am not trying to debate whose belief is right, or whether or not there is a God. I simply disagree with the false portrayal of the evangelical church as a new-aged and further evolved Christian church. Moreover, it isn’t the way the scenario raveled out with which I disagree. It is that a basic foundation of the church’s doctrine, evangelizing, was missing. Am I objecting to the liberation of a conservative movement? No, because I am a part of the movement to liberate the conservative. But I am objecting to the fact that the evangelical church was portrayed in a way that is contrary to its identity. Glee’s script implies that this particular movement tolerates the belief in the antithesis of Christianity. This is absurd. And it should be seen as absurd to both Christians and non-Christians alike. Fundamentalists, all too often, do not tolerate other belief systems, period. Mercedes’ line “…you gotta believe in something” would not be something you hear in the type of church portrayed on the show. And the congregation agreeing to the validity of Mercedes’ line wipes away any inkling of truth that the portrayal might have showcased.

So, could the writers have represented the church’s real beliefs with tact? Of course it could have. The writers of the show are very talented as evidenced by their show holding a top spot on Fox. I am sure they could have developed something which could have correctly portrayed the church in the correct light. But they didn’t. Why? Is it because they did not know better? I doubt it. Christian fundamentalism has spread far and wide throughout the country. Or was it because they did not want to offend their viewers with a message that claimed to be the one and only truth? Indeed. Christian fundamentalism is considered so radical compared to the larger society that it cannot be both purely portrayed in its entirety and accepted by the secular world.

This episode obscures the real identity of evangelical Christianity. It may not be obvious at first, but it should be a concern for both the Christian and non-Christian individual. The evangelical church adamantly maintains that its God is the only God, and no others are beside or above Him. To the non-Christian, portraying the church like this is to their benefit. If a group claimed to know the absolute truth of life, then it is more likely that they will be subjected to scrutiny by those investigating their claim. If the non-Christian community’s beliefs are correct and there is no more truth in this religion than there is in others, then it opens the door for those of the Christian faith to be subjected to more investigation. The writers of the show may have dodged a little controversy, but neglecting to portray the evangelical church in a true light may have had negative implications relative to their intentions, which was, essentially, to bring society as a whole closer to the truth.