Ann Coulter: Republican Party will Lose 2012 if Romney Runs

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 14, 2011  08:40 p.m. EST

Ann Coulter appeared on Fox to show her support for Chris Christie in 2012.  He is, Coulter aruges, the only republican that could win the 2012 election, likening him to Reagan.  Moreover, she adds that "...it is amazing that [the republicans] have won any presidential elections at all."  Further, she adds that the Republican Party has yet to introduce a candidate that even comes close to having enough passion to run for the presidency, nor have their been very many that have been 'manly' enough to be elected...meaning a candidate with boldness.  When asked about Romney, she admitted that unless there is a star that rises up in the Republican Party, Romney will get the nomination.  She then added that Romney will ultimately lose to Obama if that is the case.

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 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.

LA Times Book Review: Family of Secrets by Russ Baker

Family of Secrets is the journey of investigative journalist Russ Baker into the lives a part of the Bush Family Dynasty.  Baker spends a good amount of time establishing continuity of relationships that have had, or often perceived to have had, a large impact upon American history.  This book is essential to understanding what American politics are.  Moreover, the end product is a gleaming example of how extraordinary Baker is as an investigative journalist.  Although there were a few chapters which slowed the progression of the book to a crawl, many other chapters did a fairly good job at making up for what the slow ones lacked.  All in all a good read.  It is essential for anyone interested in the politics of American government.  Moreover, it provides well documented support for alternative theories to the JFK assassination and many, many other important happenings in recent American history.  Baker does a fine job at documenting his progress.  One of the most prominent issues that Baker avoids all-together was attempting to investigate or elucidate an explicit connection between the Bushes finances and the terror groups funding the attacks on 9/11.

Essential, 2 out of 3 Knuts!

The original of the full review can be found on the Los Angeles Times' website here.

Works Cited

Ruttin, Tim. Book Review: Family of Secrets. January 7, 2009. http://articles.latimes.com/print/2009/jan/07/entertainment/et-rutten7 (accessed December 24, 2010).



Family of Secrets

Print                          Save                          Share

 

BOOK REVIEW

The charges of corruption the author levels at the Bush family are extraordinary and sensational--why, our reviewer wonders, would anyone legitimize them by publishing this book?

January 07, 2009 | Tim Rutten

The tendency Richard Hofstadter so aptly labeled "the paranoid style" in American politics operates independent of ideology. 

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds," the great historian wrote in a 1964 issue of Harper's magazine. He called the expression of that anger "the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind."

Russ Baker is an independent investigative journalist who has published widely in national magazines and, nowadays, is active mainly on the Internet. If the paranoid style can be said to have a canon, his preposterous new book -- "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America" -- surely deserves a place among its classics.

Baker begins this dispiriting tome with a couple of reasonable questions that probably are on a great many minds as George W. Bush's disastrous presidency sputters to a close: "What did the ascendancy of this frighteningly inadequate man signify? Could anything be learned from the George W. Bush phenomenon that would help us understand how we Americans choose our leaders and chart our collective course?"
It's all downhill from there -- though hardly in a straight line, since clarity and direct exposition are anathema to the wheels-within-wheels school of thought, in which Baker really should be given an endowed chair.
"One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows" is a characterization of Hofstadter's that might have been tailored to fit Baker's book. "It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency . . . [that] all but obsessively accumulate 'evidence.' . . . The higher paranoid scholarship is nothing if not coherent -- in fact, the paranoid mind is far more coherent than the real world."

Baker's coherent explanation of the world purports to be "a secret history" of a vast conspiracy stretching back more than a century in which a cabal of rich, interconnected men -- mainly involved in oil and gold extraction -- have used, first, private intelligence agents and then, later, the government spy agencies they helped found to manipulate . . . well, just about everything. Along the way, readers with enough stamina to wade through the mind-numbing accretion of names, dates and places will discover heretofore "hidden" explanations for the American entry into World War I, the formation of the CIA, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the Watergate scandal (which, by the way, turns out to have been a secret coup engineered by the petro-intelligence access).

Here it's necessary to declare a personal bias. I regard the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as an important indicium of mental health. In fact, I think there are three things that every serious American needs to believe about our recent history: Kennedy was killed by a lone lunatic, Americans really did land on the moon and the Twin Towers were destroyed when they were struck by two fully fueled airliners that had been hijacked by Islamic extremists organized by Al Qaeda. People who do not believe in these things are, within reasonable limits, entitled to sympathy. They are not entitled to a seat at the table where serious discussions occur.

Lack of seriousness is not this book's real failing, however. What makes Baker's book singularly offensive is the way he recklessly impugns, in the most disgusting possible way, the reputations not simply of men and women now dead, but of the living. The great Satan in this fevered schema is not the current President Bush but his father, President George H.W. Bush, whom Baker alleges has been a covert intelligence agent since his teens. According to Baker, he also was at the very center of a successful plot to murder John Kennedy that included, among dozens of others, former CIA Director Allen Dulles, then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the usual Cuban emigre suspects, a clutch of White Russian exiles living in Dallas, Sen. Prescott Bush and assorted Texas oil and money men.

By Baker's reckoning, there seem to have been about as many people involved in the plot as there were on Omaha Beach. With that many people involved in the conspiracy, it's a miracle it remained a secret long enough for Baker to "uncover" it. The elder President Bush is a public figure and, therefore, practically libel-proof. But using the tissue of innuendo, illogical inference, circumstance and guilt by tenuous association -- as Baker does in this book -- to indict rhetorically anyone, let alone a former chief executive, of an infamous murder is a reprehensible calumny.

The nadir of this particular chapter in the author's "secret history" may be the paragraph in which he rounds up all his key suspects and then darkly muses that each had an alibi that put him at a distance from Dallas on the day of JFK's assassination. What does Baker deduce from the consistency of his perpetrators' absence? Why, conspiracy to create cover stories, what else? One can't help but be reminded of the Crown prosecutor who argued that failure to produce a shred of evidence linking the Jesuits to the Gunpowder Plot simply was proof of how diabolically clever they were.

Watergate flood

Baker does something similar to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, whom he accuses of being an intelligence agent who, with master co-conspirator John W. Dean, were the prime movers in a coup to remove Nixon for opposing the oil depletion allowance. Woodward's legendary work habits are cited as evidence of how engrossed in the plot he was.

We could go on, but why? Life is short and real problems are pressing.

In the meantime, we can avoid Baker's "Family of Secrets" and console ourselves with another of Hofstadter's wise observations: "We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well."
--
timothy.rutten@latimes.com

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.